Some new information about the the Rode VMP and its Deadcat (the latter item arrived on my doormat this morning). I've posted my initial observations about it (including it being partially in shot when on full wide with the TM900) in this thread - where some potential solutions are also discussed.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/490160-rode-videomic-pro-5.html

Alas, we've had no wind at all today - just glorious hot sun - so I've yet to find out if this new deadcat is effective on the Rode VMP!

EDIT: Updated info about my experiences with it in a 10 mph wind on Easter Sunday morning and some pictures of it on the TM900 are now added to the thread linked to above.

Need a bit of help. My son is getting married on Saturday, I would like to use footage from both my EX1 and TM900. Just love this little cam. I normally save all my edits to file, and replay them via my HDMI player. I am going to be asked for SD DVDs by a number of people, so, what is the best method of mixing 1080p 50 footage with 1080 25 from the EX1, to get half decent DVD quality. I would love to use the best quality of the TM900, but would it be easier to just shoot in AVCHD ? I have had some success experimenting, using a 1080p 50 timeline for footage from both cams, resulting mpegs look promising. Is there a method that anyone has tried that gives good results ? I have Edius 6 and Vegas 10. Any pointers as to mixing on the timeline would be much appreciated.
Thanks

Colin, I have a TM700 and I have Edius Neo 2.5... but it's my experience that Edius just 'makes sense' of the 50P footage in 25P and 50i projects. To give you reassurance at short notice, and with this important a project, I'd suggest at least a quick test...

Set up Edius 6 to edit some existing EX1 footage as you normally would. Now import a bit of 50P from the TM900 and just cut it in...!

Edius makes 25P from the 50P if the project is 25P but it will make 50i from the 50P if your project 50i...

...so I guess I'm suggesting you stick with shooting 50P (...preferably with a 1/50th shutter speed...).

I am hoping others can confirm what I have just said and also add their thoughts.....I lack experience with the whole SD DVD thing, and it all sounds rather important on this occasion!

Hope you all have a great day on Saturday.

dave

Hi Colin,

Unfortunately I don't have a TM900 so I cant speak from experience.

I record in 1920x1080 50i with my Ex3 so its an Edius 6, 50i timeline.
If I used the TM900 at my weddings I would just drop the footage into the 50i timeline, perhaps it would be wrong to do this but I would try it anyway.

Hope you all have a great day on Saturday.

Colin, good advice from Dave and Anthony there and exactly what I'd do in your position (i.e. do some tests first in your NLE and shoot in the highest quality with the TM900).

There is some wedding type thing going on this Friday in London which you could always do some "practice shots" at - just so that you are perfect for the really important couple on Saturday ;-)

I would definitely shoot in 1080p50. After all, you can always convert it (in camera) to "normal" AVCHD at 17Mbps if you really need to (but I would only do that after you've archived the full CAM MEM folder structure to various hard drives and DVD-DLs - depending on total size). It won't look as good though...the 1080p50 will match EX footage a lot better. Concentrate on enjoying the day and getting the best quality raw footage you can (in that order) and then worry about how to get it all edited and on DVD later, that would be my advice.

P.S. When you hit the vino the excellent Hybrid Optical Image Stabilisation and the normally pretty accurate Autofocus should help you keep it all together too!

I'm now going up filming in a pre-WWII biplane in a couple of weeks and wanted to get a polarising filter for my TM900. I will probably also take some of my Canon 7D kit as I want all bases covered - but not the EX3 as there is limited room in this thing! I think my wife is busy doubling my life insurance cover...

I've been unable to get a B+W 46mm multicoated one here in the UK (the high quality filter brand I typically use) for the TM900 at a sensible price. One supplier wanted almost £100 for it - so bought a relatively cheap Hoya CIR-PL 46mm Polariser instead (£26). It's just arrived in the post. Seems OK and does exactly what I'd expect it to do. I also found a Sigma one at £36 which might have been better as it seems to be multicoated (look on amazon for details). Not sure if this Hoya one is or not. As mentioned by others earlier in this thread, one filter won't cause vignetting at full wide (35mm) on the TM900. However, there is a little, just in each corner, if you then screw the lens hood in front of the filter (most noticeable when the Image Stabilisation is on and you do a whip pan, where it then moves more into frame).

Chocks away!

