<<HDTV might work for an initial time lapse sequence and would certainly be beautiful for the rest, which is largely set on wooded roads and a lake, with one final interior scene.>>

Alan, I'm very mixed on posting this, because I absolutely don't want to step on Paul's toes if he does the job, so please take this as an outside opinion just on this statement alone.

For the environments you mention, HDV or any digital medium short of the raw data HD cameras (assuredly out of this price range) is NOT the ideal medium. Wooded roads usually mean mottled sunlight over shaded areas, which is a higher contrast ratio than digital video can handle...you end up with a bunch of blown out white patches. And the most beautiful light to shoot at a lake, late afternoon backlit, has similar results...blown out highlights on the surface of the water, etc. Not saying it's not possible to work around the limitations to an extent, but even Super 8 has a noticeably higher latitude than DV...and it has been noted that the HD10U is not a latitude champ where highlights are concerned.

Again, I'm sticking my nose in where it probably doesn't belong, but I would recommend shooting some tests between the two formats under these tough, contrasty lighting situations before committing to one versus the other, if the image is an important consideration.

Though I agree with Charles that HDV has it's weaknesses I think he might be over reacting a bit. You can definitely not compare HDV to super8, especially of course in definition. Blown out whites can easily be avoided by an experienced videographer and this camera can give quite outstanding results in sunrise or sunset (of course you might have to use filters...) I will post some footage later this week. This camera outranks DV in nightshots and contrasted low light shots, you will see in my examples. About the higher latitude of super8 it is equally true and wrong. Film as a broader specter than DV or video but has more tonality in it. The problem in video is that it takes too much because it has a wider specter but lacks subtelty in the range. In blow up tests from video you can see how much of the color is lost in the transfer when you have highly saturated images. That is why Film is more pleasing to the eye in most situation. Oneself also learns that film look in video is normally achieved by desaturating at some level and boosting the contrast ratio.

You have to use the camera to see how much is indeed possible. But it is a shame that controllability is so approximate on this camera...

Eric and Charles, I have a love of film, even super8 with all the gate wobble, the the HDV images Paul posted have a unique beauty sort of like a particular film might. He appears to have had an overcast day or be using filters, but there is a great potential in the a footage and the skill of the operator counts so much in any medium. Can't say anything personally about the JVC cam other than it can produce outstanding images as I've seen some in the posts. If that requires a great DP that knows the camera, so what, honestly Super8 is like that too? I do agree that with vision negative stocks Super8 will likely have better latitude than any HDV camera ever will and that is a great tool, but not a reason not to use HDV.
Regards, Alan

<<Blown out whites can easily be avoided by an experienced videographer>>

Yes, under controlled circumstances. This is why I listed two situations where it is extremely difficult to control the contrast. In the case of the dappled light, you can easily be looking at 8 stops of range between the shade (most of the shot) and the sunlight. It's just within the exposure latitude of film, and outside the latitude of digital. You can't knock down the highlights, and bringing up the ambient is unfeasible. The best you can do is to fill your subject, allow the ambient to go 2 stops under, and possibly apply a softcon or ultracon filter which will help raise the shadows somewhat.

Likewise the backlit sun reflection on a lake--you can drop your exposure down 4 stops and start to see something other than pure white on the surface of the water, but then you're needing a tremendous amount of fill on actors in the foreground, which will look artificial.

This is, again, not really aimed so much at this particular camera...I wouldn't be very happy having to shoot this on a Sony 950 (Cinealta) either.

Underexposure latitude is one of the great things about digital. I'm glad to hear the JVC excels in this area. The lack of latitude for overexposure continues to be the bane of digital's existence. Currently, only the Dalsa camera is approaching that Holy Grail.

Again, I'm not trying to be a spoilsport, and I think it's great to see folks embracing the new technology. I'm looking forward to using it also. I'm starting to prep a feature that will mix 35mm with the Cinealta for underwater work, and we are going to do some tests with the JVC to see if it can function in a housing for some short "stunt" type shots.

