A question

Melvin Harris

Melvin Harris

Black Flag Member
I am kind of disappointed by some of the footage I'm getting from my DVX but then I had a revelation partially inspired by James Longley. So here's the question concerning the revelation, should more light coming in to the camera and faster shutters enhance the detail I'm getting from it. And if I can control light through filters and shutter, can't I almost guarantee myself better quality images? More light equals better images, right; more to the point, more controlled light equals better images, or am I just talking out of my butt?
 
Please be a little more specific about what disappoints you. There are many variables involved, and we can help if you are specific.

In response to your general comments, I would say that you don't need a ton of light, but you need enough light for a good exposure. If you have so little light that you need to use GAIN or are shooting with the iris wide open and are still underexposed, obviously, the image will suffer.

Good lighting is good lighting, it doesn't necessaryly have to be a lot of light. It should be artfully done and with the goal of getting a contrast ratio that fits with the DVX's dynamic range. The lights themselves should be good quality (if they are flos they should have a high CRI), and good white balance and proper exposure should be ensured. So, yes, much of what goes into a good image has little to do with the settings you use on the camera.

Fast shutter speeds will reduce motion blur, resulting in sharper-looking still frames, if you are inclined to analyze your image frame-by-frame, but the motion won't look normal, as people are used to filmlike images shot with a 1/48 shutter, which is the default when shooting 24p.

The lens is sharpest when you shoot around F4 to F5.6, which may require some light to achieve. There is a trade-off, though. At F5.6, you have really clear images, but very deep depth of field. You trade depth of field for optimum definition, but you have to choose.

There are also settings for DETAIL, V.DETAIL, CORING, THIN/THICK, SQUEEZE that all effect the sharpness of the image.
 
A little information can be a hazardous thing…

In filmschool a student told the instructor he was going to shoot his short on 35 and he asked what advice he had. The professor suggested to use a lot of light (presumably to help keep the DOF deep).

The student shot his short film with a 20k as a key, a 10k as fill, and another 10k as a back light.

This was in a livingroom.

Upstairs.

I’m not kidding.

They had to turn off the lights between takes as it was so hot the actors hair was smoking. This in addition to renting a genie big enough to power the lights, not to mention running cable upstairs from the street below. Could have gotten away with a 2k and a couple of 650s. The lighting also looked like crap.

But I’m sure the focus was spot on.

The point is that there are many facets involved in lighting and lensing. Don’t get hung up on component to the detriment of everything else. Use enough light to get a proper exposure, perhaps enough to get into the “sweet spot” of the lens, but don’t forget everything else that makes a good image.
 
The images are muddy, not just soft. I know that there is a measure of softness inherent in the dvx, but my images are muddy and much like a super 8 camera... I'm not kidding. I am interested in the sweet spot and the finding the best settings for the best image. The colors look great, as good as 4:1:1 can get, but the fidelity (to coin an audio term) of the image is low... clean lens, no dust...
 
You're right about light - the more light, the better image you'll get
all together. Lights give you less visible noise and better quality picture.
 
pharpsied said:
The images are muddy, not just soft. I know that there is a measure of softness inherent in the dvx, but my images are muddy and much like a super 8 camera... I'm not kidding. I am interested in the sweet spot and the finding the best settings for the best image. The colors look great, as good as 4:1:1 can get, but the fidelity (to coin an audio term) of the image is low... clean lens, no dust...
Click to expand...

Hm, yeh, please post a screen grab of something you consider muddy. Muddy on what? On a big screen TV, on a movie theater screen? As long as focus is right, it should at least look sharp on your computer monitor.

Also, please post your scene file settings. Even with SQUEEZE and DETAIL at -7, whatever is in focus is still sharp. Out of the box, the images are usually anything but muddy unless you aren't focusing properly.
 
Robbie Comeau said:
You're right about light - the more light, the better image you'll get
all together. Lights give you less visible noise and better quality picture.
Click to expand...

So, if I increase light and stop down to f4-5.6 (which is where most people conjecture the DVX performs the best) and try to stay there, I should be able to enhance detail and get a crackly, albeit naturally soft images without having to worry about strobing from 1/250 shutters and above...
 
pharpsied said:
So, if I increase light and stop down to f4-5.6 (which is where most people conjecture the DVX performs the best) and try to stay there, I should be able to enhance detail and get a crackly, albeit naturally soft images without having to worry about strobing from 1/250 shutters and above...
Click to expand...

Crackly, maybe, but I doubt there will be anything soft about it. The depth of field will be very deep, and everything will be in focus. That's the trade-off I was talking about.

You should post a screen grab. There is always a chance that your camera has a back-focus problem. Are you setting your focus by zooming in, focusing, and zoom back out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top