Thanks very much, Dave, Tony and Andy. Its about what I thought, Have tried the suggestions on both an Edius and Vegas timeline, I think the results are pretty good, more testing to do. One query, I encoded to mpeg 2 in Edius, and it needed transcoding again in Encore. The Vegas encode did not!!!!! I dont use Edius all that much, Vegas being my editor of choice. Any indicators for the best settings, for SD DVD in Edius ??
Thanks very much all.
As an end note, I shot a web vid for a local hotel last week, I know the owner well and told him I was going to duplicate the EX1 shots with the TM900. He came round to check the footage yesterday, and was blown away by the quality of the TM900. I can see this little rascal creeping into a fair few paying jobs in the future.
Wouldnt it be nice to go to a family wedding and not work, as its our son, I am sure we will enjoy the day, and get the work done. I think my assistant may be a bit busier than usual.
Andy, your right, of course Just as well shoot in 50p, and down res in camera if I have any problems
Once again, Thanks all

and was blown away by the quality of the TM900. I can see this little rascal creeping into a fair few paying jobs in the future.

Wouldn't mind TM900 sometime.

I stumbled upon this on YouTube - some TM900 footage (I believe) from a boat in Venice, some of it pretty nice. No idea what camera settings were used (but you can guess).

YouTube - canal grande (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZl2yBmgT6k)

Interestingly, Youtube gives, amongst the options, 720p, 1080p and 'Original'. I've never seen the 'Original' option before when looking at TM900 stuff - I tried Googling it to find out more but got nowhere. Anyone know what that's about?

The Panasonic TM900 has an "intelligent" telephoto mode that uses the extra pixels of the sensor to extend the optical zoom from 12X to 20X (to 700mm). It is supposed to not reduce resolution. This feature was used extensively in this video clip of a baseball game:

Baseball Video using the Panasonic TM900 700mm Telephoto Feature on Vimeo

The opening shot - from far right field - shows how far away the eventual close up is (and the smoothness of the full zoom, from 35mm to 700mm). But all shots, from different sections of the ballpark, use the feature for at least part of each shot.

All shots were handheld, so the video also shows the great effectiveness of the OIS.

But does the intelligent zoom maintain the quality? Does one really have a useful 700mm telephoto with the TM900?

The original file is downloadable - and has 5.1 Dolby surround sound. 108060p, auto wb, manual iris, 1/60th shutter (NTSC, of course).

I'm need to buy a good polarizing filter for the TM900. I understand a linear polarizer is more effective and less costly, but can screw up a camera's metering, at least on DSLR's. I'm thinking this isn't an issue with a video camera that doesn't use a mirror, but would like to confirm.

Anybody know for sure?

Roger, I don't know for sure about the TM900, but in the absence of any replies so far...

ANY camera can use a circular polariser. The only worry when using a circular polarising filter (where only a linear polariser is needed) is that a circular polariser tends to be a little more expensive.

Linear polarisers can affect through the lens light metering and sometimes autofocus - in some cameras.

Andy,

I've already pulled the trigger on a non-circular polarizer, understanding they are better for reducing glare and shouldn't be a problem without a silvered mirror in the chain. Will know in a few days! I am going to the Moab desert in early June, so I needed something to cut the glare.

My impression on the "intelligent zoom" feature is that it is simply an interpolated digital zoom using the middle of the sensor once you get beyond the optical zoom range. Assuming you start with 1080 lines on the full sensor, you can digitally zoom to 2x and still have 540 sensor lines to work with. (This is approximately the number of lines in a sensor for an SD camera). A 2x digital zoom on the TM900 would yield a 24X total zoom. By zooming to only 20X with the TM900 (12x optical, 1.7x digital) you can still achieve (and claim) better than SD quality throughout the entire range. The Sony CX-700 has a similar feature, although they stop at 18X because the Sony starts with a 10X optical zoom instead of the 12X provided on the TM900.

The baseball video is pretty impressive, as the 700mm closeup is remarkably crisp. However, the thing that impresses me the most is that it was hand held. The image stabilization is extraordinary.

Roger, I don't know for sure about the TM900, but in the absence of any replies so far...

ANY camera can use a circular polariser. The only worry when using a circular polarising filter (where only a linear polariser is needed) is that a circular polariser tends to be a little more expensive.

Linear polarisers can affect through the lens light metering and sometimes autofocus - in some cameras.

Only applies to DSLR cameras. You can use linear or circular polarizers on a camcorder:

Polarizers: Fact & Fiction (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?27422-Polarizers-Fact-amp-Fiction&highlight=linear+circular+polarizer)

Old info source, I know, but nothing's changed.

Probably more important - go with a reputable brand, B+W or Hoya (while they are still made in Japan!), preferably multi-coated. The Marumi (Super) DHG CPL's are also well regarded.

As Ted Moult used to say "You only fit double glazing once, so fit the best"

Hey Andy

Thanks for starting this thread. I haven't been here in a while but came back to see if I could find some opinions on the TM900. I usually shoot with a Sony EX1 but needed something small and easier to handle and I narrowed my choice down to the TM900.

