Snoqualmie Falls footage

Status
Not open for further replies.

disjecta

Lucky Duck
I took a quick trip to Snoqualmie Falls this afternoon to continue my tests with the XLH1. The falls, in case you don't know, are featured in the opening sequence of David Lynch's Twin Peaks. In fact, the whole series was shot in this neck of the woods (Washington State).

Light was failing and rain was threatening but I said what the hell and shot some spectacular scenes anyway. I'm also working on a new Black and White setting although it's not perfected by a long shot yet. It's a little on the soft side (need to adjust the sharpness) and the tonality is not rich enough for me. It's interesting how black and white changes the atmosphere of a shot dramatically.

I'll post the black and white settings when I perfect them. The color shots utilize the settings I have already posted.

Some shots are dark because it was pretty dark when I shot them but I wanted to test the camera's performance in low light. What I saw was awesome, much, much better than my experience shooting low light with the DVX.

I also wanted to test the resolving power of the lens and took some long landscape shots that are really beautiful in my opinion.

WINDOWS USERS: You will need Media Player Classic (or equivalent) to play these files: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/video_players/media_player_classic.cfm

MAC USERS: Use MPEG Streamclip: http://www.squared5.com/
Export 24F m2t's to QT DVCProHD at 23.976 fps, with a 1920x1080 frame size. (FCP will see it as 1280x1080 but set it for the larger frame upon export). Remember to uncheck all deinterlace or interlace options too. 24F is progressive material so there's no need for any deinterlace/interlace filtering at all.

Here are the clips, enjoy.


COLOR:

This is a wide shot of the falls. Many naysayers of HDV warned me about the problems of resolving a lot of motion, particularly in water. I have not encountered any motion rendering problems with this camera yet.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/falls_long_shot.m2t (43mb)

Same shot as above but with the camera tilting downwards to the bottom of the falls. This is a very complex shot in terms of detail and the camera has to work pretty hard to render everything accurately and, from what I can see, it was successful.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/falls_tilt.m2t (80mb)

This is a pretty shot taken in fairly low light. Typically, in my experience with the DVX100a, I would be seeing quite a bit of camera noise in the background but the XLH1 rendered a very clean image under the same circumstances. This is a shallow depth of field closeup of some grass/plants swaying in the wind with the waterfall rushing down behind.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/dancing.m2t (28mb)

This is a wide shot of the one above. Again, there is much complex motion going on and it was fairly low light to boot. No problems that I can see.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/plants_falls.m2t (33mb)

Another motion test. Rushing water over rocks. Lots going on, no problem for Canon's HDV.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/rushing_water.m2t (33mb)

This is a low shot of a bridge in low light. I just like the receding quality of the composition. No movement to mention in this shot.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/receding_bridge.m2t (34mb)

I liked the architecture of the bridge here and actually stopped down quite a bit to get a silhouette effect. I waited until some people walked over to add some motion and interest. There is some noise in the sky but it's a pleasing fast film grain feel rather than murky video noise.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/...silhouette.m2t (32mb)

I was very influenced by the cinematography in Capote for this shot. They chose to shoot Super35mm on that film and there is a particular shot where it's ultra wide and way off in the distance a train goes by. The train is so tiny in the frame but it demonstrates both the resolving power of Super35 and also the grand scale of the landscape in the shot. I wanted to shoot a landscape with lots of tiny detail to show off the camera's abilities at sharpness. The noise reduction filter I had on (NR2) produced some uneven softening. I've decided not to use that in the future. Buy hey, that's the whole purpose of testing.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/landscape_1.m2t (28mb)

A variation of the one above, different angle. All of these shots are purposefully a little underexposed to bring out the saturation more. Although, if I had to shoot everything over, I would open the iris more. The noise reduction's effect (NR2) is obvious to me in this shot. If you look at the trees on the left in the background, they are softer than the equidistant trees on the right of the frame. Pretty obvious on a large screen display. Although someone suggested it might simply be the way the lens is reacting in wide mode, I'll do further tests and report back.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/landscape_2.m2t (34mb)

This is another wide shot turning to the road with lots of detailed landscape in the background. In another test, I had shot some cars passing and noticed that there was some stuttering of motion. I later realized this was as a result of using the OIS. I had to then because I was shooting handheld. There is a significant difference in smooth motion rendering when the OIS is turned off. Never turn it on when you are tethered to a tripod.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/road_landscape.m2t (51mb)


BLACK AND WHITE:

