HD1 SoftScreen Photos at DVinfo.net

Barry Green · September 6th, 2003, 12:35 PM

I was finally able to get ahold of the source footage we shot for the SoftScreen example photos, so I thought I'd post a few stills here. We shot side-by-side with the DVX100, so when I have time I'll try to find the corresponding DVX frames and post them as well.

For now, here's the JVC frames (each picture is about 650k to 750k):

Exterior, No Screen:
http://www.fiercely-independent.com/ExtHDNo.JPG
Exterior, With Screen:
http://www.fiercely-independent.com/ExtHDYes.JPG
Interior, No Screen:
http://www.fiercely-independent.com/IntHDNo.JPG
Interior, With Screen:
http://www.fiercely-independent.com/IntHDYes.JPG

Charles Papert · September 6th, 2003, 01:31 PM

Barry:

What a smart, smart idea. I love it. Best of luck with it!

I couldn't load your website (?) but in case you are shooting material like this for your advertising, may I be so bold as to suggest using a makeup artist? Your models will thank you for it! HD is really demanding on complexions.

Keep up the good work, that's a very hip product.

Alex Knappenberger · September 6th, 2003, 01:40 PM

Looks good, but whats up with the color noise?

Jay Nemeth · September 7th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Hi, I'm the cameraman that shot those images for Barry.

Charles,

Yes! Had there been a budget, we would have had our girl madeup. Airbrushing really works well for HD just like film. This was a last minute quickie that was to serve two purposes: 1. Demonstrate Barry's softscreen, and 2. A/B the 24p DVX100 and the JVC HD1. Some of the problems with her complexion are the green / magenta patches that I thought were mpeg2 artifacts, but now I'm beginning to think it's upstream of that. Also, the edge enhancement really aggravates imperfections.

Alex,

Everyone has been complaining about lack of light sensitivity and latitude with this camera. I have been lensing a short for a friend of mine this past 3 days with the JVC, and the biggest problem I'm finding is the chroma noise issue. If a scene is fairly bright, there is less of a problem, but in a contrasty low light scene with high saturation, it rears its ugly head. We have a broadcast HD monitor on the set to playback takes, and the biggest complaint is the chroma noise.

Just a side note, when we started prepping for this project and found out we were not using the F900, we shot some tests in a studio with the JVC, the DVX100, and a Sony DigiBetacam. The Director watched the footage and chose the JVC. I love the pictures form this camera when everything is right, but what a painful process. I have no idea how a consumer could use this camera.

Jay

Eric Bilodeau · September 7th, 2003, 07:46 AM

Jay has a point here. For our feature, the director and DOP saw the images of both the the JVC and the DVX100 and they both chose the JVC hands out for filmic qualities. I must point out that the HD10 is much better both in edge enhancement and low light noise. As a matter of fact, in low light the HD10 performs better than the DVX100 (it was quite a surprise). When I tried the HD1 (briefly) I was astunished to see how much of a difference there was between the two models, mainly the focus is harder to make on the HD1 (on either two LCDs), the edge enhancements are very apparent on the HD1 and there seems to be a different compression engine on the HD1 (why?) because it loses less saturation in low light thus producing more chroma noise. Edge artefacting was present in nearly every bright edges with the HD1 but it was only present in metallic tubing bright edges with the HD10. As a matter of fact, edge artefacting is less apparent on the HD10 than on the VX100 in most situations. I will post images later today.

Betsy Moore · September 8th, 2003, 03:42 PM

Sorry to be so out of it but what is Soft Screen? Is it a lens filter or a software filter or...

Ignorantly yours,

B

Alex Knappenberger · September 8th, 2003, 04:03 PM

It's litterally a big screen that you setup behind the subject, to simulate DOF.

John Hudson · September 8th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Is there a link to this SOFTSCREEN? Is it for sale? What?

EDIT - Nevermind, found it here:

http://www.fiercely-independent.com/SoftScreen.html

EDIT -

I like this product. It reminds me of the way ILM used to drop 'bridal veil' to create an illusion of depth when shooting minature work.

I can see this being a very valuable tool in one's arsenal. The price tag seems mosre 'fierce' than 'independent'.

I'm kidding. I can see owning this one day.

Question:

I know the shot selection will be limited due to screen size; but how does it fare against a dolly shot movie towards the subject?

Barry Green · September 8th, 2003, 06:55 PM

It works just fine with a dolly-in, the screen itself does the DOF effect and you can't see or discern the surface of the screen, so as you get closer to it the DOF won't change.

I also have a new redirect for the website address, http://www.softscreen.us

Mitch Gould · September 9th, 2003, 09:02 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barry:

What a smart, smart idea. I love it. Best of luck with it!

-->>>

Yeah, this was exactly my reaction, too.

