Jon Fordham's HD10 Review Part 1, First Impressions of HD10's 720 next to 27F's 720
 

Unfortunately, it appears that my review is a bit too lengthy for one post. So, I'm going to break it up into a few posts in order to fit it all on here. So, when you reach the end, move on to the next post to contiue the review!

OK, here's the deal...

My name is Jon Fordham. I am professional Director of Photography
specializing in High Definition and Digitally Acquired imagery for Cinema or
artistic purposes, as well as a Digital Image Technician. I have been
working full time (as in my primary income or my only income has been soley
derived from) as a filmmaker for the past 3 years. I have worked or been
involed with production for even longer. My work in those last three years
had been primarily in the camera department until about a year ago when I
choose to be exclusively camera department. So, while I have plenty of post
experience and knowledge in other areas of production, my experience and
strength is strictly in photographic and camera related technical issues.
Prior to my full time work in production as a freelancer, I have worked for
a variety of production companies in a variety of capacities. Everything
from camera and post to video duplication, video engineering and even custom
tape loading in blank shells for mass sales of custom tape lengths. If you
think you know boring, I dare you to spend 10 hour work days in a vacuum
sealed "clean room" wearing surgical dress while clamping 2 and 1/2 foot
diameter VHS reels onto giant refrigerator sized machines and programming
them to load, open, splice, spool, splice, and spit out 2,000 15 minute VHS
tapes. Over and over and over and over again. If you've ever been the PA
whose been asked to firewatch the G&E truck then you have an idea of the
boredom, but not the monotany... Anyway, in addition to my pratical video
production experience, I also studied still photography at a Central Florida
community college. I say studied, but it was more like, "this is how the
mechanics work, this is how the photochemical process works, go shoot". So,
some good simple training and a little classroom stuff, but no in depth
theory or what-have-you. I have worked with many formats and standards. From
analogue to digital, PAL to NTSC, and 720 to 1080 High Definition. And I
have worked in many places. From Central and South Florida to New York City
(where I currently reside). That should give those of you unfamiliar with
who I am a basic idea.


First let me ask that the wonderful and enthusiastic members of this board
refrain from burying me under an avalanche of questions. I anticipate
writing a series of posts that will encompass the many "tests", opinions,
evaluations, and "discoveries" of mine in the next few weeks. I understand
that many are excited to hear my thoughts and opinions on my experience with
this camera and its performance in the side by side comparisons that I
performed with the Panasonic HDC-27F Varicam 720 High Definition DVCPROHD
camcorder. However, please refrain from asking a ton questions until my
series of post is completed. Or at least, until after I post my final
thoughts on the particular "test", opinion, evaluation, and "discovery". At
the moment, I have completed the first round of principle photography in
which I put the JVC HD10 next to the Panasonic HDC-27F. We have not yet
completed the donconversion of all of the 720/24P DVCPROHD in camera
originals to NTSC. Nor have I completed the donwconversion of the 720/30P
HDV in camera originals to NTSC. Also still on the list of tests and
comparisons for the HD10, is a side by side comparison to the Panasonic
AG-DVX100P in 480/30P mode, and some one on one time with just the JVC to
wrap everything up and see what I can pull out of the camera to really make
it shine. Like I said, I'm still just getting started. Nothing has been
fully evaluated. Nor am I ready to make any final statements of opinion...

So, without further disclaimer or ado...

Review Part 1, First Impressions of the JVC HD10's 720 HDV next to
Panasonic's HDC-27F's 720 DVCPROHD

The setup:

I was hired by Illusions Entertainment to shoot the short film "3 Days"
(working title). My acquisition format of choice was 1080/24P HDCAM. However
the budget reached the point, as it often does, that it couldn't support
1080 HDCAM. We even were concerned that 720 DVCPROHD would be a little
beyond the budget and we investigated the Panasonic SDX900. After some
working of the numbers on the part of our wonderful producer, and the
generosity of a friend who gave me a very, very good deal on his Varicam
package, we were able make 720 DVCPROHD happen.

This would be the fourth time I had worked with the Panasonic HDC-27F. My
first two outings with the Panasonic HDC-27F were as the D.I.T. and the 1st
Assistant Camera. My third was as the DP. Prior to my first experience with
the HDC27F, I had plenty of knowledge and experience with the Sony HDW-F900
and 1080 HDCAM. Both as a D.I.T. and a DP. But jumping into the HDC-27F and
doing 720 DVCPROHD was a whole new thing. In pre-production for my first job
with the HDC-27F (the job as the D.I.T.), I had the good fortune of
receiving a one on one training session with Panasonic's Anthony Sangiovanni
(my apolgies Anthony if you're out there and I misspelled your name).
Anthony took me through the menu system, the VTR's recording system and some
tips and tricks of the rig. Aside from the ingenius varible frame rate
recording method of the VTR, and some unique handling of the gamma and knee
functions in the camera head, the features, controls, systems and functions
aren't any different from any other profesional video camera of its kind.
However, the menu setup is a different story. For those of you who have
worked with some of Panasonics more recent high end model camcorders, the
menu's shouldn't be too foriegn. But they're still not very user friendly.
And the unique functions that I did mention regarding the gamma and knee
options are still going to be confusing to those of you who are familiar
with the other Standard Definition Panasonic camcorders. Just when you
thought you understand gamma and knee and its effects on electronic imaging,
Panasonic throws you the uniques features of FILM REC mode that no longer
use knee and gamma the same way. You're now dealing with Dynamic Range
Percentages and proprietary gamma numbers that don't always seem to add the
same way gamma does in normal video cameras. Not to mention coordinating
Black Pedestal and Black Stretch/Compress with Black Stretch Percentage...
By the same token, the menu structure on the Sony HDW-F900 isn't something
that any video novice could easily handle or understand. But for me, and
many others I have worked with, the Sony menu structure and access to
features seem to make more sense. And the same guideline applies. If you're
familiar with the menu system on a Sony DVW-790 DigitalBetaCAM, then aside
from a few options, you won't be completely lost on the F900.

