www.katiemalia.com/justinhopkins_undressyoudown.mov

Artist: Justin Hopkins
Song: "Undress U Down"
Director: Joel Knoernschild
Executive Producer: Dave Brackenhoff
Director of Photography: Taylor Wigton
Prod Company: Collective Ent
Featuring Ashley Hartman

Original Capture: HD100/720p/24 HDV, stock fujinon lens, captured to MiniDV tape on camera. Nikon SLR lens (18/24/35/50/85mm)
Online Compression: h.264
--------------------------------------------

Hey there. I have spent ALOT of time late '05 and much of '06 with the HD100 and the M2 together and have a few projects (and ten thousand tests) under my belt and at this point, I feel pretty comfortable under just about any kind of shooting situation. The most exciting part is now being able to go with an SLR as wide as 18mm. It took almost a full year (since last november) to figure out how to get edge to edge image sharpness (not just GG sharpness) with primes below 50mm. It's all relative of course and it has always be possible to get away with shooting a wide lens, but I was never fully satisfied until october of this year. It's another story altogether if you opt for SD or the HVX simply because fewer pixels means fewer cops on the beat. So the JVC (and moreso with the Canon HD cams) you try stealing a peice of bubble gum and your off to prison. More pixels means that everything will be exposed and so I figured at the onset that if I was going to take on the challenge of shooting 1/3inch HD for narrative and attempt to get a 35mm film feel, then PURE 1280x720 scanning progessively 24 times per second, then the JVC was Mt Everest. The V1U was not here last year, and the Canon is 1440x1080 at 23.98 but it's interpolated progressive from the interlaced feilds, so the JVC HD100 was going to make things challenging but at the end of the day, far more rewarding. Bottom line was could I could combine the 4 main elements (camera, relay lens, cine adapter, 35mm lenses) that would create a solid, stable, reliable real world device, and if so, I would have a lethal weapon in my hands.

At present time, the productions are all wrapped and the directors/clients are happy. It appears as though I will start writing the Showreel Magazine article (novel) next month, but the final verdict has still not come in. The music video and 25min short film have only seen one edit pass and one color grade session. Upon completion of edit/grading (the 25min short has been sent to festivals this week on DVD) but if accepted in, and as per the music label requirements, we have to figure out the most effective way to uprez to 1080p from the exported files from Adobe PP2 and FCP 512 and master to HDCAM tape at 1080/23.98PsF. ANY SUGGESTIONS ARE WELCOME, we have some ideas...... Then there are the DigiBeta tapes, BetaSP, DVD's, and various web compression setups as well.

So looking at the tiny QT file is letting me off the hook big time. The true test comes when I find a way to get YOU guys, the every day person, network people, etc, to view the final image at most in a theatrical projection setting, and at the very least, to look and examine this stuff on HD monitors that are big enough that you don't feel duped. Suggestions are welcome here as well. I was thinking about getting native 1280x720 files that are at least 10 seconds in length for download so that you can make your own assessment at home? Native "frame grabs" are really not enough as you need to see the image in motion, right? When this happens in the next two months, either the game is over or not. If the image is something people think is good, then I need to not only write the article, but do some sort of DVD tutorial on EXACTLY what I have learned here. I can't wait to show the short film because that was the final project that wrapped last month and I had taken all my mistakes and learned from them. The shoot was super smooth and IMOP, it looks decent.

Something tells me that there will be a pretty big surge of small HD with 35mm adapters going out to festivals and the like moving forward, but the question remains would people go to a seminar or buy a reasonably priced DVD if it meant they walked away with the blueprint?

Either way, keep me posted on any thoughts, criticisms, suggestions, and I will do the same by way of larger sized files to critique, possible projected screenings, whatever. What I DO know is that the web is not a real location for anyone knowing the ACTUAL story as the compression is too heavy. And writing a Showreel peice is fine but those are just words. (netflix has it figured out i suppose) Nothing can replace seeing things in the correct fashion, so with that, take the h264 music video link with a grain of salt '-0

Thanks for taking the time to read this-happy holidays to all. Taylor

Hey, you've got a great look going on there. I've gotta run so I can't be too detailed, but the one thing I noticed is something that's in just about every music video, and that is where the musicians in the video (most noticeably the drummer) sometimes aren't synced with the soundtrack. It's something most people don't notice, just drummers like me. But other than that it looks great, I'm so glad someone made a video I can listen to instead of a hip-hop video where I have to turn off the sound. =D

Hi Taylor,

Beautiful picture ! It's one of the best M2 videos I've seen. Could you please give us some info about your lighting setup ? Which grading software ? You're right about compressed things on the web but let's face it : it's the most convenient way for people to discover movies... MP3's aren't of good quality either...

I would love to watch this video in 720P, I'm sure Chris could host this file...

Cheers,

Kristin

Could you please give us some info about your lighting setup ? Which grading software ?


Hi Kristin- I have a couple minutes now, but will elaborate more in a couple days. I appreciate your kind words.

I rated the camera at 160ASA. Shooting stop on Nikons was T2.8 so the gaffer was doing alot of spot metering to make sure that we were clipping on the windows when needed. There was alot of, Day for Day, evening for day, Night for Day in the video, so the Grip Package required 1.2K HMI's as our primary force of light. We used a variety of 4 bank kino flo's all with daylight tubes to bring up ambient light levels so we could manage at least a 2.8 and turn off tubes accordingly. We had a few Arri 650 fresnels with anywhere from .5-1.5 CTB in front of them, as to match our HMI's, Kinos, and daylight that leaked in, depending on the time of day. The HMI's and Kino's all had 1/8th CTO that could be layered if needed, as well as some CTB and 216 always on standby. There were 12' frames with silk and black that were built to either diffuse or eliminate the sun altogether.

