HVX200 BVW400A BVW600 Mini Shoot-Out [no pics/no footage]

x2mag68 said:
ITs like finding a new tool to use for making low light stuff look good.
Click to expand...

My usual glass half-empty line of thinking is that it's a pain in the butt limitation.

What happens under these conditions?

-Recording pure black, can it be done cleanly, or would you need a tiny speck of light in frame to quiet the noise?

-Same with middle grey cards, etc:

This does, however, explain a lot of issues with various bits of footage we've seen on-line, from the 48 hour film bedroom scenes to some of the low-contrast Kaku footage.

Jim Arthurs
 
NBCshooter said:
Although film sensitometry is quite different from CCDs, and the response curve of their related signal processing electronics, I remember when Kodak first introduced their 5294 color negative stock in the early 1980's, that a DP I read about in American Cinematographer recommended that, if he didn't throw at least 5-10 footcandles of light in the shadows [when shooting with 5294], that that they would go "milky." He said something to the effect that, throwing a few footcandles of light in the shadows helped it go jet black.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

Around that time-frame as a young college kid I was shooting lots of what were called "Motion Graphics", this was back-light artwork on animation stands used for streak photography and forms that whole culture of Robert Abel "Candy Apple" look that every network had for station ID's, every movie title, etc.

I experimented with both Kodak and Fuji high-speed stocks (I called them the "Flash Dance" stocks, as this movie had come out a few years before) once instead of my beloved 5247 and was shocked at what I found. These stocks, besides being grainy, couldn't form a true black no matter what you did. They would never print "black", just a muddy grey. I tried different print films, no luck, even in telecine they looked awful under just about any conditions.

Jim Arthurs
 
NBCshooter,

The way you are approaching camera buying is the same way I am. I don't need HD necessarily. I would be happy with an SD image that looked close to Varicam footage downconverted to standard definition. The HVX200 images have so far disappointed me, and I am currently looking for other options. The cameras in my price range would be the new XDCAM F330, the Sony DSR450, SPX800 (although this camera is streching it a bit) and possibly the new Infinity camera coming out by GV.

With that said, I thought I read somewhere you bought the DSR450 for around $16,000 with lens. How is that working out for you? Do you have sample footage you could post?

Ever since I saw my friend's film shot on Varicam and downconverted to DVD standard definition, I have been obsessed with finding a camera that could possibly replicate or come close to it. Most people say get the SDX900, but that is out of my price range. 20k-30k with lens is about my limit. What are your thoughts?
 
Deadzone said:
With that said, I thought I read somewhere you bought the DSR450 for around $16,000 with lens. How is that working out for you? Do you have sample footage you could post?

Ever since I saw my friend's film shot on Varicam and downconverted to DVD standard definition, I have been obsessed with finding a camera that could possibly replicate or come close to it. Most people say get the SDX900, but that is out of my price range. 20k-30k with lens is about my limit. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't buy it yet. And it's only $14,999 with the Fuji 20:1, two V-bricks, a two-position charger, and a cool soft camera bag. I would forget about the SDX900, it's around $22K WITHOUT glass, so about $30K total, plus bricks and a charger. And the SDX900 doesn't have a color LCD built-in. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the DSR450 is only 4:1:1 25Mbps and the SDX900 is 4:2:2 50Mbps, but the DSR450 is HALF the price! And, as far as I understand it (maybe I'm, wrong, I dunno), 4:2:2 is not "double" the color sampling of 4:1:1 , it's about 130% better color sampling.
 
NBCshooter said:
And, as far as I understand it (maybe I'm, wrong, I dunno), 4:2:2 is not "double" the color sampling of 4:1:1 , it's about 130% better color sampling.
Click to expand...
4:2:2 is exactly double the color sampling of 4:1:1. You get twice as much color.

For examples of the differences, look at the DVCPRO50 vs. DV posts I put up with the monster and the chromakey samples. 4:2:2 makes a lot of difference.
 
Jim Arthurs said:
My usual glass half-empty line of thinking is that it's a pain in the butt limitation.

What happens under these conditions?

-Recording pure black, can it be done cleanly, or would you need a tiny speck of light in frame to quiet the noise?

