Some Opera screen grabs...

ullanta

ullanta

Veteran
I've put up a page with some of the HVX tests I did at the opera.... take a look:

http://www.ullanta.com/OperaHVXTest

Even though the images are half-size jpegs, the general qualities and noise levels of the images are about the same. These were all part of an interval recording, 720p30, Cine-D, auto-iris -4, Master ped 0 or -2 (I'll check).

My goal was to preserve the widest latitude, thus my settings. There's a lot of nice detail and symbolism in the shadows cast on the background, etc, that needed to be preserved. Lower master ped and other gamma settings reduced noise, but severely distorted the gradients in the background lighting in many scenes, and tended to get rid of lots of important details. The dark backgrounds sometimes were bordering on annoyingly noisy... blue seems to be the noisiest color, no? But I've only looked on LCDs so far, and haven't done anything to address it.

In many of these scenes, the contrast was pretty outrageous. The girl in the purple dress on top of the pedestal, for example, gave a choice of properly exposed face or completely black image except for what's blown out in the current image. On the close-ups on the DVX, this was much more problematic; but in the wide HVX shot the blowouts aren't so bad. Cinegamma on the DVX (original, with no knee) produced freaky effects. Also note the switching between extreme spotlighting and backlighting... pretty well handled.

In general I'm very pleased with the images. It certainly makes a tremendous difference in recording staged performances like this, because they tend to be staged wide, and the extra detail of the HVX over SD makes wide shots much more watchable... though, of course, none of my clients have any way to view HD. The color rendition is really beautiful and faithful, even unatended in this really tough situation. I haven't begun to see what I can do about the noise yet... but at this point I'm not too worried!
 
these are cool shots

however why the over wide framing? could you have not zoomed in a little and framed the action more? all that black to the sides and tops seems like a waste of precious pixels to me?
 
Well, there is some action during the show on those extremes. And if you notice, in the last shot, much of the black framing has risen - it's a big part of the finale.

Remember (or, maybe not, since it was in another thread), this was set up as a second unattended camera; the primary camera was getting more contextually-framed shots. This camera's there mainly to get any missed entrances/exits, cover edits, and cover any major screwed-up camera moves...
 
No, Idomeneo!

Well, hmm, see if you can come to a consensus on a few you want, and I'll post 'em full-res and uncompressed... I just don't want to blow out my bandwidth. Vote for three and I'll post 'em tonight!
 
OK, I've replaced 3, 7, 9, 11, and 23 (2.jpg, 6.jpg, 8.jpg, 10.jpg, and 22.jpg) with full-size images. You may need to refresh the pages in your browser...
 
Nice pix! how about some of those motion pictures.. you know.. the ones that are around 24 pictures in a second? :)


- - Justin
 
There are none! Only at 30fps.

If you really want some, I'll email it to you, but not for a week at least. I have a huge backlog of material from before the opera to finish before I start on the opera itself...
 
dvx100b

dvx100b

I am using the DVX100b however. But that shot is what they are asking for.
I will be doing a two camera shoot. One will be at Balconey level pulled wide getting a shot like the one you posted. The second one will be run from the back of the theater zoomed in tight to get close ups.

I'm not so worried about the closeups as under that kind of lighting it doesn't have a problem. It's the Wide shot that doesn't move I'm worried about.

I wish they would let me place the second camera off to one side but closer.

I just don't know how this is going to look. They want the impossible! Every parent wants to see their kid. And the client wants to see the whole performance and not miss anything happening off to one side of the stage or the other.

Sooo......I'm stuck with wide shots, or tight shots. But can't give them 100% of both.

I hate cheap clients that want the world and the impossible.
 
BergVision said:
I am using the DVX100b however. But that shot is what they are asking for.
I will be doing a two camera shoot. One will be at Balconey level pulled wide getting a shot like the one you posted. The second one will be run from the back of the theater zoomed in tight to get close ups.

I'm not so worried about the closeups as under that kind of lighting it doesn't have a problem. It's the Wide shot that doesn't move I'm worried about.

I wish they would let me place the second camera off to one side but closer.

I just don't know how this is going to look. They want the impossible! Every parent wants to see their kid. And the client wants to see the whole performance and not miss anything happening off to one side of the stage or the other.

