Hello All, Hope you're all doing well.

I spent an hour reading through most of the threads this afternoon and there is some really interesting discussions going on. It's great to have such support.
Having had a DSR450 for two years before my new F350, I am struggling to get used to it's low light limits. I did a basketball shoot in a gym recently, with pretty good light, and I almost had to add gain to get any dept of field!

I had a little panic attack yesterday, thinking I may be best reverting back to my old camera and selling the f350 because of the low light performance. This would cost me around £5,000 to do so. If I did this, I could then wait for a couple of years and wait for the new sony 2/3 xdcam which shouldnt have low light issues. But today I decided to give the camera another chance, hence my research today. The quality of the footage in good light in fantastic, it's just this low light performance that bothers me.

I am an experienced cameraman and understand how using slower shutter speeds can help with low light situations etc, so it's not operational advice I need. But what changes could you recommend I make with the camera settings? Would turning the detail off help? So when I use gain it's not so noticable?

Also I am using a lens adaptor with my wide angle Canon SD lens, JY12x605br (it's a 2/3 lens). There seems to be contrasting views in this, does using the adaptor cost me light? Is there a definitive answer, and if so how much?

Most of my filming takes place in great light, and in situations I can light. However I cover some important events/ functions, which usually take place after dark (people dining etc) and where I have no control over light. It is important for this footage to stand up to the quality of the rest.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and I look forward to hearing from you if you get the chance. I want to keep this camera, honest!!

sparky

Hi Mark, I too just moved over to the F350, but since I was coming from an old BVP90 camera which was rated at F8, I have actually experienced some slight improvement in sensitivity with my new camera.

As to shooting in a gym, you could likely boost a bit, since the background won't likely to be dark colours, and not notice the noise too much. As far as events go and people dining in the dark, try using a 20watt sungun to bring up the faces and let the rest go dark.

Other than that, I guess it is a matter of using the right tool for the job. If the client wants HD, then they have accept more noise than SD. It's not as if the other HD cameras are much better in terms of noise or sensitivity.

I believe that the 2/3's XDcam should be announced in another week or so at NAB, so perhaps you can move up to that, though I doubt that it will be all that much faster.

I don't think that the 2/3's adapter would cost you any light.

Good luck!

Hi Mark, I'm using the F350 with the adaptor and 2/3 canon JAax21 7.8 and i don't see any problems with light conditions, you may have another issue, could be your lenses.


William

with a converter for their f350/f330?

I know a lot of people (like me) are using a 2.3 sd lens with a converter, but haven't heard of anyone using a 2/3 hd lens. How does it function?


I was thinking about buying a HD 2/3 lens and using a converter for the 350. Then in 2 years time I could upgrade to the 2/3 camera without being hit by the cost of buying an extra lens.

What do you think?

sparky

Mark,

You are in that group of folks who have been shooting with SD cameras and then find out that an HD camera is less light sensitive. Even the 2/3 HD cameras are less light sensitive than their SD counterparts due to the higher pixel count on the imagers.

Panasonic tends to use a different approach to HD by using imagers that have a lower pixel count that can suck up more light, but then they pixel shift to increase apparent resolution.

I have noticed in my footage that the noise tends to occur in the darker areas but the truly black areas aren't noisy. So in that respect, you might want to tweak your black settings and gamma curve to get more contrast in the lower intensity levels. IOW, press the blacks.

Congrats on the new camera!

-gb-

It's has been my experience on actual shoots with both 1/2 and 2/3 lenses as well as both F350's and 750 HDCAM's that 2/3 inch lenses on the F350/F330 do not perform as well as dedicated 1/2" HD lenses. Lets face it 2/3 inch lenses are not designed to work with the tiny pixels found on 1/2" imagers. Others may have a different opinion but, I have used them side by side and that's what I found.

You will also reduce your options to a wide angle as you will find anything longer than a 7mm lens won't be wide enough for most everyday jobs.

Thanks
I may get the fujinon 1/3 hd lens, now selling for 4,500 plus VAT. I'd love to get a wide angle with a 2x extender but they are so expensive!

