HD1OU footage closer to film look than CineAlta? at DVinfo.net

Paul Mogg · July 25th, 2003, 02:47 PM

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

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

Cheers

Frank Granovski · July 25th, 2003, 03:19 PM

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

Steve Mullen · July 25th, 2003, 03:25 PM

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

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

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

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

Charles Papert · July 25th, 2003, 03:59 PM

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

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

Paul Mogg · July 25th, 2003, 04:53 PM

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

Bob England · July 25th, 2003, 06:09 PM

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

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

Frank Granovski · July 25th, 2003, 06:57 PM

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

Peter Moore · July 26th, 2003, 10:01 AM

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

Barry Green · July 26th, 2003, 01:12 PM

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

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

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Paul Mogg · July 26th, 2003, 02:00 PM

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

All the best

Peter Moore · July 26th, 2003, 04:43 PM

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

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

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

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

T. Patrick Murray · July 26th, 2003, 10:40 PM

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

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

And it would affordable.

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

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

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

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

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

T. Patrick

Frank Granovski · July 27th, 2003, 01:20 AM

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

Barry Green · July 27th, 2003, 01:42 AM

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

Ken Freed JVC · July 29th, 2003, 05:16 PM

Interesting thread, thanks

July 25th, 2003, 02:47 PM	#1
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	HD1OU footage closer to film look than CineAlta? One thing I'm noticing as I watch my first DVHS tapes of films converted from 35mm such as "Castaway", and compare them with DVHS tapes shot on High end HD cameras such as "Over America", is that the 35mm film footage has a much softer look to it than the high end HD footage shot on cameras such as the CineAlta and the Varicam. To my eye, footage shot with HD1OU, because of it's softness, looks closer to the look of film to me than the high end HD material, which is extremely sharp. Also, now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts in the high end HD footage, especially juddering when panning, and visible compression arifacts on wide vistas, much more than I notice on the HD10U. I was wondering if anyone else had noticed any of this, or had any thoughts on it? Cheers __________________ Paul

July 25th, 2003, 03:25 PM	#3
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Those of us who love the Hyper-Real look of live and taped HD -- will agree with your observations. If I want to show HDTV -- I show PBS not HBO. For those who like film, they may very likely to find Panasonic's argument that their "lower" rez 720p looks "more like" film to be pursuasive. However, watching the HD10 on a $4000 HD monitor, I thought it looked more like CineAlta than 35mm film. Which, for me, was fine. I've never seen an MPEG-2 artifact from the HD10. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

July 25th, 2003, 03:59 PM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Re: HD1OU footage closer to film look than CineAlta? <<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Also, now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts in the high end HD footage, especially juddering when panning>>> This sounds like an observation of the 24p motion characteristic, similar to that of 24fps film, wherein pans have a different look than 60i video, either HD or SD. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 25th, 2003, 04:53 PM	#5
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	I love both the "Hyper-Real" HD look, as Steve put it, and the film look...and I do realise that the look of film is not just one look, but many, depending on the stock used, the grain, 35 vs 16mm, the post processing...etc etc. But I guess I never expected film to look quite as soft as it does on HD, and native HD material look so much more sharp. Though I have to say that my judgement so far is based mainly on the film "Castaway", which I bought, and a couple of others I've seen bits of, it may be that other 35mm film transfers look quite different on HD. Is there a lot of variation in transfer quality? I heard it mentioned that some HD movie tapes are in fact no more than upconverts from the DVD material, is this true? No matter what, I do feel that the HD1OU is most definately getting us in the ballpark of HD quality, at least as viewed on an HD monitor. __________________ Paul

July 26th, 2003, 02:00 PM	#10
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	Yes I know it sounds a little wacky, but if you take a look at some of the HD10U footage on a 720p native HD monitor, then watch a 35mm film transfer to DVHS and some CineAlta material on DVHS, I think you'll see the differences I'm talking about. I'm not trying to say that HD10U material is of equal quality to 35mm film, or the CineAlta, just that I am suprised at the softnness I'm seeing in DVHS transfers from 35mm film, compared to the stark sharpness of true high end HD originated material (which has it's own, very beautiful look). and that if I were to say which look the HD1OU comes closer to, I would say the 35mm ->DVHS look. Again, it could be that the 35mm transfers I've seen are not the best out there, but I was suprised by it and thought I'd bring it up (at the risk of being compared to Joseph it seems...heellp!!!) All the best __________________ Paul