I programmed the HDC-27F to modify the gamma, knee, detail, shading, and a
many other minor tweaks. I did not have the time or resources to properly
calibrate the color to a DSC CamAlign chart for accurate "true color". So,
the color was set to one of the default color options. I believe SMPTE-274,
but I don't have notes in front of me.

As many of you already know, the HDC-27F offers variable frame rate options
to facilitate the type of frame rate options available in many of todays
film cameras. This function is possible due to the unique 60P recording of
the VTR. In other words, regardless of the frame rate you choose to shoot,
the VTR always records the frames in a 60P sequence. Similiar to the DVX100,
but without the segmented frame recording or funky pulldown cadences. For
our purposes, I ran the camera in 24P to facilitate the motion signature of
most motion pictures.

Our HDC-27F package was configured with a 21X T2.1 rated Canon EC Zoom Lens.
This was the second time I've used this lens, and I must admit, it's quite
nice.

We were scheduled to do a 6 day shoot. But due to scheduling issues, we
ended running into a 7 day. Not fun to do 7 days straight. If it were not
for the fact that most crew knew each other and were friends who were
forgiving and understanding, there's no way that we would've been able to
get away with 7 days straight. And even though most of the crew agreed to do
a seventh straight day, we all still felt the strain and grumbled a bit. I
mention the schedule for two reasons. One, we were pressed for time from the
start. So please forgive me if the utmost care and attention was not paid to
the setup and operation of the JVC HD10. Remember, my primary function here
was to shoot the film I was paid to shoot with the Panasonic HDC-27F. So if
I didn't roll every single take, every single time, at every single
location, please forgive me. There were many times when setting up the HD10
was not possible due to time constraints. And when the AD is doing his job
(in other words, riding my ass about the time) and production who is paying
me good money to shoot for them is staring at me, sometimes I just had to
let the HD10 sit in the case. Two, due to shipping and pick up delays, I
didn't actually get the HD10 in my hands and on set until the fourth day!
So, I did get a full four days with it on set.

Jon Fordham's HD10 review Part 1, continued...
 

After we wrapped, I had a few minutes while discussing the day with the
director at his residence. The director has a Samsung 1080i High Definition
Television set with component inputs. So I asked if I could test the 720 to
1080 output option and take a peek at the HD10's footage on a true High
Definition set. I connected the adapter cable to the HD10, the components
into the set and pressed play. Just as promised, the image came up on the
screen in 1080i, correct aspect ratio and all! I was impressed. Not to
mention that I was relieved to see what the image really looked like. I let
out a sigh of relief as i realized that the LCD was a horrible
representation of actuall quality of the image. Fortunately, my instincts on
the exposure were as spot on as they could be for the expected limited
lattidue range of the CCD. The lack of full manual control of all aspects of
the camera, coupled with the "low end" specs of the camera itself produced
the image that one would expect. However, the image was by no means lacking
in image quality. The image had a very narrow range of contrast producing a
very contrasty image. The highlights were very bright and almost washed out
and the shadows were very dark to the point of almost going ink black.
However, the highlights did still hold plenty of detail and the shadows were
by no means murky or indescernible. The color was noticably desaturated as
expected from a single CCD. And I believe that the single CCD's lack of
color definition is what made the highlights look more washed out and almost
overexposed than they really were. I don't think the color looked bad, or
overly washed out. But, I was surprised by a close up shot on a cigar being
lit by one of the lawyers. The flame from the lighter as it ignited the
cigar was green! Weird UFO green. The brighter levels in the flame were
almost white. But the blue and orange areas of the flame were somehow green.
The 30P motion signature produced nice movement, but still had that smoother
more "video liike" look to it. Certainly better looking movement than 60i,
but not as nice as 24P. The image was very clean and clear. No obvious
noise. And as with all HD images, it was razor sharp. Too sharp, in my
opinion. Sharpness is the major complaint among many who work in HD. And
when it comes to filmmakers and Cinematographers, sharpness is usually the
first thing they notice and dislike. In my opinion, the whole point of High
Definition imaging is increased resolution. The ability to capture and
resolve the many subtle nuances of an image. Unfortunately, that increased
resolution and ability to resolve those subtle nuances often translates into
a very very sharp picture. For lack of a better way of putting it,
unnaturally sharp. But even though the sharpness of the HD10 was a bit
noticebly edge enhanced, it wasn't overly edge enhanced to the point of
being a major hinderence. After a few minutes of checking it out, I
disconnected the HD10 from the 1080i set and headed home to try and get 4
hours sleep in the unnacceptable 8 hour turnaround time... Non union and
indpendent. Need I say more...

The following evening I had the fortune of a proper 10 hour turnaraound
time. So, I foolishly spent my valuable time letting my curiousty get the
best of me! I connected the HD10 via Component to a Sony DSR-80 DVCAM studio
VTR. I connected the DSR-80 to my home television set (a 27" Sony Trinitron)
via the Y/C (S-Video) output, and set the HD10 to output the 720/30P signal
as a standard 480/60i NTSC siganl. Again the image came up no problem and
everything worked as it should. And again, I was impressed. Upon
downconversion, the image maintained the same qualities as it had on the
1080i television. Of course, with the obvious lower res reproduction syptoms
that any consumer Standard Definition television set has.