Thanks greg. What settings are using using on your blacks and gamma?
My setup is cine 4 and high saturation and detail off.

Mark

Echoing the previous sentiments, it's not so much a question of camera but of lens. I almost hate to keep refering to it but the pilot for El Papel was shot interior with no more than 4 1X1 LitePanels and a few lit candles and the result was, well, enough that the footage was requested by both Sony and Fujinon for replay in their NAB booths in a couple of weeks. A low t-stop lens is essential for any video shoting tape or disk for the aforementioned reasons. Yes, the Panasonic will appear to be more light sensitive but that's because, again, of the aforementioned reasoning. 2nd Unit has a long history of reporting on the good and the bad of equipment we use and that includes our sponsors which, in this case happens to be Sony. And there are definite limitations but light is not one of them. www.elpapelthemovie.com has both high- and low-rez clips of the opening and other sequenses in low and I mean low light. The camera was the F350 and the lens was the Fujinon 10X10 (100) better known as the George Lucas lens. The bottom fact of the matter is that there is a didfference in SD and HD lenses and there is a difference in the light capability of the various lenses. For drama, or low-light situations, you're going to have to know your lenses and, yes, pay a little more for the quality glass. A standard ENG-type lens isn't going to cut it the way the same lens would on an SD camera which is where the, "know your light, lens-camera" relationship comes in. As for the adapter taking the 1/2" camera up to accept a 2/3" lens, there's little if any light issues there. The issue is mainly a focal multiplier. Some say 1.37 and some say 1.34. Use either one and you're in the shot but this multiplier doersn't affect the light issue.

Canging from my 2/3 inch SD lens to a dedicated 1/2 HD lens did make a difference in light sensitivity. Obviously the SD lens was f 2.0 and the HD one is f 1.4 so that's the explanation. The use of the 2/3 inch adapter doesn't influence light sensitivity since it doesn't feature any glass at all. It's just an expensive piece of metal.

Ron

With all due respect, it's an expensive piece of metal that opens up a whole new world to cinematographers who know and are comfortable with their 2/3" glass, demand the performance their 2/3" glass can provide and are able to save substantially by renting or purchasing the XDCAM instead of the 2/3" counterparts putting that savings into quality optics.

With all due respect Jonathan, my local Fujinon tech related to me that the 2/3 and 1/2 lenses are identical from the flange section forward.

I have some reservations about that statement in hopes that the 1/2 cream of the crop lens (HSs series) on my camera is actually designed from front to back with 1/2 imagers in mind.

-gb-

Yes, Jonathan is quit right: the expensive piece of metal opens up a lot of possibilities which makes its investment worthwile. But for the pure physical thing you get I still think it's expensive ;-)

Greg's information about the lenses being identical from the flange section forward seems correct to me too. I therefore have only 3 reasons to use 1/2 inch HD glass rather than 2/3 inch:
1: Widest Angles, no 1.37 factor to concern
2: Alister Chapmans explanation, which I found very understandble on this link:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83205&highlight=lenses
(read his post of Januar 8th 2007)
3: Direct contact to the camera for the best fit possible.

And personally: no cables from the lens and zoom and focus settings visible in the viewfinder (at least with Fujinon I use).

But then again the endresult is what counts. If you can obtain the results your looking for with any lens that fits it should be okay.

The use of the 2/3 inch adapter doesn't influence light sensitivity since it doesn't feature any glass at all. It's just an expensive piece of metal.

Ron I have the 2/3 inch adapter on my F330 and its not only metal, there is a piece of glass...

There are at least 2 adaptors available as explained in this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66880&highlight=Canon+adaptor

I think that you can make the 2/3" lenses work for you, but be aware of the limitations of using the 2/3" adaptors and lenses that Ron, Alister and Theirry mention in these threads. It also depends on the type of work that you do.

If you shoot 90% of the time on a Tripod or Dolly then having a front heavy camera may not make a difference. If you shoot a lot of handheld material and need a wider angle of view then having a 1/2" lens makes a lot of sense.

