Right.
HVX to film ! 1080 or 720 ?
- Thread starter Bassem Fayad
- Start date
DeadEyesSmiling
Well-known member
In the situation that you would be needing different frame rates for a few shots in a project, would you then shoot the whole project in 720, or stick with 1080 for the regular stuff and upres the 720 stuff from the slow/fast mo shots?
Paul Nordin
Active member
Stick with 1080 for the regular stuff and for the overcranked stuff either shoot 1080/60 and treat it in post or shoot 720PN and uprez. Unless you are doing a LOT of overcranked shots throughout, why go to the lowest common denominator?
DeadEyesSmiling
Well-known member
Thanks, that's pretty much what I figured, but the way everyone was answering the main post's question, I wasn't sure.
Then there's something wrong with your plasma -
DVCPRO HD is by nature grainy in dark areas, if you're not shooting the Varicam/HPX 2100 dialect of the codec that shifts bit to darker areas when you need to.
Gunleik
Do you suggest putting the pedestal higher if we're going to be doing color correction?
Bassem Fayad
New member
Dear all.
my conclusion
The camera has a chip which only records 1280x720 pixels in progressive scan. The 1080i image is produced by calculation inside the camera. This setting was created mainly for news people who need to deliver 1080i directly. For any feature film it makes more sense to record in 720p/25p as this represents the original quality and therefore the strength of the camera.
Agree?
my conclusion
The camera has a chip which only records 1280x720 pixels in progressive scan. The 1080i image is produced by calculation inside the camera. This setting was created mainly for news people who need to deliver 1080i directly. For any feature film it makes more sense to record in 720p/25p as this represents the original quality and therefore the strength of the camera.
Agree?
gunleik
Well-known member
Actually: No! Not at all.
1. Each chip (not the cam) is 960x540, which gives you about 1/4 of full 1080 rez PER CHANNEL.
2. But you have 3 of those lovely channels
All internal processing is done @ 1080.3. The image in 1080 is noticably higher rez and has more information to work with than the 720 image. If you have an European cam, the degree of anamorphic is also better (1440 vs 1280 lines in 1080). I don't say that a HVX's 1080 looks "better" than 720 from a Varicam, cause frankly: It doesn't. I just say that 1080 from a HVX looks better than 720 from a HVX and give you much more info to play around with in post.
4. Pixelshifting works pretty darn well in MOST circumstances.
5. Where I have issues with the rez - is in greenscreenwork. Because then you're more or less stuck with one of those channels and (I find - and some others with me) that the HVX messes up the edges a bit (channelwise) to get the gradients and lines smooth. I must add that Barry and others heartfeltly disagrees to this statement - in all fairness. But I feel rather strongly of this issue after 6 months of mostly greenscreen work on the HVX.
To still be fair: The HVX works like a charm with e.g. closeups of a head with the hair blowing in the wind. The problem is introdused when you go further away from the subject (let's still say with the hair blowing in the wind)
You may NOT find this a problem, or it is not an issue for your production, but I'd advice you to test this and see if you're happy with the results. I hope that you'll disagree with me!
A good hint might be to take all sharpening to -7 before doing any grenscreen (or big blowup) recording.
As to the noise issue.
You could try to expose blacks above the noisiest level - if applicable, and then transcode to a better post codec, like DNxHD or ProRes, before CC.
If you lower your blacks in DVCPRO HD, you will still have the noise issue. BUT mind you: Think long and hard before you take this extra step (and test it to see if you're happy with the result), because on most TV's (and certainly in SD) the noise will be little to none noticeable, even though it is very present on your computermonitor.
If the delivery is primarily for computermonitors, projection or even filmprint, I would to a larger extent be tempted. Also if you are doing deliverys for broadcast it might be a good idea to get as clean a source as possible. Most shows are sent in mpeg2, and the compressor will try to keep (end possibly even enhance) those grains to preserve detail. That can give really nasty results.
So to be totally clear
If you screen your material yourself in HD or SD from DCPRO 50/100, I wouldn't worry too much.
For deliveries - I would find a workflow with less noise - IF and only IF you see that your end-result is not pleasing.
Do tests!
Gunleik
Last edited:
No. As stated above a couple of times, the camera does all of its processing at 1080 FIRST and then DOWNconverts in camera to lower resolutions, such as 720 or 480. It does not start with 720 and then UPconvert to 1080.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Depends on how you plan on editing. Unless you're using Avid, 1080/24pA is probably the better choice for any 24p edit from 1080 footage.