We had an Astro monitor that our DIT used to generate a LUT that would help the director see what the final look would be like, as we shot the video clean and flat (widest dynamic range possible) as the digital post realm is powerful indeed. The director was looking for a Sky Captain feel for the female in her bedroom. But the white are not clipped on her skin. The white clip was set to 108 and the zebras were at 100% so interestingly, all of her skin tone was retained when we examined in post.

(Grading is only one pass so far, so the final look is not set) FCP 5.1.2 on a macbook intel has been the primary tool for cutting and grading thus far for THIS project. The intel macbook is ridiculously fast so applying a look and watching it in native 720pHDV was odd. I have friend who have far more sophisticated methods of grading/color correcting, and they will likely do their own pass, but for the first round, I wanted to establish the general look that we had talked about early on in pre-production. So for the most part, I used the 3 way Color Corrector and RGB controls in FCP 512. FCP waveform and color correction slider was always up.

Gotta run for now, but if you step through the QT file online, and look at the single shot of the dad yelling at the girl, the first frame did not get rendered, so you can see what the "clean" image generally looks like. Stepping to the next frame, the look is applied. Hope I've answered some of you questions Kristen..... Thanks for taking the time. Taylor

Taylor, great stuff. I love the lighting. The video is top notched and I bet it looks spectacular in 720p. You probably liked that nice Taylor guitar shown :-)

I am definitely very interested in learning more about your tests. I know a lot of us have been anxiously awaiting for the results the past few months. I too am beginning to think about getting a 35mm device for the HD100 and would like learn how you were able to maximize the quality.

You're a great DP. Look forward to your article and hopefully your DVD.

Thanks Taylor for your kindness ! Do you think it's difficult to shoot at T2.8 ? Usually cine lenses are a little more closed to avoid follow focus problems, if light allows. But as the M2 eats a lot of light... Can't wait to see the shortfilm !

Kristin

hey Taylor

Great work! the whole clip really looks terrific, i specially like the close-ups of the singer, beautifull eye-light, plus the moment when the girl looks out of the window of her room, in the end.

I have an M2 and used it for the last 2 years with a Sony-PD150 and Nikon lenses. i will get a HD 200e theese days and im very interested in your M2 setup. did you use the fujinon lens with the M2 Achromat?

Thomas

Do you think it's difficult to shoot at T2.8 ? .... But as the M2 eats a lot of light... Kristin

Definately difficult to shoot at a T/f2.8!!! This is what makes the whole concept of using these adapter so much more intensive then I think people realize because in an age of the dvx100 1/3rdinch CCD with essentially infintite DOF, suddenly using a 35mm adapter/lens means that your crew must grow in size. No longer can you be the director, DP, gaffer, sound guy, etc etc. And this is exactly what I think is great about the whole concept of 35mm lens adapters for indie and low budget films, as well as film schools, is that it is exactly like shooting 35mm film (sort of) and in that respect, a whole lot of collaboration and extreme diligence is required to pull off a reasonable looking project. So it opens up a whole new world of choices where one now has the option to choose a more run and gun style of shooting in a docco and improvisational way (1/3rdinch CCD), or perhaps a more dramatic style of storytelling (1/3rdinch CCD + 35mm lens adapters).

I think that given the direction that big budget features are moving toward is actually identical to where its been for years. So if the modern day theatrical film was shot on film or digital, my guess is that the majority of those films will be using a 35mm film gate or S35mm film sized electronic sensor. (2/3inch CCD's have more DOF, but a digiprime wide open at T1.6 = T2.8/4 split with lenses that are of equivalent feild of view). The Genesis and Viper are aleady making a very fast entrance onto large budget shoots, as most of you already know... Lars Von Trier is the exception to the rule I would think. So imop, using the 35mm adapters along with the additional crew and effort that is required is the best preparation for your future shooting larger budget projects.

As far as the M2 eating up alot of light: It's actually not really a factor of the adapter "eating up" light. It's more an issue that you really have to stop down your relay lens at least two stops to avoid lateral chromatic abberation. And it's great if you have a Nikon that opens up to f1.6, but the problem there is two fold. The lens portholes all the way open like that, as it is really designed to shoot at f4, and next, who can pull focus at that stop? A computer maybe. So your light loss with the M2 is a condition of the lenses that you are using which you really HAVE to stop down in order to get yourself in a realistic shooting environment. Interestingly, shooting at 160ASA at 24fps did not alter my lighting requirements nearly as I had thought it would. It's not 500ASA, but then again, you have to rob peter to pay paul sometimes, and so it goes if you want to use a 35mm adapter. Not that big of a deal from a lighting standpoint.

And yes, I do use the stock fujinon lens, and would do so if I was using the HD200/250 as well. I have tested relay lenses with the M2 and to date have not been all that please with the results. Not to say it's not possible, but I definately have yet to been proven otherwise. Hope I hit the questions..... and wow, I really appreciate the kind words from some of you that have posted. It really means alot and I sincerely take it to heart. Best, Taylor

Nice work and congratulations on the completion of the project.
Music videos showing the band playing the song is a tough gig, your photography and production design definitively took it up a notch.
Cheers,
Jon

Wow, thanks Taylor for all these details ! I really think you should build up a web page with your experience. Having a professional look over this new way of working (with 35mm adapters) is a real treasure and your explainations are very clear (I still have your post on CMLPro re:M2). I would definately buy a DVD tutorial (you can think about a video downloadable too, with a fee - more practical, and less investment for you IMO). Another thing which would be great on this DVD : lighting diagrams based on some of sets with their corresponding results (pictures).
Another idea : a part regarding color correction.

Maybe I'm dreaming, probably you don't have all this time as it's a lot of work, but their is certainly a need for this kind of tutorial/book/dvd ! It doesn't need to be specific to a adaptator's brand/software.

Thanks again for sharing your experience !

It's more an issue that you really have to stop down your relay lens at least two stops to avoid lateral chromatic abberation.

