It's decision time

Eric Bilodeau · October 29th, 2003, 06:34 AM

Very interresting Jay. You used the GR-HD1? The HD1 has much more edge enhancement than the HD10 from my experience. As for the 30p to 24 or 25, let's not throw the towel yet, I am making (and some other people) tests for 30p to 24p transfers witch (for the moment), show pretty surprising results. Next step is transfer to 35mm.

I am very pleased by Jay's report. Most of the time people bitch the camera without having used it. I know I can do a film with this camera, but then again I extensively tested it. And an important point that Jay Nemeth added:
"The JVC has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people don't have the patience to squeeze the great images out of it. That combined with some really bad footage submitted to Networks and others has not helped. If your DP does film, he will know what filters to use when and how to light to get the best out of this camera."
I support this 200% and I would add that that incredible results can be gotten out of this camera with patience, an intelligent approach and an open mind. This camera is a little trickier than most DVs but can give you a hell of an image when used properly.

Alex Raskin · October 29th, 2003, 08:40 AM

Eric, at the same time, I think it's important to keep pressure on JVC so they fix the # 1 problem of the camera - which is, introduce separate and independent controls for shutter and aperture.

I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place.

Darren Kelly · October 29th, 2003, 10:01 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :
I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place. -->>>

I don't think we need fear that Alex. JVC Professional Division wanted manual controls from the get go, they just didn't have time to get it inthe pipeline.

I'm sure we will see changes to version 2 of the JVC cameras and that the other manufacturers will also provide more manual controls. Maybe not on the consumer priced versions, but on the prosumer or professional models.

Until then we have filters matte boxes and more.

Cheers

Christopher Toderman · October 30th, 2003, 03:41 AM

Pro division wanted it but did not have the time? They took out edge enhancement, which is no brainer, and snapped on different mic jack and viewfinder. These were the biggest improvements. It took them several months to do so from the original HD1 release in Japan? Maybe there is another reason why they have not provided better controls. Maybe it would cut into sales of their and Panasonic's pro SD gear. JVC is owned by Matsushita (Panasonic).

Alex Raskin · October 30th, 2003, 09:39 AM

Christopher, you're right on this one.

If Sony could artificially lessen the sound quality of its otherwise superb SD miniDV VX2000 cam, so just to prevent its competition with their $25,000 SD cams, then I'm more than sure that JVC also keeps HD10's features on a short leash to prevent it becoming "too good".

But at least they must introduce features that are STANDARD in this market segment, which is fully manual/independent shutter and aperture control, built-in ND filters, and 70/100 zebra taht is a necessity given the cam's low latitude in particular.

Eric Bilodeau · October 30th, 2003, 02:16 PM

Louis, I was able to download my clips from the DVI forum so you should be able to download them now. I guess those from Paul as well.

Louis Grimaldo · October 30th, 2003, 03:00 PM

Thanks Eric.
I just ordered Darren Kelly's JumpStart guide. As I stated earlier my DP is uncomfortable with using this camera. We will both watch the Jumpstart guide DVD to see if we are comfortable working within the limitations of this camera. From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?

Stephen L. Minor · October 30th, 2003, 06:34 PM

Louis,

I'm a full time staff member for a very large film festival. Here's my advice.

1st make a good film, most I see, are not. 80% of the films we receive are shot on DV. They are submitted from all over the world. IF done right, w/ care I've been fooled several times (thinking it was shot on film) looking at them on the small screen. On the big screens they still look better than the one's where no care to the "look" of the film was taken. Filmmaking is truly a process. The audience will adapt to the look of DV on the screen. At the same time, yes, HD will be much closer to film.

As of now, with most films being done on DV the majority of films are screened on Beta (a DOWNCONVERSION) I know of no other festivals who have DV decks to screen films short or full length. Some now use DVD screeners, as they are digital and maintain quality better than the analog Beta. For next years upcoming festival we are considering screening in HD. The deciding factor is submissions. If filmmakers are shooting on HD, we should screen on HD. Especially features. Take this into serious consideration… the last festival, features shot on HD were still screened on Beta. If you have a good film, the audience will still love you, the distributors will still buy it. Even if it’s shot like crap, they’ll give you money to go re-shoot it the right way. MOST will not afford the telecine to film, as prints are very expensive an not needed unless you have distributors backing you, or you four wall it.

I shot a short on the HD10 and it looks STUNNING. No less. Ext. day, ext. night look good. I could have never attained these results with DV.

Chroma is somewhat fixable in post, BUT (and this ties in with your comment on saturation) the HD10 footage is pretty de-saturated raw. I do notice that a .avi file vs. a mpeg file look very different. The MPEG seems to retain or expose MUCH more color than any other file format I’ve seen it in. I have no idea why, it’s just what I’ve seen rendering content myself.

High contrast is still possible, just don’t have High contrast on an actors faces, use depth. And be sure to light it.

Alex Raskin · October 30th, 2003, 07:46 PM

SL, how did you edit your short shot with Hd10?

Software-wise, what NLE etc?

