One thing I'm noticing as I watch my first DVHS tapes of films converted from 35mm such as "Castaway", and compare them with DVHS tapes shot on High end HD cameras such as "Over America", is that the 35mm film footage has a much softer look to it than the high end HD footage shot on cameras such as the CineAlta and the Varicam.
To my eye, footage shot with HD1OU, because of it's softness, looks closer to the look of film to me than the high end HD material, which is extremely sharp.
Also, now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts in the high end HD footage, especially juddering when panning, and visible compression arifacts on wide vistas, much more than I notice on the HD10U.

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed any of this, or had any thoughts on it?

Cheers

I don't know. Film can be very sharp or very soft. Film has a much higher resolution than even Sony HD. I think with this, "film look" term, there are other ways to get this look or looks than by just going with "the right" DV cam. And isn't the resolution much higher with the CineAlta than the HD10U's MPEG2 capture? I guess I'll have to go see some playback footage when this JVC hits the market here.

Those of us who love the Hyper-Real look of live and taped HD -- will agree with your observations. If I want to show HDTV -- I show PBS not HBO.

For those who like film, they may very likely to find Panasonic's argument that their "lower" rez 720p looks "more like" film to be pursuasive.

However, watching the HD10 on a $4000 HD monitor, I thought it looked more like CineAlta than 35mm film. Which, for me, was fine.

I've never seen an MPEG-2 artifact from the HD10.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Also, now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts in the high end HD footage, especially juddering when panning>>>

This sounds like an observation of the 24p motion characteristic, similar to that of 24fps film, wherein pans have a different look than 60i video, either HD or SD.

I love both the "Hyper-Real" HD look, as Steve put it, and the film look...and I do realise that the look of film is not just one look, but many, depending on the stock used, the grain, 35 vs 16mm, the post processing...etc etc. But I guess I never expected film to look quite as soft as it does on HD, and native HD material look so much more sharp. Though I have to say that my judgement so far is based mainly on the film "Castaway", which I bought, and a couple of others I've seen bits of, it may be that other 35mm film transfers look quite different on HD.
Is there a lot of variation in transfer quality? I heard it mentioned that some HD movie tapes are in fact no more than upconverts from the DVD material, is this true? No matter what, I do feel that the HD1OU is most definately getting us in the ballpark of HD quality, at least as viewed on an HD monitor.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : If I want to show HDTV -- I show PBS not HBO. -->>>

Owwww! Here in LA, the PBS station KCET's HD is a pathetic outrage because they throttle the bitrate down so they can multicast an SD broadcast along with the HD broadcast. Every time there is fast motion or a dissolve there is such severe artifacting it's unwatchable!

I don't know. Herr Meister Fotograf would put forth this: 35mm film has much higher resolution than HD, and film can be sharp or soft, depending on the speed of the film, lighting used and filter(s) used.

No matter what, the color saturation is not going to look as good on an HD10 as on a Cinealta or Varicam. Those at least look as good as Beta - the HD10 looks like DV in terms of color.

Y'know, with a message title like:
"HD1OU footage closer to film look than CineAlta? "

I halfway expected Joseph George to be the author...

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Yes I know it sounds a little wacky, but if you take a look at some of the HD10U footage on a 720p native HD monitor, then watch a 35mm film transfer to DVHS and some CineAlta material on DVHS, I think you'll see the differences I'm talking about. I'm not trying to say that HD10U material is of equal quality to 35mm film, or the CineAlta, just that I am suprised at the softnness I'm seeing in DVHS transfers from 35mm film, compared to the stark sharpness of true high end HD originated material (which has it's own, very beautiful look). and that if I were to say which look the HD1OU comes closer to, I would say the 35mm ->DVHS look. Again, it could be that the 35mm transfers I've seen are not the best out there, but I was suprised by it and thought I'd bring it up (at the risk of being compared to Joseph it seems...heellp!!!)

All the best

"I halfway expected Joseph George to be the author..."

You mean back when Joseph was being paid by JVC to hype up the camera, or now when Joseph claims the HD10 is not really HD? :)

Anyway, what you're probably comparing to is 60i 1920x1080, which of course is going to look smoother than 24p film. It looks very lifelike.

There could also be issues with the 3:2 pulldown from film to HD.

After I dropped out of NYU Film, I bought
an Arriflex 35mm camera with sync sound and a loud engine...
without a long lens, there was no chance of good dialogue filming...

I wrote scripts and novels and twiddled my thumbs until technology would someday produce a camera that would produce a great picture at an affordable price= not just a good picture- an artful one.

And it would affordable.

After the XL1, Ithought Dv maybe was that answer, but it fell short
for me, even though I made a doc with it that got 4 stars from USA TODAY and won 2 film festivals, beating the Sundance winner and an Oscar nominee in win one of them...

The point? The JY-HD1u, while imperfect, is the camera I have been waiting for. And no one- or at least very few- can appreciate it now.

In a few ahort years, there will be a DEMAND for HD programming of all stripes, and anyone who is grabbing this camera and shooting with it now is sowing the seeds which will be reaped by 2005...

I got Burt Reynolds almost signed to my HD movie coming up...

This camera is THE ANSWER (with apologies to Allen Iverson)

T. Patrick

Hopefully you won't want to transfer it to film. :)

HDV may be the answer, but I'd question whether the HD1/HD10 is the answer. It seems overwhelmingly likely that either Canon or Sony's implementation will at least include separate aperture and shutter controls, given their excellent VX1000 and XL1 first-generation cameras, plus their opportunity to sit back and watch user reaction to the JVC... but I do agree, HDV can look phenomenal.