I've seen CA when the Fujinon is at 1.4 and the Zoom is 40 or higher. Since I set my zoom to about 21mm with the M2 adapter I haven't observed CA even at 1.4.

Though I would agree with your overall approach - if you've got the light to put the Fuji at F4 you'll get to its sweet spot. I have rigged up my system differently than they show at RedRock. I'm still testing - but the looks are pretty good. Which achromat are you using? Let me know if you come up with "the blueprint" and what you're selling it for.

Good job on the video. Looking forward to seeing your short.

It really looks impressive Taylor and thanks for the info. I'm going to play the devi'ls advocate here though :-) if I may criticize... there is just one thing that bothers me (well there may be a couple) and that is the light on a boom behind the singer and the bass player (giving you a nice back light) that is clearly visible and then NOT in the next shot (wider) I think especially with the editing it is a glaring lighting continuity problem. I could see it moved out of frame and still giving you a nice back light ... BUT! I know how it goes...

cheers

miklos

I would definitely buy the dvd. That would help us less experienced guys out so much. Thanks for all the great info with your post. I wish more people would go into that kind of detail. For someone self teaching their way through the HD world like myself, posts like yours are a god-send.

The video looks great! and you were lucky enough to work with a talented band. Can't wait to see your other projects.

Miklos- excellent eye! No one has noticed the "magically appearing light" even on HD displays. Not sure yet if we are going to paint in a light for the wide, or paint out the arm that booms across the top of the frame. On the day, we had some technical & talent issues that threw off the 1 day shoot and by the time we were shooting the wide of the band, we had to make a choice of either not shooting anything, or dealing with what we had and capturing SOMETHING to tape. So live and learn, but yup, I've had nightmares since we wrapped the shoot about losing the entire video because we didn't have time to shoot the band the way we wanted. At the end of the day, the QT online as well as what people have seen in HD of this first pass edit/cc, I feel like we will be ok. Again, good eye.

I think Joel mentioned something about shooting wide open on the fujinon stock lens... I :think: Joel you thought I was referring to Chromatic Abberation. I did not even know what "Lateral Chromatic Abberation" was until we were shooting the first JVC/M2 project. (A series of Lucky Brand Jeans Promos/spots of which one is online www.447productions.com). So shooting talent against a white cyc wide open on the fujinon with the M2 and a 50mm Nikon at f4 (and this occurs without the M2 as well) we realized that the top half of the frame was magenta and the bottom half was green (or vice versa, not sure). Long story short, we tested the JVC all the way up to the F950 with Digiprimes, and we found that the effect mentioned occurs wide open on every 3 CCD image cameras with the lens wide open. (Google it I suppose if you want to know more about Lateral CA-a bit complex) The difference with the HD100 is that JVC did not include a "White Shading" function which allows the DIT to eliminate this green/magenta effect, and the other cameras in the more expensive price range ALL have a "White Shading" function. I just got a phone call tonight and the HD200/250 have "White Shading" built into the cameras, so this strange issue should eventually be a thing of the past moving forward as people will likely demand the sub $5k HD cameras to include White Shading. Maybe not...

On a different note, I just did a blind test to see if I could send out a 720p24HDV FCP 512 timeline back out to the camera, and using print to tape, it worked! I re-imported what I laid out to tape and FCP 512 recognized the content as 1280x720, 23.98fps, square pixels. All audio was correct and exact as well. I knew 720p30 could do this but was not aware of 720p24 from the JVC. This is hugely significant b/c I have tested the Miranda HD-Bridge DEC+ with the HD100 at 24pHDV sending out from HD100's firewire port, and it DOES uprezz signal to 1080PsF 24 via HD SDI w/ Audio and Timecode from the Miranda into an HDCAM SR deck. Exactly what I've been trying to do without using 3rd party hardware for a long time! But maybe this has been a known fact for some time time now???
>>>>Miranda HD Bridge>>> www.miranda.com/product.php?i=336&l=1

If you do go to 447productions.com, everything in that linked space was shot with JVC, but only the Lucky Brand Jeans uses M2. I have different demos with different HD/HDV cameras and different frame rates, projects, and split screen of color corrected footage, but am trying to figure out a way to display what myself and others have worked on. As it pertains to post and color grading HDV, we have been tossing around the idea of a DVD with tutorials and proof showing what this format can/can not withstand. The stock footage demo on the 447 link was HD100 NAB demo, and is entirely untouched by any computer, but we have torn it up and have been chomping at the bit to get the the native split screen files out in the public to help dispell some rumor and give people some level of confidence in the HDV format, or perhaps even more then they already have. JVC has asked me to sell people DVD's with native files on them of footage I shot for them but this is a question of demand and a distribution channel.

If myself and some directors, clients, editors and talent gave authorization, what would be a price people would pay for a tutorial, and is it just 35mm adapters and JVC or is it HDV and some of the grading that is possible? Some of the post paths? Kristen mentioned lighting diagrams, which sounds interesting. DVinfo would get a percentage via a DVinfo online store. FYI: The "Narrative" demo was shot with the JVC GY5000 SD camera a few years ago for a three feature gig. Three 1/2"CCD's, Canon Lens. FWIW, Taylor

Hey Taylor,

Great look you got there. I particularly like the lighting. Very well done. On that small acreen is doesn’t looks any different from 35mm originated material. I would love to see some 720p footage. It must look awesome.
I think a DVD tutorial is a great idea. With all you intend to cover, 35mm adapters, HD100 DIT, color grading and HDV, I think you could easily sell it for as much as a good Avid DVD tutorial.


We had an Astro monitor that our DIT used to generate a LUT that would help the director see what the final look would be like, as we shot the video clean and flat (widest dynamic range possible) as the digital post realm is powerful indeed.