Thanks.

Stephen L. Minor · October 31st, 2003, 12:06 AM

Sure Alex,

Capture with the supplied utility. I used Vegas 4.0d. to edit. On a dell 650 ws w/ dual 2G Xeons, raid 0, u320 scsi. It's still not real time but I get about 18-20 fps playback. Which is acceptable (1 stream will play perfect at full rez w/ no filters). I did lots of testing before I got the camera and after, shooting converting files, rendering, etc. just to see what I was in store for.

Even w/ over 500Gigs I don't have enough room for uncompressing the HD. Even though the drives handle it nicely. I would advise anyone editing to Buy Vegas at this time. It's by far the most powerful low cost solution. Edit the m2t files directly in vegas or use a script to batch render all your files to some further compressed format of your choice (vegas has sites that you can download all kinds of scripts). Once done just replace source files w/ the m2t files and render your master. In full HD, with no further loss.

Every other post house we talked to would edit (converted) DV files then if you wanted HD you would have to upconvert back. No Bueno. Vegas has a strong community, I find the forums answer all kinds of questions rapidly. And the interface while taking a second to get use to, is blazingly fast to edit in. Most people I know only use Avid, some FCP, when they see how fast I can edit in VV there jaws hit the floor. Then they ask where can they get it. www.sonicfoundry.com

Good Luck.

Alex Raskin · October 31st, 2003, 08:54 AM

Thanks SL.

Is it necessary to have Vegas+DVD version, or Vegas 4.0 will do as well?

Some folks insist that only Vegas+DVD release is capable of m2t handling.

Stephen L. Minor · October 31st, 2003, 12:55 PM

I have no idea, I have +DVD the extra money's not wasted anyway.

Lisa Lee · October 31st, 2003, 07:20 PM

"From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?"

century optics matte box..that what we're ordering. It fits and was recommended by a JVC rep.

Alex Raskin · October 31st, 2003, 07:41 PM

Lisa, I have 5 different ND filters for this camera. Each is about $20-$40 for the excellent quality B+W brand.

Are you planning on spending $200 on EACH 4x4 filter for your matte box?

Stephen L. Minor · October 31st, 2003, 09:23 PM

I almost forgot. If your in a scene w/ high contrast try using the blc button on the cam. It's a little overlooked button in a strange place to the left of focus dial. It makes a difference. Sometimes the results are very pleasing. I think it uses a different compression to achieve better contrast ratios. Good Luck.

October 29th, 2003, 06:34 AM	#16
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Very interresting Jay. You used the GR-HD1? The HD1 has much more edge enhancement than the HD10 from my experience. As for the 30p to 24 or 25, let's not throw the towel yet, I am making (and some other people) tests for 30p to 24p transfers witch (for the moment), show pretty surprising results. Next step is transfer to 35mm. I am very pleased by Jay's report. Most of the time people bitch the camera without having used it. I know I can do a film with this camera, but then again I extensively tested it. And an important point that Jay Nemeth added: "The JVC has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people don't have the patience to squeeze the great images out of it. That combined with some really bad footage submitted to Networks and others has not helped. If your DP does film, he will know what filters to use when and how to light to get the best out of this camera." I support this 200% and I would add that that incredible results can be gotten out of this camera with patience, an intelligent approach and an open mind. This camera is a little trickier than most DVs but can give you a hell of an image when used properly. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 29th, 2003, 10:01 AM	#18
Darren Kelly Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 351	<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place. -->>> I don't think we need fear that Alex. JVC Professional Division wanted manual controls from the get go, they just didn't have time to get it inthe pipeline. I'm sure we will see changes to version 2 of the JVC cameras and that the other manufacturers will also provide more manual controls. Maybe not on the consumer priced versions, but on the prosumer or professional models. Until then we have filters matte boxes and more. Cheers __________________ Darren Kelly

October 30th, 2003, 02:16 PM	#21
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Louis, I was able to download my clips from the DVI forum so you should be able to download them now. I guess those from Paul as well. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 30th, 2003, 06:34 PM	#23
Stephen L. Minor Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: L.A., CA Posts: 35	Louis, I'm a full time staff member for a very large film festival. Here's my advice. 1st make a good film, most I see, are not. 80% of the films we receive are shot on DV. They are submitted from all over the world. IF done right, w/ care I've been fooled several times (thinking it was shot on film) looking at them on the small screen. On the big screens they still look better than the one's where no care to the "look" of the film was taken. Filmmaking is truly a process. The audience will adapt to the look of DV on the screen. At the same time, yes, HD will be much closer to film. As of now, with most films being done on DV the majority of films are screened on Beta (a DOWNCONVERSION) I know of no other festivals who have DV decks to screen films short or full length. Some now use DVD screeners, as they are digital and maintain quality better than the analog Beta. For next years upcoming festival we are considering screening in HD. The deciding factor is submissions. If filmmakers are shooting on HD, we should screen on HD. Especially features. Take this into serious consideration… the last festival, features shot on HD were still screened on Beta. If you have a good film, the audience will still love you, the distributors will still buy it. Even if it’s shot like crap, they’ll give you money to go re-shoot it the right way. MOST will not afford the telecine to film, as prints are very expensive an not needed unless you have distributors backing you, or you four wall it. I shot a short on the HD10 and it looks STUNNING. No less. Ext. day, ext. night look good. I could have never attained these results with DV. Chroma is somewhat fixable in post, BUT (and this ties in with your comment on saturation) the HD10 footage is pretty de-saturated raw. I do notice that a .avi file vs. a mpeg file look very different. The MPEG seems to retain or expose MUCH more color than any other file format I’ve seen it in. I have no idea why, it’s just what I’ve seen rendering content myself. High contrast is still possible, just don’t have High contrast on an actors faces, use depth. And be sure to light it. __________________ -S