I like the atmosphere in this shot. When appropriate, I try to include some movement in my shots so they don't look like photographs. Black and white has such a different feel to it that it's almost like I was in a different place than when I shot the color version. My 10 year old daughter thought the look of the black and white was "the coolest thing I've ever seen!" The settings were completely off for this and it was more spontaneous on my part to start shooting BW. Since then, I've created a much richer palette with a more luscious tonal range so I'll test that the next time I'm out. Also, the sharpening was turned down to -3 which gave the look much more softness than I like. Instead of a pleasing softness, it looks more like the camera's resolution was compromised.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/bw_lovers.m2t (47mb)

The same shot as the color one above but with the BW settings. Because the shot is a silhouette shot against a grey cloudy sky, there is little difference between the color shot and this black and white version but the architecture of the bridge interested me.
http://www.realm.cc/upload/disjecta/bw_bridge.m2t (30mb)
 
Last edited:
Sorry D ! I did not mean that too sound typical

I watched the 80 MB one, landscape and dancing. (I've seen a bunch over at XlCinema!)

The last 2 landscape's are not available!

-

That being said; it looks really good. But the whole HD thing is still new too me. For example, it looks so good with so much detail but right now all I am seeing is really detailed looking video that is not screaming 60i

Some of the best stuff I have seen has still been the HVX (Regarding HD). Once again, with that gamma thingy Panasonic seems to have perfected ....

-

Im still waiting on an offical project from you !
 
Well, it's a totally subjective thing I guess. I don't see any magic in the gamma of Panasonic. In my opinion, it can easily be emulated on a camera like the XLH1 because there are so many parameters you can tweak.

As far as the video comment, I also disagree with that. Both on my computer screen and my plasma, the footage looks every bit as filmic as the HVX.

But again, we are only talking about opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Anyway, I appreciate you visiting me here in this lonely neck of the woods :love4:
 
I don't mean it looks video; I meant it does not scream 60i

-

To say again; I like what I am seeing but am still waiting for the magical stuff! With corrected levels, CC, etc etc etc!
 
Yeah, yeah...I getcha. :)

Okay, never use the word "video" in my thread again, even if you are saying it is not like video. I have a violent disposition to that word. I'm giddy and ready for bed.
 
Hey folks,
Is anyone trying to view these on a mac? I could use some help with the conversion settings. I'm trying to get the files into FCP so I can do some thinking about this camera... Thanks!
 
Use MPEG Streamclip: http://www.squared5.com/

Export 24F m2t's to QT DVCProHD at 23.976 fps, with a 1920x1080 frame size. (FCP will see it as 1280x1080 but set it for the larger frame upon export)

Remember to uncheck all deinterlace or interlace options too. 24F is progressive material so there's no need for any deinterlace/interlace filtering at all.
 
Last edited:
Love the clips, disjecta, but there's one thing I think you ought to consider: don't use the noise reduction feature at all. The H1 is already so clean, but the NR features just soften the picture.

...you are mr. detail, if I'm not mistaken...right? :-)
 
Elton said:
Love the clips, disjecta, but there's one thing I think you ought to consider: don't use the noise reduction feature at all. The H1 is already so clean, but the NR features just soften the picture.

...you are mr. detail, if I'm not mistaken...right? :-)

Good tip, Barlow, I noticed the effects of using it in this footage.
 
disjecta said:
Well, it's a totally subjective thing I guess. I don't see any magic in the gamma of Panasonic. In my opinion, it can easily be emulated on a camera like the XLH1 because there are so many parameters you can tweak.

QUOTE]

As good as this footage looks I really feel that once you take it into a editor and start to tweak the color curves you can really start to see the Pansonic look even more. I respect and think this is a great camera but I have my doubts that you will get that exact look that I associate with the Pana without some post work. I may be mistaken but I just don't think the built-in cine setting are quite there yet.

I am basing this on tweaking XL2 footage to match DVX footage. I could never achieve it in camera on the XL2. In post I could match them. However in all honesty I would usually make them both flat in camera and then CC and grade them to match the look I liked in post.
 
Yes, I agree in principle about shooting flat but I like to get a look from the camera and have to do minimal work in post. For me, it's like painting. I don't want to paint a canvas in flat colors and then scan it, bring it into Photoshop to manipulate it and then reprint it. There is something much more organic about tweaking the camera settings first for me. Now I realize that this kind of thinking is more unusual than the norm but it's the way I like to do it.