Do you really feel that’s the best way (the so called “digital negative” that most F900 DPs use) for the HD100 instead of getting the look in camera, since you are working in 4:2:0 and post image manipulation is risky?


And yes, I do use the stock fujinon lens, and would do so if I was using the HD200/250 as well. I have tested relay lenses with the M2 and to date have not been all that please with the results. Not to say it's not possible, but I definately have yet to been proven otherwise.

What relay lenses have you used? Have you used the P+S one with the M2?

Hello to all- I'm trying to upload a .mov 720p file via the attachments options, which has a split screen of a normally captured 24p file, alongside the exact same image with what I would consider to be my "normal" grading or color adjustments. Someone chime in and let me know what the file size max is on DVinfo (Chris, Tim, etc). No luck so far.

Michael- sorry for the delay in responding.... I will give my thoughts on the subject you posed, but ultimately, I want to let people decide some of those things on their own using native files side by side or split screen to analyze the content. In general, 4:2:0 has beat out all my expectations and has led me to do just that, which is aquiring the most information, the flattest image possible as the results in post have been alarmingly good. HDCAM recorded to tape is 3:1:1 but now we're just getting into the numbers game '-) I am also a firm beleiver in the concept that being on set has far too many variables and the viewing conditions are less then ideal, as well as the pace of a set, then add in all the uncertainly of "exactly" what the director want's as his final look, and so at the end of the day, I try to get the cleanest image recorded to tape/disk/drive so that when the dust settles and the frame of mind two weeks later has altered, the director has the most image possible to work with.

More thoughts later, and some content as well. I think the DVD will happen sooner rather then later. Trying to get all my ducks in a row and then move ahead. Alot of cleareances to be had, but plenty of cleared content to use from all the different cameras so this should be interesting! best, tw

Hello to all- I'm trying to upload a .mov 720p file via the attachments options, which has a split screen of a normally captured 24p file, alongside the exact same image with what I would consider to be my "normal" grading or color adjustments. Someone chime in and let me know what the file size max is on DVinfo (Chris, Tim, etc). No luck so far.
Hi Taylor,

I'll send you an email.

Tim

Taylor - Awesome Video! This is one of the videos we should point to when people bring up those HVX vs. Canon vs. JVC debates. It looks great!

(despite the name of this thread, the M2 was not used here in the below QT)

http://www.447productions.com/splitscreen.mov

HD100, stock fujinon lens, NO ND grads or pola here, 720p24 HDV, detail -3, Cinegamma off, black normal, white clip 108%. 1/48 shutter. Long end of the fujinon (70-80mm) and iris somewhere around f/T8. Image on the left is straight off the tape with ZERO grading applied. 3 way Color Corrector and RGB Balance used on the left side.

Let me know if the Qt opens properly. Thanks-

****please note: the link to this .mov is 27mb, and should open at half size when download is complete. if you click the lower right corner tab do a "save as" QT movie to your desktop, you will be able to play the file in it's "actual size" which in this case is 1280x720. Codec used here was HDV 720p24 using FCP 512.

A couple months ago, a buddy of mine wanted to take some of the HD100 demo footage I had shot for JVC last spring and see if long GOP HDV was strong enough to endure ANY post production manipulation. We ultimately wanted to find out if HDV was a one trick pony. Was it as flimsy in post as everyone was suggesting? Did we really need to bake the "look" in camera? Is HDV's 4:2:0 long GOP Mpeg2 image just a chicken running around with it's head cut off? A little mouse on the praire? Or on the other hand, is this format just completely untested? Whatever the verdict, I caution you in making any steadfast conclusions be them good or bad based on the QT links here, as they are small and compressed, and there is not enough information included as to what was done to the material or if it was pushed too hard, not hard enough, etc. What do the native files look like..... on and on.

The first link is the graded footage and the second link contains several clips which are identical but "ungraded." You may want to put them side by side to give a better frame of reference.

(graded HDV) http://www.447productions.com/rwedickCC.mov ***also note that this file is 27mb and a blank white screen with a Q on the page will appear until the dowload is complete. this file was encoded h264 640x360 at 23.98****

(ungraded HDV) http://447productions.com/stock.html

A couple months ago, a buddy of mine wanted to take some of the HD100 demo footage I had shot for JVC last spring and see if long GOP HDV was strong enough to endure ANY post production manipulation.
Hi Taylor.

HDV is not different from other temporally-compressed codecs. It's a good system for encoding and decoding but should be avoided for editing professional-grade material.

Temporal compression generates intermediate frames that are deltas from a given keyframe. This means that any NLE needs to continuosly backtrack and recalculate frames every time you cut in the middle of a GOP, something that happens very often.

When outputting your footage to bring it inside a compositing program, for example when going from FCP to AfterEffects, if you edit in HDV and output in HDV you end up with recompression. At first you might think that because you use the same codec there should be no recompression. That is true for codecs that don't use temporal compression. DV is such a case. When using GOP-based codecs the only way of recreating a video stream from an edited sequence is to recreate new GOPs and this means recompression with possible loss of definition.

For this reason I usually suggest to rough cut in HDV if that is your source format but then, as soon as possible, convert your footage to uncompressed and do all the color correction/compositing in that format.

Export times are also affected dramatically. Exporting from FCP using AIC takes a fraction of the time required for doing the same in HDV. A confirmation of the need to transcode the footage when using HDV.

Taylor,

What did you use to pull focus on the Nikons? Did you just use the barrel on the lens manually or used some follow-focus system? Thanks,

What did you use to pull focus on the Nikons? Did you just use the barrel on the lens manually or used some follow-focus system?

Redrock Micro loaned me thier new follow focus setup, which worked quite well. You can learn more about it on their website, but they came up with a very smart method of attaching gears to ANY kind or size lens. A nice whip to top it off.

I removed the servo zoom/iris control on the fujinon and attached one of thier lens gears to the Fujinon (no M2) and so the Redrock follow focus system does double duty. Works excellent shooting with or without the M2.