The only bad press I read about the TM900 is when using the internal mic it has the same problem as the TM700 picking up excessive fan noise. Not an issue as I would use an external mic or my EX1 if I audio was a concern.

I should be receiving my camera in a couple days and will let you know what I think.

I recently bought the TM900. I do not hear fan noise on my footage. But I have not filmed in a totally silent room. For my uses every time I shoot there is ambient noise. Outdoors, indoors, you name it. I can't see myself shooting in a totally silent environment. But having said that as you said attaching an ext mic is not a painful experience so if you do have fan noise that's not a horribly painful option. My biggest worry with the fan is the same as any fan cooling vital equipment. What is the life of the fan? How long before dust clogs it and/or its bearings wear out. Because when that happens the chip its cooling is fried and the camera becomes useless. That is my only concern with the fan.

Chris

Hi Bob and Chris. Glad to have you on board!

My guess is that fan noise is only a big problem if you use AGC (auto gain control) when in a very quiet room as then it'll just pump up the level. Yet another reason not to use AGC. Certainly, I've read web reports (on other forums) of people who have had several TM900s (for various QC problems/reasons) and some appear to be louder than others regarding fan noise so it does appear to be a variability with this model. Luckily mine is so quiet I've yet to hear it. Wind noise when outdoors in even a slight breeze is much more of an audio issue (hence why I got the Rode VMP as one potential solution).

Regarding longevity of the fan comments....well maybe.... but at least that's one of the very few moving parts on this flash based cam so it should last as long as any tape transport mechanism (remember when we all had those!) if not longer - as it's a lot simpler! Truth is that the TM700 has been around for just over a year and I've yet to read any reports of failing/clogged up fans (even amongst those that use these cams heavily for Pro work - but that does not mean it hasn't happened). I imagine the fan will keep going for long enough until one feels a need to upgrade such is the rapid pace of camera developments...so stop worrying!

Anyway, maybe by the time the fan fails (if it ever does) we will all be able to buy a small portable 4K cam which does 150 frames per second with 7.1 sound and 1 TB of onboard Flash memory and all for $999 (we can but dream...but I bet it'll be a reality sooner than you think!).

Anyway, I digress. We look forward to how you both get on with those new TM900s!

Hy. I'm an amateur. I have an EOS 7D. I use it for music videos. I need a lens for low light and night videos. What do you think about the canon 50mm 1.8 II? Do you have any other suggestions?

Suggest you post on the 7D forum, not this one.

Anyone have experience with the Panasonic .7x wide angle lens for the TM900? Although my new TM900 is wider out of the chute than my older Canon HV30, it still isn't wide enough for some uses that I have for the camera. Besides being interested in any feedback you might have on the lens itself, I'm also interested in what kind of a hood you are using with it.

Hi Alan,

These comments do not directly address your question but years ago I purchased a second hand Schneider-Kreuznach “Super-wide lens Aspheric III” intending to use it on 16 mm film cameras. That did not happen and I tried it on a Sony PD150 with disappointing results since then it has remained in the back of a cupboard until put it on my TM 900 where it produced surprisingly good results. It is a fairly large lens - a little over 4” in diameter but relatively lightweight thanks to its plastic optics.

I do not know whether is relevant to its pleasing results but I have used two stepping rings to mount it on the TM 900, the first reduces the Aspheric III’s 62mm to 58 mm and another to reduce the 58 mm to the TM’s 46mm. I leave the latter stepping ring permanently on the TM and standardize on 58 mm accessories to reduce vignetting problems.

Finally a question for Andy, is the aim of this thread to cover any thing relevant to the TM 900? I ask because it is now rather large and consequently not so easy to find a particular point of view or other detail.

Hi Alastair,

The aim of the thread when I started it was to cover all things TM900, SD900, HS900 etc. so that anyone looking could find useful comments, tips and discussions on them in here, somewhere! Sometimes on DVinfo I've seen several parallel discussions going on about similar or identical things in multiple threads (and even at times across forum areas as happened in the various Canon DSLR sections a while back) and it makes it much harder to get at all the good info. I'm not a Mod on here but that was my simple aim, a bit like "one stop shopping".

I agree this thread has grown enormously - now on 12 pages/170 odd posts - such is the interest in these latest Panasonic cameras. There is now a wealth of useful stuff in this thread thanks to all those of you who have spared the time to add really good factual information. I simply use the search function often on DVinfo and can usually...not always... locate things pretty quickly (when using well selected key words).

If I ever get time... I might try and do a simple resume of what subjects we've covered on what pages and post that in this thread - if anyone thinks it would help!

For sure, wide angle adapters has come up before in this thread - and I'm sure will come up again - as it seems many of us (me included) sometimes find 35mm just not quite wide enough on the TM900. It certainly seems a subject worthy of a separate new thread (assuming a good one does not already exist, e.g. from TM700 discussions last year).