Then to see what we've all been waiting for, I connected the Panasonic
HD-130 DVCPROHD deck to the Sony DSR-80 DVCAM via SDI. The HD-130
downconverted the 720/24P DVCPROHD signal flawlessly. No fuss, no issues, no
problems at all. Man it's nice when things work the way they should! I
popped in the Varicam's DVCPROHD in camera original tape from the bar and
spent a few minutes scanning through it. The difference in image quality
between the HD10 and the 27F was immeadiately noticeble. The image from the
27F contained beautiful and accurate color with just the perfect level of
saturation for my taste. The contrast ratio was a nice and even level of
highlight and shadow. Easily reproducing the highlights at a level that
maintained the color and detail accurately as well as clearly reproducing
the fine details in the shadows. The contrast provided plenty of range of
deep blacks and bright whites while still producing a natural and even tone.
Of course, the 24P motion signature produced the expected "cinematic"
movement. And in true High Definition fashion, the image was razor sharp.
The difference though, between the "sharpness" of the HD10's image and the
27F's image, is in the way the image looks sharp. The HD10 doesn't show the
subtle nuances of detail and has an "electronic" edge enhanced quality to
it. The 27F's sharpness has a quality of extreme resolution. Capturing those
subtleys and resolving detail without having an unnatural electronic feel.
Skipping ahead to check out the Close Up of the cigar being lit that the
HD10 showed such unusaul color on, I find that the color on the 27F is
absolutely perfect. The levels aren't at all over expossed, the oranges are
beautiful and deep in color, and the blues are solid, and the flame of the
cigar buring comes across clearly and accurately. Even the tiny bits of ash
as the tabacco burns away is beatifully detailed.

After eating up my small amount of personal time with a few minutes of quick
pass comparison, I crash and prepare for the next day...

So, there's my quick first impressions. I hadn't planned on approaching this
"review" as a multi-part posting. I had antipated a shorter, more summary
type of posting of the whole experience after having the opportunity to
evaluate all the comparison shots. But due to post production delays on the
27F's downconverts, this is the way I'm doing it. Not to mention that Heath
informed me that the board was itching for info. And I didn't want to make
everybody wait for word on where things stand. Besides, this seems to be
just as informative, if not more anyway. And when it comes to the later
coparisons in the few weeks, the members of this board can follow my
thoughts, impressions and discoveries along with me.

My apolgies if this isn't quite what everybody was expecting. And please
forgive my spelling and occasional rambling off topic. I hope many of you
found this post informative or at least entertaining. And like I said,
please refrain from burying me under an avalanche of questions before I
finish the entire review. There will definitely be at least two or three
more parts to it. And I promise I will do my best to address every aspect of
the comparisons.

Thanks,
Jon Fordham
Open Source Creations
24P > HD > SD > DV

Excellent write-up, Jon -- many thanks!

Jon,

Glad you could use the HD10! I can't wait for the footage and the rest of your reviews!

heath

I've been that PA! --But they would never let me just sit there, I always had to clean the truck too.

Thanks for the great write up.

-Steven Galvano

Aaahhh... This is sooo interresting. I am happy to see that you took the time to really test it the way it should be. I think we have the chance to have a very professional individual do a head-to-head comparison with his mind opened to the HD10. Thanks Jon... really.

Another thing, as some of you may remember, I was testing the HD10 for a feature film (witch is right now shot using the varicam). I'll have to be on set for the last days of shoot next week to prepare the post production material. I will ask the production if it is possible for me to put the HD10 head to head with the varicam in some cases to further my own tests since the production company is interrested in pushing further the tests with the camera for future purposes. If I can, I will of course post HD images of both cameras. Let's hope they will let me do it... :)

Eric,

In light of Jon's comment on the HD being "too sharp", this indicates to me that this footage might be ideal afterall for conversion to 35mm film using the re-photograph technique (High end HD CRT, black and white footage, absolutely perfect conditions, throw in the right contrast filter), as a low cost film transfer method which would elliminate the 24 FPS issue.

Brian

I will be testing the HD10 output to 35mm film soon. I will transfer the 30fps HD to film images without FSP conversion, I just want to see how it looks.
It will be output on an Arri Laser film recorder. I will do some image processing for upres.
It should be interesting, at the least!
-Les

Looking forward to it. If one shoots for film on the HD10, it may just work out (with Magic Bullet, etc. going to 24P).

heath

Excellent! Thank you and I look forward to the follow-ups.

Chris Murphy

Woooaaaa... This is getting very very interresting after all... Can't wait to see your results.

Heath wrote: Looking forward to it. If one shoots for film on the HD10, it may just work out (with Magic Bullet, etc. going to 24P)___________________________


It seems to me that Magic Bullet, Twixtor and other software solutions are unnecessarily going to introduce image degradation. I say unnecessarily as there may be no need to create a 24P digital version of a production simply to end up with an acceptable 24fps film reel.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems that although many film transfer service providers employ either a frame-by-frame transfer protocol, or a proprietary algorithm to combine interlace fields to end up with 24 FPS, these are not the only methods, especially when you begin with a “too sharp” progressive image.

