Low-Light Stage Play

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

By definition, a stage with spotlight and background IS NOT a NORMAL situation.

Steve. A spotlight on a stage IS normal. Not only that, it could be a desired look in a motion picture. It could be a scene in noir style where everything is pitch black except for a properly exposed object in the foreground. In other words, as long as the lit area, however small or large it may be, is not overexposed, it is indeed normal, providing that's the look the DP wants. I really don't like these artificial limitations being suggested as 'the way we need to work now'. It's either fine and the camera can handle that or it's indeed the limitation of this particular camera and all that buy it need to accept it. But it doesn't deem certain lighting scenarios not normal from now on.

So, I hope that the camera CAN handle these situations, as a lot of this particular discussion is theoretical at this point anyway. Actually, it might be interesting to see a frame grab of exactly this lighting situation Anyone?.

[Peter Moore]

Well you're not going to be seeing it from my event, because JVC can find someone else to use this camera. What a terrible disappointment. First the HD10 with its horrendous 1-CCD color, and now the HD100 with this SSE which no one seems to be calling a DESIGN DEFECT that should have warranted a recall and redesign.

[Steve Mullen]

Jiri,

I'm using NORMAL in a statistical sense -- as in a NORMAL distribution of light. That's what you use a histogram for -- to see the light distribution.

The point is that folks are going to buy the HD100. Either they are going to shoot and get SSE or they are going to learn how to use it and not get SSE.

Folks harping on SEE isn't going to make anything better. And, I really doubt they are going to convince folks not buy the camera.

As I said, "If you can't do this -- and keep gain to +6db or less to avoid noise in the dark areas -- then it's not a job for the camera."

So either don't use the camera or use it in a way that gets good results.

[Robert Castiglione]

Peter, as an actual (very happy) user of the camera over a considerable period of time now and shooting in a wide variety of situations, I'm bound to say that your comments are not really warranted. SSE is not that much of an issue (god I hope I dont inadvertently start another thread on SSE).

Rob

[Steve Mullen]

There is no such thing as an "artificial" type limitation. All cameras and lenses have limitations.

Looking-up Tim's reference to ASA 200 EXR film I found an interesting quote about shooting at f/4 rather than f/2.8. You may remember the protest about the "limitation" of not being able to shoot wide open. (This was when I recommended checking the AE for an f/4 reading to avoid SSE.)

Click to: http://www.michaelbay.com/whenworldscollide001.htm

And look for this segment: "However, Schwartzman also found that it was essential to use the proper stop in anamorphic, since the poor performance of the lenses in wide-open conditions ...

... As soon as you get a T4, though, they magically transform into gems made of glass."

This is how a pro deals with a limitation. And, by the way, the same advice about shooting at f/4 still applies to the Fujinon lens. And, to avoid diffraction effects, one should keep the iris larger than f/8.

Also from this site: "Many American Cinematographer readers probably don't realize that you can't just put any lens ... Each one has its own sweet spot."

So here's another limitation professionally handled by recognizing that each lens has a sweet spot and you get the best results by shooting in it.

That means shooting from f/4 to f/5.6. How's that for a limitation? By the way, I'm not telling you you MUST follow this rule -- so take this advice as no more than a recommendation. :)

If you can't, or won't, work with the limitations of the HD100 -- JVC is quite happy to have you go elsewhere for your 24P camcorder.

[Jiri Bakala]

Apples and oranges... interesting article, though, thanks Steve.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala

Apples and oranges... interesting article, though, thanks Steve.

I think I understand why you say that. If one thinks JVC had an alternative way to obtain 24P at the same cost and in the same time frame -- then SSE is a "defect" that should be fixed.

But, if one believes that the HD100 is state-of-the-art for 24P, then like every technology that isn't perfect -- it is only a serious limitation. Since I believe the latter -- I'm in the "work around it by knowledge" or don't buy/use it camp.