What does everyone else think?

Regarding wide angle adapters, I have both the TM700 and the TM900 and I searched quite a bit for a suitable wide angle lens.

Following a recommendation from a buyer on avsforums.com I bought a cheap one on ebay. Here's the link:
46mm 0.45x wide angle + 12.5x macro lens + CPL filter | eBay UK (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/46mm-0-45x-wide-angle-12-5x-macro-lens-CPL-filter-/170639666888?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item27baeaaec8)

This particular one is a UK seller and despatch was almost immediate. In case link does not work the name of the seller is ukdailybuy and the product s called "46mm 0.45x wide angle" - that should be enough to find it.

I haven't given it exhaustive pixel peeping type tests - haven't had the time - but it is suprisingly good plus its well made and solid. At that price (£15.49) you can't really go wrong. I've never bought a cheap lens before so I was dubious - nearly all my others are Canon "L" lenses at the opposite end of the scale like the 70-200 f2.8L and the 24mm tilt and shift.

Pete

Looks interesting Peter, let us know how you get on with it

I didn't find much of value on wide angle lenses for the TM700 in the TM700 threads. I have a Raynox .66x lens that I have used on my Canon HV-30. Unfortunately it vignettes very slightly at full wide when on the TM900. Then if you pan the camera at all it vignettes a lot on one corner/side as the stabilization shifts the used sensor area. You actually have to zoom quite a bit to get rid of the vignetting completely, which completely defeats the purpose of the wide angle lens. To use the Raynox 52mm wide angle lens I had to use a step up ring. It doesn't look particularly thick, but a thinner one might reduce the vignetting.

I am wondering if the Panasonic VW-W4607 has this same issue with vignetting when panning. It would avoid the length of a step up ring and is .7x as opposed to the .66x of the Raynox. Hopefully these differences would avoid the problem completely.

I called B&H to see if they knew of a lens hood that goes with the Panny wide angle. They weren't much help as the phone person had no access to the lenses or hoods. The Panny lists the lens diameter as 74mm. I'm assuming that this is the outside diameter as the lens doesn't have any filter threads. The B&H guy thought the same but wasn't sure. The only hood that they carry that might fit is a 77mm rubber CAVision. It isn't clear how well this hood might work.

Does anyone have any experience with this Panny lens on a TM700/900 and with a hood that works? The key questions are:
1. Is it full zoom through, i.e., no vignetting at wide and abilily to focus throughout the range?
2. How sharp is it? Do you lose any perceptible sharpness as compared to the camera without the wide angle lens attached?
3. Is this sharpness across the full lens or does it get soft in the edges/corners?
4. Does the sharpness degrade significantly as you move away from full wide or does it stay sharp throughout most or all of the range?
5. What lens hood works well with the lens?

If no one has any insights that help, then I may go ahead and buy the lens and CAvision hood. If I do, then I'll report back what I find.

BTW, the vignetting allows one to easily see how the stabilization shifts things. As you start to pan the camera the black corner appears then drifts back away. It isn't totally consistent in amount from pan to pan--my guess is that it depends upon the particular edges in the scene that it latches onto to make the adjustments. It makes you realize how much the camera is adjusting the framed area.

I also had some interesting experiences when I tried to evaluate how sharp my Raynox lens was with the TM900. I was shooting a TV resolution chart from a few feet away and had the TM900 image stabilization on. It found it difficult to frame the chart nicely as I would move the tripod head slightly and the frame would float around for an additional second or so and eventually settle in a position that wasn't exactly where I wanted the camera pointing. I'd move the head slightly again to adjust and the same thing would happen. I'm not 100% sure if the lengthy stabilization period after moving the tripod head was due to stabilization in the camera or some elasticity in the tripod head itself (it was a cheap tripod). I should have turned off the stabilization at the time but didn't want to take the time at that point to figure out how to do it (had just received the camera). I have never bothered to turn off the image stabilization on my VX2000 as I've never had any problems with leaving it on. However, if this wandering around is a function of the TM900 stabilization, then it will really need to be turned off any time you are using a tripod.

Hi

Image stabilization needs to be turned off when mounted to a tripod, there is a dedicated button for this on the top left of the camcorder (silver one marked OIS).

The floating around is quite normal when it is on as that is it's function to remove the shakes, and you will notice this on more modern newer camcorders when on a tripod due to bigger range and effectiveness of stablization compared to previous models.

Regards

Phil

Last week I was up filming inside a WWII aircraft. Very cramped (no way could I have had my EX3 in this thing!) and very noisy.

