HD100 filmout to show in LA and Chicago

[Michael Pappas]

Hi Andrew!

I was the one that said that that footage reminded me of late 80's 16mm stock. Ofcourse different then film since it's electronic and not film. It was minus the grain of 16mm, that would be one major difference, however it was more like the older 16mm in how it blows up to 35mm.

Shoot with that sharpness down, and boost that chroma. If there is a gamma, set for low. to much clipping and not enough roll-off is another big sign of video.

Andrew Have you seen this thread. If not it has samples of settings for your HD100. Give these a try and run some multiple test within the same film test strip. See which one works. Let us know if you do, I would be very curious to your results.

HD100 Gamma/Colour Tests + DVX100 Match Settings
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52256

Also here is Tim Dashwoods hd100 recipes:

http://homepage.mac.com/timdashwood/public

take care.......


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Originally Posted by Andrew Young

Quote:
I think this video look (which I also see) is a function of the default detail setting, which is way too high. I think it is less noticeable on the mini35 footage because of the slight softening that is inherent in that process. I'm curious to know if you thought the sequence of the girl painting (which was done with detail off) looked any better. It does to me.

[Tom Chaney]

I was at the Chicago event today and I thought that the footage was stunning.

Andrew was great, his stuff was very impressive, and his journey sounded very exciting.

The real show stopper for me was Stephen's footage. He showed a shot of a train pulling into a train station in falling snow that I will not soon forget. (not to mention, amazing stuff of pigeons, some beautiful footage of a barge, and much more) Thank you Stephen!

I went to the event to decide if I wanted to pursue the camera for a project I am doing this summer and I was convinced.

Having come from a film background, and actually shooting a 16mm feature that was blown up at Duart in the 90's and then released theatrically, I felt that what I saw was as good as our (very nice) blowup. Our movie, MOSQUITO was produced for nearly half a million dollars, an enormous amount of that cost was film stock. With the JVC, I could have made the same movie (with the same quality) and saved a hundred thousand dollars.

And in reality, most of the work we're going to do, even feature length, is not going to end up in theaters. We may sell it, but our markets are more likely to be cable and DVD release.

Sometimes it seems to me that we are always looking for any minute faults with this stuff, when in reality, it is an extremely exciting time to be a visual storyteller.

I will be ordering the camera tomorrow.

www.tomchaney.com
www.take2themovie.com

[Gary McClurg]

Has anyone heard if they'll have another showing in LA...

It seems that everytime these things happen I have something that I can't get away from...

If I know far enough in advance... then I can make plans...

Thanks

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

I was the one that said that that footage reminded me of late 80's 16mm stock.

Hi Michael,

Not only that but it has been remarked that the 16x lens has the look of an Angenieux 9.5-57 from that era - something I agree with. Interesting!

I do have Tim's recipes and do intend to play around with the color pallett before my next shoot. It's a shame I had to run off and shoot with no time to experiment.

Thanks for the comments.

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

...please let me know how my nighttime exteriors look on the 35mm blowup.

Hi Tim,

I think Stephen told me yours were the night shots with the gun wielding troops. If that's the case, I thought they looked quite good. Enough shadow detail and good blacks. The reel it was a part of was a mixed bad of shots - some impressive and some sketchy (though the same can be said for my material!). Many shots suffered from the default detail setting (like my stuff) and there were some ugly examples of chromatic aberration. Stephen used the reel as an opportunity to discuss some do's and don'ts. Sorry I wasn't able to meet you.

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Tom Chaney

Our movie, MOSQUITO was produced for nearly half a million dollars, an enormous amount of that cost was film stock. With the JVC, I could have made the same movie (with the same quality) and saved a hundred thousand dollars.]

Tom - a fellow Michi-gander (Ypsilanti) here! I had the lucky chance to see some of your mosquitos in your studio a few years back - they were great - love the movie too!

I feel the same as you do + I just ordered the JVC and should be recieving it this week.

If you'd like to come and help us put it through it's paces, or just check the thing out, I'd be happy to help. (As an aside I work quite often w/the AD of MOSQUITO, Eric Maurer, who's actually a fine actor as well).

