HD100 film transfer article in dv mag at DVinfo.net

Joe Carney · October 19th, 2006, 05:08 PM

John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.

Daniel Patton · October 20th, 2006, 12:13 AM

Good article, covers the good and bad of using the JVC HD100 for blowup. I got the impression it was rocky ground without the better glass, etc., but that it also "could" be done. Nice.

Stephen L. Noe · October 20th, 2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.

Is that the same article Andy Young was talking about a couple of weeks ago?

Bankim Jain · October 20th, 2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.

Pardon my ignorance but I couldnt find the link to download the Free PDF version would you kindly provide the link... Gosh i wear glass still i couldnt see the link.

Andrew Young · October 20th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Is that the same article Andy Young was talking about a couple of weeks ago?

Yes. I have the hard copy, but still can't find the pdf version. Can someone paste a link?

Joe Carney · October 20th, 2006, 08:19 AM

Just this once....
http://click.cmp.hdsmail.com/t/91581...824/3263333/0/

But he does wish he could have gotten his hands on the 13x.
Still, even with the stock lens, if you stay within it's limits, the filmout is great.

I recommend people subscribe to the pdf version, it's free.

Bankim Jain · October 20th, 2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

Just this once....
http://click.cmp.hdsmail.com/t/91581...824/3263333/0/

But he does wish he could have gotten his hands on the 13x.
Still, even with the stock lens, if you stay within it's limits, the filmout is great.

I recommend people subscribe to the pdf version, it's free.

Thx for the link, how do i subscribe to the pdf version as i only get the link to paid subscription !!!

Tim Dashwood · October 20th, 2006, 08:58 AM

I saw it on my local magazine rack last night, but was so disappointed in the low-rez printing of the screen grab comparisons that I didn't bother buying it.

Also, after quickly glancing at the article, I found that his comparison with the Canon XLH1 was severely flawed. His conclusion that the XLH1 lens is much sharper than the stock Fuji lens at wide angles is just plain wrong. I think his issue was simply backfocus, and he didn't even mention the term.

I tested these two cameras side-by-side to determine this very same thing, and the XLH1 failed in my backfocus test - at least in automatic backfocus mode. However, the lenses do have comparable resolving power. At the time I wasn't aware that the XLH1 had a Flange Back manual function in the menus, so I couldn't manually correct it as easily as the true manual lens on the HD100.

The Canon performs well in interlaced mode (1080i) but doesn't even contend in 24F mode (540 lines) which would be the logical base of comparison for 24fps acquisition to film-out.
He does mention this in the article, but for someone flipping through this article, the comparison shots of the pond are very misleading.
It also looks like the sharpness is turned on in the Canon framegrab, and he had already mentioned that the detail was turned down on the HD100. This is also misleading in such a small photo.

Anyway, I don't mean to slag on John Jackman, but I prefer the highly controlled testing done by Adam Wilt, over definitive conclusions drawn from uncontrolled field testing. It is just maddening to read a "conclusive" statement in a respectable publication like DV.com "most of the softening appears to come from the stock lens" when it is obvious to me this is simple operator error.

Joe Carney · October 20th, 2006, 09:04 AM

Tim he only mentioned the softness when doing panoramic pans.
He also mentioned to get good looking results requires skill and patience, no matter what lens you use if going to film.

Gary Williams · October 20th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Good points Tim I agree with you I think the Hd100 could have preformed much better givin the circumstances.

David Scattergood · October 20th, 2006, 10:13 AM

Thanks for the link.
I actually enjoyed the article on the Viper which I was interested in seeing as Michael Mann and David Fincher use them. Funny to see that once the camera's have the plethora of accessories attached, any aesthetice the original camera had is soon out of the window!
Also curious as to why you would attach two camera's on top of each other??

...and not sure I understood the mention of processed 4:4:4 RGB (used by Mann) rather than colour correct in post (as per Fincher)...but that's something I'll have to read up on!
Ta for the link.

