First HD-100 Movie? "The Hitchhiker"

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Of couse they're cutting it apart over on DVXuser.com

Of course... what's in the name?

[Nate Weaver]

I definitely wouldn't want to disparage the DP on that project, but I can think of at least 3-4 things that could have been done differently to lose the giveaway videoness of those stills.

Then again, I've had the camera for 3 weeks, and been able to view my tests on many different displays, of wildly varying sizes and qualities. I'm sure he didn't have the time to suss that stuff out.

[Ken Hodson]

For those picking the image appart, they should note that this was a pre-production cam with which in exchange they gave JVC feedback and reports on what was to be finalized for the shipping cams. This was not final firmware but a beta cam. The menu's weren't even set. As well it has been stated by Ken Freed that they are continuing to upgrade the firmware even now.
That said, I think even these nitpicks would be far less visable in a moving shot not a jpeg still. Regardless the stills are undeniably georgeous.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp

I'm with you Nate, If you have to take this much effort to find some little CA-effect in stills (for crying out loud)...

I don't know, the CA on her arm is pretty bad, certainly worth a mention. I think this camera produces pretty good video, but I think it isn't particularly "filmic." As it is a solely progressive camera, a "filmic" quality is important to the majority of buyers.

The basic information is all present aside from the CA and cut-off highlights, a little CC makes the picture look pretty nice.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I definitely wouldn't want to disparage the DP on that project, but I can think of at least 3-4 things that could have been done differently to lose the giveaway videoness of those stills.

Then again, I've had the camera for 3 weeks, and been able to view my tests on many different displays, of wildly varying sizes and qualities. I'm sure he didn't have the time to suss that stuff out.

I would love to hear the 3-4 things Nate :)

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

That said, I think even these nitpicks would be far less visable in a moving shot not a jpeg still. Regardless the stills are undeniably georgeous.

Yes, a moving shot displayed on a TV, not on a PC screen. The stills are great, I can't understand why some says they aren't. This is a fine affordable camera, it's not a Varicam or a Cinealta... give it a chance!

[Robert Castiglione]

I shot a short on the Sony F900 with a pretty good lens and some of the stills showed chromatic aberration so I agree no one should be worried.

The images are splended and we should all be very grateful for such a terrific camera.

Rob

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

I don't know, the CA on her arm is pretty bad, certainly worth a mention. I think this camera produces pretty good video, but I think it isn't particularly "filmic." As it is a solely progressive camera, a "filmic" quality is important to the majority of buyers.

The basic information is all present aside from the CA and cut-off highlights, a little CC makes the picture look pretty nice.

Just as Robert just mentioned, I wanted to stress this is visible in stills. It doesn't alarm me in the worst. I've seen a lot worse...

[Robert Castiglione]

Dear Nate,

Could you tell us the three or four things you mentioned in your email? Would be much appreciated.

Rob

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Robert Castiglione

Could you tell us the three or four things you mentioned in your email? Would be much appreciated.

Alright. This is not meant to imply the D.P. did something wrong, because I can also say from experience that the stills posted in that article will not look nearly as "video-ey" on a proper HD display (as opposed to a computer screen)...especially any sort of CRT.

1-The stills are definitely exposed like video. I would have exposed 1 to 1.5 stops down to save the highlights in the hair. Bump up fill on faces to compensate.

2-Bring down in-camera detail maybe 2 notches. This does soften the image a tiny bit to the eye, but the info still really is there.

3-Bring color level (saturation) down a notch or two. Not many of what a colorist would call a "flat transfer" would have colors this saturated. If you did shoot film and told your colorist you wanted things more saturated, chances are he would try to find out what more you were after than just bump up the saturation globally. Or maybe not.

When shooting DV, I try to save the highlights, always...even if sometimes it means I'll have to pull my subject out a little with CC work later. There is a limit though, of course.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

Yes, a moving shot displayed on a TV, not on a PC screen. The stills are great, I can't understand why some says they aren't. This is a fine affordable camera, it's not a Varicam or a Cinealta... give it a chance!

I think this is the key to all criticism I've heard regarding this camera... A lot of people seem to be expecting to get a CineAlta for $5k. Not gonna happen.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

1-The stills are definitely exposed like video. I would have exposed 1 to 1.5 stops down to save the highlights in the hair. Bump up fill on faces to compensate.

They look good to me, especially the skin tones. I know what you mean, but I have no idea how this camera would handle underexposed areas - maybe they'd get to grainy to be useable in post. That's what usually happens with DV in most cases. I think they did a good job on this one.

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

2-Bring down in-camera detail maybe 2 notches. This does soften the image a tiny bit to the eye, but the info still really is there.

I definitely agree with this... although, as you said, on a TV you'll probably notice less the sharpness of the edges, but it would have looked even better with slightly less EE. Mainly the first shot with the guy sweating, it looks a bit too sharp in a videoish way.

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

3-Bring color level (saturation) down a notch or two. Not many of what a colorist would call a "flat transfer" would have colors this saturated. If you did shoot film and told your colorist you wanted things more saturated, chances are he would try to find out what more you were after than just bump up the saturation globally. Or maybe not.

Maybe bring it down a little, but I think this one is quite subjective - it really has a lot more to do with the DP's perpective on the look he wanted to achieve. Some films look more washed out, others more saturated.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

I think this is the key to all criticism I've heard regarding this camera... A lot of people seem to be expecting to get a CineAlta for $5k. Not gonna happen.

Frankly, none of the shots (or grabs) I've seen posted have had the other elements one would usually see when viewing Cinealta footage, like:

Art dept.
Color correction
Good location

Which brings me to a parallel situation

I see the same thing going on in girlfriend's knitting. She'll pick a pattern for say, a top out of a book...based on a photo of a model in a setting where everything in the frame is art directed to match the color of the top. The model of course is beautiful, and the top is knitted by an expert to fit her perfectly...and suited to her type of body. The photography usually is excellent

So now I have a girlfriend that's knitted this top, and the reality of it is that the top is NOT suited to her frame, and standing in the mirror there is no expert photographer to show it at a good angle, and the rest of the house is NOT art directed. The overall impression is much of a let down.

If I had a music video coming up, I could post grabs or footage on here of that, which would be art directed, probably have a real good looking girl or guy in it, it would be lit (almost) expertly, and they would be in a setting that is interesting and looks cool. I bet $500 that everybody would be talking about how "filmic" it looked. Even if I HAD screwed up detail settings and exposure or whatever. Know what I mean?

[Tim Dashwood]

Exactly!!!

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

A lot of people seem to be expecting to get a CineAlta for $5k. Not gonna happen.

That's so true. The nitpicking is already getting ridiculous. As others said, even the Cinealta produces some Ac and other imperfections. I have to agree with the author of the article. The bang for the buck is unquestionable.