Does anyone know how I can upload a clip to the site? I have a nice 46MB .wmv of a few tests that a coworker did with his GR-HD1. Flowers, Clouds, and a closeup of a circuit board. Shows off the capabilities of the HD1 nicely, and also shows the edge enhancement in action (which isnt really all that bad). Anyway I'd love to share if someone can tell me how to get it up there.

Alan, thank you very much for your kind words on the clips, they were just my first day with the camera though. As I've said, I'm really looking forward to experimenting with this cam more and learning to work around it's shortcomings, so when you get back from your honeymoon let's hook up and talk about it. Congratulations by the way!

I'm very interested in what Charles Papert was talking about with regard to the restricted lattitude of this camera, and DV in general. My thought on this is when shooting with the HD1OU is to reduce the incoming light with ND filters to eliminate white blowouts, then light and shoot to expose the blacks sufficiently, then stretch the whites and blacks back out in FCP in post. The 3-way color corrector in FCP is just wonderful for doing this and very simple to use. I haven't tried this with footage from the HD1OU yet, but I've done it a lot with DV footage and I think it may be the way to go, so that you work within the cameras lattitude, and use every ounce of it, and yet don't end up with a flat image.

What do you think?

Paul, Great to hear you are interested and though Charles is making very valid points, with fiction we can work around this to a degree where the medium can be pushed no further. Thanks on the wedding and my number is 650-921-0005 so you can leave contact info in my voicemail and we can touch base when I get back.
Regards, Alan

Hi gang. Thanks for considering my thoughts on this, and I'm delighted to see you guys are hooking up to discuss this project. That's the absolute best result of this board, bringing people together for a creative endeavor.

Paul, your plan is a very good one and that is the formula I've used for shooting tape for years. Expose for the highlights, keep the blacks from crushing and stretch it back down in color correction. Shooting tests is key.

Looking forward to see what you guys come up with on this project, keep us posted and show us some pix!

Charles, Am looking forward to seeing Eric's and other footage as well when I return. Based on Paul's early HDV postings and general comments he has made regarding the challanges, I'm confident that he would make an excellent DP if he decides to take on the project. With a compelling story, great casting, soundtrack, artful camera work and editing a short stands on it's own, but can also be used to help get funding for a feature work.
Regards, Alan

Hi !

Nice footages Paul. I think the images have a little "sepia" looking and got a "moire" in red colors. Is that true ? Why ? What do you think ?

Thanks, I wouldn't say sepia, but I think the beach scene is a bit dull, mainly because it was a bit of a hazy day, they could all do with some color correction here and there. The reds and blues definately have some chroma noise, but the main thing is that on a big HD screen they have so much more detail present than DV, which is why I like the format.

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert :
Expose for the highlights, keep the blacks from crushing and stretch it back down in color correction. -->>>

Good plan but.

You can bias the exposure down. But in a high contrast situation, to avoid blown highlights--you've got to cut OVERALL exposure by at least 2 stops. Possiibly 3 stops.

Now, what happens to mid-tones with 2 to 3 stops under-exposure?

And, what happens to shadow detail?

In short, there is no way to keep the blacks from being crushed because that's the side effect of dropping exposure to save the bright areas.

That's because the chip has very little lattitude.

So Charles is absolutly right. The shots you want are damn near impossible to shoot with the HD10.

It's a toughie.

I'm not experienced with the JVC camera specifically, I've just seen the stills and can get a sense of the exposure curve. It does seem steeper at the top than most cameras in this price range, resolution notwithstanding.

I'm always impressed with the underexposure latitude of digital video, from DV to HD however. It's arguable that at its best, digital can capture more in the shadows than film (each new generation of film stock is upping the ante on this characteristic, however). This is one of the reasons that Michael Mann elected to use the Cinealta to shoot the opening scenes of "Ali" where Will Smith is jogging through the streets at night; the HD camera was able to capture the clouds against the night sky, which would have been more prone to blocking up on film.

