XL2 grab with 16X Manual lens....

[MattC]

I used a tiffen warm diffusion 1/4 on this. Cinegamma and cinecolor on, master ped dropped a bit, sharpness down a bit (could still go down more) and that's it. There has been no color correction at all - this image is straight from camera.

Still getting used to manually focusing with a real lens - believe it or not it takes some getting used to. Also, I did not set up an studio lights. I did this all with practicals and then white balanced the camera. I went for that grainy DVXUser look :thumbsup:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/16x1.jpg

Let me know what you think.

Matt

[STORYTELLER32]

This looks grainy to you? :huh: lol...

Ok, so the color is nice (a little dark, but decent color). But damn that's still a sharp ass image and it's still video looking as hell to me. I don't know what it is about this camera but I see video in every grab and every clip I see from it. I really think Canon simply dropped the ball on this. Rather than remind me of film, it merely looks like video at 24fps and not filmic in quality.

I hope my DP will have some ideas on how to get around this for our little flik (especially since I'll only have the stock lens to work with). Then again, I'll be working with some SHAKE post production guru's who can probably alter the image into anything they want. It'll be about a month but I'll post grabs when I get going on it.

[MattC]

You such a fucking pain in my ass... I actually think it's soft (I didn't set up any lighting and had a hard time focusing the manual lens on me since I was not sitting down when I focused the camera). Is it grainy to me? Yeah a bit. I don't like the 8mm or 16mm, dull color, film grain look. I would use it to create a particular style if needed, but as an overall look? Not for me. But since you obviously only work with the best and have such an eye, I'm sure you'll be able to get the look that you like. I'll try experimenting some more tonight and add some grain, maybe you would like that better.

Does this look too sharp to you?:

http://kinetaku.hiho.jp/www/htdocs/mt/archives/images/200406/godfather.jpg

or this?

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/lastsamurai1.JPG

It would be easier if you could quantify what you're saying other than "it looks like video to me" which is sort of a cop out answer. Film is sharp, even film with grain is sharp.

Matt

[STORYTELLER32]

lol... Sorry Matt, I know. I am a harsh critic but I do only go for the best. I don't think that's a drawback though to have high standards (especially as a film maker). And don't take it as a personal failure or anything. You didn't make the camera. I blamed Canon not you.

To answer your question, neither of those movie grabs looks sharp to me. They look filmic, crisp and clean. But the edges and details don't look like they were carved out with a razor blade like the canon footage does.

I know I mentioned it before that grabs have a different impact than moving images so perhaps a clip might look better than a grab to me.

[MattC]

I'm going to start calling you Bart.. My arch-nemesis.... And I know you didn't blame me.

I can think of a lot of improvements to the image I posted (lighting, increasing contrast using a digicon or ultracon and then bringing the levels down in post a bit) but I wanted to just take a raw shot without much set-up and without any post work, to simply show what the camera can see. I could still cut down the sharpness control. Tonight I'll do that and repost. But again, a lot of what I see that folks here claim is "filmic" looks like shit to me. So beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'll try adding grain and diffusing a bit more to see if that helps.

You still haven't said why you think it screams video (which I think is utter bullshit, but hey to each his own)? Every time you reply I get a response without any substance. It is the lack of substance which is frustrating. I will be interested to see what solutions your DP comes up with. Perhaps, he'll be able to offer some technical advise.

Matt

[Zig_Zigman]

The candles attract all the attention - the subject could use a chinese lantern or even a reflector board's worth of light.

I think the "sharpness" or lack thereof is perfect.

[MattC]

I agree on the Chinese Lantern. Again, I was simply trying to show the camera and lens without eleaborate lighting or post. I'll re-rig tonight and shoot the same pic (or close) with some better lighting and a few post variations.

Matt

[STORYTELLER32]

I'm going to start calling you Bart.. My arch-nemesis.... And I know you didn't blame me.

Your unedited original post came through to my email. But since you took it back, I won't comment on it beyond this: Keep in mind the written word can come across harsh when it's not intended that way and I suspect you're reading inaccurate inflection into my posts from your point of view.


I can think of a lot of improvements to the image I posted (lighting, increasing contrast using a digicon or ultracon and then bringing the levels down in post a bit) but I wanted to just take a raw shot without much set-up and without any post work, to simply show what the camera can see. I could still cut down the sharpness control. Tonight I'll do that and repost.