I have to say the very small form factor of the TM900, superb image stabilisation (everything had to be hand-held and secured) and use of a polarising filter worked really well for me - only a few shots were lost due to the excessive vibration from the planes twin engines. Equally important was the 1080p50. It was a pretty bumpy ride in parts and the ability to slow footage down to 1080p25 during post in Vegas enabled me to get some of the shots needed. More filming is now planned!

Amongst other things this week, I'm filming an event in Cambridge and expecting bad light in the basement venue its in. I'll be using the TM900 locked down on a tripod for cutaway shots to supplement my EX3 and 7D (main cams) so it'll be interesting to see how that goes!

I don't think I could be bothered to run the sorts of tests Alan C refers to as the wide angle lens I linked to is really only for emergency use. I have now used it several times to take in a whole dancefloor in low light in a locked down position and its worked well.

I leave Image Stabilisation on in that situation because typically I have the cam high up on a lightstand and the single column rather than tripod configuration means it does indeed need to be stabilised. Lightstands are great for getting the extra height - many go up between 3 and 4 metres and a TM900 will live quite happily up there :-)

The lens I linked to comes with a polariser on the front which you need to remove to avoid vignetting at maximum width. For the same reason you would not put a hood on it.

Pete

Can anyone lighten me what the exact recording specs of the TM900 mean?

The official spec says the 'Signal System' is 1080 / 50p, 1080 / 50i, 540 / 25p

Recording format:

<Original Format>
1080 / 50p : MPEG-4 AVC/H.264
<AVCHD standard compliant>
HA / HG / HX / HE : MPEG-4 AVC/H.264
<MPEG-4 AVC file format compliant (.MP4)>
iFrame : MPEG4-AVC/H.264

Recording / Playback mode:

1080 / 50p (28 Mbps / VBR), (1920 x 1080)
HA (17 Mbps / VBR), (1920 x 1080)
HG (13 Mbps / VBR), (1920 x 1080)
HX (9 Mbps / VBR), (1920 x 1080)
HE (5 Mbps / VBR), (1920 x 1080)
iFrame (28 Mbps / VBR), (960 x 540)

The 1080 50p mode is clear. Talk on this forum has suggested that the HA mode is 25p but I'm not sure where this comes from. The 25p mode seems linked to the iFrame 540 setting. How do I enable the 1080 50i mode as I can't find it on the camera or is that the default for the AVCHD modes? Or am I just being thick?

Anyone have experience with the Panasonic .7x wide angle lens for the TM900?

Here's a copy of my post from page 8 of this thread:

I have the VW-W46507H X0.7 wide angle adapter.

It's quite sharp. Yes it has some obvious distortion until you start to zoom into it but I've never found that to be a problem. Use it carefully and you can work with it quite effectively.

I own a couple of much pricier SONY 0.7 adapters and this is just as good.

And I see now that I get to start page 13 with my re-post. Time to break this thread into separate discussions, IMO

OK, while I'm burning some discs here's a quick resume of (some of) what's been covered in the last 12 pages/180 odd posts with 17,000 views so far.

Page 1 - TM900 specs, first impressions, link to Panasonic information, new battery type needed, suggested camera settings, No "Bondi Blue", remote control.

Page 2 - Filters and chances of vignetting, editing 1080p50/60.

Page 3 - 1080p50 as slow motion in post, hybrid optical image stabilisation and iZoom test video.

Page 4 - No Bondi Blue (again...), tendency to overexpose in bright sunlight, low light test video.

Page 5 - TM900 and Steadicam Merlin test video, larger battery pics/comments, battery charger.

Page 6 - More TM900 and Steadicam Merlin tests, Rode Videomic Pro/Nikon ME1 discussion, my accessory shoe modification.

Page 7 - Polarising filters, ND filters, more test films.

Page 8 - Wide angle adapters, TM900 and Canon 7D comparison test video.

Page 9 - More on wide angle adapters, manual settings.

Page 10 - More on manual settings, menus, shutter speed selection, relay recording clarified.

Page 11 - Rode Vidoemic Pro and deadcat information (link to audio section), editing 1080p50 (again), iZoom and polarising filters clarification.

Page 12 - Fan noise (or lack of in some cases), wide angle adapters (again), recording specs - still unanswered - anyone?

Hope this helps.

I agree, let's break TM900 stuff down into separate threads from this point forward - if at all possible.

That's excellent Andy - your input and enthusiasm here as been incredibly useful and galvanising.

I bought 3 TM900s for work (teaching students) and have only just started exploring the camera. From further surfing I'm fairly sure that all the AVCHD modes are 50i and iFrame mode is 25p but I'm still not totally sure. It is important for me as though the 50p mode is excellent, it would probably be a too much of a complication to deal with in terms of making things editable on FCP for novice students.

