Barry Jenkins
February 1st, 2006, 01:25 PM
Mods, this is kinda long so I figured I throw it in a new thread. Feel free to lop it off it's that's not cool.
________________________________________
As an aside, what follows are the words of a guy who's only film experience has been short films originated on super 16mm film. I'm not yet versed enough to speak in knees and coring so bear with me:
Off top I agree with Mike that the footage was not as impressive as I'd expected. For starters, the main goal of the cinematographer, documentarian Andrew Young (great sense of humour this guy), ran somewhat counter to what my personal aspirations were in viewing footage to evaluate the camera. Coupled with the fact that he pretty much jerry-rigged his own wide-angle lens adapter on one of the first cameras off the lineup, you get the idea.
Shooting mostly with an extremely wide 35mm lense, the Safari footage looked a bit "dull" with colors that I'd best describe as "only going so far", desaturated greens and browns and yellows that lent a very flat, neutral image. Again, this was not a problem for Andrew Young as it was his intent and as such I'd have to say he accomplished what he was after (Mike had a great suggestion here about boosting the chroma on image acquisition in the field and desaturating in post, the reverse of Mr. Young's method here). Andrew also shot his footage at 30p because there was no way to edit 24p HDV footage when he went out. He then forced the footage to 23.98 after he'd made all his edits, lending an appealing 1/4 second motion decrease that was fine for a non-dialogue piece. Because he shot in some ridiculously wild conditions, Mr. Young rode the zebras for exposure so there were places in the print where clipping could be seen where image was just gobbelled to white. Overall, there was still a very video look to the HDV transferred to film Safari imagery. Some of this couold be attributed to a default sharpening function on the camera Mr. Young said he'd advise anyone to turn off in the future.
As Mike mentioned, the closeups Andrew shot with a few diopters were EXQUISITE in the blow-up. Matter of fact, just about all of the long lense photography here, faces etc., faired much better, as is to be expected with video acquisition. Also, the wide angle stuff where most of the imagery was kept to the foreground faired better than "expanse" shots as well, variances in depth seemed to aide the image just as greatly as focal lenght.
THE REAL TREAT was Charles Papert of HDVinfo.net stopping by with a film transfer of his Mini35 tests with the JVC! Actually, let me rephrase that, Andrew Young, the filmmaker from above, is a member of the DuArt family (his grandpa founded the place) and so before coming out he took the Mini35 tests we've all seen on the net, downloaded the raw files and commenced a filmout on his own whim. This was the first time Papert had seen the piece on film. How awesome a guy is Andrew Young folks?
Now THIS STUFF looked GREAT! The image from the net of the woman standing before the bed of flowers was fine, and an OTS scene of a couple in conversation was even better, the grain of the print combining with the focus falloff behind to really sell the image. Most impressive however was quick shot of the camera sat in a patch of lawn on a 100mm lense. The AC racks from fore to back to foreground etc. and the behavior of the image was so purely filmic I nearly wet my pants. It was the best color imaging of the camera and the most cinematic framing of the evening, basically a glamour shot that showed what this thing can do albeit under the forgiving circumstances of perfect light, shooting the warm tones of fresh chlorophyl and on the lovely glass of a 100mm prime lense (and all color corrected by Andrew Young at DuArt). There was a night exterior immediately following this that was somewhat underwhelming though, again, Charles Papert had no intention of transferring these things and for the night shot would definitely have done things differently (imho).
The best thing about the Mini35 stuff was that it gave the best example of THIS camera's approximation of a "film look." From a motion standpoint, 24 p is 24p and the JVC nailed that portion of the exam. From a color standpoint, it was neither the Canon's pallete nor Panasonics, something in between that's "natural" in the vain of Panasonic's color rendering though not nearly as robust as the Panasonic. Basically, it seemed like a Fuji to Panasonics Kodak, every bit as valid an imaging emulsion/chipset. You could certainly make a film with this camera, though I'd think the mini-35 is ESSENTIAL TO THAT!
*****Quick note, every piece of footage mentioned above was shot with the CineLike Function on. And just about everything projected was projected on both film and video EXCEPT the Mini35 demo which I REALLY wanted to see projected digitally :(*****
There was one last piece Andrew showed that had the JVC side by side with the $30,000 Standard Def Panasonic SDX900. The JVC held it's own against the $30,000 dollar cream of the standard def crop. It was Mr. Young's opinion that had his detail setting been figured out the JVC may have edged ahead (I preferred the soft quality of the SDX900 here).
That said, the best thing about this was it showed that perhaps resolution isn't as big a notion in film transfer as we like to think. Bob Diaz over on DVXUser put the SDX900's resolution at about 408 lines; even if the HVX comes in at 540 (which I don't beleieve at all), that's more than adequate and sedcondary to other aspects of the imaging as was suggested here.