If a Real Time method were instead employed, then theoretically the original file could be 30P and accurately copied to 24 FPS film retaining greater image resolution than if a software conversion to 24P was first performed prior to a frame-by-frame video to film transfer.

For what its worth, the idea of performing a real time transfer should not only offer a tremendous cost savings over other methods, but should especially appeal to users of the JVC HDV. Afterall, if cost were not an issue, the Cinealta 24P would have been selected in the first place.

For Jon Fordham, would you have any pics of the cams set up side by side? I'd love to host them as an addenum to your review. Thanks in advance,

By "real time" transfer, do you mean just dropping a frame here and there to get to 24 fps?
That would be super easy, but the motion would look a bit odd on pans, etc.
-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Mitchell Warshawsky : Heath wrote: Looking forward to it. If one shoots for film on the HD10, it may just work out (with Magic Bullet, etc. going to 24P)___________________________


It seems to me that Magic Bullet, Twixtor and other software solutions are unnecessarily going to introduce image degradation. I say unnecessarily as there may be no need to create a 24P digital version of a production simply to end up with an acceptable 24fps film reel.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems that although many film transfer service providers employ either a frame-by-frame transfer protocol, or a proprietary algorithm to combine interlace fields to end up with 24 FPS, these are not the only methods, especially when you begin with a “too sharp” progressive image.

If a Real Time method were instead employed, then theoretically the original file could be 30P and accurately copied to 24 FPS film retaining greater image resolution than if a software conversion to 24P was first performed prior to a frame-by-frame video to film transfer.

For what its worth, the idea of performing a real time transfer should not only offer a tremendous cost savings over other methods, but should especially appeal to users of the JVC HDV. Afterall, if cost were not an issue, the Cinealta 24P would have been selected in the first place. -->>>

Chris,

Rolling two cameras was enough for me!

There were a couple guys around that were rolling some behind the scenes stuff. But I honestly don't recall what days they were there and what days they weren't. I'll see if I can hunt down some BTS footage or stills or whatever for you.

OH, somehow the middle section of my review has dissappeared. There is a section between the two that are in this thread that seems to have vanished. I emailed the middle section to Heath to see if maybe he could insert it in there between the two.

I guess my technical knowledge of HD doesn't do a damn bit of good for me on the internet...

Jon

More of Jon's review (part two, actually):

The scenes/setups that I was able to put the HD10 side by side with the
HDC-27F were:

1. A scene set in a bar/smoking lounge. All interior, no windows. The bar
had one wall that was entirely dark mahogany wood. The entire wall was a
locker style sectioned giant humidor with gold numbering and handles on the
individual doors. Most of the shots in the bar were looking in this
direction. In the scene, two lawyers sit a table enjoying drinks and two
detectives enter the bar and began questioning the customers, eventually
working thier way around to the two seated lawyers. The actors were dresed
in typical dark suit, white shirt, tie, etc wardrobe. All talent in this
scene were caucasian and hispanic with average to fair complexion.

I lit this scene entirely with Tungsten balanced lighting. 90% of which were
Fresnels. The rest were Kino's. This scene was a rather average contrast
ratio lighting level.

2. A scene set in a "government" office. Bland white walls with little
dressing and large windows in the middle of a bright sunny day. In this
scene, the main character enters the office and speaks with a woman at the
desk. Behind the woman the large windows take up a good deal of the frame
motivating our light and providing the usual challenges of handling extreme
lattitude when working with Digital Acquisition formats. Again, dark suits
and fair caucasian skin tones.

I lit this scene entirely with Daylight balanced lighting. My main "level
raising" source was a 575 HMI with 4 bank Kinos' providing the fill and
edge. This scene was lit to deal with the harsh daylight outside, but not to
completely match it. While I did raise the levels to have less blown whites,
I still wanted and let the exteriors go a little hot or over 109%.

3. A second "government" type office similar to the above described scene.

4. An interior scene set in a bathroom looking out to the living room and
reverse. This scene included two actors, again fair caucasian skin tones,
one in a dark suit, the other in a light grey T-shirt. Light blue walls,
Dark red velvet couch, black velvet couch, warm color floor lamp, and a dark
red floor rug with various paisley style creme colored patterns.

I lit this scene very dark and shadowy with Tungsten balanced lighting. All
Fresnels.

These are the scenes that I recall personally setting up the HD10 next to
the 27F. However, I believe my enthusiastic and curious AC's may have set up
the HD10 a time or two that I don't remember.

Thus far, due to scheduling difficulty and lingering production odds and
ends being wrapped up, all of the in camera originals from the 27F have not
been yet been downconverted. As of tonight, only one reel from the scenes
that the HD10 was set up with has been downconverted and is in my possesion.
I have not sat down and watched this reel with a scrutinous eye. But I did
take a few minutes to take a quick peek and do a brief "first impressions"
comparison with the HD10.

The scene that has been downconverted that I was able to take a few minutes
to check out was the first scene I listed. Interior bar.

This was the first scene that I set up the HD10 with anyway and due to the
late arrival of the HD10, it was actually the first time I turned it on!
Fortunately, the menu structure and button placement on the HD10 didn't seem
too complicated. I had downloaded the operation manual from JVC a few months
ago when a business partner was relaying to me his experiences and thoughts
on the HD10. It was around this time that I began discussing the HD10 with
Heath. I had read through operation manual a time or two and that's when I
made the decision to register with this forum to ask a question or two. I
think my questions were reasonably answered, though at the time I still
found it all very confusing and none of it sat well with me. Forgive me my
opinion, but it seemed to me that this board had a lot of unproved theory,
mere speculation, and miscomception. And I don't mean to sound like a d*ck,
but there also seemed to be a bullsh*t. Maybe not. But that's what some of
the posts read like to me. Please don't get me wrong. I mean no disrespect
to the community of many posters who are honest and frank about what they
know and what assistance and information they can share to further maximize
the quality of performance the camera can achieve... My apolgies, I often
have a hard time staying focued and not getting sidetracked...