The "magic" Panasonic look, to me, is a little bit of a myth. I look at my subject and capture it the way I want it to look and no magic camera circuitry formula is going to make it look better for me. When I look at what I'm shooting in the field and then I see it rendered faithfully (in terms of the actual subject colors and whatever I have subjectively and predictably added to that), then the camera has done its job.

But don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone else's point of view, this is just my own opinion and preference.

Thanks for looking. A few more weeks of testing and I'll have the look I like perfected so stay tuned.
 
Is there anyway for you to post some QT clips. I'm not getting the files to run even on that viewer that was posted. I'm on a Mac BTW. Would love to see those falls.
 
disjecta said:
Yes, I agree in principle about shooting flat but I like to get a look from the camera and have to do minimal work in post. For me, it's like painting. I don't want to paint a canvas in flat colors and then scan it, bring it into Photoshop to manipulate it and then reprint it. There is something much more organic about tweaking the camera settings first for me. Now I realize that this kind of thinking is more unusual than the norm but it's the way I like to do it.

The "magic" Panasonic look, to me, is a little bit of a myth. I look at my subject and capture it the way I want it to look and no magic camera circuitry formula is going to make it look better for me. When I look at what I'm shooting in the field and then I see it rendered faithfully (in terms of the actual subject colors and whatever I have subjectively and predictably added to that), then the camera has done its job.

Perhaps that's just the difference between narrative and non-narrative work. It's hard to describe but I DO see the so called "magic" panasonic look. I don't want things to really be respresented faithfully since I'm creating an illusion from the get go. I love what I've seen out of this camera and while I find that the colors and gamma come closer to that of the HVX200 than the HD100 does, it still doesn't quite have the look that I like and want in that respect (resolution though is fantastic).
 
Perhaps that's just the difference between narrative and non-narrative work. It's hard to describe but I DO see the so called "magic" panasonic look. I don't want things to really be respresented faithfully since I'm creating an illusion from the get go. I love what I've seen out of this camera and while I find that the colors and gamma come closer to that of the HVX200 than the HD100 does, it still doesn't quite have the look that I like and want in that respect (resolution though is fantastic).

Totally sums up my thoughts

But I am going to ask D Masta. Can we get some treated footage ? Levels and CC (for example)

D, your work on the DVX is a standout. What can you give us one this; I'm waiting.
 
Okay, this will be my final thoughts on the subject because I'm not working for Canon. Nor am I on a mission to convert people considering the HVX. I completely respect everyone's own needs and desires. That's why we all have a choice.

As far as the resolution being too real, the beauty of the Canon is that the detail can be dialed down and significantly softened to easily look like the resolution of the HVX and thus, to some people, more filmic. The other great advantage about starting with a lot of resolution and detail is that if you choose to use a 35mm adapter, the softening effect of these units still makes the image pop and detail can be retained.

That, coupled with the incredible color tweaking ability AND the same 24p temporal cadence of the HVX makes this a much more versatile camera than the HVX to me (just my opinion, I'm trying to avoid the soap box here). The variable frame rates of the HVX are great but they have limited application and, for most work, they would only be used minimally so I don't see this as a deal breaker. If you think Panasonic has a magic look, then great, go with it and you will be happy. I do not believe in this magic myself. But then again, that's just me. :)

It will be a while before I have a project to show because I have alloted myself a couple of months of just having fun and trying out different looks and completely familiarizing myself with everything this thing can do. I'll post when I have something to show.
 
Last edited:
Disjecta, I actually am really impressed by your footage. The Canon clearly has anything in its price range beat as far as resolution goes and I perfer the colors and gamma curve to that of the JVC. For the kind of work you do it seems perfectly suited. Still, for narrative stuff the colors and gamma curve still aren't as filmic as the HVX200's. It has nothing to do with the softness of the image, I'd love for the HVX200 to have more resolution (that is REAL resolution not edge enhancment, *glares at JVC HD100*) but the real difference is the color and gamma. You can mess with it in post I'm sure but just as I never saw someone get quite the look of a DVX100 with an XL1 or XL2, I still have yet to see someone get quite the look of an HVX200 with an XLH1. Looking at your footage here and comparing it to Barry's Hawaii footage is a perfect example of what I mean. They both look fantastic with yours certainly being sharper but Barry's simply looking more organic and beautiful to my eye. I could picture yours on the discovery channel. I could picture his in a feature film. Different cameras for different types of projects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top