|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 21st, 2006, 02:50 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
For the original poster I would have recommended the FX1 or Z1U as a good complement to the HC1 you have already, and I'd encourage you to think about that during the time you have to make a decision about keeping the JVC camera. I've found the autofocus on the FX1 and Z1U to be quite good in most situations, and of course you can turn it off any time you want a specific focusing effect. So if you find other reasons you're not comfortable with the JVC and decide to send it back anyway, then I'd say to think about the Sony cameras as your next choice. If you do keep the JVC, enjoy it and don't worry yourself too much about "what if." |
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2006, 03:00 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2006, 03:34 PM
|
#33 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 512
|
Thousands of people around the world shoot live events in HD with 2/3" chips that are twice as hard to focus. Lack of AF is a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2006, 04:50 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
Although new technology is helping with focusing in HD. Fujinon has their Precision Focus Assist system built into some lenses that uses two CCDs and contrast detection to achieve focus or give guidance for focus. The camera operator uses a trackball to position the focus area on the desired spot and he/she can either get guidance information or have the lens focus on that spot. They're suppose to have a few of these PF lenses at CineGear so I'm anxious to check them out. http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/pf.shtml http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/...ecision_focus/ |
|
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2006, 06:59 PM
|
#35 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 512
|
Quote:
About Fuji's PF lenses, what I'm worried about is the lens letting less light through. Not a problem for brightly lit sports arenas, but focusing isn't much of a problem there either. In low-light situations the PF might take away too much light. |
|
|
|
|
|
June 21st, 2006, 07:45 PM
|
#36 | |
|
2nd Unit TV
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
The HD100's capabilities are there for us to use; it's why we invest this much money in an entry-level HD unit. Once we understand the depth of the images it is capable of producing, it is then imcumbent upon us to learn how to employ the menu items to make our subject look their best first by controlling the image before it hits the sensors and then via output. And part of that educaton is the employment and use of a matte box and filtration system of our choice for those of us who can afford such things or screw-on filters at the very least for far less investment dollars. We are currently negotiating with Tiffin to bring to the board, through 2nd-Unit.tv, a comprehensive look at filtration along with price reductions and specials for 2nd Unit and DVInfo members through AbelCine Tech. While I agree with much of what has been written here on this particular post, I disagree with alot of it as well. Our art is not about auto-anything. It is about learning how to get what we see in our mind onto to the big-, small- and micro-screen exactly as we see it in all it's perfection. And that means taking full and complete control of our cameras and our environments. The underlying issue is that we have individually invested between $6k and $10k for our systems that are, by their very nature, High Definition. Irrespective of what is available for distribution at this time, we should be looking to record in the highest format the camera is capable of, employing then other technologies like filtration to control the HD imaging on an as-needed, case-specific basis. We can then archive it and provide it to our clients in that format for future transfer to HD capable media when the battles for distribution supremacy are over. We don't typically have this problem in broadcast because we have broadcast specs defining the format we have to deliver on both for both video and audio material. Sometimes its 720p and others its 1080i with all their individual idiosyncricies and specifications. Heck, sometines its D5. What I try to do is provide as much information as I can on how to achieve the highest level of quality possible to members of this board and it is becasue of that I believe that we need to stop looking for auto-focus or auto-anything. I've had the pleasure of working with a number of the people on this board over the past 6-months and I can tell you, they didn't get as good as they are by flipping to full auto. And, again, I say this with all due respect to all who post here. I join alot of other people here who give of their time freely to help wean people from the auto world because was are artists, not autocrats. |
|
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 02:59 AM
|
#37 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: N. Ireland
Posts: 370
|
No image stablisation
Is the lack image stablisation an issue?
Your opinions would be most welcome... Thanks Andrew |
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 08:54 AM
|
#38 |
|
2nd Unit TV
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 509
|
Image stabilization is always an issue but the fact of the mater is that the form of stabilization found in most camcorders is not sufficient for quality images, especially in HD. Stabilization occurs in one of two ways; optical and mechanical. Mechanical or "hardware stabilization" produces the best results using a mechanical gyro to detect movements in the lens and compensate for it. We use this type of stasbilization when shooting aerials and ground cover shots from the airplane/helo and ORV respectively, employing a neat little device made by Kenyon Labs http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers.html. Taylor Wigton turned us onto this great company and we've been hooked ever since. For camcorders, binoculars and the like, however, image stabilization occurs via a liquid- or gel-based prism mounted in front of the lens. This bladder bends the light so that the image falls on a fixed point on the CCD. This type of electronic or "software" image stabilization is less expensive, available on digital camcorders and is far less desirable because you place yet another interger between the image and sensor, this time liquid and so dibilitating to the image. Thus it's not the best of solutions where quality images are concerned. Thus, if you're looking for quality images, a mechanical stabilization unit is the only way to go for quality pictures. The subject gets alot more complex but I hope this overview helps.
|
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 05:13 PM
|
#39 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,065
|
Quote:
Well that's exactly the point. Most, if not all, of the users of JVC100 are people who have made the jump from a standard def camera to Hi def. Some of us started out on film, then went to SD, now to HD. I'll tell you one thing now - this camera can 'see' things much crisper than any 16mm film I ever shot or saw. The small bumps that were totally acceptable when I shot with a Bolex or a Canon XL-1 would be unacceptable on the JVC - that's not a knock - it's a compliment. A second factor is that SD rules for now - but not for very much longer. Those shakes will show up quite well on a 60' hi def screen. A third factor is that some of us DO expect to see some of their work on a big screen where, again, every little bump is magnified. It's not just vanity - people do care. Handheld camera work is a sure sign of indy film making - something I try to stay away from. I want my stuff to look as 'Hollywood' as possible. When we looked at the dailies, my crew felt the same as I did. Point this sucker on sticks or prepare for vertigo. Same as a 35mm camera. john evilgeniusentertainment.com |
|
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 05:24 PM
|
#40 |
|
Capt. Quirk
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
|
Hey now, lets be fair here! There is a whole breed of TV that is defined by shakey hand held video. It's every bit as valid as the vertigo rack focus. It all depends on how you want to convey your vision. It conveys realism and urgancy, where as the silk smooth pans, dollies, and crane moves create a more etheral feel.
__________________
www.SmokeWagonLeather.us |
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 08:40 PM
|
#41 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 22nd, 2006, 08:48 PM
|
#42 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
|
From the Texas Shootout:
http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064 "Scenes #38-#43 - Round-robin Handheld We took the cameras outside and had each operator handhold each camera while shooting a martial artist practicing fighting-staff moves, so we could compare handling, image stability, and ease of focusing. As might be expected, the shoulder-mounted HD100 and XL H1 gave the most stable images, with the JVC capturing the smoothest moves despite its lack of image stabilization. The HVR-Z1 did very well for a handheld. Sony's excellent optical Steadyshot soaked up whatever tremors the operators imparted to the camera. The HVX fell behind the others--its weight and off-center handgrip clearly reduced everyone's ability to handhold it smoothly. Panasonic's optical image stabilization is less aggressive than Canon's and Sony's, and it appears to operate over a smaller angular deflection, so it was less effective in removing handheld jitters." --- |
|
|
|
|
June 23rd, 2006, 05:58 AM
|
#43 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,802
|
See this thread, which discusses some of the same issues: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=70016
|
|
|
|
|
June 23rd, 2006, 06:22 AM
|
#44 |
|
Capt. Quirk
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
|
Brian- The camera really doesn't have those feature, only in my imagination. It does have auto iris though.
__________________
www.SmokeWagonLeather.us |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