So, first time out I was able to quickly locate the functions I needed. I
did instantly find it most dissapointing and frustrating that HD10 lacks
full manual control of the essentials. The camera's white balance menu
offers an approximate 3200K color balance labelled as HALOGEN. Strange
label, but the right color temperature none the less.

I found it exceptionally strange that the HD10 offers control of the F-stop
OR the shutter speed. This is ridiculous. Controlling the stop is certainly
nice for controlling the Depth of Field, but if your shutter speed jumps or
slows to compersate, then what's the point. Not to mention my next
confusion. You can choose to control the stop, but then you also have a
SEPERATE "Exposure" control. At least on a Sony VX2000/PD150 the "exposure"
control actually controls the stop and gives you a display that shows you
the number you're at. Weird.

AGC off, check.

When the LCD first lit up and I saw the image I was horrified. I have to
admit, based on specs and my experience with HD, I didn't expect the HD10 to
look very good. But when i saw the image on the LCD, I was surprised at how
awful it looked. It really looked bad on the LCD.

Undeterred, I continued to set up the camera for the best image I could get
out of it. Carefully, I set up the shot to match the shot I set up on my 27F
as closely as possible. Checking the HD LCD monitor attached to the top of
the 27F, I managed to frame the shot rather close. Naturally, with a smaller
CCD, different lens, and offset angle of being next to the very large 27F,
it's not 100% identical, but it's close.

Lacking Zebras as a point of reference for exposure, I had to use my
instinct and hope that the LCD wasn't completely inaccurate as to what the
camera was getting. The highlights looked very very hot. And I turned down
the "Exposure" control to -7 compensate. Even at -7, the highlight looked at
the very least hot, if not on the edge of clipping. But fearing under
exposing and trusting those "instincts" I left it at -7 and went with it.

I carefully did the classic video critical focus zoom. The zoom felt a
little funky, but I didn't pay too much attention to it since I don't do
zooming when shooting a style piece. I usually do my best to adhere to the
traditional cinematographic techniques of dollys and such when the camera
needs to push in or out. The focus was difficult to tell if it was hitting
or not and the even more frustraing was the typical passing by it and trying
to get it to stop at the right focus position with a servo assisted lens
such as this. This however isn't unusaul for those experienced with these
type of lenses and after a few hours with this focusing system, you can
usually get use to the speed and quirks of it.

After setting the shot, I turned my attention back to the 27F, did my final
lighting tweaks and we rolled.

The scene involved a small amount of movement from the talent. So following
the actors with a few small pans and tilts of the 27F was nescesary.
Unfortunately, since I was operating the 27F, my 1st AC was pulling focus
and my 2nd AC was slating, the HD10 had to be locked on the shot that was
the major focus of the scene. In other words, while most of the scene takes
place at the table with the seated lawyers, it was nescesary to follow the
detective in from the door until he reached the table to deliver the
dialogue. So, with the HD10, I had to set the shot up so that the seated
lawyers were framed the same as my final mark for the detective delivering
the dialogue.

Jon Fordham

Jon, thank you very much for the posts, very interesting. I wanted to ask your opinion on one thing though.
I've spent quite a bit of time looking quite carefully at the HD1O's image on a large HD monitor at 720p and comparing it to 35mm originated footage transferred to HD and viewed on DVHS tape, and also Varicam and Cinealta originated HD material, also on DVHS tapes, the HD originated material being commercially available tapes such as "Over America" and the 35mm being movies such as "Castaway".
In comparing these 3 image types what struck me most obviously is that the 35mm originated footage has a much softer look than the (Cinealta and Varicam) HD originated footage, and that the HD1OU also has a softer look than the (Cinealta and Varicam) HD originated footage, and in fact looks closer to the 35mm in terms of softness, than the CineAlta/Varicam footage, which are sharp as a tack.
Could it be that through some quirk of fate, that the HD1OU has, through it's lower quality hardware and MPEG2 compression artifacts got a look that (when projected digitally), looks closer to film than a higher end HD camera? I realize that this is a radical opinion, and probably blasphemy for a professional DP working in high end HD, but there it is, that's what I see. I would like you to take this personal impression seriously and while you are doing your comparisons, do some of these comparisons yourself and let us know what you think. I realize that if the HD1OU footage were transferred to film, this argument is completely gone, and the quality degradation may well make it look very sub-standard, but who knows?

All the best

"I found it exceptionally strange that the HD10 offers control of the F-stop OR the shutter speed. This is ridiculous. Controlling the stop is certainly nice for controlling the Depth of Field, but if your shutter speed jumps or slows to compersate, then what's the point. Not to mention my next confusion. You can choose to control the stop, but then you also have a SEPERATE "Exposure" control. At least on a Sony VX2000/PD150 the "exposure"
control actually controls the stop and gives you a display that shows you the number you're at. Weird."