-Same with middle grey cards, etc:

This does, however, explain a lot of issues with various bits of footage we've seen on-line, from the 48 hour film bedroom scenes to some of the low-contrast Kaku footage.

Jim Arthurs
Click to expand...

well its kinda weird. if there is no light, its black. but if there is a little everywhere, and none of it is really peaking anywhere on the sensor, it kinda gets that nocolor, muddy, awful looking grainy image. like this.




CCD the other example i have is CCED so i provided a base so yo ucan see out of the camera then post. to help make a comparison.


now this is the same place, just with an extra light. making a highlight. you give the CCD more contrast and it makes a clearer picture.

 
that wasnt the best exmple in the world, cause its its still noisy, but it get s teh point across.
 
X2mag68,

Have you tried a noise comparision with Barry's suggested settings:

cine-like-V and cinematrix, master ped -4 and chroma level +2 and coring +3.
Detail -4

thxs, Steve
 
Jim Arthurs said:
My usual glass half-empty line of thinking is that it's a pain in the butt limitation.

What happens under these conditions?

-Recording pure black, can it be done cleanly, or would you need a tiny speck of light in frame to quiet the noise?

-Same with middle grey cards, etc:

This does, however, explain a lot of issues with various bits of footage we've seen on-line, from the 48 hour film bedroom scenes to some of the low-contrast Kaku footage.

Jim Arthurs
Click to expand...

Jim,

I saw exactly the same with all my DVX's ( 100, 100A, and 100B).
It seems that if the camera does not detect a certain amount of light, it allows the gain to go automatically at a certtain level (not a high amount though), even if the gain button is "locked" to 0 db.


...maybe the HVX does just the same ?
 
The reason is, the image is under exposed.

Put more light on the image, and then darken in post to get the desired effect/ look.

If you take a light reading, your exposure needs to have that amount of light, or it will be muddy.

It's really simple.
 
Thanks everyone for all the great ideas and examples... I certainly will do some specific tests when I have my HVX in hand... I wish to simulate the noise of the HVX for CGI shots, and want to map out the conditions when it occurs. It seems that it is controllable, but like anything, you need to understand the "why" and "where" to master it.

Thanks folks!

Jim Arthurs
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
I saw exactly the same with all my DVX's ( 100, 100A, and 100B). It seems that if the camera does not detect a certain amount of light, it allows the gain to go automatically at a certtain level (not a high amount though), even if the gain button is "locked" to 0 db.
Click to expand...
It doesn't necessarily have to do with light level, according to my experience. I've been shooting blue sky in daylight and getting this kind of noise level with my DVX! There was so much light, I needed ND and a small aperture to photograph it. Try it yourself, and watch the noise show. Take your DVX and shoot some blue sky in broad daylight . . . and, voila! It happens when the scene has LOW CONTRAST, and some troublesome HUE in it (blue, in particular).
 
well a finicky sensor is the price you pay for the nice organic quality of the image. ORganic and natural looking video is an oxymoron in some sense. its such an unnatural way of capturing an image. Film is chemichals. thsi is like light>electricity>Processing>MAgnatism> back to electricty> then (on a monitor) back to light.
 
If you compare video to negative stock, the big difference is that on an CCD, almost all noise is in the dark areas of its output. With film the noise is more even along the whole range.

Because of the linearety of electronic imagers, a 18% greaycard actually expose as a pretty low electric signal, which is then amplified more than the highlights by the chosen gammacurve.

Remember in a linear system the upper stop always takes about 50% of the sensor range.

So if your videocamera has a max of 7 stops dynamic range, the fourth stop is actually way down in the shadows before the gamma curve is applied.

It would look something like this:

Black
-----------
Stop 1: 0-1,5%
Stop 2: 1,5-3%
Stop 3: 3-6%
Stop 4: 6-12%
Stop 5: 12-25%
Stop 6: 25-50%
Stop 7: 50-100%
--------------
White

So the DSP has to expand (or Amplify) the lower range and compress (or attenuate) the higher range.

One way to overcome this is to light for the upper stops and then choose a more linear gamma curve. That will crush the blacks, but will also hide the noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top