PDA

View Full Version : First Movie on HD-100?



stephenlnoe
09-19-2005, 11:06 PM
I see that the first movie (that I'm aware of) shot on the HD-100 was "The Hitchhiker".

Click here for details on "The Hitchhiker" (http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/english/circuit/circuit_issue2.09.07.05/circuit_2.09.07.05_focus.htm)

Were any of the users here involved with this project?

kyle_doris
09-19-2005, 11:20 PM
hmmm those JPEGs remind me of the look of the original JVC camera that came out (the HD10?) for quality. the colors are a little lacking, very video-like.

Nate Weaver
09-19-2005, 11:55 PM
I've found that underexposing on the HD100 usually helps lose the "video look". Also, I have my detail turned down a bit from what he's got there...another give away for video.

My feeling is that it's harder to get pretty pictures on the HD100 than say a DVX, but it's not so hard once you learn what NOT to do.

Nathyn
09-20-2005, 02:39 AM
I'm finding myself interested in the JVC again but I want to see what Pana and Canon come out with.

-Nate

mmm
09-20-2005, 02:56 AM
I thought this picture was interesting. Demonstrates some bad colour aberration on her arm. Apart from that it looks like reasonably decent video. I'm going to have a play with see what grading can do with it. The HD100 doesn't seem to cope with the highlights too well, but then I wouldn't have expected too much.

http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/images/circuit_images/hh_hiresjpeg_4.jpg

dashwood
09-20-2005, 08:24 AM
I think this was actually the first film to shoot on the camera:

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/2-pop/article_13595.shtml

athouguia
09-20-2005, 09:50 AM
That pic is not so bad, the first one have more noticeble green CA on the front of the car. It seems that they used the wide lens, I wasn't expecting CA from the wide one. Apart that, these pics look great to me. Ok, it looks like video... but it is video!

dashwood
09-20-2005, 10:45 AM
It looks like it was done by a group in Toronto, Canada.
Vancouver, B.C.

And I don't think this film was shot with the 13x3.5 lens. He said he tested the 13x lens though.

Tim

stephenlnoe
09-20-2005, 10:54 AM
This is why I want to find out if any users here were associated with the filming. I read it as, this was shot with the stock lens and that when they complained they got another lens to do test with.

Was anyone here associated with this? It looks like it was done by a group in Toronto, Canada.

It looks like video because non of the edges are knocked off and there is no grain. The saturation is OK on the pics of the girl inside the car looking out. The halo shots would have been nicer (to me) if they'd have used a reflector to light up her face and then pulled the exposure way down with a darker ND filter.

I'm not concerned about the "film look" at all. If there is a filmout, it will be on film so "the LOOK" will be on the film. As far as film look emulation, that can happen with 5-10 mouse clicks in any decent NLE.

To me the video needs to be clean. If this was the stock lens (which I think it was) then OK, I can live with it because it's already known that there are some issues with highlights. If this is the 13X lens then I'll be disappointed, not with JVC, but with Fujinon.

We'll see...

athouguia
09-20-2005, 10:58 AM
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought they replaced it and shot with the 13x lens.

franck
09-20-2005, 11:41 AM
oh my these colors are horrible

kyle_doris
09-20-2005, 11:51 AM
i agree. the colors are pretty bad :(

mmm
09-20-2005, 01:46 PM
oh my these colors are horrible


That can be corrected easily though. Blown highlights and aberration can't, that's why they worry me more...

nateweaver
09-20-2005, 01:56 PM
And then the lesson would be:

"Don't blow out highlights on this camera, it's ugly"

baremis
09-20-2005, 02:42 PM
i tried to color correct but still a crap
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/http://www.brokolis.com.br/color/02.jpg

baremis
09-20-2005, 02:42 PM
http://www.brokolis.com.br/color/02.jpg
colorcorrect

baremis
09-20-2005, 02:44 PM
http://www.brokolis.com.br/color/01.jpg

kyle_doris
09-20-2005, 03:02 PM
neither of those are very appealing to me. the bottom line is the image quality is very similar to those old cowboy pics barry posted years back when he did the upres DVX vs. HD10 test.

i'm sure this camera kicks ass, some of the stuff i've seen from it looks quite good. these screenshots though don't look that great to me.

just an honest opinion.

mmm
09-20-2005, 03:10 PM
And then the lesson would be:

"Don't blow out highlights on this camera, it's ugly"

True, whenever possible.

stephenlnoe
09-20-2005, 04:19 PM
Here is the original JPG they posted

http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/images/circuit_images/hh_hiresjpeg_4.jpg





Here is my rendition of the pic brought back into spec:

http://www.planetliquid.us/web_video/szn89productions/correctedwoman.jpg


You'll notice her hair is not blown out. It makes me wonder if they had any filters there to bring the exposure down. It would have been nice to have reflected some light up to her face! Nevertheless, the images are clean. I'd like to see full motion video.


@Nate Weaver - Got to hand it to you. I didn't have to color correct any of your m2t footage posted. It was all right on the money and within IRE.

athouguia
09-20-2005, 04:31 PM
oh my these colors are horrible

The colors aren't that bad and they can be adjusted. Give this great affordable camera a chance, this is not a 16mm or a Cinealta camera. Also, these are not moving shots displayed on a HD screen, they're still shots displayed on your pc screen witch is complytelly different.

mmm
09-20-2005, 04:53 PM
The CA doesn't look too bad on my laptop, but the screen isn't that great. On my new TFT it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Nathyn
09-20-2005, 05:25 PM
Frankly I barely noticed the CA until someone pointed it out.