Anyway, let me know Tom....
John

[Charles Papert]

Ahh, I didn't know you guys were screening additional material in Chicago--I would have loved to have seen it. Every little bit helps in learning the "do's and don'ts".

[Stephen L. Noe]

Hi,

The Chicago show has come and gone and there is alot of information to discuss about the film transfer. As Andrew Young said above, the stuff I put together was a mixed bag of shots and the intention was to not color correct and to put the footage up on screen as it came off the camera. Tim D., your stuff (with the masked men) was in and Nate W. your downtown shots were in as well.


First up was Andrew Young's footage. I saw the footage from the front of the theater and from the back of the theater. There was a really big difference between viewing from the front and from the back. In the front of the theater it looked muted in color as some pointed out. I felt the same way when I sat in the front of the theater. When I saw the reel from the back of the theater it was very impressive. Maybe it was the screen? I don't know but from the back of the theater the footages colors looked correct and the resolution fabulous. Very, very nice Andrew! His story of perils in getting the footage was entertaining and I enjoyed it.

Next up was the reel I put together. The reel was intended as an example of what to do and not to do as well as to directly film transfer some scene files and see how they look. There is a ProHD user group formed in Chicago and the reel will be shown there as well and discussed in detail.

@ T. Dashwood and N. Weaver- can you post your camera settings for what you've included in the reel? I'm gathering settings so we'll have the reference to the camera/film. Thanks guys, even though you weren't there, you were!

In all things shown the blacks were superb and the shadows had nice detail. Andrew made the comment many times about the detail settings and how it may have artificially enhanced some highlights but from my point of view they were not that pronounced and it's nice to know we can turn detail enhancement way down or off.

There were 5 known scene files represented in my reel. Of them all, the "Warm" scene file was almost identicle on screen to what I saw on my timeline and what I saw to HDTV. As the editor of the piece I saw all of the footage over and over on SD monitor, HDTV and now on film for two screenings. Across the board the warm scene file transferred to all display types the same and I think would be a good basis.

Workflow went like this: I brought the m2t 24p files into Liquid 6.1 Broadcast (same as Avid Liquid 7) and layed them on a 720p24 timeline. The files had no render and were raw 24p on my timeline. I added cuts, transitions and a few titles. The render codec used was 2VUY (8bit) uncompressed. The only portions that had any rendering were fade to black and titles and one shot that was 30p linear time warped to 24p. The rest of the footage was raw all the way through. I then took the timeline and exported it as a TARGA sequence to a PC formatted USB2 drive and delivered it to "I cubed" here in Chicago. They took it from there and the Lab work was done by Cinefilm in Atlanta, GA. We requested them to leave it un-color corrected. Andrew, I will gather the information on the film stock (Kodak provided), the transfer method (Arri laser or CRT) and scaling method to 1080p and forward the info.

Some things I think are relevant to the film transfer and to the HD-100:

1. Focus is PARAMOUNT. Check and recheck focus. Use the full 88mm to zoom in and get critical focus for shots. We displayed some shots in the film that were in focus on SD but in HD were out. Be aware.

2. Observe pan speed laws in order to get smooth motion in 24p. We displayed proper panning and tilting and improper. Slow pans and whip pans are OK but medium speed pans that are beyond the pan speed 24p can take will judder. Be aware.

The bottom line is this: The HD-100's image is worthy of 35mm film.

S.Noe


PS To JVC, All the credit to you that put on the event. They were open to discussion about the camera and had no false ideas about the camera/format. Edgar Shane (JVC) described how the format and codec works and then JVC let the images speak through Andrew Young and I (in Chicago). They had no problem with Andrew or I pointing out errors or things to look for when shooting. Keep up the good work!

PS PS To all the guys from the boards I got to meet. It was great putting faces to names and I am happy to meet you. I can't wait to see some content!

[Tim Holtermann]

Stephen,

Any chance you will post some of these clips for us to download and view? I went to the JVC event in LA but didn't make the Chicago one - well it's a bit far ;)

I picked up a JVC HD100 yesterday so I'll go shoot some stuff this weekend. I'll try to post various examples at different settings at some point this weekend of early part of next week.