October 31st, 2003, 12:06 AM	#25
Stephen L. Minor Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: L.A., CA Posts: 35	editing m2t Sure Alex, Capture with the supplied utility. I used Vegas 4.0d. to edit. On a dell 650 ws w/ dual 2G Xeons, raid 0, u320 scsi. It's still not real time but I get about 18-20 fps playback. Which is acceptable (1 stream will play perfect at full rez w/ no filters). I did lots of testing before I got the camera and after, shooting converting files, rendering, etc. just to see what I was in store for. Even w/ over 500Gigs I don't have enough room for uncompressing the HD. Even though the drives handle it nicely. I would advise anyone editing to Buy Vegas at this time. It's by far the most powerful low cost solution. Edit the m2t files directly in vegas or use a script to batch render all your files to some further compressed format of your choice (vegas has sites that you can download all kinds of scripts). Once done just replace source files w/ the m2t files and render your master. In full HD, with no further loss. Every other post house we talked to would edit (converted) DV files then if you wanted HD you would have to upconvert back. No Bueno. Vegas has a strong community, I find the forums answer all kinds of questions rapidly. And the interface while taking a second to get use to, is blazingly fast to edit in. Most people I know only use Avid, some FCP, when they see how fast I can edit in VV there jaws hit the floor. Then they ask where can they get it. www.sonicfoundry.com Good Luck. __________________ -S

October 29th, 2003, 08:40 AM	#17
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Eric, at the same time, I think it's important to keep pressure on JVC so they fix the # 1 problem of the camera - which is, introduce separate and independent controls for shutter and aperture. I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place.

October 30th, 2003, 03:41 AM	#19
Christopher Toderman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York Posts: 60	Pro division wanted it but did not have the time? They took out edge enhancement, which is no brainer, and snapped on different mic jack and viewfinder. These were the biggest improvements. It took them several months to do so from the original HD1 release in Japan? Maybe there is another reason why they have not provided better controls. Maybe it would cut into sales of their and Panasonic's pro SD gear. JVC is owned by Matsushita (Panasonic).

October 30th, 2003, 09:39 AM	#20
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Christopher, you're right on this one. If Sony could artificially lessen the sound quality of its otherwise superb SD miniDV VX2000 cam, so just to prevent its competition with their $25,000 SD cams, then I'm more than sure that JVC also keeps HD10's features on a short leash to prevent it becoming "too good". But at least they must introduce features that are STANDARD in this market segment, which is fully manual/independent shutter and aperture control, built-in ND filters, and 70/100 zebra taht is a necessity given the cam's low latitude in particular.

October 30th, 2003, 03:00 PM	#22
Louis Grimaldo Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Tampa Posts: 26	Thanks Eric. I just ordered Darren Kelly's JumpStart guide. As I stated earlier my DP is uncomfortable with using this camera. We will both watch the Jumpstart guide DVD to see if we are comfortable working within the limitations of this camera. From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?

October 30th, 2003, 07:46 PM	#24
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	SL, how did you edit your short shot with Hd10? Software-wise, what NLE etc? Thanks.

October 31st, 2003, 08:54 AM	#26
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Thanks SL. Is it necessary to have Vegas+DVD version, or Vegas 4.0 will do as well? Some folks insist that only Vegas+DVD release is capable of m2t handling.

October 31st, 2003, 12:55 PM	#27
Stephen L. Minor Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: L.A., CA Posts: 35	I have no idea, I have +DVD the extra money's not wasted anyway. __________________ -S

October 31st, 2003, 07:20 PM	#28
Lisa Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 86	"From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?" century optics matte box..that what we're ordering. It fits and was recommended by a JVC rep.

October 31st, 2003, 07:41 PM	#29
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Lisa, I have 5 different ND filters for this camera. Each is about $20-$40 for the excellent quality B+W brand. Are you planning on spending $200 on EACH 4x4 filter for your matte box?

October 31st, 2003, 09:23 PM	#30
Stephen L. Minor Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: L.A., CA Posts: 35	I almost forgot. If your in a scene w/ high contrast try using the blc button on the cam. It's a little overlooked button in a strange place to the left of focus dial. It makes a difference. Sometimes the results are very pleasing. I think it uses a different compression to achieve better contrast ratios. Good Luck. __________________ -S