Also, it's well known that dropping the gamma will give video a more film-like appearance, whether in-camera or in post. It's a bit simplistic to put it this way, but in essence it's like underexposing just the midtones. I've always felt that the old standard of 70 IRE for skin tones is way too hot looking--very "evening news". I usually aim for no more than 50 for normal exposure.

So, in a situation where the overall exposure is reduced by a couple of stops to keep the highlights from blowing out, having the midtones drop with it is not such a bad thing for me--I think it results in richer skin tones and a more saturated look overall. The issue, as Steve points out, is that you will be giving up the bottom of the curve, in that details will crush in the shadows. This is why I elect to use an Ultracon in these high-contrast exterior situations to artifically raise the toe, which helps retain some of this information which would be lost. The effect is not linear, i.e. it's not the same as just raising the setup and then dropping it again in post, so that you do generally end up with a different degree of information in the shadows than if you had foregone the filter.

Drawbacks of this method? You will add some noise from having to boost levels in post, but I don't consider this objectionable--it adds some texture. One could even say it feels like film grain. As I have said before, using Ultracons takes a lot of care and judgement, they are not a set-and-forget filter. You can really screw up your photography if you use the wrong strength for a given shot, or allow light to hit the filter, and end up with a tragically mushy image.

I should also point out that I only go this route for exteriors. On interiors, I will light for the contrast ratio of the camera, and knock down the windows to the desired level. I don't doubt it would be possible to make some beautiful pix with this camera under completely controlled circumstances.

This is not a textbook nor a rocket-science approach; it's just what I do and what works for me. Taming the beast of high-contrast exteriors is the single greatest nightmare of digital shooting, in my mind and in a few years, this may all be moot, but in the meantime it takes a bit of voodoo and hocus pocus to "make the pretty".

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert
So, in a situation where the overall exposure is reduced by a couple of stops to keep the highlights from blowing out, having the midtones drop with it is not such a bad thing for me--I think it results in richer skin tones and a more saturated look overall. -->>>

I too used to shoot 35mm stills 1.5 stops under cause I liked the more saturated color. But my tests with the JVC says to avoid blown whites you may have to go 3-5 stops under. Now white dog fur has details. Which is great! But human skin is now deep brown. And shadow detail is fully BLACK.


I'm also sketpical of ND filters preventing blown highlights. True they reduce light by 2 or 3 stops, which reduces AVERAGE exposure, the RANGE -- in stops -- remains just as great. Since latitude refers to Range, nothing has changed.

Comments?

Theoretically ND filters should not reduce the range (and it indeed doesn't) but in the case of blown out whites, the thing is that a lot of the bright areas are seen as complete white because of the overload from the CCD so all this range is lost by this wash out. If you reduce the incomming light in the lenses, the CCD will receive less light, the contrast in itself will not change, it is just an equivalent of under exposing a little. But a fact remains, by avoiding the overload of the CCD, you get the range in the highlights witch would have been lost (or washed as a white out area) because of the over sensibility of the CCD. So ND filters will overall avoid too much light to enter by the lenses to the CCD and burn the image. CCD's are vey sensitive to direct light. A good way of noticing that is by using a device like the mini35: as the camera shoots a depolish witch has received the image from other lenses (or if you prefer, the light does not enter directly by the camera's lenses) you lose all the edge artefacts that are normally occuring by the CCD receiving too much light. It is very revealing indeed.

"the camera shoots a depolish witch "

Did we lose you there for a second, Eric, or are you using voice to text software? :)

Sorry 'bout that, the camera shoots a screen, the size of a 35mm slide, a depolished screen witch receives the image from the 35mm lenses up front. Sometimes (as I usually speak french) I tend to say things in a french way even in english witch is not always the most accurate way... :)

Anyways, I hope this clears up the mistake !

"depolished screen" = "ground glass", oui?

Agreed that ND filters would only be useful if the aperture of the lens is essentially maxed out (which should be one stop open from the minimum aperture, for best results...i.e., if your lens stops down to f22, consider f16 your minimum aperture.)

Does the JVC camera have a "negative gain" function like the XL1?