Sucks that I'm leaving LA in 24 hours for a year road trip around the country. As a starving director type guy, I could get used to these screenings. The food was delicious :)
________________________________________
As an aside, what follows are the words of a guy who's only film experience has been short films originated on super 16mm film. I'm not yet versed enough to speak in knees and coring so bear with me:
Off top I agree with Mike that the footage was not as impressive as I'd expected. For starters, the main goal of the cinematographer, documentarian Andrew Young (great sense of humour this guy), ran somewhat counter to what my personal aspirations were in viewing footage to evaluate the camera. Coupled with the fact that he pretty much jerry-rigged his own wide-angle lens adapter on one of the first cameras off the lineup, you get the idea.
Shooting mostly with an extremely wide 35mm lense, the Safari footage looked a bit "dull" with colors that I'd best describe as "only going so far", desaturated greens and browns and yellows that lent a very flat, neutral image. Again, this was not a problem for Andrew Young as it was his intent and as such I'd have to say he accomplished what he was after (Mike had a great suggestion here about boosting the chroma on image acquisition in the field and desaturating in post, the reverse of Mr. Young's method here). Andrew also shot his footage at 30p because there was no way to edit 24p HDV footage when he went out. He then forced the footage to 23.98 after he'd made all his edits, lending an appealing 1/4 second motion decrease that was fine for a non-dialogue piece. Because he shot in some ridiculously wild conditions, Mr. Young rode the zebras for exposure so there were places in the print where clipping could be seen where image was just gobbelled to white. Overall, there was still a very video look to the HDV transferred to film Safari imagery. Some of this couold be attributed to a default sharpening function on the camera Mr. Young said he'd advise anyone to turn off in the future.
As Mike mentioned, the closeups Andrew shot with a few diopters were EXQUISITE in the blow-up. Matter of fact, just about all of the long lense photography here, faces etc., faired much better, as is to be expected with video acquisition. Also, the wide angle stuff where most of the imagery was kept to the foreground faired better than "expanse" shots as well, variances in depth seemed to aide the image just as greatly as focal lenght.
THE REAL TREAT was Charles Papert of HDVinfo.net stopping by with a film transfer of his Mini35 tests with the JVC! Actually, let me rephrase that, Andrew Young, the filmmaker from above, is a member of the DuArt family (his grandpa founded the place) and so before coming out he took the Mini35 tests we've all seen on the net, downloaded the raw files and commenced a filmout on his own whim. This was the first time Papert had seen the piece on film. How awesome a guy is Andrew Young folks?
Now THIS STUFF looked GREAT! The image from the net of the woman standing before the bed of flowers was fine, and an OTS scene of a couple in conversation was even better, the grain of the print combining with the focus falloff behind to really sell the image. Most impressive however was quick shot of the camera sat in a patch of lawn on a 100mm lense. The AC racks from fore to back to foreground etc. and the behavior of the image was so purely filmic I nearly wet my pants. It was the best color imaging of the camera and the most cinematic framing of the evening, basically a glamour shot that showed what this thing can do albeit under the forgiving circumstances of perfect light, shooting the warm tones of fresh chlorophyl and on the lovely glass of a 100mm prime lense (and all color corrected by Andrew Young at DuArt). There was a night exterior immediately following this that was somewhat underwhelming though, again, Charles Papert had no intention of transferring these things and for the night shot would definitely have done things differently (imho).
The best thing about the Mini35 stuff was that it gave the best example of THIS camera's approximation of a "film look." From a motion standpoint, 24 p is 24p and the JVC nailed that portion of the exam. From a color standpoint, it was neither the Canon's pallete nor Panasonics, something in between that's "natural" in the vain of Panasonic's color rendering though not nearly as robust as the Panasonic. Basically, it seemed like a Fuji to Panasonics Kodak, every bit as valid an imaging emulsion/chipset. You could certainly make a film with this camera, though I'd think the mini-35 is ESSENTIAL TO THAT!
*****Quick note, every piece of footage mentioned above was shot with the CineLike Function on. And just about everything projected was projected on both film and video EXCEPT the Mini35 demo which I REALLY wanted to see projected digitally :(*****
There was one last piece Andrew showed that had the JVC side by side with the $30,000 Standard Def Panasonic SDX900. The JVC held it's own against the $30,000 dollar cream of the standard def crop. It was Mr. Young's opinion that had his detail setting been figured out the JVC may have edged ahead (I preferred the soft quality of the SDX900 here).
That said, the best thing about this was it showed that perhaps resolution isn't as big a notion in film transfer as we like to think. Bob Diaz over on DVXUser put the SDX900's resolution at about 408 lines; even if the HVX comes in at 540 (which I don't beleieve at all), that's more than adequate and sedcondary to other aspects of the imaging as was suggested here.
Sucks that I'm leaving LA in 24 hours for a year road trip around the country. As a starving director type guy, I could get used to these screenings. The food was delicious :)