I wasn't looking at it for anything more than how the lens affected the image with sharpness in mind. The only thing I said in my last post was that it looked a little dark. But that's to be expected when you point out you didn't use lighting other than practicals. It wasn't a put down on you and if it came across that way, I apologize. My inflection when I said "this is grainy?" was meant as humorous (hence the "lol" at the end), but there's no inflection in the words and I suspect you read it as being insulting rather than kidding around.


But again, a lot of what I see that folks here claim is "filmic" looks like shit to me. So beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'll try adding grain and diffusing a bit more to see if that helps.

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. It's always an opinion. But as film makers our goal is to get a broad spectrum consensus of approval for what we do. That's how we tend to measure success (and in hollywood it's measured further with box office numbers). So by that measure, if a majority of people think the footage you create looks filmic then go with that. What's the problem?


You still haven't said why you think it screams video (which I think is utter bullshit, but hey to each his own)? Every time you reply I get a response without any substance. It is the lack of substance which is frustrating.

Sure I did. I said it in previous posts on other threads to you. But I said it in my very last post in this thread more defined. "The edges and details look like they were carved out with a razor blade". That's a hallmark of video look. Also said this in a previous thread: "The color doesn't have a lot of depth and feels simple (lacking sophisticated subtle colors within colors which the DVX has)"

And while DVX footage also has sharp details (because it is video after all), it's no place near as noticable as footage from the XL-2. AND STOP TAKING THIS PERSONALLY! I CAN SEE YOUR FACE GETTING RED! ..ahem.. :cheesy: (see? This is called kidding around)


I will be interested to see what solutions your DP comes up with. Perhaps, he'll be able to offer some technical advise.

I'm not convinced it's something that can be done in camera to be honest(without spending tons of money (ie. mini-35 adapter, etc.). I believe it will take a high end program like Shake to do get around it in post and even then, we're still talking about SD footage so there's only so far you can push that. This is what goes back to my original point as to why I prefer the DVX look over the XL-2 though. The fact that out of the box you can get footage that reminds the general public of film and not video. Seems that with the XL-2 you have to spend more money after you buy the camera to go that route. Again, Cannon's failing, not yours. This is all about Cannon dude, not you.

[navitas]

That's a great grab technically! For my part I really like "the sharpness". I mean all new films are sharp and i love it (when I watch LordOfTheRings the sharpness and the insane number of details are breathtaking!)

Anyway... XL2 rocks! I own xl1s and I like it, but I'm seriously considering buying xl2...

Matt if you would be so nice to post some other grabs (full resolution) in daylight I would be very glad!

[MattC]

ST32, fair enough. Some folks just don't gel either on-line or in person, no harm no foul.

Navitas: I'm going to be doing some test shots at a gallery either this week or this weekend, I'll try to post something for you. Right now I'm making a couple of dimmers.

Matt

[MattC]

Is this grainy enough??? LOL! I think this looks awful, but maybe it's just me.

I want to shoot this with the sharpness all the way down, but I'm building some gear to do it a bit better.

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/16x1b.jpg

[will_griffith]

images have been removed
-will

[STORYTELLER32]

Will:
Gotta give you credit there. Those are nice grabs. I'm truly basing my comments on footage I've been able to see so far and I'm the first to admit that's not much. I know I'm not being biased because I myself don't own either a DVX or XL-2 camera. I've been holding off and was waiting for the XL-2 and had high hopes for it. Truth is, now that I just read about the HVX-200 hi-def for $6,000, I'm DAMN glad I didn't buy sooner. Isn't the XL-2's price around $5,000?

Matt:
You're right, the first grab was better. Now it just looks hazy like there's vaseline on the lens. I do think the grain too some of the edge off but again, it's hard to tell from a grab vs. moving clips. They have a different impact.

I have no ill will towards you Matt, never did. I don't take any of this stuff personally. I still plan on posting my results from my shoot with the XL-2 and will absolutely forward (to you and the board) our scene settings and stuff to share. Who knows? Maybe we'll come up with some stuff you'll find useful. (smooch)

[will_griffith]

We've had a few dvxs here and I think we will avoid the hvx-200 form factor.
The specs look great though. Too bad they aren't the same for the new JVC.
blending the two would be the perfect camera.

-will

[MattC]

Aw shucks, ST32 you're making me blush.. :embarasse

I'll keep working on it. I've seen images from the XL2 that I just love, like Wills, now it's just learning how to get it. Plus since my big project is going to be a doc, I think this camera will work very well for what I have in mind. I guess it's just the adjectives that you use, or what you see that sometimes baffles and frustrates me ("screams video") the two cameras, while different, just don't see THAT far apart to me, at all. But who knows, my ears were always my strong point, not my eyes.