Sooo......I'm stuck with wide shots, or tight shots. But can't give them 100% of both.

I hate cheap clients that want the world and the impossible.
Click to expand...

this is because they dont know what you need to do to get what they want. Most people dont realise that long static shots are boring until they watch it. if i were you, i would place the second camera whereever you want, and work your butt off to get good medium and close up coverage. watch the public TV channels when they cover operas, most of the footage is closeups from a 3 cam shoot.

I know this only because i shoot alot of Dance performances and tehy want locked down Superwide shots all the time too, in the begining i did what they wanted and then they hate the footage in the end, then of course they blame the camera..... for not being a big pro camera.... Now i just ignore them and shoot what i have to
and edit nice and tight,and they are happy.

Trust me just say, politely, "That will not end with good results", then explain to them briefly that you need to get coverage your way to get useable footage, Then do what you need to do. they wont know the difference in the end anyway once its edited.



Also, try to get a third camera if you can. get someone close to the stage and get real good closeups. and closeups of off stage antics ofthe kids. the parents eat that up.

plus if they see you getting really into it, they will rpobably be more likely to buy a copy.
 
Last edited:
BergVision said:
I am using the DVX100b however. But that shot is what they are asking for.
I will be doing a two camera shoot. One will be at Balconey level pulled wide getting a shot like the one you posted. The second one will be run from the back of the theater zoomed in tight to get close ups.

I'm not so worried about the closeups as under that kind of lighting it doesn't have a problem. It's the Wide shot that doesn't move I'm worried about.

...

I just don't know how this is going to look. They want the impossible! Every parent wants to see their kid. And the client wants to see the whole performance and not miss anything happening off to one side of the stage or the other.

Sooo......I'm stuck with wide shots, or tight shots. But can't give them 100% of both.

I hate cheap clients that want the world and the impossible.
Click to expand...

Well, these posted shots are my "second camera" shots... and I think similar settings will get similar nice results on the DVX100B, color/exposure wise.

The first camera is the one I use for closer shots. It actually sits right next to the wide cam (due to my allocated space and useful coverage issues), but on a good tripod. The technique that works best is to frame the shots so that all important action is captured. That's a close up durting a monologue/aria, a wide shot during most of a big dance routine, medium shots during dialogs, etc. A good zoom controller is essential to doing this smoothly. If you have a chance to watch rehearsals and such, so you know what's going to happen in advance, that helps a great deal. Try and get everything you need with the main camera, and cut in the "second" camera for any missed entrances or important details. As you've said, the main thing the client needs is for the speaker of every line (or performer of every important action) to be on screen. Everything else, artistic considerations, are secondary. If you're not being paid for a lot of post, and multiple cameramen, your goal is to get everything perfect with the primary camera, and never even touch the second camera. The more you depoend on the second camera, the more work you need to do in post.

Anyway, don't complain about your clients! Doesn't sound good. Theatrical productions are often over-budget, and video is rarely their top priority. And, indeed, they want a nice looking video, but when someone's only line, no matter how minor, is not on the video, they get plenty of complaints. Look at it as a good challenge, and it's really quite enjoyable. And think of the bragging rights if you pull off a perfect hour-long complex shot! Not like all those "pros" doing ten practice runs for 10-second shots ;-).


Anyway, here's my big ugly setup:
OpSetup.jpg


The HVX is actually clamped to the house console. The audio setup on the right is fed by a 150' snake which connects all the orchestra and stage mics (15 of 'em, in this case). There's one computer for each camera, and one running ProTools, all in easy reach! Cameras get audio feeds from the ProTools rig when I'm not paranoid, or an analog mix of selected Direct Outs from the signal chain when I am paranoid. ProTools hasn't failed me yet... but whenever there's a computer in the chain I worry...
 
Last edited:
I use the DVX for zooming, which has a shorter zoom... and it's adequate. Again, if we're discussing primarily 2-camera production, you can't often risk going too close. At max zoom, the DVX gives me about waist-to-head at the front of the stage (full body at the back of the stage). This works out pretty well. Given more manned cameras, I'd want to go for some closer shots... but not without 'em...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top