HDV's Dirty Little Secret

good article. I knwo alllllll about the light issue..... Alot of folks arent prepared to deal with the amount of light neccesary to get proper exposure. Then they wonder why their HVX is so "noisy"....... sigh.....
 
I love the melodramatic approach Morlan

"What the HDV Manufacturers Don't Want You to Know"

Maybe we should go back too using that old emulsion based stuff. I'm sure it'll be more friendly on our lighting needs (not too mention the pocketbook)

:laugh: :laugh:



I am aware that the gain was really pushed on films like Collateral and Miami Vice, but there are some fab shots in those films that would never be gotten with film in low light situations.

-

What I do love about digital technology is the immediacy of the WYSIWYG matter.

-

I think it is safe to say that the purpose of your post is really just to get us to your site
 
Wait, you tested the HVX? I thought it was DVCPRO-HD?

And you stated that HDV is slow (which I agree with), but why did you say that the GY-HD100 (which is also HDV) is eight times faster?

Not trying to attack you or anything, just pointing out the inconsistency that I noticed.
 
I'm assuming by saying HDV you meant - Hi Definition Video... and not the HDV/Mpeg codec that goes to tape media.
 
jade8472 said:
And you stated that HDV is slow (which I agree with), but why did you say that the GY-HD100 (which is also HDV) is eight times faster?
Click to expand...
Jade: Whoops! My error. I meant my old 1/2" GY-DV500 was 800ASA. I corrected that in the article.

By "HDV", I mean the 1/3" HD pro-sumer cameras currently on the market. All the ones I've tested share this common characteristic. Should I make that clearer in the article?

John: It's always nice to generate traffic for my site :) but I think this is also really important for newbie videographers.

2/3" HD cameras like the Viper, CineAlta, and Varicam have been generally rated around 320ASA. They have a bit more tolerance for low light shooting although, yes, the gain was pushed for some of the scenes in "Collateral."

M
 
Michael Morlan said:
By "HDV", I mean the 1/3" HD pro-sumer cameras currently on the market. All the ones I've tested share this common characteristic. Should I make that clearer in the article?
Click to expand...

Yes I think you probably should as it stands now its misleading.

Im not sure what the SECRET is though. Its pretty common knowledge.

jade8472 said:
And you stated that HDV is slow (which I agree with)
Click to expand...

I cant understand what on earth that means.
 
John_Hudson said:
I am aware that the gain was really pushed on films like Collateral and Miami Vice, but there are some fab shots in those films that would never be gotten with film in low light situations.
Click to expand...
Thats not strictly accurate. Although High Def was marketed at the time as being able to "see" more into the shadows - this is something of a myth (or misinformation to highlight the "benefits of HD") - sure, if you bump the gain up to 18db you can get a picture almost anywhere but at the expense of grain (which is the same tradeoff as film when force developed) - I recently shot a commercial where the director wanted a particularly grainy look so we tested stocks up to 12000 ASA and eventually settled on shooting the piece on 4000ASA . The set was dark to say the least with a single 1k doing what it might take an 18k on 100ASA to do. The resultant camera footage picked up details that even were dark to the naked eye. I caught the commercial at a cinema and even at 16mm rated at 4000ASA found the grain to be hardly the golfball fest I expected on projection. In retrospect even the director, who had erred on the side of caution in favour of the cinema version - later thought we should have pushed it further.

I also shot a run and gun feature where half the film was set at night with many city locations - we tested stocks and found that 500asa pushed one stop was adequate to often shoot on city streets at night with only a small tungsten package of additional lighting. (Paradoxically 500asa pushed one stop was more grainless than 800asa straight)
 
In your article you said you rated the HDV cameras at 125 ASA, however I thought I recalled the analysis Adam Wilt did in the HDV cam shootout rating for example the Z1 as 160 ASA. I think he was using a step wedge and color chart for the tests. Can't find the article online since DV seems to be in process of changing their website.

Having grown up using Kodachrome, these speeds (125 or 160) don't seem slow to me.
 
While Digital Video has opened a word of possibilities ( heck, it's the main reason youtube exists) it comes with drawbacks.
It's crucial to understand that we must compromise with all the negatives that come with digital video. What if it has noise? If I had 50K to spend on a camera I'm sure I wouldn't have the noise of the pro-sumer models.
 
I don't know where these numbers came from, but the Sony is 160, the Canon is 200, the JVC is about 300 and the HVX is 320. None of 'em are 125. And none of 'em are 1/2", as the article says.

Yes all 1/3" HD camcorders are slower than their SD counterparts. HVX is a stop slower than the DVX in progressive, and two stops slower in interlaced. Z1 is almost three stops slower than a PD170. There's nothing hidden here, it's the price you pay when cramming more pixels into the same surface area.
 
Everyone is helping me discover typos in the article. Whew! Thanks!

Barry, that should read 1/3", not 1/2". Thanks. Regarding my assertion of a 125ASA, I can only speak for the results of my own tests as described in the article. When I shot with that assumption, and while keeping an eye on the dynamic range of my scenes with my spot meter, I found that rating to hold true. If I had erred on the low side, I might have expected some clipping in the highlights. Like some filmstocks, sensitivity might shift for a daylight test.

I'll search for Mr. Wilt's results, however.

NCIE - Calling a filmstock or camera "slow" refers to its slow response to light - thus requiring more light for a proper exposure than a "faster" medium.

Thanks again everyone.


M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top