It is too bad you couldn't have spent more time digging around this forum. What you are mentioning is basic 101 for this camera, and has been discussed at length here with shooting solutions.
I am surprised Heath didn't bring you up to speed.
Also it is unfortunate you had to rely on the LCD and not a monitor for shot setup. But I'm sure your well trained eye did the best possible with that LCD. Thanks.
Ken

I actually haven't shot enough with the HD10 before I sent it off to Jon. Because of a lack of a solid FCP editing solution, I've relied on an XL-1 to make money. I admit I didn't take enough time to fully figure it out. My friend shot my interview with the HD10 in DV mode (don't do that guys and gals) for the doc on my film's DVD and a wedding I helped out on (bad in low light in DV mode). So Jon had to snoop around the site and read the manual, but I'm confident he'll figure it out.

As for the monitor, I think we have to go through a DVHS deck to the monitor to see it in true 720P. Anyone want to field that? Jon will have the camera until we shoot a short film I wrote while working in L.A. called tentatively THE MORNING BELL. We're shooting in December, and we'll have even MORE stuff, this time lit and set up specifically for the HD10.

heath

Paul -

Remember, there is a difference between sharpness and resolution. This is something that I touched on in my initial review. And something that I anticipate discussing at greater length in the coming weeks. Many filmmakers often ask me about this difference when it comes to comparing 35mm and 1080. Even though it's almost an "apples and oranges" type of comparison since film has grain structure and CCD's have pixels, the bottom line is, film still has the ability to resolve more subltey's than 1080 HD. However, 1080 HD has a much sharper image than 35mm. So yeah, 1080 HD is a sharper image, but 35mm has more resolution.

I understand what you're saying and I can see the line you're drawing from point A to point B. But, I don't think I'm ready to jump into this debate quite yet. As it involves many aspects.

Ken -

Fortunately, my eye was able to get the proper exposure for the footage that I have had the opportunity to sit down and evaluate. A combination of experience and a hell of a lot of LCD usage on many many cameras! I agree that it would've have been far superior to have a monitor available that would display the actual 720/30P image that the camera was acquiring. However, since the camera does not output a full res image of what it's getting, attempting to accurately evaluate the exposure using the "downcoverted" image would've (in my opinion) been just as safe or dangerous as using the LCD. Whenever working as a D.I.T. and the budget allows, I often insist that a downconverted NTSC image be available when shooting 1080. I've worked with many DP's who are unfamiliar with 1080 HD. Those unfamiliar with the medium and the format tend to get too trusting of the monitor and forget that 99.9% of the audience will never actually see the orginal full res 1080 image that they are seeing. This usually leads to them wanting to crush the blacks more, or push the color higher, or any number of other image possibilities that might look fine on a Sony 24" professional HD display. But once it hits NTSC, or film out, or color correction can become loss of shadow detail, bleeding and artifact ridden colors, etc.

By that same rationale, using the live "camera donwconverted" image as a point of reference may be just as justified as any other method given the exact same reasoning. How much of the audience (especially given the particulars of this new HDV format) are actually going to ever see the image in any other format other than SD...

So, sure, with more experience using this camera, I'm certain I'll be able to evaluate the difference (if any) in the full resolution image vs the live "camera downconverted" image to be able to rely on a monitor for exposure verification as I usally do.

OH, by the way, here's my deal with the "exposure, shutter speed, F-stop" situation... What I did and what I've been doing is setting my "exposure" using the little dial, then turning on the "shutter speed" control and setting it to 1/60. The exposure seems to hold even though the readout disappears. But I don't know that this is the case.

Is this the case? Or does the "basic 101" of this camera you mention allow a way to control both the stop and shutter speed?

Jon

Jon, thanks for taking the time to do this review. I found it very interesting and fun to read!

Here's what I'm taking away.

I never expected that the HD10U would compete with any other HD cam (Varicam, CineAlta,...) simply because of the cost.

What I'm pleased to hear is that the image wasn't so bad that you jumped to conclusion as soon as you looked at the footage. On the contrary, your first impression was very good.

That's good enough for me.

I shot a commecial this weekend and showed the rough footage to my client on a regular NTSC monitor and in full HD resolution. He was floored! I mean he couldn't beleive the quality and film-like look. And frankly, that's what matters to me. I could see a bit of chroma noise here and there but my client looked at the footage over and over and his smile was getting bigger and bigger.

I used a .9 ND filter for outside shooting and controlled the light on my subjects with diffusers and reflectors. I even did an outside green screen and it turned out wonderfully.

Furthermore, I did not use a monitor since I couldn't find a 16:9 monitor and the camera will not output in widescreen on NTSC while shooting. I used the viewfinder and the LCD. I took more time to focus than usually would with SD.

This commercial will ultimately be delivered in ED but I will keep my HD master for when he decides to air it on HD channels (all for the same price!).

So my message to everyone on this board is the camera is fantastic if you control your lighting. Based on the rough footage we looked at, we know that we will capture lots of business in our area because of the price we can offer. ...and that, ultimately is the bottom line.

Now we are getting ready for our trip to Austin, TX where we are shooting a short film this weekend. Did I mention we hired a fantastic gaffer?

That's the secret, great lighting and techniques.

heath

Either I need to get some sleep or someone needs to explain
to me what a D.I.T. does.... Otherwise create review thusfar!

Digital Image (or Imaging) Technician

It is the D.I.T.'s job to insure proper camera setup. Including painting, matrix, gamma, shading, etc. Basically anything to do with programming the camera's DSP. As well as monitor calibration, waveform and signal flow.

The D.I.T. oftens works closely with the DP to create a specific "look" and advise as to "safe" settings and final image consequences regarding exposure and color.