Just remember that there is a big difference in quality from lens to lens and it doesn't make much difference whether it has HD on the lens or not. There are some crappy lenses out there with HD on them. There are also some beautiful glass put out by both manufacturers at the middle to high end of the HD lens spectrum. Same for the 2/3" HD lenses.

Good glass is good glass. Don't settle for something at the low end whether it is 1/2" or 2/3"

There are at least 2 adaptors available as explained in this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66880&highlight=Canon+adaptor

Absolutely, Bob. We used the Canon adapter last April in the Texas HD shootout as we didn't have a 1/2 lens available for the second F350 body. I was the one who removed the lens and adapter at the conclusion of the shoot and I will verify that the Canon adapter has no glass in it.

-gb-

My Canon adapter has glass in it. It is an optical flat, it is there to help compensate for the shorter glass optical path in the 1/2" CCD block compared to a 2/3" block. It helps minimise registration errors cause by the differences in refraction in the different length prisms. There used to be a cheaper adapter on the market without any glass and this is not recommended for HD without the glass you will get registration errors which may be mistaken for CA (red/blue fringes).

The Canon adapter does indeed have the glass. The Century Optics has no glass in the adapter.

There used to be a cheaper adapter on the market without any glass and this is not recommended for HD without the glass you will get registration errors which may be mistaken for CA (red/blue fringes).

Must be the one we had. Mea culpa for thinking all the Canon units had no glass unlike the Sony units. Thanks for the clarification, Bob and Alister.

Makes sense that the adapter would need to have glass to correct for having the lens further away from the CCD block.

-gb-

Alister is spot-on on that one. As for the other comments, that's what this board is all about; learned, informed opinions supported by experience and facts. That's what sets this board apart from virtually all of the others. I guess for me it goes to the bottom line that we want the best shot and that means light, lens and camera. There are going to be times when I have to have the 2/3" as the shot I'm looking for simply surpasses the XDCAM's inherent capabilities. But for the vast majorioty of our work in drama and especially sports, the 1/2" is excellent and, more importantly, saves money and that's where my point lies. The glass is so very, very important that if you understand lens, light and camera, you can build for the shot. If a 1/2" camera works, you can spend the difference between the 1/2" and 2/3" rental or purchase cost on precisely the right lens. Nothing beats quality glass so know what you want and why you want it and buy or rent the best and settle for nothing less.

"There are going to be times when I have to have the 2/3" as the shot I'm looking for simply surpasses the XDCAM's inherent capabilities."

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here Jonathan. If you are looking for something that surpasses the inherent capabilities of XDCAM HD I would guess that you would choose to shoot 35mm film or high end HD with prime lenses. That way you could actually see the difference in the quality of the images.

The difference between shooting XDCAM HD with either a high end 1/2" or 2/3" video HD zoom lens would not be something that would make a noticeable difference. Maybe I am missing your point.

Oh, I don't think you're missing something. Rather, maybe I'm not explaining enough. The point I was making is that there are times when I need the extra capabilities that, for example, an expanded colorspace recording capability offers relative to contrast range. I take great pride in setting the exact look and feel of shots and alot of times, as with El Papel, they're under challenging light settings. Being able to change the color balance of the mid-tones without affecting black and white balance is easier in a 4:4:4 colorspace than in a 4:2:2 or especially a 4:2:0 space available as with the XDCAM going direct to biscuit. Another expands on that in being able to finely adjust tonal reproduction in the shadows of the shot. These are things that are available in a 2/3" camera like the 900R.

The inside of the apartment scene we shot El Papel in for 18 minutes was dark because the storyline had the electricity off. The only light was 1) from a window to the street (that was green screened because of inalterable conditions on the set we were using making keying via alpha channel mandatory in post) and 2) some candles the occupants were using to study by. The scene involved one character upstage and one down stage and the convergence of the two while in dialogue. Being able to pull detail out of specific areas while leaving other areas black and illuminating the faces but still maintaining, even through movement up and down stage, 3-dimensional depth was imperative. Also important was being able to bring out details from the dark parts of the picture without affecting mid-tones and leaving absolute black level unchanged. We got the shot to work perfectly to the point that it'll be shown in the Sony, Fujinon and Adobe booths next week at NAB proviing the capabilities of the XDCAM BUT it would have been so much easier working in the 4:4:4 colospace of say the 900R.