Hi,
Film Like... Film Like ... Film Like... and 24p.
Ok, sorry for my English, but hope the idea will be clear.
If the subject is that any footage shooted at 24p is very easy-convertible to to film - I definitely agry.
However I try to understand why I can not see that jerky and shaky image in cinema and why I can see it on my TV when I try to shoot 24p with my HVX.
I know that situation with the shooting in 24p is not so simple as it is using for example 60p. I know that there are even some tables which regulate the pan speeds in different situation (and if I need a faster pan?) to avoid jerky images. But even making extremely low speed panoramas I can see the shakeness and jerkyness. At least it is not so smooth as 60p is and even not so smooth as I see in 24 frame/sec moovies. How You gentlemens solve these problems. Or may be the definition Film Like means jerky and shaky?
Film Like... Film Like ... Film Like... and 24p.
Ok, sorry for my English, but hope the idea will be clear.
If the subject is that any footage shooted at 24p is very easy-convertible to to film - I definitely agry.
However I try to understand why I can not see that jerky and shaky image in cinema and why I can see it on my TV when I try to shoot 24p with my HVX.
I know that situation with the shooting in 24p is not so simple as it is using for example 60p. I know that there are even some tables which regulate the pan speeds in different situation (and if I need a faster pan?) to avoid jerky images. But even making extremely low speed panoramas I can see the shakeness and jerkyness. At least it is not so smooth as 60p is and even not so smooth as I see in 24 frame/sec moovies. How You gentlemens solve these problems. Or may be the definition Film Like means jerky and shaky?
A Little Off Topic, but:
I haven't noticed this with my HVX (I did notice the jerky look with my Sony V1U). It's true that camera motion needs to be controlled in a different manner than shooting 60i, but as I said before (even when I watch the footage blown up onto a 90" screen) the motion is very similar to that of an actual filmed image. You can see examples at:
www.drawingchalkpictures.com/previews.html
BTW I shot in 720 24pN
Todd
Thank You Todd. Really nice shots. I notice, that Your camera practically in all episodes is fixed (or goes very very slow ) Even inside the frame there is no active dinamics. Anyway could You kindly make any suggestions what precausions should I follow to get some acceptable results. For example if I need to shot a car which pass the camera on perpendicular axis by 50 mile/hour. May be I have wrong shutter? (1/48). Any suggestions will be very usefull for me. If it is offtopic (may be) - sorry, but I can not find the appropriate topic where I can continue this subject.
Thank You in advance
Thank You in advance
Thanks for the comments. My DP (Michael LaVoie) is really good with how to move the HVX in 24p and not get the stuttering that can occur (this is even seen in major Hollywood films). I'm pretty sure we have the shutter set to 1/48; I'll look into it to be sure. What you may want to do is to slow the shutter speed down a bit if you are looking to shoot a fast moving vehicle. You will be adding more motion blur which will give the shot a smoother look.
I've heard there is a theory on how fast a pan can be (amount of movement per second), but I don't know it off hand. Of course slower movement will result in less detectable stutter. Also, using a 35mm adapter (which we do) will help to 'remove' the stutter by softly keeping the background out of focus. Other tricks if you are moving the camera quickly: Follow the subject as he moves. I'm sure others will chime in with other tips, but I hope this helps you out a bit.
Todd
As far as softness is concerned, it's all in the tuning. I hook my HVX up to a 47" 1080i television to dial in my Redrock Micro. You must get all of the wobble out of the GG, and it must be properly positioned to reach infinity when the lens says it should. I also created a backfocus plug to lock in the backfocus which is one of the biggest culprits of softness. I can get my setup pretty darn sharp. Also, HD can be brutally sharp when it comes to skin detail, so adding just a touch of softness is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is a misconception that the lack of DoF relates to the size of the imager. It actually is caused by the use of a zoom lens, which is always used to give video cameras maximum versatility. By their design only the very center of the lenses within the zoom lens assembly can be utilized. This limits the circles of confusion which cause bokeh. Take a look at the Canon or Nikon web sites and the 'speed' of the prime lenses vs. the speed of the zooms. Speed is the amount of light let through, and it is directly related to the amount of usable glass throughout the lens assembly.
Stopping down the camera's zoom lens is making a bad situation worse. My suggestion to run it wide open and use ND filters to control the light is the traditional approach for film cameras and will work fine for video. It will only maximize what the camera's lens can do and will fall short of what an 35mm Lens Adapter and a good set of primes can do.
Bob