I have found in my dealings as a D.I.T. that DP's vary widely in what they expect from the D.I.T. and how they personally feel about the D.I.T. I have worked with many DP's who consult me on every tiny detail. Always asking how something will work or worrying about possible problems. I have worked with some DP's who don't care about being safe and always ask me to push the camera and the electronic possibilities to the limits and beyond. And I've worked with a few DP's who hated the fact that they weren't shooting film, hated me for being a part of the HD process and ignored me or yelled at me for even existing...

Perfect as usual. Probably because you're a DIT, Jon.

heath

Thanks for the excellent explenation! Got it. I still don't understand
why people need to yell at other people or look down at somebody
elses job. Oh well....

Minus the stuff of course about you getting yelled at!

heath

Not perfect, but good enough. The role of D.I.T. is still a grey area with many. The argument concerning the role of the D.I.T. in conjunction with the V.C. and the Engineer is a much debated topic. Such is one of the many reasons that I've encountered so many varying expectations from DP's and even the Producers and Directors.

I agree with you Rob. Whenever confronted with a DP who insists on giving me a hard time about me doing my job, I just have to remind them that, I'm there for them. I'm not there for any other reason than to assist him or her in achieving their vision, and getting it on tape.

I'm still baffled at the guys who are bent on holding on so tight. Film isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But image acquisition is changing very rapidly. And whether or not a DP likes, or prefers, or insists on shooting nothing but film, isn't going to change the bottom line. The guys who have an attitude about shooting Digitally, or refuse to learn and adapt, are going to be the ones who are out of work. Of course, that's fine by me! :)

I think when digital is exactly the same quality as film, then those who are stubborn will have to answer to the people financing the movie.

heath

Heath my friend, explain to me the "quality" of film. :)

I know what you're talking about bro. But I think the idea that 1080 HD isn't "as good" as film is bullsh*t. I know I'm getting off topic here, and I hate to get into a debate that has no end. But here's what's what:

Let's look at the differences between film and 1080 HD since there are fewer differences than similarities.

35mm film's larger target (27.5mm diagonally) allows you more control over depth of field. The grain structure of todays' 35mm film stocks combined with the larger imaging target is capable of resolving more subtle detail when it comes to resolution. The photochemical process is still capable of capturing a wider lattitude range.

Now, if you're concerned about depth of field, use the Pro35 adapter. Many are using this adapter and many like the results. This adapter allows you to use any 35mm Prime or Zoom lens on any 2/3" B4 bayonet mount and maintain the exact same depth of field and angle of view as 35mm. So, if you use a Pro 35 adapter, you just elimenated one difference between 35mm and 1080 HD.

Resolution is sticky area. Yes, 35mm film is still capable of resolving more detail. But HD is sharper than film. And actual detail resolved is a different story. True, the specs of film dictate the possibility of more resolution. But in actual real world use, I believe it's rare that you'll find film actually resolving more fine detail.

1080 HD has a very wide range of lattitude. But it's still not as wide as the photochemical process can achieve. So, for now, film can capture more dynamic range. However, if you understand this, and use your ability to control your lighting ratio, then that particular difference becomes a different way of working. Not to mention that with HD, if you have a properly calibrated monitor (and waveform and such), then the old video saying applies. What you see is what you get. I often hesitate to say that because with the new world of digital manipulation and in camera matrix and painting options, I know first hand that what you see is not always what you get. But in terms of being able to see if an image has blown out highlights or crushed shadows is a different story. The information is either there, or it's not. And that has nothing to do with the matrix and paiting options.

16mm and Super 16mm film... Well the photochemical process is still capable of capturing a wider lattitude range... But that's about where the differences end.

16mm has the same depth of field as 2/3" CCD's. And Super 16 has the same 1:78 aspect ratio as 2/3" widescreen CCD's.

The resolution argument really becomes just that. An endless argument between purist. As 16mm rarely, if ever, will actually resolve more detail than 1080 HD.

An interesting addition to the argument is sensitivity. The F900 has an ASA equivilant of approximately 320. However, a comparable speed film stock with a 320 ASA will have more grain than HD. So even though film may be able to match the sensitivity of a speed of up to 800 to 1000 ASA, the grain becomes a noticeable detractor. So in most applications, HD provides a cleaner image.

And the argument of clean images is also an area where Super 16 becomes a target for HD. Super 16 isn't a projection format. It has to be blown up the same as HD. And many who shoot Super 16 these days are doing Digital Intermeadiates. A Digital Intermeadiate essentially is when you tele-cine the Super 16 footage to a digital format (usually 1080 HD) in order to kill the grain, and color correct the image before blow up. So if, you're going to put the Super 16 image onto 1080 HD for color correction and image processing, then why not just start with 1080 HD in the first place?

So then somebody will undoubtedly say, "But film just looks like film".

To that I simply reply, "You tell me what film looks like, and I'll make HD look that way". This becomes a staring contest of someone stuck in an endless circle of saying, "but film just looks like film, I don't know what film looks like, it just looks like film..." and on and on.

As a D.I.T., if you tell me that (to you) film looks like starker contrast with more color saturation, then I'll simply modify the camera's DSP to look the same way. If you think the color rendition of film is more accurate, then I'll put a DSC camalign chart in front of the camera and paint the color to absolute true color. If you think the color of film is something different than real color, then tell me what it looks like, and I'll paint it that way. More contrast, less contrast, color, sensitivity, etc... You tell me what you want, and I'll make it happen.