Would film do it better? There are those who would say yes but the benefits of shooting digitally, the inherent cost savings, the immediate, on-set review of the shot and not having to wait for dailies, things like this have, I guess, spoiled me. The point I was trying to make was not so much reserved to lens but to the camera choice as well. The 900R and other 2/3" cameras have capabilities that surpass the XDCAM but not to the extent that most people would argue. Putting the right lens on the XDCAM and lighting it correctly will allow the XDCAM to serve the filmmaker astonishingly well. It's not until you get into the challenges of highly saturated colors that tend to bleed at lower sampling rates and difficult keys that you really appreciate a 2/3" camera. Again, this is simply my humble opinion and there are far more accomplished cinematographers out there than I who probably have differing viewpoints. Further, I could go on for pages delving into other areas where a 2/3" out-performs a 1/2" but the point is that we took the XDCAM and, through proper light, lens and camera, achieved shots that, while we were setting them up, people were telling us we'd never be able to pull off with a 1/2" camera... and we pulled them off to the point they'll be on-stage throughout NAB this April. I'm just really proud of what people like Paolo Ciccone and Scott Chambers, John Salemme and Matt Garret were able to do, especially when it came to keying the green screen window in I mentioned before. Remember, the whole apartment was black. How'd you like to light a green screen leaving everything and I mean everything else black? Let's say it wasn't the brightest of green screens to key and yet the XDCAM at 4:2:0 and Adobe AE made it possible. It may sound like a shameless plug but we'll show you how we did it at the Adobe showcase at NAB on Wednesday from 2-3 pm.

I don't believe there HAS to be a difference between 2/3" and 1/2" CCD's other than depth of field. There IS a difference between the current XDCAM and HDCAM front ends and this is down to the use of lower cost, lower spec components, but if Sony or someone else wanted to I am sure they could produce a 1/2" front end equal to or better that the current crop of 2/3" blocks.

The Sony 900R HDCAM's recorded color space is 4:1:1 not 4:2:2.

HDCAM's 4(3):1:1 colour space is far from ideal and contains no more color information than XDCAM's 4(3):2:0. I have seen amazing restoration of color space with adaptive interpolation. In a non-linear environment if you transcoded from HDCAM or XDCAM HD to uncompressed you would have roughly the same amount of color information for both. The HDCAM is a little less compressed (although with a less efficient codec) and that gives it a marginal edge when pushing colors hard, but the difference is very very small. The BIG problem is that many don't know about the different sample rates and for ease they often dub XDCAM (or HDV) to HDCAM tape for editing. Then you get 4:1:0 which is pretty much useless and then start complaining that XDCAM is no good for grading or color work.

I am still assessing the best post production path for programmes originating on XDCAM HD for delivery on HDCAM. In the past I would have said stay native until the dub to tape, but with the different color space problems it may be better to convert to uncompressed and work in a 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 colour space first. Avid's DNxHD codec is also another very valid option.

Now what would be nice is 50Mb 4:2:2 XDCAM HD, or HDCAM SR at XDCAM prices! I guess we'll have to wait and see what goodies Sony are going to be offering at NAB. Before anyone asks .... no I don't know what's coming other than lots of nice things!

I don't believe there HAS to be a difference between 2/3" and 1/2" CCD's other than depth of field. There IS a difference between the current XDCAM and HDCAM front ends and this is down to the use of lower cost, lower spec components, but if Sony or someone else wanted to I am sure they could produce a 1/2" front end equal to or better that the current crop of 2/3" blocks.

There's also the issue of dynamic range. If you put X and Y number of pixels on a 1/2 piece of silicon, then put the same number of pixels on a 2/3 piece of silicon, the physical size of the pixels would be larger on the 2/3 chip. This makes it easier for each pixel to suck up light. But there have been so many advances with micro-lens technology, etc., that today's 1/2 imagers are pretty good at grabbing an image with less than stellar lighting.

-gb-