Sad to hear that these cameras require as much stopping down as Steve reports to avoid blown highlights. That's a deal-killer to me.

Nope, no negative gain that I know of. I would be surprised to see a camera on witch you cannot control the iris and shutter at the same time having such an "evolved" function...

You dont have to close as much as f16. The automatic controls have a tendency to be a bit too opened so using a ND is useful once you locked the exposure
.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : Theoretically ND filters should not reduce the range (and it indeed doesn't) but in the case of blown out whites, the thing is that a lot of the bright areas are seen as complete white because of the overload from the CCD so all this range is lost by this wash out. If you reduce the incomming light in the lenses, the CCD will receive less light, the contrast in itself will not change, it is just an equivalent of under exposing a little. -->>>

That's why I asked for comments. There are three potential sources of problems:

1. Too much light on the CCD

2. Too much range on the CCD

3. Too much range for the DSP (only 10bits on the JVC).

I used a .6ND and still had blown highlights. Perhaps Paul used .9ND? Paul?

There are even stronger ND filters. But .9ND is 3 stops. What is 1/64?

I hope I get the math right, but I've seen the designation of ND expressed on the filter wheels of broadcast cameras as fractions, representing the amount of light transmitted; thus an ND.3 would be a 1/2, ND.6 a 1/4, and so on...by this reasoning, a six stop ND filter (the rather unwieldy sounding ND1.8, more likely two ND.9's stacked) would be a 1/64.

You've got it right, Charles. I don't know why television has to be different, I have also seen some ND filters labeled 2x or 8x (.3 and .9). The system of labeling ND filters is older than television itself, why reinvent the wheel?

Jay

Neutral Density factors:

BW101 (ND.3) (exposure adjustment = 1 stop)

BW102 (ND.6) (exposure adjustment = 2 stops)

BW103 (ND.9) (exposure adjustment = 3 stops)

BW106 (ND1.8) (exposure adjustment = 6 stops)

BW110 (ND3.0) (exposure adjustment = 10 stops)

BW113 (ND4.0) (exposure adjustment = 13 stops)

BW120 (ND6.0) (exposure adjustment = 20 stops)

I just tested a Sony 390L which used a 1/64th filter. As I remember, that's true of the other bradcast cameras I've reviewed.

Which means I/we have been using way too little filtering! (Paul???)

Again, I think we need to do some studio tests with various lighting setups and ND filters to see what is really required by this camera under various circumstances to get the best results. I'm still waiting to get a day free to be able to do this. I hope someone else has more free time than me and can do this soon.
Yesterday I shot another dance show and set up the JVC unattended alongside my Ike to see what I would get. I shot the first half with a .6 ND filter (2 stops) at 1/30th, and the second half with no ND filter at 1/60th. There was a lot of fast motion in the dancing. If I can get permission to do so, I'd like to post a couple of clips from this to show you. Overall the more pleasing results to me were at 1/60th with no ND filter. Less noise in the mid blues, nice filmic motion and not excessive blur, but it just totally depends on the lighting. This time the whites in the lighting were not screaming as much as in my previous shoots, and I got some very nice results on occasion. As I've said before, if you have control over the lighting you're fine. If not, you've got serious problems, and I wouldn't reccomend it.

Paul, I have a Beaulieu 6008 Super8 film camera and some Kodak Vision Negative stock ( 320T ) if you'd like to run a side by side test I'll loan it to you and have the resulting film converted to miniDV or Digital Beta. It even has crystal sync if you want to get out the old clapper and record sound to DAT or miniDisc.
Regards, Alan

PS. I do think the latitude issues on the JVC can be controlled even if it requires gelling the entire car windshield/windows, lighting from the hood as it is towed etc. A shade is already generally needed over the hood area for some shots ( ie. into the car from the front ) to control reflection regardless of HDV or film is being used.

Just a quick reply to put the threads (on Paul Mogg's footage and mine) up so people searching for sequences can look at them. It seems lately, only stills are available...

The clips may have been moved from one of our servers to another. I'll ask our server swami to track them down. We still have 'em online, or at least, we should.