[Peter Moore]

I don't think my comments are unwarranted. We've got a camera here that is essentially useless in certain (what JVC calls extreme) lighting conditions, that, while they may be extreme, are not too uncommon. There's a reason that everyone asks about low light performance of every camera. That's an important factor. This camera doesn't just perform poorly in low light - it actually creates an image that by all accounts sounds unusable (though I would be interested in seeing some footage). I can't imagine anyone looking at this "effect" and believing it is just poor performance and not a defect.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Peter Moore

This camera doesn't just perform poorly in low light - it actually creates an image that by all accounts sounds unusable (though I would be interested in seeing some footage).

The people unhappiest are complaining here the most. There are happy users.

[Robert Castiglione]

Peter, I think it is fair to say this (and you should know that initially I was indeed upset about the issue - until I actually started using the camera). It seems from what I have read that JVC encountered a technical limitation in making a true progressive scan camera in this price range. It was still worth producing the camera. It is a real gift for those trying to make dramas on low budgets. As long as there is proper disclosure and understanding of that limitation, I dont see it as a real issue.

Having said that, I stress again that I have now used this camera a lot for both doco and drama work in a variety of genres - indoors, outdoors, shooting low light in a club, a music video and never once has SSE in any of those situations manifested. (I can only produce it when I really really try in a dark room against a flat surface) That should put the extent of the problem in perspective.

Rob

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

The people unhappiest are complaining here the most. There are happy users.

In fact, the biggest complainsts are from those who don't even have the camera.

Yet they hang around repeating endlessly the same mantra that the camera has a this or that defect.

It's great that HD100 shooters take the time to comment on their real experiences.

I had a hell of a time finding an SSE shot for my book. Finally found one at +18dB (ND2 at F16) trying get some noise into a Preset and one in NYC at night at Columbus Circle. To make them visible for the book I had to play with the image and place red marks to direct a readers eye to where the SSE is.

[Greg Bellotte]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

The people unhappiest are complaining here the most. There are happy users.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

In fact, the biggest complainsts are from those who don't even have the camera.

I bought two HD100's. Guess that makes me TWICE as happy as the usual user. :-) :-)

oh, and no sse. but i don't usually shoot in the dark...

[Barry Green]

It really isn't that hard to find. I pointed the cam at a broad daylight scene overlooking hollywood (pointing down at the town from up by the hollywood sign) at 0db and there was split-screen. Broad daylight. All you really need to get SSE is a solid color object, like the sky.

Now, with that said, this new JVC I was playing with this weekend was *way* better than the one I bought. It produced some pretty darn nice footage. Had the one I bought performed this well, I would have kept it and been happy with it. I don't know how much variance there is from unit to unit, and this one was about 8 weeks newer than mine, but it was a much better performer.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Are you getting back on the horse Barry?

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Peter Moore

I don't think my comments are unwarranted. We've got a camera here that is essentially useless in certain (what JVC calls extreme) lighting conditions, that, while they may be extreme, are not too uncommon. There's a reason that everyone asks about low light performance of every camera. That's an important factor. This camera doesn't just perform poorly in low light - it actually creates an image that by all accounts sounds unusable (though I would be interested in seeing some footage).

Hi Peter.
I gotta chime in about this. I received my HD100 recently and by any account I'm not a cinematographer, I just got into this and I'm learning by the day but I have to disagree with your statement. Just after the camera arrived I tore my left meniscus so I've been stuck at home with no mobility and definitely no way of carry around lights etc. So I shoot just what is available.
Just to become familar with the camera and the lens. I shot some low-light (two nightstands) scenes and, after setting white balance and setting iris in the best possible way I cold find, I got a decent picture and no split screen.
If fact I was not awar of the split screen deal until I read it here.
I was actually surprised of how nicely the HD100 responded to low light situations. Did I try to shoot at nighttime with only street lights available? No, but I would be surprised if any *video* camera would perform well in that scenario.

To me the HD100 is a great little camera and I can't wait to have the chance to use it in a more complex setup. Again, I'm not an expert but I believe you could shoot and independent, feature-lenght film and be rewarded with good results.

Take care.
--
Paolo