Interesting thread, thanks

Seriously, this is so exciting--- regardless of the limits of this camera
(the manual control isssues for one thing) the simple fact that I get 720p in native 16:9 in a dream come true.

I would love to wait for the Canon and Sony version of HDV,
but I have a daughter to feed, so I need to go shoot something
now and not later... I am sure I will be a 2nd generation cam when the time comes and if I can afford it...

My video geek friend from high school is one of the biggest filmmakers in the world right now- and his scripts gets green lit within 30 seconds...

I am on the other end- not getting paid and using my wife's credit cards to finance my last film...

But the JY-HD10u is a TOOL that levels the playing field- if you have a good story and if you light carefully, and if you block motion and shots so that you don't have to move the camera much... you can make a real MOVIE with this thing... one that looks and sounds not quite like 35mm, but certainly not cheap consumer video... this camera can MAKE A MOVIE...

And that is all that matters- and that's why I love this camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by T. Patrick Murray : Seriously, this is so exciting--- regardless of the limits of this camera
(the manual control isssues for one thing) the simple fact that I get 720p in native 16:9 in a dream come true. -->>>

Yes i agree it really is a dream come true. Though becuase its not really full 720 dots of resolution that the JVC does means i'm left feeling a bit "damn thats a lot to spend on a cam that just misses the mark now i'll wait for the next". That combined with the lack of software to edit etc.

But a great mile stone and one i'm glad has now happened! Bring... it.. on! :D

>My video geek friend from high school is one of the biggest filmmakers in the world right now- and his scripts gets green lit within 30 seconds...>

Let me guess...is it M. Night Shyamalan ?

Yeah- M Night----

But he was Manoj when I worked with him...

comes up just a bit short....JVC should have done more panasonic-like marketing and asked filmmakers what they wanted.

But you better believe Sony and Canon were paying attention. Canon has no high end products to protect..they could let a 3 chip HDV camera rip for 8k and it'll happen quite soon.


Hey T. Pat,

If you're a buddy of M. Night, you should be getting your script to him and not trying to shoot it. If it's really good, he'll help you get it made.

ive posted one of paul moggs video converted to 24p dvd resolution. i also did a little bit of color grading/levels adjustment as well.

http://www.letterstoyou.com/water24p.m2v

Hi, I couldn't get the link above to work, could you check it please?

Thanks

i just checked it, works fine for me

Regarding the M Night thing....

we had a falling out in high school when we were making a film
together (a ripoff of BREAKFAST CLUB when M was a senior and I was a junior at our high school).... then he started dating my ex girlfriend, which does nothing tpo salve the wounds of our creative differences...

then i saw him 3 times BEFORE sixth sense...
and ALL THREE TIMES he had his ASSISTANT call me and blow me off...

Thrice.

So, it's my professional estimation that now he is ordained "the next Spielberg", he is even less inclined to help me, much less return my calls himself, rather than having his assistant do the dirty work.

I'll tell you two things, though...

Number 1, I would not change his success story one bit.... why? Because he is living breathing proof that we are all one good film away from a secure career as a filmmaker (if that is what you want, like me)... he is talented, but not more talented than me or about 6 other people I went to NYU Film with... so that's why it's a great thing...

and number 2- i love being an indy Dv run and gun filmmaker... I made a film that was given great reviews and it was made with 9 credit cards and 2 XL1s... so I like the path I am on, as opposed to the studio system apprentice path...

which is why I know someone (maybe me, maybe not) somewhere will someday make a great movie on the JY-HD10u... because it's not about manual controls... it's about having a technical quality you do not have to apologize to your audience about, and how it levels the playing field, making good proudction value within reach of those who normally couldn't afford it, but had a good story in their heads or on paper.

I digress.

M Night and I both were Episcopal AV dorks.
We both went to NYU Film
and we both married Indian women.

Maybe someday, both of us will be regarded as great filmmakers
(although I would settle to be regarded as a paid filmmaker, since this art form to date has COST me money, not earned it...)

To answer your question, I will shoot my own film and get in the biz that way, because that's what the video revolution allow you to do- make a movie without millions of dollars or the consent of entrenched power players.

Check out THE LAST GAME, by the way! We got lucky.

<<<-- Originally posted by T. Patrick Murray :But the JY-HD10u is a TOOL that levels the playing field- if you have a good story and if you light carefully, and if you block motion and shots so that you don't have to move the camera much... you can make a real MOVIE with this thing... one that looks and sounds not quite like 35mm, but certainly not cheap consumer video... this camera can MAKE A MOVIE...

And that is all that matters- and that's why I love this camera. -->>>

T.:

Good story and careful lighting, I'm down with. Not being able to move the camera in the way you need to tell the story, that's a terminal buzzkill (I'm curious, why can't you move the camera?). Of course there are compromises across the board with all of the current DV cameras, but for me, a tool that handicaps me from realizing my vision is a poor tool. Increasing resolution but sacrificing exposure control, dynamic range etc. is a tough compromise. This is not directly a criticism of the JVC camera, but about the philosophy (which granted, I may be misreading) but if the image is a turd to begin with, polishing it up with HD just makes for a sharper, shinier turd.