[Michael Pappas]

Thanks for the report Stephen,

This is why we need another screening in LA with other material shot. I have material from the HD100 that looks awesome that you and others have given me. So I was way way surprised about what I saw. I expected it to surpass the HVX200 material I have seen at laser pacific. However didn't, not closem and that doesn't make sense to me. Let's hope for another screening in LA... I would love Laser Pacific to do a film out of the HD100 as well XLH1......


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

[Nate Weaver]

Most of the clips that I've seen that I know were on the reel have what I'd consider now (now that I've spent a lot of time with the camera) to be excessive edge enhancement. I suspect the the HD100 would look superb for a film-out with Min detail.

In general, it seems the larger the display (whether film, or electronic projection, or 50" plasma) the less edge enhancement you want. Conversely, if you're downconverting to SD for display on the average 19" set, the "Normal" detail setting would probably look great.

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Most of the clips that I've seen that I know were on the reel have what I'd consider now (now that I've spent a lot of time with the camera) to be excessive edge enhancement. I suspect the the HD100 would look superb for a film-out with Min detail.

Hi Nate,

Yes, a lot of the material on that reel looked way over enhanced. Based on my experience so far, I would agree with you about the detail setting. What I shot with detail off looked better to me, but felt a bit soft. I'm working on a new piece and will use the min setting and this time I will push the colors more - since a number of people didn't like the correction I did.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Andrew Young

Hi Nate,

Yes, a lot of the material on that reel looked way over enhanced. Based on my experience so far, I would agree with you about the detail setting. What I shot with detail off looked better to me, but felt a bit soft. I'm working on a new piece and will use the min setting and this time I will push the colors more - since a number of people didn't like the correction I did.

Andrew, the footage we shot of Apollo Ono this week was with detail set to minimum and it looks almost 3D in some shots with out any of the exaggerated highlights I saw in initial tests.

I've only had the camera for a week so there wasn't a lot of time to get it down but I'm happy with the detail there and after reviewing the scenes in the studio I'm also bumping the color up a bit to match the CC I did in FCP.

I'm just pushing a broadcast deadline and I'll post a bit of that graded footage this evening.

Hey...can you spare some Gorilla glue?

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Andrew Young

Hi Tim,

I think Stephen told me yours were the night shots with the gun wielding troops. If that's the case, I thought they looked quite good. Enough shadow detail and good blacks. The reel it was a part of was a mixed bad of shots - some impressive and some sketchy (though the same can be said for my material!). Many shots suffered from the default detail setting (like my stuff) and there were some ugly examples of chromatic aberration. Stephen used the reel as an opportunity to discuss some do's and don'ts. Sorry I wasn't able to meet you.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to make it.
The S.W.A.T. Team stuff was mine. I was using my "Ciné Wide" setting on 0dB with the stock lens + 0.82x converter. Key/fill was a 4x4 Kino Flo with 5600K bulbs rimmed by a 5K tungsten with 1/4 CTB from about 70 feet away on the roof, exposure was ƒ2.8 at 1/48th shutter.
I'm glad the blacks were still black and not muddy. This shoot was part of promo trailer for a film in pre-production and is destined for standard def DVD. Therefore we wanted a sharp 35mm look for our action sequences and (believe it or not) the detail setting was actually set to +4 !!! It looks quite good on HD and in the SD downconvert, but I wonder if this was obvious in the film out? On that shoot I fluctuated between detail -6 and +4 depending on the scene.

And thanks again Stephen for adding my stuff to the reel.

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

...we wanted a sharp 35mm look for our action sequences and (believe it or not) the detail setting was actually set to +4 !!!

Wow, I can't beleive it - and yours was one of the few ones that I didn't have detail problems with. Maybe the low key lighting changed the dynamics - there weren't a lot of edges to focus on. Just a theory.

Your low latitude recipe seemed to do the job well, of course, I didn't have anything to compare it to. I'll have to do some split screens to compare different settings.