Meanwhile, back at the batcave I've just discovered how NOT to wire a dimmer....

DOH!

[MattC]

Will,

I couldn't agree more.

[STORYTELLER32]

From what I read, the form factor on the HVX is pretty smart except for the lack of shoulder mount. I guess it depends on your needs though. However, I know there's an inexpensive external shoulder mount you can purchase which hooks into the tripod connector so it's not such a big issue for me.

[STORYTELLER32]

Matt:
If it works for your needs then that's all that matters. I'm looking to do feature narrative so the HVX (so far) seems the smartest choice for me. Especially if I manage to get enough bucks together to get the P+S technik mini-35 adapter with it. I believe I'll be set then. (of course, waiting to see the footage before I buy)

[MattC]

ST32, if you're buying the HVX and the mini-35 (plus renting a set of primes) wouldn't you be able to shoot film for that much (assuming you were doing a film out as well)?

Matt

[STORYTELLER32]

Possibly for a 1 time feature, yes. But once I own the equipment, the cost of future projects after that drops like an anvil. It's a long term investment. For film out, of course there's transfer costs. But I suspect movie houses in the future will turn to pure digital projection anyway. Plus there's always the DVD market (even though there is no HD DVD just yet, the downres of 4:2:2 [and even 4:4:4] color space is still tremendously higher visual quality footage). I mean today we watch movies which were shot on film on SD TV's and still prefer that quality over SD video, right? So it's not just resolution. It's quality of image.

[Sureshot]

Too dark. You're right about bringing up the levels a tad. Composition looks nice though. I don't think it's grainy, it's out of focus. Compare the candlesticks with the guy. The sharpness, I mean. The guy is out of focus (unless you wanted to rack between the two and the pic was just captured when you were out of focus). I dunno.

[will_griffith]

From what I read, the form factor on the HVX is pretty smart

Even after using the DVX I still prefer a larger camera.

It's just a preference.

-will

[MattC]

Sureshot,

You are right about the focus issue. As I said, I just got the 16X manual lens and for whatever reason it gives you better (shallower) DOF and focusing becomes more critical. Also I was filming myself so I focused on the flowers and then sat down. When I redo this, I'll place something in my spot and focus on that. I like it dark, but now that I've built a dimmer and a china ball, I'm going to redo it using those and maybe two dimmed studio lights. I'll post the results.

Matt

[Staven]

Also I was filming myself so I focused on the flowers and then sat down.

Matt, forget about filming, you've got the gangster look down! You should be auditioning for roles on shit like Sopranos.

I think this forum distorts our images of each other, cuz whenever I see MattC on the forum I immediately envision Sideshow Bob.

That's a bitch trying to be the subject and the filmmaker... you need a standin, bribe one of your buddies with a six pack for an afternoon.

Looking at the pic you posted... if this is a locked down shot, what about splashing light off the back wall over your right shoulder, possibly "moonlight", to add more depth to the shot. If you could get have the china ball somewhat directly above you, or some type of hair light, it could make your character look more noirish(though I'm not sure if that's what you would want). As for the asthetic look, to me you are nicely framed, but the flowers are freekin huge and hide you, also and this is probably a little much as this is a test shot, if you are gonna have candles, I'd have them melted down a bunch so you are bigger than them. To me they sort of shrink you down.

Hope your next test shooting goes well, and find a stand in it'll make testing way easier.

[Sureshot]

Sureshot,

You are right about the focus issue. As I said, I just got the 16X manual lens and for whatever reason it gives you better (shallower) DOF and focusing becomes more critical. Also I was filming myself so I focused on the flowers and then sat down. When I redo this, I'll place something in my spot and focus on that. I like it dark, but now that I've built a dimmer and a china ball, I'm going to redo it using those and maybe two dimmed studio lights. I'll post the results.

Matt

Grab a focus chart and tape it to the place where you're sitting. Focus on that, then go sit down. Good luck!

[Seetukka]

Do you have to use any adapter with the 16x manual lens??

[MattC]

Seetukka, no it's made for the camera and attaches via an XL mount.

Well finally made the dimmers - excellent! Ordered a focus chart and picked up some china balls. This weekend I'm working on some interview shots (tests for an upcoming doc). I'll post more grabs.

Matt