HVX200 Existing Light Camera Test

[cinemakinoeye]

One of the things I wanted to get a feel for regarding the HVX200 camera was how it performed under existing light conditions typically encountered in documentary filmmaking, with a dynamic range that most of the time extends from black to blown-out white, exceeding the dynamic range of any camera. How do the blacks look? How subtle is the gradient from shadows into black? How gracefully does it handle blown out highlights? How much noise in the shadows? Below are two versions of my test. More details inlcuding settings and commentary may be found in my blog entry about these clips.

* Download Full-Size Movie (2:07, QuickTime/H.264, 1280×720, 14.7 MB)
* Download Small Movie (2:07, QuickTime/H.264, 640×360, 9 MB)

Note: the clips are not "fast start" so they will not play until the download is complete (sorry), BTW, this is the footage I was shooting when Steve Garfield interviewed me for RocketBoom

 

[peter orland]

Just watched the clip then read the blog.

QUOTE FROM THE BLOG.

"I did not have time to repeat the shots using the camera in the 1080i mode, which certainly would provide a more ‘live’ look and present less strobing and motion blur on pans"

END QUOTE>

This clip is probably more useful as a how not to shoot in progressive mode as it is as an example of how the camera "performed under existing light conditions typically encountered in documentary filmmaking".

In my opinion, unless the cameraman knows how to shoot well in a progressive mode, then for documentary work I would highly recommend shooting interlaced.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[cinemakinoeye]

unless the cameraman knows how to shoot well in a progressive mode, then for documentary work I would highly recommend shooting interlaced.

I'm not sure that some strobing now and then when your pans are not as slow as they should be is enough to convince me to go with an interlaced format. Maybe it's because I started out shooting film and I've accepted the strobing on medium to fast pans as a fact of life or maybe it's something else. Usually the audience is focused on the story, and usually you're panning with the subject, so the strobing is not an issue. I've also done a lot of shooting lately with the HVR-Z1U and HVR-A1U and I have to say I'm simply not fond of the interlace artifacts either. Progressive + Strobing vs. Interlace + Tearing, both are artifacts, which to choose? And as far as motion blur, I actually like it and prefer it to interlace tearing. All that said, if I wanted a "real" or "reality TV" look, I'd be all over interlace! Maybe the thing to do is shoot 60P and be done with it

 

[peter orland]

David, it seems that I owe you an apology.

I downloaded the large file and played it back through Quicktime - and the footage really stuttered - particularly in the opening slow pan across the steenbeck. Funnily enough it must of been almost handling the playback as I am used to spotting poor playback in quicktime. The opening shot just looked like bad motion blur. After your reply to my first post and your seeming experience I found it hard to believe that you could not see it yourself. So I played it back through VLC player and it's a smooth as butter.

Sorry about that mate.

 

[imgentertainment@mac]

We have been using the HVX on a doc for about three moths now and I really think it handels harsh lighting very well. The one thing you have to rember is to light for your highlights. They will blow out . But if you try and keep then right at about100 your shadows will be there. It is not like lighting the DVX where you tend to under exspose by a 1/2 stop or so. If you do this with the HVX your footage will be dark. Shot for your highlighs and if it looks a little overexsposed in the monitor most the time I find it a good thing. Good looking footage good luck with the doc

 

[cinemakinoeye]

David, it seems that I owe you an apology. I downloaded the large file and played it back through Quicktime - and the footage really stuttered [...] I played it back through VLC player and it's a smooth as butter. Sorry about that mate.

Thanks for your persistence!

I forgot to warn viewers: IN ORDER TO DO JUSTICE TO THE HIGH QUALITY IMAGE PRODUCED BY THE HVX-200, THESE ARE HIGH-BIT-RATE H.264 MOVIES THAT REQUIRE A FAST MACHINE TO PLAY BACK ON. That's one reason why I made one FULL SIZE and the other SMALL.

I appreciate your note.

 

[cinemakinoeye]

[...] I really think it handels harsh lighting very well [...] Shot for your highlighs and if it looks a little overexsposed in the monitor most the time I find it a good thing. Good looking footage good luck with the doc

Good advice.

Here's how I determined exposure for the clips. For two of the clip sequences, the 16mm flatbed room and the conversation clip, I calculated exposure using the spot meter in the HVX. The spot meter (which the DVX also has and it's trickle down technology from the Varicam) makes it easy to set perfect exposure because it shows you exactly where a part of your scene is in the 0 to 100 IRE range. Monitors are misleading and the LCD display on the camera is a complete fiction (I exaggerate). For the outdoor clip I let the automatic exposure determine the exposure, for the fun of it, since I was in testing mode.

For the flatbed scene I placed the specular hightlights right at 100 and let the shadows fall where they may (since this was an existing light test) but using the spot meter I could see where the shadows were and then I tweaked the exposure up just a tad to assure that I had textural detall in the shadows, yet the highlights were not overly-burned out. The spot meter is what Panasonic refers to as the Marker feature in the manual. Whenever I have to shoot with a video camera that does not have a spot meter I really miss it. Zebras don't tell you the whole story, they are like a high-water mark only, the spot meter lets you analyze the scene and determine exposure with zone system like accuracy.