First Movie on HD-100?

franck said:
oh my these colors are horrible
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
athouguia said:
The colors aren't that bad and they can be adjusted.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

sweet, very good to hear.
 
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.
 
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
 
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".
 
Damon Botsford said:
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".
Click to expand...

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:
 
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. :(
 
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!
 
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.
 
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)
 
scharky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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