HDV is not different from other temporally-compressed codecs. It's a good system for encoding and decoding but should be avoided for editing professional-grade material.......

Paolo- Some good fact based information. I think that there is no question that MPEG-2 compression and long GOP will be replaced by superior compression methods. JPEG200 and AVC are just around the bend. HDV is without a doubt a format that IMOP was designed to launch HD and get it into the hands of everyone in a cheap and efficient manner. I think that even the HDV consortium did not anticipate the kind of positive reaction that emerged as people got hold of HD.

To reiterate: I think that Paolo's post was sharp. However, in the case of motion pictures, the brain requires the eye as a conduit for which to make the final descision even in the face of FACT. Cinematography is not mathamatics in that math has absolute answers. I would love to hear if anyone looked at the split screen on a HD monitor and had any thoughts be them good or bad.

My thought on MPEG2 long GOP compression is that if you pull a frame grab and magnify it by 800% in Photoshop, you are certain to lose sight of what the reality on the ground is. If we constantly read about the pitfalls of one format from a scientific standpoint only, the POTENTIAL exists that people will walk around with THAT information and it will become true for them. And yes, if you step through each frame of HDV, the I-frame and it's surrounding frames are plain as day. There is no denying that there is one great frame and others not so good, but what happens when you play the clip at 24fps. Our eyes don't seem to have a good foothold on the inferior frames in the sequence. Couple that with the inherent nature of motion blur and things don't look all that bad.

I assume many of you have read the article by Walter Graff where he laid out the facts and then shot the test and let us SEE the results. 4:2:2 and 4:2:0, the HD100 and HVX200. http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm

So at the end of the day, I think the best combination is scientific based facts coupled with visual content put in a proper context so that people can make a well rounded conclusion.

Taylor.
I agree in principle with you. Our eye is the best judge of the final result. The point of my post though was that we have to be careful when we make assumptions. A lot of people assume that, if you use the same codec for input and output you don't get affected by transcoding. When using HDV in your NLE you do transcode your footage, there is no way out. Transcoding is like a generation loss. Do it enough times and yes you will see it. HDV is fine for now, I got amazing images from MPEG-based codecs both with the HD100 and with the Sony F-350. Where we have to be careful is in carrying those images along the post-process. That is where the facts allow you to be better prepared and to avoid damaging that image that you so carefully crafted in the camera.

I'm sure you guys have seen the generational loss tests advertised by Cineform. They claim little to no losses, with tests to support their claims. While those of us who work in the real world beleive such claims may be a bit guilded, it comes very close to truth. Used to be a cadre of people, back in the heyday of DV, who transcoded their raw DV to uncompressed, like HuffyUV, did all their editting in HuffyUV, then transcoded out to their final format. Basically two detrimental transcodes and numerous intermediate transcodes to a lossless format. I beleive that as long as the internediate processing happens in 10 bit space, or better, it's truly lossless to work in a lossless format. Of course, there's probably a little dithering loss going back out to 8 bit, but, it's probably small.

I have tested the Miranda HD-Bridge DEC+ with the HD100 at 24pHDV sending out from HD100's firewire port, and it DOES uprezz signal to 1080PsF 24 via HD SDI w/ Audio and Timecode from the Miranda into an HDCAM SR deck. Exactly what I've been trying to do without using 3rd party hardware for a long time! But maybe this has been a known fact for some time time now???

I haven't seen anyone talking about this, either, but its exactly what we've been doing. We did a number of tests with Matchframe over in Burbank this summer (they have a Miranda), and the results look great.

One thing that we didn't have time to test that I'm interested in is seeing the difference between hardware and software transcodes. When shooting DV, I'm used to color correcting in DV at home so I can look at it on a monitor through the deck, and then destroying the render files and re-rendering in 10-bit uncompressed for layback to DigiBeta. I assume (careful, there) that I'd be doing the same thing with HDV - namely, editing natively, color correcting through the deck on a monitor in HDV, then wiping the render files (or not even rendering) and then taking the sequence to HDCAM for upconversion along with rendering (I do take some time to spot check each cut to make sure that I like the color correction in uncompressed as well as I liked it in DV).

However, the other idea I've had after seeing the Miranda results is to lay back the HDV sequence to tape, and take the tape in to do a hardware transcode using the Miranda. From there, do a tape to tape color correction at a post house. The difference in price shouldn't be that large - a Miranda session instead of a Final Cut one, probably only with the addition expenses of audio layback and the tape to tape (which in theory would be better anyway, with a professional colorist).

Will there be a difference in concatination? Has anyone tested this?

However, the other idea I've had after seeing the Miranda results is to lay back the HDV sequence to tape, and take the tape in to do a hardware transcode using the Miranda......Will there be a difference in concatination? Has anyone tested this?

EMAIL TO SHOWREEL EDITOR, RE: HDV Output to Existing Industry Standards, and examing the denegration from transcoding HDV using NLE.
---------------------------------------
Steve,

- since both clients, broadcast, and film festivals are seeming to require
these formats, betaSP, Digibeta, HDCAM, we are now at the point of taking
the HDV format and converting it to ALL of these formats so that we can
prove (or disprove) that aquiring on HDV is possible, and delivering on
the more commonly used industry formats is a step that is viable both
technically and financially. (i don't actually know the answer to this
because we have not DONE this yet, but this is what we will discover)

- attached is the HDCAM deck that we need to record to, and in taking to
mr wedick yesterday, the HDCAM SR deck will NOT work in making HDCAM
recordings. they have different internal motors. band pro has HDCAM SR
decks but does not have HDCAM decks, and randy also indicated that using a
f900 camera head is not an option technically for which to use as a "deck"
to make the HDCAM recordings. (correct me if i am wrong here)

-therefore, we need to figure out an arrangement with a post house to
complete the task at hand. i have secured the miranda dec+ and can pick
that up anytime at a distributor in burbank which has been kindly setup by
miranda, so the company PRECO has told given me open ended (within reason
of course) use one of their miranda hd-bridge dec+ units and both miranda
and preco have given me all the tech support and contact information
should that be needed. i also have a new JVC HD100 to replace the other
HD100 that has some circuit issues. lastly i have a MacBook and FCP 512
which successfully prints to tape a FCP timeline. so we can now make an
HDV recording of the 720p24 projects (music video/short film) using the
HD100 as the VTR. i have read the there is some generation loss when FCP
does the HDV transcoding for output to tape, but this is yet to be seen. i
also read that Cineform can do a lossless HDV transcode, and Liquid, but
that is inuendo at this stage and perhaps something to look into further.