-Nate

Barry_Green
09-20-2005, 05:46 PM
The colors aren't that bad and they can be adjusted.
The colors are extremely adjustable in camera. There's extensive flexibility in the menus for painting the image. The pictures seen here represent what the crew got out of the camera, but it doesn't necessarily represent what someone else could have gotten out of it.

Anhar Miah
09-20-2005, 06:03 PM
Add also that this was a pre-producton model.

Anhar

kyle_doris
09-20-2005, 10:38 PM
The colors are extremely adjustable in camera. There's extensive flexibility in the menus for painting the image. The pictures seen here represent what the crew got out of the camera, but it doesn't necessarily represent what someone else could have gotten out of it.

sweet, very good to hear.

theHeadlessPuppy
09-21-2005, 02:40 PM
It looks great to me. The XL2 costed as much and didn't deliver half of it.

Antoine_Fabi
09-21-2005, 03:05 PM
you think it looks better than XL2's image ? really ?

I dont see that much CA in XL2 footage...


I really had the impression that the XL2's image looked better, but i may be very wrong...

Could someone that have used both the HD100 and the XL2 comments on the lattitude of both cameras.

Nathyn
09-21-2005, 06:09 PM
I'll admit the image looks "videoy" but it's seems clear enough, I didn't notice the CA (most people won't) or any split screen and I believe Barry when he says the colors are adjustable. Did the article mention how they shot this or just that it was being made. I couldn't find any real specifics. The color looks very thick to me which isn't bad in itself.

-Nate

David Jimerson
09-21-2005, 06:18 PM
In all honesty, it doesn't push up the red any worse than the DVX at default.

Damon Botsford
09-21-2005, 10:45 PM
I actually thought the pictures looked pretty decent. When your out on a shoot and time is restricted due to budget, sometimes you have to make compromises at the cost of quality. Or maybe your monitor just sucks. Maybe your lens sucks. Maybe you suck. Well, not you personally. You know what I mean.
What I'm trying to say is, if you compose your shot properly with this camera, take your time, adjust the camera settings, careful with the lighting... I bet this camera can really shine. I've seen the proof... http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test1.php
They had to have taken their time... Papert was on crutches!

Anyway, I think we're at a point where the picture quality doesn't distract too much from the story like DV 60i did. Obviously we're not going to compose Lawrence of Arabia shots with this camera, so keep the story punchy and moving. A couple more years and we'll have real close to studio quality (from 2002 that is). Until then, let's define our own "film look".

mmm
09-22-2005, 02:19 AM
Anyway, I think we're at a point where the picture quality doesn't distract too much from the story like DV 60i did. Obviously we're not going to compose Lawrence of Arabia shots with this camera, so keep the story punchy and moving. A couple more years and we'll have real close to studio quality (from 2002 that is). Until then, let's define our own "film look".

Nicely boiled down Damon. Very true. Now if one of these cameras would come out, I'll make my film... once I finish the script. :laugh:

scharky
09-22-2005, 09:44 AM
Personally, I think that is some of the worst looking shots I have seen from any of the new cameras. Now I'm not talking about compostiion, or the film makers technical ability, that all seems to be pretttys sound, but there is chromatic abberation in every single shot, even in the bokeh in background on the guy sitting in front of the road. To me this is completely unacceptable. The lens on this camera just has to go. The skin tones look horrible as well, and there is a very artifacty look to all the pics, especailly the shot of the boot. And don't get me started on the over sharpening. I would pick up an FX1, berfore working with a camera that looks like this. ANd it's being transfered to film? WTF? JVC has a long way to go before I think they have a viable film making camera on their hands. IT's a shame, this camera had so much going for it, and then they lost it with quality control and a suck ass lens. :(

athouguia
09-22-2005, 11:34 AM
It seems like you are talking about a CineAlta! The CAs aren't unacceptable, these are stills and you wouldn't notice them if you were watching the movie on a TV screen, unless you were looking for them. The skin tones aren't horrible and you don't know how the camera was balanced, keep in mind that colors are much more adjustable then on a FX1! It is a cheap lens that has an acceptable quality for its price range, you can always spend your budget on better lens...unlike the FX1!

scharky
09-22-2005, 06:16 PM
Well, to some that may be acceptable, but it would personally drive me nuts. And this CA would be very noticeable, even on a TV screen, but especialy in a movie theatre, blown up on a 50' screen.
I realize that you can use other lenses, however, at 13G's for the next lens up, that really isn't an option for many people.
Oh, and buy the way, I'm not saying I would ever shoot a film on the FX1, that would be my SECOND to last choice :), at the moment. I really want to love this camera, but there just seems to be too much going against it at this time.

Chance White
09-25-2005, 09:28 PM
Keep in mind that stuff was shot with a non finalized version of the camera. Also, honestly, as others have stated as well, there are alot of things that could have been done to improve those images. They are way too flat and saturated and video looking, just cranking the detail setting down would have helped to soften, and underexposing another F-stop would have helped as well... I've seen much better footage that is much more consummate of what you can do with the HD100 if you know what you're doing (like on DVInfo for instance)

mezelf27
09-26-2005, 09:31 AM
I realize that you can use other lenses, however, at 13G's for the next lens up, that really isn't an option for many people.

the 13G-lens is for those that take offence at the performance of the 16x.... And quite right so... at 20G (with the lens i.e.) it still is cheap compared to the next true progressive cam...