So, you tell me what the "quality" of Film is, and I'll give it to you on HD...

Am I overstating? No, I don't think so. Is the issue this black white? Not really. But it's not as grey as people want to believe. Are there other factors? Sure. But those factors aren't major enough to enter into the arena of arguable issues in my opinion.

Jon,

Film=4K, the new CineAlta can do 2K. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I'm sure that's right.

You know how to write, man!

heath

Well written Jon. The thing i like is.. If i tried to explain somethign like that i'd be laughed at... ppl will actually believe you as you are "The Man" :D

/me gets on with reading the thread

Trust me, I'm a BIG supporter of digital! My company is called MPS Digital Studios, after all.

Better change the subject from a film vs. digital debate!

Jon, what have you been doing with the HD10 since you shot the short film?

heath

Daymon, I don't know that I'm "The Man", but thank you.

Heath, one more thing before we drop the film vs. digital debate...

"Film=4K" Yes. Well, I guess. The problem with trying to put a resolution number on film is the issue of grain. It's easy to come up with numbers for Digital cameras when you know exactly how many pixels were put onto the CCD. But can you tell how many pixels are on a particular emulsion? This is similiar to the ASA vs LUX argument. There is a reason that video cameras are rated in LUX. And even though we can say that the F900 has an aproximate ASA of about 320, only a LUX rating is 100% accurate. So then we get into arguments of frame size vs. pixel resolution vs. recorded resolution, etc. Not to mention the generalization of "film". For this argument we'll assume 35mm and not Super 8...

So is film 4K? Yeah, if you add up the numbers that way.

But what about the Viper, or the Origin? Do they not qualify as Digital cameras for motion image capture? If you're really concerned about full on true 4K resolution, check out Dalsa's Origin. But don't get too hung up on the numbers. I doubt you'll shoot a project with a F900 or new F950 and think that the resolution let you down and you have to shoot your next project with the Viper!

I've been doing a few random test of every possible menu combination and output possibilities and what have you. On the shooting schedule next, The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Followed by some side by sides with the DVX100 on a short film that I'm shooting. The DVX100 is scheduled to come back from rental on Friday. We're looking at getting rolling around 12/6.

I'm not sure there's a per stock listing available, but it would be easy enough for film resolution to be quantified (or at least quantifiably compared to video resolution) in terms of resolvability, using, for example, an image analysis setup that tests for resolvability with a metric analogous to Rayleigh's criterion for resolution.

From Tipler's Physics, Third Edition, Volume 2, page 1084:
"The resolving power of an optical instrument such as a microscope or telescope refers to the ability of the instrument to resolve two objects [point light sources] that are close together. The images of the objects tend to overlap because of diffraction at the entrance aperture of the instrument."

In other words, you've reached the limit of your resolution when you can't tell two specks from one.

In the case of our tests, we would not be evaluating optical diffraction alone, but film grain/CCD resolution along with it.

Note that resolvability would not necessary equal (CCD) resolution, since there is not a one-to-one correspondence between pixels and point light sources, especially after all the various signal processing magic performed in a DV camera: in a practical setup a single miniscule black speck on a white background will never be recorded by a video camera as a single perfectly black pixel surrounded by perfectly white pixels, no matter how a camera is positioned, oriented, or focused upon the speck. Nor should it be disregarded that a camera's associated optics are as important to determining resolvability as the exposure medium (and whatever signal processing may take place in the signal chain following the exposure medium). However, the resolvability critereon is identical for both film and video systems and hence a systemized method of testing both types of cameras in front of gridded test patterns would yield an objective, quantifiable method for comparing the resolutions of various film camera setups to various video cameras.

Since we would be working with a motion picture medium, and film grain is really not the equivalent of CCD resolution but rather of video noise, it would probably be preferable for the resolvability-evaluated frame to be taken from an average of several film/video frames. The optimum number of frames the test should average over is left as an exercise for the reader.

(I'm sure there must be a vision systems lab at some university somewhere that has a setup just like the one I'm describing.)

Exactly my point Robert. Though much more scientifically and might I say, elegantly stated. Forgive me if I gave the impression that it was an impossibility to determine exact resolution of a particular medium, specifically film. My point was just what you said. The many factors of determining resolution, or more appropriately, resolvability make it innappropriate and dangerous to simply state that "Film=4K" and leave it at that.

Like I said, I really don't care to get drawn into the whole 'Film vs Digital' debate. Those many factors are ones that should really only be considered when evaluating their relevance to a particular image acquistion need. I have no need for purism and theory.

Certainly as a DP I do care about achieving the best possible images I can. But achieving the best possible images isn't always about the highest resolution or the sharpest lens. It is, in my opinion, what serves the story best and how I can effeciently and most cost effectively capture the required imagery. And that was exactly the point in my watered down and simplified post regarding the "quality" of film vs digital.

Jon and Heath,

Thank you for your efforts and input so far!

Will we get to see any clips or images resulting from these tests or has the link been posted and I simply overlooked it?

Thank you!

- don

Jon did some shots with both the HD10 and DVX100, so maybe he'll send some photos.

I'll say this, EVERYTHING is in focus on the HD10, but the DVX100 had a nice depth of field.

heath

Well, why wouldn't everything be in focus? Were there any focus issues experienced during the tests with any of the cameras?

- don

What I mean is, the foreground and background were in focus, moreso in the foreground. It looked to hyper-real. I'll see if Jon can send them to Chris Hurd and host them. The DVX100 had a nice, in focus foreground, soft/out of focus background.

heath