- when me and rodney were doing the tests last year at Level 3 Post in
burbank, i got to know one of the head technical managers there and he
gave me his card and mentioned to keep in touch. since we brought in the
miranda box last year and the different HDV cameras, some of the guys were
super helpful and also very interesting in the outcomes as they realized
that these may be some of the situations they would be working with moving
forward. So Level 3 is a massive post house with millions of dollars
worth of state of the art post equipment, but i think it is worth me
making a call to them and getting in touch with the guy from last year to
see if i can come back in to do the what we were still unable to
accomplish with them last year. i will mention Showreel of course and
that is usually a big part of getting stuff for free. i will also present
to them the other issue of seeing if it is possible to do real time dubbs
of everything. for example, can you guys patch together the HD100,
miranda, HDCAM, Digibeta, and BetaSP simultaneously and make recordings to
all three formats on the fly.

- there are several post houses in LA to choose from of course.
Matchframe is another post house i've heard people talking about as
playing around with some of these new tools, the JVC/Miranda/HDCAM
specifically. So they would be good to speak to. I think the fact that
we are bringing the product owned equipment we have and support of both
JVC and Miranda should help in getting this task accomplished for little
or no money, which the incentive being a constructive article written
where they get free pub. i can also suggest working with them off hours
as rodney and i did last year.

- the music video has a deadline of friday. i have a shoot on friday but
i will make the calls tomorrow or maybe actually go into Level 3/
Matchframe because that always seems to work better.
END EMAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Showreel Article along with a DVD tutorial will attempt to examine the options when aquiring on HDV and what is required to make it viable in various capacities, from web/SDTV/Broadcast/Theatrical/Festival venues. How can 35mm lens adapters be used correctly and do they enhance the value of a particular project that might lend itself to the 35mm look and feel.

J.R in the above post brings up some interesting ideas regarding HDV color correction and uprezzing the native footage and using the offline HDV CC as the guidline for a colorist that can be used after HDV exists in a new format.

The biggest question I have at the moments is how best to aquire and post HDV using which NLE and codec, should the content be exported to another codec and how then can the finished project be delivered in the most lossless, high quality, and reasonable priced way.

I think has become an interesting dialogue/thread and I hope more people (like J.R) who may just lurk feel inclined to share thier thoughts more often. It's extremely useful stuff!

Taylor,

My 2 cents for the HDV post regarding codec : Cineform is a lossy one but is very efficient. Maybe it would be interesting to look at Sheervideo (www.bitjazz.com), a lossless one. It appears to support alpha channels, etc... and to be cross-platform.

Matchframe is another post house i've heard people talking about as
playing around with some of these new tools, the JVC/Miranda/HDCAM
specifically. So they would be good to speak to. I think the fact that
we are bringing the product owned equipment we have and support of both
JVC and Miranda should help in getting this task accomplished for little
or no money, which the incentive being a constructive article written
where they get free pub. i can also suggest working with them off hours
as rodney and i did last year.

We were actually the first project to go through Matchframe with the HD100 - when we brought in the camera to do the transfers, they hadn't even seen one yet. I guess its a small town, in some ways! (unless of course I was the person talking about them in my previous post)

I'd be extremely interested in reading about your results. I actually asked them in August to allow me to go through these same tests with them step by step so that we would know a) the most economical means of posting HDV b) the best means of preserving the image integrity (these two not necessarily being one and the same). Unfortunately, it really wasn't in their economic best interest to do this with me, and so they declined (which is not to say that they aren't a very nice, helpful, and knowledgable staff). I think this was in large part because since we were the first through their doors with the equipment, they wanted to wait and see if this was in fact a format that they were going to need to support. From the sound of things, Taylor, you have a great package to offer them, and hopefully Matchframe or another local house will jump on this so we can get the information out!

Redrock Micro loaned me thier new follow focus setup, which worked quite well. You can learn more about it on their website, but they came up with a very smart method of attaching gears to ANY kind or size lens. A nice whip to top it off.

I removed the servo zoom/iris control on the fujinon and attached one of thier lens gears to the Fujinon (no M2) and so the Redrock follow focus system does double duty. Works excellent shooting with or without the M2.

Thanks Taylor. Very cool and cheaper than the Cavision one I was looking into! I'm now going with a system with the Letus35 HD100 adapter and Nikons with a full complement of a rod system, matte box, follow focus, hand-grips, etc. this rig is going to cost me around $2,200 - around half of the 16mm cine lens JVC adapter- and will allow me to use my existing Nikon lenses with an upright image in camera with the HD100. Plan on shooting a short film in the spring with this rig and a feature later this year. Will post footage when I can.

Letus35

One thing to note about that adapter is it uses a Canon 50mm lens as a relay lens and that shrinks the field of view. So a 50mm Nikon lens out front will have the FOV of a 100mm or so. That gets rid of all vignetting very nicely, but it's a pain if you want wider angles.

One thing to note about that adapter is it uses a Canon 50mm lens as a relay lens and that shrinks the field of view. So a 50mm Nikon lens out front will have the FOV of a 100mm or so. That gets rid of all vignetting very nicely, but it's a pain if you want wider angles.