Thanks Geoffrey! Your assumptions seem correct to me - but I never use anything other than 1080p50 and currently edit that TM900 footage only in Vegas on my PC, not on my Mac systems - so I'm not the best person to ask/confirm - but from what I've read 1080p50 in FCP needs workarounds. Maybe that will change when FCP X arrives...

Three TM900's. Lucky students!

I'm finding that I'm using intelligent contrast quite a bit. I think that it allows for less crushed shadows and less blown highlights. It looks a little 'flat' and as another poster say 'plastic' before grading but I'm feeling I'm preserving quite a bit more detail than I would otherwise. I do reduce the exposure a bit by 1 or 2 and this keeps the highlights from blowing. If I use the build-in histogram with intelligent contrast off or on, I find when it's off the shadows just crush, there is a hard wall at the left side, as well as the highlights on the right side. With it on there isn't a 'wall'.

I find this 'intelligent contrast' is similar to the picture profile settings such as the 'technicolor' used in the Canon EOS 5D mk ii. It doesn't look very good when played back, but when color graded there is more to work with.

Am I fooling myself and 'baking in' a bad and unfixable look? Anybody else have experience with grading TM700/TM900 footage with intelligent contrast on? (I also reduce the sharpness, saturation, and tilt the hue to red a bit as well.)

Thanks for any input!

I own TM 900 video camera, and i need to buy some alternative to Steadicam Merlin. Is there any model cheapter than seadicam merlin?

Flycam Nano

I'm finding that I'm using intelligent contrast quite a bit. I think that it allows for less crushed shadows and less blown highlights. It looks a little 'flat' and as another poster say 'plastic' before grading but I'm feeling I'm preserving quite a bit more detail than I would otherwise. I do reduce the exposure a bit by 1 or 2 and this keeps the highlights from blowing. If I use the build-in histogram with intelligent contrast off or on, I find when it's off the shadows just crush, there is a hard wall at the left side, as well as the highlights on the right side. With it on there isn't a 'wall'.

I find this 'intelligent contrast' is similar to the picture profile settings such as the 'technicolor' used in the Canon EOS 5D mk ii. It doesn't look very good when played back, but when color graded there is more to work with.

Am I fooling myself and 'baking in' a bad and unfixable look? Anybody else have experience with grading TM700/TM900 footage with intelligent contrast on? (I also reduce the sharpness, saturation, and tilt the hue to red a bit as well.)

Thanks for any input!

Hi Keith,

I have done some testing with shots taken with Intelligent Contrast Mode compared to auto iris and full manual and came to the conclusion it really does bake in the look, I did not find it possible to recover from it.

Here are four stills takes from 3 clips taken moments apart looking into a bright sky, the aim was to get the best overall exposure, keeping as much shadow detail as possible without burning out the clouds.

The first shot was taken in auto iris mode with -2 exposure set in picture settings. The second shot was taken in full manual lowering the exposure (iris) until zebras just cleared from the sky. The 3rd and final shot was taken in Intelligent Contrast Mode. Note it is not possible to use manual iris in this mode so no way it seems to apply less of this effect.

Notice only the full manual clip maintains cloud detail but the foreground is too dark. However with the overall detail in this shot I was able to tweak some brightness back into the dark areas in post with the help of a YUV filter plus a touch more chroma (the lower exposure also lowers chroma level as seen on the vectorscope left of waveform meter).

The waveform meter shows how severely the luma is squashed for the clip when Intelligent Contrast was used. I was not able to correct from this with out the image looking more plastic than ever.

Hi

Thanks for the tests. Ignoring the technical measures for what is best, the best looking picture to me, i.e. how I would imagine that scene to look via my own eye is the Intelligent contrast one, it looks more like sun shining in the garden as I would see it, all the others look quite dreary and more like a dark winters day.

I can see what you are trying to achieve capturing as much detail without blowing the highlights or losing shadow detail, but our eyes blow highlights or lose shadow detail naturally anyway in similar situations, so circumventing that for me personally I think gives rise to a picture that looks less like as "I would see it", even if technically it is the better picture.

Regards

Phil

Hi Phil,

I do indeed agree the pictures are "dreary", the scene is so strongly backlit I didn't expect much else. If I were taking this shot for purely aesthetic reasons I would never shoot from such an angle (almost straight into sun), such shots are always going to be more or less silhouetted, I have exactly the same result with my EX1R camera despite it's picture profile and gamma options.

All I am trying to show here is how Intelligent Contrast mode locks in "looks" irrecoverably and cannot be undone by grading, that is what Keith asked and so that was my reply to that question, with this difficult shot taken manually it can be graded, still not a beautiful image but in my opinion preferable to the harsh flattened and plastic look.

