Is HiDef right for this type of work?

DPStewart

DPStewart

Veteran
Greetings all,

I'm hoping I can get a question answered here -

First - I'm only going for "film" look. I will not be doing any kind of sporting or events where that "HiDef" detail is desired. I don't want to see every wrinkle and blackhead on the actors faces.
That said, I would love to get the best quality film look I can.

So my question is just how much EXTRA lighting is generally needed for low to mid light level indoor shooting with HiDef?

And how much extra burden is the larger file going to put on my dual processors @2gig Mac G5? Does it bog editing down if applying film look plug-ins?

THANKS!!!
 
Last edited:
Technically two questions, but that's ok. ;) The bad part is that there's no simple answer to either of them.

How much light you need is an aesthetic choice. Some HD cameras (the EX1 and EX3 from Sony, for example) do well in low light. Some don't. It's the same thing with SD. You'll just have to do lighting tests with whatever camera you're using to see what's required to get the specific look you want.

As for your computer, it all depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is what type of compression is being used. There are lots of different codecs that compress at different levels and in different ways. More compression is easier on your computer, but it degrades the image more. Less compression is more data intensive and rougher on your computer, but generally produces cleaner images. Either way, the image difference is usually minimal to the untrained eye, depending on what you're shooting. HD is more data intensive than SD, that's for sure. However, to give a more specific answer, you'd have to be a lot more specific about your workflow. What camera? What codec? What type of footage? What effects? What software? How much RAM? What graphics card? Even if you reply answering all those questions, unless someone has already done the exact same thing on the exact same computer, the best answer you'll get is a guess or an estimate. You're better off just giving it a try and seeing what happens.

While I'd generally recommend a quad-core Mac Pro over a dual core G5, a G5 will edit HD, you just might not be able to do it (especially with effects) in real time.
 
Thanks Jeff!

Actually, you did answer one of my questions - about my MAC G5 dual core possibly being maxed out by editing full HD with effects applied.
I have never yet used ANY compression - just uncompressed S.D. avi files.
That sounds like a pretty big difference.
My question was only for an estimate - HD is what - 2 or 3 times the amount of data per second?

About lighting - Hahahaaa I only care about our Panasonics!
I.E. If I lit a scene well for the DVX 100b, roughly how much more light would I find myself needing if I put an HVX on the tripod right in place of the DVX?

I tend to do a lot of guerrilla shooting and indoor stuff that works fine with a DVX would be problematic if I had to actually set up additional lighting in order to match the DVX's light response with one of the H.D. cameras.
 
I have a G5 Dual 1.8Ghz and it struggles massively with HD editing - I don't bother anymore. It sucks.

Also, HD is over-rated. Film look is not about definition - it's about lighting, progressive frames, depth of field, contrast, colour. Use a DVX100b and a SGPro or Letus or Brevis 35mm adapter (or the like) and you'll be flying...that's my advice.

Lucas
 
More compression is easier on your computer, but it degrades the image more. Less compression is more data intensive and rougher on your computer, but generally produces cleaner images.
Click to expand...
I disagree on a technical point. More compression is more difficult on the CPU, less compression is easier on the CPU. That's why AVCHD requires kick ass hardware to edit natively. Higher compression in the same bandwidth as HDV requires more resources to decompress for editing.
 
Lucas Adamson said:
I have a G5 Dual 1.8Ghz and it struggles massively with HD editing - I don't bother anymore. It sucks.

Also, HD is over-rated. Film look is not about definition - it's about lighting, progressive frames, depth of field, contrast, colour. Use a DVX100b and a SGPro or Letus or Brevis 35mm adapter (or the like) and you'll be flying...that's my advice.

Lucas
Click to expand...
Thanks Lucas,

This is just the kind of info I needed.
Your report on computer load is sort of what I expected to hear. I may not know HD.... but I know computers more than I wish I did.
RE: Film look.
I spent years as a still photographer. Your reply encourages me to stick to my instincts and what I know about photography.
I have heard much about these adapters. I think I will pursue this route.

~DP
 
Jim Simon said:
I disagree on a technical point. More compression is more difficult on the CPU, less compression is easier on the CPU. That's why AVCHD requires kick ass hardware to edit natively. Higher compression in the same bandwidth as HDV requires more resources to decompress for editing.
Click to expand...

Jim, we're both right. If you're compressing/decompressing/recompressing footage, then more compression is more taxing on the system. What I was referring too is that the more compressed the footage is, the easier it is for a system to play it: to use an extreme example, web video is easier than uncompressed RAW files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top