HD100 + Mini35 Footage!!!

stephenlnoe said:
That's close to the reading I got (72) on her face. Just for grins I pulled it up to 85 and the scene brightened nicely but she's fair and her face was lost. How did (or does) the zebra on the camera compare to the waveform monitor?
Click to expand...

We weren't working off zebras on the camera because we had the DVRack rig there.
 
Hey look, all three of us are in here!

Even though the rule of thumb forever has been "70 IRE for skin tones", to me that always looks a bit hot and contributes to that "video look". I usually pin them at 60 or even less depending on the scene. The particular shot being discussed doesn't have any highlights so it has a bit of a low-contrast feel; also we had a fairly flat gamma going (which we then steepened for subsequent shots, as detailed in the article). Another hoary old rule of thumb with video used to be that if you didn't have something at 100 IRE (in the HD world now, I guess that's 108) then your shot was going to go to mush. With digital, I think that is also not true at this point. I've fought engineers on this sort of thing in the past; they point to the scope and say "you need this and this" and I point to the monitor and say "but I like the way it looks!"
 
CharlesPapert said:
...they point to the scope and say "you need this and this" and I point to the monitor and say "but I like the way it looks!"
Click to expand...

Exactly, I haven't seen many audiences watching scopes and enjoying the perfect luma balance.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Even though the rule of thumb forever has been "70 IRE for skin tones", to me that always looks a bit hot and contributes to that "video look".
Click to expand...

I really really really wanted to say that in my previous post, but I didn't want to speak for you!
 
So I finally got to look at the footage. I think the images look pretty good although I will probably not purchase an HD100. However, this definitely gives me hope that the HVX200 will deliver that image quality I have been looking for at an afforadable price. I must say, from what I have been seeing, the HD100 already comes close. A camera that is suppose to deliver 50% more resolution and three times the color information might hit it on the spot!
 
CharlesPapert said:
Hey look, all three of us are in here!

Even though the rule of thumb forever has been "70 IRE for skin tones", to me that always looks a bit hot and contributes to that "video look". I usually pin them at 60 or even less depending on the scene. The particular shot being discussed doesn't have any highlights so it has a bit of a low-contrast feel; also we had a fairly flat gamma going (which we then steepened for subsequent shots, as detailed in the article). Another hoary old rule of thumb with video used to be that if you didn't have something at 100 IRE (in the HD world now, I guess that's 108) then your shot was going to go to mush. With digital, I think that is also not true at this point. I've fought engineers on this sort of thing in the past; they point to the scope and say "you need this and this" and I point to the monitor and say "but I like the way it looks!"
Click to expand...

As I wrote, I didn't know your intent (or settings) and really was most interested in the zebra's comparison to the monitor. If you adjust your color curves off of linear then the whole thing goes out the window anyway.

Anyway, nice article and thanks again for the example clips.
 
The mini35 is certainly a great device, however I was wondering about the cheaper alternatives (i.e. G35 and micro35).

Barry, can we expect any "side by side" comparison of these 35mm adaptors. I know for sure that the mini35 is just to expensive for me, but I was wondering if we could achieve similar results with cheaper 35mm adaptor alternatives?


Anhar
 
Barry, I can't wait to see all of these min35 contraptions on a HVX200 shooting 1080p. That will sure tell the men from the boys, I would say. It will be interesting to see how they all works with native 16:9 systems shooting at 1080 x 1900.
 
I'm confused, why would you need a mini 35 for a jvc? the lens is removable. shouldn't you be able to a get the lens, look, dof or whatever with a lens that fits directly onto the body? i thought the point of the mini 35 was give options to cameras with nonremovable lenses.
 
brianluce said:
I'm confused, why would you need a mini 35 for a jvc? the lens is removable. shouldn't you be able to a get the lens, look, dof or whatever with a lens that fits directly onto the body? i thought the point of the mini 35 was give options to cameras with nonremovable lenses.
Click to expand...

Nope, not quite. The reason shooting with 35mm film can create such shallow depth of field is because to get a given field of view, say, 10 degrees horizontally, you use longer focal lengths.

Example: say you want a 10 degree field of view shot on both a 1/3rd inch chip video camera, and on a 35mm motion picture camera. To acheive this on the video camera you might need an 80mm lens. On the 35mm camera, you might need a 250mm lens. And with all other variables being the same (aperture, etc), the 250mm lens will give you a much shallower depth of field.

What the Mini35 does is provide the larger target area for the 35mm film lenses to project their image on...a target the same size as 35mm motion picture film. Then the video camera gets an image from that larger target (the groundglass).
 
Hi Barry,

Overall this stuff is awesome. I'm curious what I'm seeing in the closeups. Those particular clips seem to have red in the shadows and seem to band or clip a little. Are they processed or straight off the camera? (Or is it just my Apple monitor?)

Warren
 
Thanks for the excellent images Charles, Nate, and Barry. It's like taking a new car out for a test drive and saying " OK, let's see what this sucker will do!". Good job!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
The clips we posted are .m2t files straight off the tape. No compression, no anything. What you're seeing there is exactly what the camera records, bit-for-bit identical.
 
Barry_Green said:
The clips we posted are .m2t files straight off the tape. No compression, no anything. What you're seeing there is exactly what the camera records, bit-for-bit identical.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a PC thing but i watched the clips on Windows Media Payer and the vertical resolution was half what was supposed to be. When i checked the video's properties they where clearly flagged as 1280x360 for all the videos.

There was no visible cropping or squeezing of the image so the pixel's aspect ratio must have been appropriately adjusted.

Even like this my jaw dropped when i saw the footage. The camera is definitely on my TO-BUY list.

Good work guys,
Miltos
 
It is your PC... you're certain your codec is configured to "full resolution"? Load the clip into the player. Set to pauze, and check under file > properties wether all is configured right....
 
mezelf27 said:
It is your PC... you're certain your codec is configured to "full resolution"? Load the clip into the player. Set to pauze, and check under file > properties wether all is configured right....
Click to expand...

Er... Yes it is configured right...

Are you telling me you are viewing the clips on WMP on your PC and when you are pausing and looking at file properties they say that the video resolution is 1280x720? :huh:

Mine reads 1280x360! But i can also see the lines doubled when viewing the clips!

Also, i have never heard of a codec that can be configured to decode in half the vertical resolution! How can you do that??



Any other PC users around watched the clips in Media Player? What does the file properties say the video resolution is guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top