Yep. It ain't a perfect world. It's a 1.9X magnification, but one can get an 18 or 19mm Nikkor lens on eBay for $200, so if you have a 22 or 28 mm on top of that and then a 50 and so on you will have a range of usable lenses with the equivalence of a set of 35, 40, 55, and so on up... (these are rough numbers).

Canon makes a 10-22mm zoom for EF-S mount cameras. If the adaptor accepts the EF-S mount (slightly different than regualr EF) then you can get all the way back to a 20mm equivalent, which should be plenty for all but the most insane wide-o-philes.

Canon makes a 10-22mm zoom for EF-S mount cameras. If the adaptor accepts the EF-S mount (slightly different than regualr EF) then you can get all the way back to a 20mm equivalent, which should be plenty for all but the most insane wide-o-philes.
For small spaces 20mm is not nearly enough, I shot a bedroom scene with a Fujinon 3.3x17 set probably at 10mm and it was just right. But the problem with using the Canon lenses with the M2 is that their aperture is controlled electronically. The M2 doesn't have an interface for that so there is no practical way to use the Canon lenses wih the HD100. The Nikon alternative is better since you can simply grab the iris ring and set it where you need it.

For the cost and the inconvenience at this point it's just easier to rent a 1/2" or 2/3" camera with a high-end lens like the Fujinon Cinezoom and grab all the shots that require shallow depth of field during a weekend. MHO, as always :).

Paolo, I think we were talking about the Letus35 not using the M2, but in either case you're right since it looks like that lens is only made to work on " the EOS Digital Rebel series or 20D and 30D SLR cameras." (info from B&H) But it would be interesting to try it out since the Letus has a rear iris control as well and if the lens simply stays open wide it could work, though the focus puller will kill you. :-)

Hey Miklos.
OK, I was going by the title of the thread but the issue is the same. Also, wide open might not always be the right option, iris control is needed. As the owner of a few Canon still lenses I would love to be able to use them with the HD100 but the fact is, it's too much trouble. Having to buy several Nikon lenses makes this option (Letus or M2) pretty expensive. At that point, if I need shallow depth of field, I think it would be simpler and cheaper to group the shots together in the schedule, if possible, and shoot them with a 1/2" camera like the Sony F-350 that we used on "El Papel". Given that we verified that it has shallow depth of field, the rental for the camera plus the lens should cost you less, if all s done in a weekend, than the "gizmo" and lenses but, more importantly, will give you a setup that is easier to handle and that works as expected. The good thing about the 1/2" format is that it allows you to use 1/2" and 2/3" lenses with a simple adapter and it gives you the choice of using a very wide array of cine lenses. I'm mentioning here just as a possible alternative, my comments are not meant to say that the M2 or similar deviced don't have a place. I'm just considering from the point of view of convenience and cost in the case where you need to buy a lot of Nikon glass.

Paolo,

I'm going to debate you on this. As far as I know an F350 XDCAM HD will run you about $500/ day and if you want to achieve that shallow depth of field look you'd want to get a set of Digiprimes, Zeiss or Fuji, a set of which will run you about $600+ / day or weekend, so altogether we're talking over a grand. Not to mention that your entire post workflow would be disrupted and would need to be re-evaluated as opposed to the HD100. If we're talking rental, I can go high and rent a mini35 adapter with a full Zeiss Superspeeds for about $650 for a weekend/ $1850 for a week. Having said that, I'm trying to put a usable system together myself I can own since I have a series of projects coming up this year and it's great not to have to rent anything, just grab your gear and go! :-)

Hey Miklos, no problem, debate is how we earn knowledge :)
I don't know how much the Letus device costs but the M2 is, the last time I checked, about $2K. Without lenses. Then I would need to buy a few Nikon lenses so I expect the cost to go up abother grand or more. So we are in the range of $3000/$3500. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
A Fujinon 10x10 E series zoom, the same used by Lucas and Rodriguez, costs you $650/day. You can get the C-series cinezoom that works very nicely, and that costs 1/2 the price, for less than that. You can probably obtain to get a wide-angle ENG lense for a nominal fee at that point. With the Fuji C-series zoom you have a very high quality lens that will work in most situations as a set of primes and costs you probably around $350/day.

Regarding the post workflow I disagree with you. The acquisition of footage with teh F-350 is a snap, if anything it takes less time to do a FW transfer (tested at about 55% of realtime speed) of the footage from the F-350. The DVDs cost about $30 each with about 90 minutes of recording time. So, yes, the costs is not small but it simplifies the work significantly compared to what you need to do to use these devices. If you already have a bunch of Nikon lenses then it's a different story.

The Letus is $900. The rods, follow-focus, etc. what I mentioned above will bring the total up to around $2,200. I do have a nice set of Nikon lenses from a 28mm up to 500mm I'm basically covered, including a 100-500 zoom which should be amazing becoming a 200-1000mm on the HD100. I can't wait to try it out. The only thing I need is a nice wide angle I can use. From what I'm seeing I should be able to pick one up for around $200 used on eBay or Adorama or B&H, etc.

Thanks for the info on the F-350. I think still, if one has the HD100 camera body already it might be more cost effective to get a nice alternative lens rig with cine lenses that will give one the shallow depth of field "film-look", especially if one is to shoot for more than one weekend. The ROI is good.

......if I need shallow depth of field, I think it would be simpler and cheaper to group the shots together in the schedule, if possible, and shoot them with a 1/2" camera like the Sony F-350 that we used on "El Papel"..... Given that we ++verified++ that it has shallow depth of field, the rental for the camera plus the lens should cost you less, if all s done in a weekend, than the "gizmo" and lenses but, more importantly, will give you a setup that is easier to handle and that works as expected...... The good thing about the 1/2" format is that it allows you to use 1/2" and 2/3" lenses with a simple adapter and it gives you the choice of using a very wide array of cine lenses.