William Hohauser · October 20th, 2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Also, after quickly glancing at the article, I found that his comparison with the Canon XLH1 was severely flawed. His conclusion that the XLH1 lens is much sharper than the stock Fuji lens at wide angles is just plain wrong. I think his issue was simply backfocus, and he didn't even mention the term.

It is just maddening to read a "conclusive" statement in a respectable publication like DV.com "most of the softening appears to come from the stock lens" when it is obvious to me this is simple operator error.

I agree that the comparision was oddly set up. Starting from the different video sources used to capture the image. It is possible that more info regarding the comparison was edited out but having read the results of Mr. Wilt's camera "shootout", I think Tim is correct.

There is another error in the article regarding HDV recording methods. While the Canon does indeed use 15 frame GOP, the JVC uses 6 frame GOP which supposedly results in better compression results.

Overall the article is a good account of one person's experience with the HD-100. The chroma-keying part was very interesting.

Joe Carney · October 20th, 2006, 11:01 AM

While I too found the comparisons to the Canon unecessary, I view the article as a complement to the existing knowledge about the HD100. His experience is probably more like the ones the rest of us will have. Nice to know you can do this even if you make a few mistakes.

Jim Giberti · October 20th, 2006, 12:22 PM

If he's suggesting that that still of the "pond and trees" shot is somehow indicative of the resolving power of either the codec or the lens, he's doing everyone a disservice with this article.

It simply looks like poorly focused footage...really poorly focused - as in does he know what he's doing professionally. Whether it was back focus or operatpr error, that was just bad shooting.

I was just looking at footage last night for a new doc that was grabbed in the last of foliage and featured a bunch of wide shots and tons of similar scenes with similar natural background. Nothing looked remotely like that, and it was all late and challenging light and conditions.

And it was all shot with the stock lens.

Gary Morris McBeath · October 20th, 2006, 01:20 PM

I also read Adam Wilt's article, and his comments about the stock lens being soft at the wide end set me thinking about focus trouble I've been having.

I've had my 100 for over a year now, and I regularily get "soft footage" on shots in the mid to wide range of the stock lens. Havn't been able to find the problem. I am experienced in back focus procedure, have the good DSC Labs HD star chart, have shot with an HDCAM for two years, etc. etc.

So I set up a test, using an HD field monitor. Let the cam warm up so temp was stabilized, carefully set the back focus, (very difficult with the sloppy back focus ring), and then, after focusing on my subject at full telephoto, widened back to about 20, and found the focus isn't tracking (racking?); I could see it in my 8" HD monitor, and verified it by refocusing on the subject, even trying the star chart as a subject.

Tried it several times, to make sure I was not making an error in back focus setting. Anybody have any suggestions?

I will get with my reseller next week to try another lens, to see if mine is an anomily. But maybe there are more than one of these lenses out there with this problem. I'll re-post after that to let you know the results.

I think I'm looking forward to the 5x17 lens when it comes out.

Gary

October 19th, 2006, 05:08 PM	#1
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	HD100 film transfer article in dv mag John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free. __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

October 20th, 2006, 12:13 AM	#2
Daniel Patton Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Knoxville TN Posts: 589	Good article, covers the good and bad of using the JVC HD100 for blowup. I got the impression it was rocky ground without the better glass, etc., but that it also "could" be done. Nice. __________________ Our eyes allow us to see the world - The lens allows others to see the world through our eyes. RED ONE #977

October 20th, 2006, 08:19 AM	#6
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	Just this once.... http://click.cmp.hdsmail.com/t/91581...824/3263333/0/ But he does wish he could have gotten his hands on the 13x. Still, even with the stock lens, if you stay within it's limits, the filmout is great. I recommend people subscribe to the pdf version, it's free. __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