Barry Green · September 9th, 2003, 11:51 PM

Hey, thanks for the votes of support! :)

September 6th, 2003, 12:35 PM	#1
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	HD1 SoftScreen Photos I was finally able to get ahold of the source footage we shot for the SoftScreen example photos, so I thought I'd post a few stills here. We shot side-by-side with the DVX100, so when I have time I'll try to find the corresponding DVX frames and post them as well. For now, here's the JVC frames (each picture is about 650k to 750k): Exterior, No Screen: http://www.fiercely-independent.com/ExtHDNo.JPG Exterior, With Screen: http://www.fiercely-independent.com/ExtHDYes.JPG Interior, No Screen: http://www.fiercely-independent.com/IntHDNo.JPG Interior, With Screen: http://www.fiercely-independent.com/IntHDYes.JPG

September 6th, 2003, 01:31 PM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Barry: What a smart, smart idea. I love it. Best of luck with it! I couldn't load your website (?) but in case you are shooting material like this for your advertising, may I be so bold as to suggest using a makeup artist? Your models will thank you for it! HD is really demanding on complexions. Keep up the good work, that's a very hip product. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 7th, 2003, 07:46 AM	#5
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Jay has a point here. For our feature, the director and DOP saw the images of both the the JVC and the DVX100 and they both chose the JVC hands out for filmic qualities. I must point out that the HD10 is much better both in edge enhancement and low light noise. As a matter of fact, in low light the HD10 performs better than the DVX100 (it was quite a surprise). When I tried the HD1 (briefly) I was astunished to see how much of a difference there was between the two models, mainly the focus is harder to make on the HD1 (on either two LCDs), the edge enhancements are very apparent on the HD1 and there seems to be a different compression engine on the HD1 (why?) because it loses less saturation in low light thus producing more chroma noise. Edge artefacting was present in nearly every bright edges with the HD1 but it was only present in metallic tubing bright edges with the HD10. As a matter of fact, edge artefacting is less apparent on the HD10 than on the VX100 in most situations. I will post images later today. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

September 6th, 2003, 01:40 PM	#3
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	Looks good, but whats up with the color noise?

September 7th, 2003, 01:49 AM	#4
Jay Nemeth Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 64	Hi, I'm the cameraman that shot those images for Barry. Charles, Yes! Had there been a budget, we would have had our girl madeup. Airbrushing really works well for HD just like film. This was a last minute quickie that was to serve two purposes: 1. Demonstrate Barry's softscreen, and 2. A/B the 24p DVX100 and the JVC HD1. Some of the problems with her complexion are the green / magenta patches that I thought were mpeg2 artifacts, but now I'm beginning to think it's upstream of that. Also, the edge enhancement really aggravates imperfections. Alex, Everyone has been complaining about lack of light sensitivity and latitude with this camera. I have been lensing a short for a friend of mine this past 3 days with the JVC, and the biggest problem I'm finding is the chroma noise issue. If a scene is fairly bright, there is less of a problem, but in a contrasty low light scene with high saturation, it rears its ugly head. We have a broadcast HD monitor on the set to playback takes, and the biggest complaint is the chroma noise. Just a side note, when we started prepping for this project and found out we were not using the F900, we shot some tests in a studio with the JVC, the DVX100, and a Sony DigiBetacam. The Director watched the footage and chose the JVC. I love the pictures form this camera when everything is right, but what a painful process. I have no idea how a consumer could use this camera. Jay

September 8th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#6
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	Sorry to be so out of it but what is Soft Screen? Is it a lens filter or a software filter or... Ignorantly yours, B

September 8th, 2003, 04:03 PM	#7
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	It's litterally a big screen that you setup behind the subject, to simulate DOF.

September 8th, 2003, 04:11 PM	#8
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Is there a link to this SOFTSCREEN? Is it for sale? What? EDIT - Nevermind, found it here: http://www.fiercely-independent.com/SoftScreen.html EDIT - I like this product. It reminds me of the way ILM used to drop 'bridal veil' to create an illusion of depth when shooting minature work. I can see this being a very valuable tool in one's arsenal. The price tag seems mosre 'fierce' than 'independent'. I'm kidding. I can see owning this one day. Question: I know the shot selection will be limited due to screen size; but how does it fare against a dolly shot movie towards the subject?

September 8th, 2003, 06:55 PM	#9
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It works just fine with a dolly-in, the screen itself does the DOF effect and you can't see or discern the surface of the screen, so as you get closer to it the DOF won't change. I also have a new redirect for the website address, http://www.softscreen.us

September 9th, 2003, 09:02 PM	#10
Mitch Gould New Boot Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 12	<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Barry: What a smart, smart idea. I love it. Best of luck with it! -->>> Yeah, this was exactly my reaction, too.

September 9th, 2003, 11:51 PM	#11
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Hey, thanks for the votes of support! :)