BTW, I don't agree with your view "our eyes blow highlights or lose shadow detail naturally anyway in similar situations". I just went outside and looked at the same scene again in same conditions and can clearly see the subtle cloud shades in the brightest parts AND the darkest parts of the shrubs while casually taking in the scene. No digital consumer camcorder can do this as they don't have even the dynamic range of film let alone our eyesight.

Maybe I should have chosen a less severe shot for testing, perhaps there are some scenes which benefit from Intelligent Contrast but so far I just don't care for the look it gives when I try it.

Hi

BTW, I don't agree with your view "our eyes blow highlights or lose shadow detail naturally anyway in similar situations". I just went outside and looked at the same scene again in same conditions and can clearly see the subtle cloud shades in the brightest parts AND the darkest parts of the shrubs while casually taking in the scene. No digital consumer camcorder can do this as they don't have even the dynamic range of film let alone our eyesight.

They do, of course when you look at the sky your pupils contract, just like the iris of a camera, you can't stop this happening. Because we really only see in detail a very small circle in front of our eyes, we don't necessarily notice (except in particular circumstances) details of darker areas in our peripheral version becoming silhouettes as our pupils contract looking at the bright sky. As you look around a scene, your pupils are constantly adjusting.

The best demonstration of this comparing directly to a camera is when you are talking to someone sat in front of a bright window and they are in silhouette and you can see little or no details in their face, it's black, we are all familiar with that happening. With a camcorder/camera you would use backlight compensation and blow out the bright details around them and bring their face out of the shadows. If we had conscious control over our own eyes, we could do the same, and do you not think in such a case the view outside the window would not clip and turn to white losing all the detail?

I'm not saying a camera or camcorder has the same dynamic range as our eyes, but the principles are the same. You can even see noise in near darkness where your brain turns up the gain :)

Intelligent contrast has done a good job, it isn't designed to be used and still allow a wide degree of adjustment afterwards, as it is a "full auto" mode type thing, so yes it does rather bake the look in.

Sometimes, in order to capture more interesting details, you just have to let something "zebra" in the shot, or get creative with some graduated filters to darken the sky so you can keep some detail, which is probably the answer or something to try in success conditions.

Maybe I should have chosen a less severe shot for testing, perhaps there are some scenes which benefit from Intelligent Contrast but so far I just don't care for the look it gives when I try it.

I tend to agree overall that Intelligent Contrast isn't a fix for everything, and your approach with a bit of work in post can achieve as good or better results. Your examples probably were the extreme and quite challenging, just out of those I thought the intelligent contrast one was the better, all the others just appeared too dark and I would have scarified the sky to bring up the details in the shadows. I don't think there was anyway to really make a good shot in such conditions as you say.

Regards

Phil

I loaned my TM900 to my brother visiting Israel last week. He has some photographer experience, but not much video, so it was pure iA with a polarizing filter on the front. I was very impressed with the quality of the footage, exposure, and the way the stabilization compensated for tripodless excursions. Hardly a shot was unusable for documentary purposes. Focus was good, exposure was acceptable, and Image Stabilization is extremely good for conditions.

Last week I bought the Panasonic HDC-SD900. I was convinced of the "greatness" of this camera because of all the positive remarks on this forum. It gives better video than I see on most local networks (or is it the cameraman?).

What a beautifull video it makes!
What impresses me most is the image stabilisation. I have had a few camera's, but this camera blow them all away.

If you see the contributions on this forum of Mark Rosenzweig then you know enough. The same person, different camera's; but the Panasonic stands out, and mainly because of it's extraordinary image stabilisation.

I have filmed in full sunlight, but automatic mode is not the way to go, to much bleeched out ...
So I have to study and practice the manual things.

Hi everyone. I want to thank Andy, Claire, Colon and others for an excellent thread on this camera. I have learned a huge amount reading and learning from your incredible level of expertise. I have a Canon HV30 and had a Panny GS 400 before the Canon. I have been considering a new camera and this appears to be a good choice. I am struggling with a compelling reason to "move up" from the HV30 as it has good manual controls, records at 1080i and I have invested in batteries and tele and wide angle lenses. Use of mini DV for storage has it pros and cons compare to the flash technologies available relative to compression. Please appreciate that I am a pure novice compared to 95% of the people on this forum and shot mostly family stuff. Is this a cost justified step up from where I am at present? I would highly value the thoughts an opinions of the people contributing to this thread. Respectfully submitted.

On behalf of everyone - thanks for the thanks and welcome to Dvinfo!

1. Sure, picture quality and solid state workflow will be a step up but ask yourself this - what is it that makes you yearn to replace the much loved HV30? (I've never had one but I read time after time about happy users/seen the excellent images it can create). Is it showing any reliability issues for example?