July 25th, 2003, 03:19 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I don't know. Film can be very sharp or very soft. Film has a much higher resolution than even Sony HD. I think with this, "film look" term, there are other ways to get this look or looks than by just going with "the right" DV cam. And isn't the resolution much higher with the CineAlta than the HD10U's MPEG2 capture? I guess I'll have to go see some playback footage when this JVC hits the market here.

July 25th, 2003, 06:09 PM	#6
Bob England Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 59	<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : If I want to show HDTV -- I show PBS not HBO. -->>> Owwww! Here in LA, the PBS station KCET's HD is a pathetic outrage because they throttle the bitrate down so they can multicast an SD broadcast along with the HD broadcast. Every time there is fast motion or a dissolve there is such severe artifacting it's unwatchable!

July 25th, 2003, 06:57 PM	#7
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I don't know. Herr Meister Fotograf would put forth this: 35mm film has much higher resolution than HD, and film can be sharp or soft, depending on the speed of the film, lighting used and filter(s) used.

July 26th, 2003, 10:01 AM	#8
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	No matter what, the color saturation is not going to look as good on an HD10 as on a Cinealta or Varicam. Those at least look as good as Beta - the HD10 looks like DV in terms of color.

July 26th, 2003, 01:12 PM	#9
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Y'know, with a message title like: "HD1OU footage closer to film look than CineAlta? " I halfway expected Joseph George to be the author... (sorry, couldn't resist!)

July 26th, 2003, 04:43 PM	#11
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	"I halfway expected Joseph George to be the author..." You mean back when Joseph was being paid by JVC to hype up the camera, or now when Joseph claims the HD10 is not really HD? :) Anyway, what you're probably comparing to is 60i 1920x1080, which of course is going to look smoother than 24p film. It looks very lifelike. There could also be issues with the 3:2 pulldown from film to HD.

July 26th, 2003, 10:40 PM	#12
T. Patrick Murray Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 33	FILM LOOK (The Holy Grail) After I dropped out of NYU Film, I bought an Arriflex 35mm camera with sync sound and a loud engine... without a long lens, there was no chance of good dialogue filming... I wrote scripts and novels and twiddled my thumbs until technology would someday produce a camera that would produce a great picture at an affordable price= not just a good picture- an artful one. And it would affordable. After the XL1, Ithought Dv maybe was that answer, but it fell short for me, even though I made a doc with it that got 4 stars from USA TODAY and won 2 film festivals, beating the Sundance winner and an Oscar nominee in win one of them... The point? The JY-HD1u, while imperfect, is the camera I have been waiting for. And no one- or at least very few- can appreciate it now. In a few ahort years, there will be a DEMAND for HD programming of all stripes, and anyone who is grabbing this camera and shooting with it now is sowing the seeds which will be reaped by 2005... I got Burt Reynolds almost signed to my HD movie coming up... This camera is THE ANSWER (with apologies to Allen Iverson) T. Patrick __________________ www.TheLastGame.com "The HOOP DREAMS of football..." USA TODAY (Mike Clark) FOUR STARS

July 27th, 2003, 01:20 AM	#13
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Hopefully you won't want to transfer it to film. :)

July 27th, 2003, 01:42 AM	#14
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	HDV may be the answer, but I'd question whether the HD1/HD10 is the answer. It seems overwhelmingly likely that either Canon or Sony's implementation will at least include separate aperture and shutter controls, given their excellent VX1000 and XL1 first-generation cameras, plus their opportunity to sit back and watch user reaction to the JVC... but I do agree, HDV can look phenomenal.

July 29th, 2003, 05:16 PM	#15
Ken Freed JVC JVC Regional Sales Engineer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wayne, NJ Posts: 49	thanks Interesting thread, thanks __________________ Ken Freed JVC Mid-Atlantic District Sales Manager (201) 637-7706 kfreed@jvc.com