I too think the F-350 is a great camera. Excellent post workflow with those next proxies for making offline edits. Overall, the camera is better then I would have expected and I am excited for another shoot with the XDCAM HD. But- you have sorta derailed this particular thread a bit. If the XDCAM has a 2/3" sensor and was the same price as the 350, then there may be some merit to your argument. Maybe. 2/3" CCD's matched with Digiprimes or Fujinons, Canons, wide open at T1.6 will generate a DOF equivalent to T2.8/4 split in 35mm Cinema Cameras, assuming the FOV of both the 2/3" lens and 35mm lens had identical FOV. But even if this was a reality, I do not see the cost of the 2/3" camera being in the same realm as the 1/3" camera. We're talking about apples and oranges here. 1/3" HD with 35mm Lens adapters are something in a class of their own. Sure, the 350 has shallow DOF as you "verified." But lets not go overboard here Paolo: Every time I use 1/3 or 1/2 inch sensors with ANY lens attached (even a 2/3 inch lens using an adapter), and I am trying to generate nice falloff in the background to pull out the subject that I am shooting (shallow DOF) I am ALWAYS forced to not only shoot wide open, but drag the camera away from the subject really far and zoom way in to the end of the barrel, and only do such a thing if I am using an excellent tripod head. Sometimes even the best tripod head is still not something that should be moved with extreme caution as ANY movement is magnified 100 fold.

So no, I'm sorry but the F350 XDCAM is not really an alternative to shooting drama with 1/3inch HD and 35mm Lens adapters (assuming you know what you are doing). This is from a fiscal and practical standpoint.

And I'm a bit unclear about grouping the shallow DOF shots together and renting for a weekend??? Productions are all over the place, and the some last one day, some last a week, months, whatever. Directors want all sorts of things at any given time, and a production in mid-stream is a moving train that has little patience for these groupings of shot changes that you mentioned. It's all about moving fast and getting into a rhythm. So I am totally baffled about your statement there.

In any event, the point of this thread was how best to use 1/3inch HD with lens adapters and 35mm lenses, and then how best to deal with the content in production and post, and finally, how best to output the final project to a UNIVERSAL standard such as HDCAM, DIGIBETA, BETASP, etc for clients, broadcast, and film festival delivery. There are alot of people on this list who are interested in this (I think) so lets try to keep the post on THIS THREAD relevant to the thread itself.

I will post a couple emails that have been written in the past few days as they are pretty interesting and will hopefully get this thread back up on it's feet.

All the Best, Taylor

I will post a couple emails that have been written in the past few days as they are pretty interesting and will hopefully get this thread back up on it's feet.Sorry, at DV Info Net we have a policy against posting private emails for public display. Thanks in advance for understanding,

Sorry, at DV Info Net we have a policy against posting private emails for public display. Thanks in advance for understanding,

10-4, no problem Chris.

http://www.collectiveent.com/UUDOWN_webQt.mov

Level 3 post has the beta version of the firmware that will allow for the Miranda HD Bridge Dec+ to uprezz to 1080PsF 24 HDCAM from the conformed 720p mpeg stream. Without this firmware upgrade, the GOP structure will create hiccups in for the Miranda and you will drive yourself crazy trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I will post the firmware version number asap, because it's imperative if you are going to use the HD Bridge.

HD100 content looks great at 1920x1080..... yikes!

Exported from FCP using QT movie, make move self-contained. RT 10 seconds.

http://www.447productions.com/720p24HDV.mov

http://447productions.com/AIC.mov

This is the first NATIVE file that I have put online of the HD100/M2, and it's the first 10 seconds of the music video. 40mb total. I can also upload the ungraded file as well but in general, I want people to come to their own conclusions regarding the quality of the setup as seen in it's native size, framerate, Codec, etc. Otherwise, everything looks pretty good or pretty bad when you apply compression for the web or show things small.

No sharpening tools have been used. The only tools in FCP were the 3 way Color Corrector and the waveform to bring the whites that were btw 100-110% back down just a few notches to just below 100% in some cases in this clip. I was surprised at what I could recover in the whites, and happy with the look of the grade overall. The image did not seem to "fall apart" as we had anticipated b/c we did not export to another codec.

As far as I can see, there are no lens abberations or other odd things that I am aware of. I used this clip because the focus does not rack and it allows you too look all around the edges of the frame for edge to edge sharpness. The suitcases and skirt have nice edges to help see if the sharpness is acceptable.

http://www.447productions.com/master_50mm.mov

10 seconds, 1280x720, 23.98
codec: AIC

50mm Nikon. No CC in post. Cir Pol, .6 ND Grad on camera.

Thanks Taylor, the problem is that Windows users aren't able to read the AIC codec within Quicktime (it's a Mac Os specific one)... Wouldn't be possible to post the footage as m2t, or something more standard please ?

Thanks,

Kristin

hey kristen- a full res h264 looked not so good. i think i need to fiddle and find the right bit rate perhaps. for now, here you go. reasonable sized h264 qt, 19mb, rt 1min

http://447productions.com/50mm_f4.mov

same setup, general idea of showing this clip is that it's not all about SHALLOW DOF and you can shoot for the story rather then for the neat device you have. it's great to use selective focus when needed and not to draw attention to itself.... i think..... '-0

Thanks Taylor ! This clip is really great, you're totally right about dof ! I think it's a common mistake to shoot everything wide open...

Kristin

no cc, no adapters, no on camera filters, no cinegamma. you can definately shoot some nice stuff with or without adapters so what comes in the box is fine. this demo could USE some grading, but thats another day i guess. and h264 is absolutely amazing! download MpegStreamclip from the Squared5 website too. works great, IMOP.

http://447productions.com/720p24HDV_h264.mov