2. Also, of great importance, is your computer and NLE going to edit this 1080p50/60 and/or AVCHD out of the TM900 et al like butter... or would that need a ton of money spending on it too? HDV editing is REALLY easy compared to these newer flavours.

I struggled for a while to replace my much loved Sony HC1 but that was starting to act up (sometimes jerky/non-working zoom and sometimes seems to take for ages to record after you press the button). Also, I'd got so used to a solid state workflow with my professional gear that real time capture of tapes was really starting to get insanely boring! The HC1 was also a very poor performer in low light too - being a first generation HDV cam. And of course I already had a very fast Mac Pro and PC in my studio but most of all I wanted to try 1080p50 for some commercial applications without spending a ton of money.

Andy,

I think to answer your question we'd have to know what you do not like about the gear you have. Are you finding the quality lacking in specific ways? If not, I'd say keep going with what you have. Don't underestimate Andy's point about AVCHD workflow being more demanding than HDV. I had to do a serious PC upgrade to make this codec work reasonably well. I owned a Sony HC3 and Canon XHA1 and have loved getting away from tape and find the image is much superior to the HC3 in all situations, superior to the A1 in some situations (low light especially). There are features of a high end professional camera that you won't have, so don't fool yourself in thinking that this is the match of an XF305 or other modern professional camera. It's not that good (but sometimes you will wonder who will know the difference from the image!).

Aside from going tapeless and the great image, perhaps the biggest benefit you may enjoy is the ability to do fantastic slow motion when you shoot in 60P. Additionally, you should consider the incredible Image Stabilization and Auto focus. Absolutely amazing and better than the other cameras I have used in my past, even those costing much more.

Perhaps the most negative things I can say about the camera is that it tends to over expose in bright light when in automatic (easily fixed) and the 4 blade iris doesn't give a super smooth bokeh like cameras with more blades. Obviously it doesn't have 3 ring manual control, XLR's, ND filters, but you don't expect that in a $1,000 mini-camcorder.

Andy.
I agree with the last 2 posts, this is a completely different ball game to HDV. But well worth the extra work involved. I owned a Canon HV30 until I sold it about 8 months ago, lovely little camera, capable of producing amazing footage. The TM900 will give you amazing quality in AVCHD, jaw dropping quality in 1080p, but this comes at a price As the others have mentioned your computer will need some serious grunt to edit it. Probably your best bet would be to use an intermediat codec, ie Cineform. Although you will end up with enormous files using Cineform, it makes the edit process so much smoother. Hey, maybe your computer is fast enough without. There is a free programme out there called Mpeg Streamclip, if it will handle the TM900 files it may be worth checking out. If you decide to buy the TM900, I dont think you will be dissapointed, more like amazed.

So much for splitting this thread.

Thanks for the feedback. I wish I had some great quantitative answers to questions asked about my HV 30, like it has focus issues or the TV mode was malfunctioning, but it is performing very well. I think part of my "search" is the fun of new technology and just being a tech geek(??). I am the same way with photography although my Canon 50D is still my number one camera.

My PC is strong Intel i7 870 with 12 MB DDR3 RAM, overclocked to approx 3.32 (stable but WARM) running W7 with 16 TB (Yes TB) of storage including external connected by eSATA and two Asus 24" monitors. I have CS3 (it was cheap) and a one-off NLE called Power Director (64 bit version) which has met my needs to date. As noted, my video is purely family (grandchildren, yeah I just hit the big 5 0 in April)

Claire, since you moved away from the HV30, it seems like you are very much enjoying your new setup. What really made me question the need (probably more like a want) to move on is Andy's experience with the Panny. Given his profession and the high quality equipment he uses every day, his assessment of the 900 has really made me rethink moving to something like an Xa10 or the highly rated 300/305 (not sure any of these are "run and gun" style cameras anyway). I may just sit on the sidelines and wait for six months or so.

I guess I will at least wait until I finish my yearly trip to Disney in July.

BTW, I did see an external battery charger listed for the 900. I will try to find the link.

Here is the link. I have NO idea if this is accurate but the website lists it as a charger for the 900:

http://www.digitaltoyshop.com/BATTERY_CHARGER_Panasonic_HDC-TM900_t2389_1503_1

Unfortunately, when you put a filter on the Panasonic 900 it sits unprotected at the front (with a lot of camera's the filter is deeper seated). My camera fits nicely in my small camerabag, not much space anymore ...
But, when I put an B+W filter on it, the danger of getting "things" on my filter exists. A protection cap on the filter and I have to buy an new bigger bag ...
I do not like a camera with an unprotected "expensive" filter in a bag. How do you all cope with this camera construction?