October 20th, 2006, 08:58 AM	#8
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	I saw it on my local magazine rack last night, but was so disappointed in the low-rez printing of the screen grab comparisons that I didn't bother buying it. Also, after quickly glancing at the article, I found that his comparison with the Canon XLH1 was severely flawed. His conclusion that the XLH1 lens is much sharper than the stock Fuji lens at wide angles is just plain wrong. I think his issue was simply backfocus, and he didn't even mention the term. I tested these two cameras side-by-side to determine this very same thing, and the XLH1 failed in my backfocus test - at least in automatic backfocus mode. However, the lenses do have comparable resolving power. At the time I wasn't aware that the XLH1 had a Flange Back manual function in the menus, so I couldn't manually correct it as easily as the true manual lens on the HD100. The Canon performs well in interlaced mode (1080i) but doesn't even contend in 24F mode (540 lines) which would be the logical base of comparison for 24fps acquisition to film-out. He does mention this in the article, but for someone flipping through this article, the comparison shots of the pond are very misleading. It also looks like the sharpness is turned on in the Canon framegrab, and he had already mentioned that the detail was turned down on the HD100. This is also misleading in such a small photo. Anyway, I don't mean to slag on John Jackman, but I prefer the highly controlled testing done by Adam Wilt, over definitive conclusions drawn from uncontrolled field testing. It is just maddening to read a "conclusive" statement in a respectable publication like DV.com "most of the softening appears to come from the stock lens" when it is obvious to me this is simple operator error. __________________ Tim Dashwood

October 20th, 2006, 09:04 AM	#9
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	Tim he only mentioned the softness when doing panoramic pans. He also mentioned to get good looking results requires skill and patience, no matter what lens you use if going to film. __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

October 20th, 2006, 10:03 AM	#10
Gary Williams Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rocklin, California Posts: 287	Good points Tim I agree with you I think the Hd100 could have preformed much better givin the circumstances.

October 20th, 2006, 10:13 AM	#11
David Scattergood Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 755	Thanks for the link. I actually enjoyed the article on the Viper which I was interested in seeing as Michael Mann and David Fincher use them. Funny to see that once the camera's have the plethora of accessories attached, any aesthetice the original camera had is soon out of the window! Also curious as to why you would attach two camera's on top of each other?? ...and not sure I understood the mention of processed 4:4:4 RGB (used by Mann) rather than colour correct in post (as per Fincher)...but that's something I'll have to read up on! Ta for the link.

October 20th, 2006, 11:01 AM	#13
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	While I too found the comparisons to the Canon unecessary, I view the article as a complement to the existing knowledge about the HD100. His experience is probably more like the ones the rest of us will have. Nice to know you can do this even if you make a few mistakes. __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

October 20th, 2006, 12:22 PM	#14
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	If he's suggesting that that still of the "pond and trees" shot is somehow indicative of the resolving power of either the codec or the lens, he's doing everyone a disservice with this article. It simply looks like poorly focused footage...really poorly focused - as in does he know what he's doing professionally. Whether it was back focus or operatpr error, that was just bad shooting. I was just looking at footage last night for a new doc that was grabbed in the last of foliage and featured a bunch of wide shots and tons of similar scenes with similar natural background. Nothing looked remotely like that, and it was all late and challenging light and conditions. And it was all shot with the stock lens.

October 20th, 2006, 01:20 PM	#15
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	I also read Adam Wilt's article, and his comments about the stock lens being soft at the wide end set me thinking about focus trouble I've been having. I've had my 100 for over a year now, and I regularily get "soft footage" on shots in the mid to wide range of the stock lens. Havn't been able to find the problem. I am experienced in back focus procedure, have the good DSC Labs HD star chart, have shot with an HDCAM for two years, etc. etc. So I set up a test, using an HD field monitor. Let the cam warm up so temp was stabilized, carefully set the back focus, (very difficult with the sloppy back focus ring), and then, after focusing on my subject at full telephoto, widened back to about 20, and found the focus isn't tracking (racking?); I could see it in my 8" HD monitor, and verified it by refocusing on the subject, even trying the star chart as a subject. Tried it several times, to make sure I was not making an error in back focus setting. Anybody have any suggestions? I will get with my reseller next week to try another lens, to see if mine is an anomily. But maybe there are more than one of these lenses out there with this problem. I'll re-post after that to let you know the results. I think I'm looking forward to the 5x17 lens when it comes out. Gary