Softening the HVX

insanityfw

insanityfw

Ban Me Please!
OK, I just got HD cable for my HD TV and all I can say is, wow! It's a whole different world that TV veiwers will be used to over the next few years. I've seen HD before, but not really in a day to day setting.

I think being an original film purist that I see now how people will adjust to the clarity of HD. The second part of my WOW, however, is that it is just so hard to cover up even the smallest production imperfection. You can see every bad makeup job or out of place color, etc. I think that will just push the industry to evolve, but evolution of this nature takes money.

OK, I'm almost there...wait for it. :) Will soft filters and such make a difference on these HD cameras? Logic says of course, but I watch these shows with big budgets and they don't seemed to care about filmic softness or anything. They just let the imperfections and bad make-up jobs shine through.

What are your thoughts on filters and what it will do for the image? I'm speaking a bit hypothetically since we don't really know how this camera will resolve once it's here.

thanks for your input.
 
Unfortunately, because HD is still relatively new to some, there are "professionals" that are treating their HD productions the same as SD video productions. Much more attention to detail must be used. ie: Softer lighting, quality make-up, diffusion filters, deeper sets, better set construction, better control of your camera's settings, etc. The reality is that the video world must move away from some of the practices of old, and closer to the likes of film production. Just my $.02, others may have different opinions like fixing it in post. Either way there is more to consider working with HD.
To answer your question about filters, we use a set of pro-mist filters on our 1080i HDCAM footage, and that coupled with nice soft lighting makes a world of difference.
 
Uneducated point of view here, but:

I was under the impression it's less about the resolution and more about the lenses. If that assumption is correct, would film lense adapters help soften the details? XL2 footage (using the stock lens) tends to have that ultra crisp detailed look to it but when I've seen it used with G35 or PS adapters, it's much less so. Would that affect the harsh details of HD?
 
Not only do things like poor production design really show up, but aging talent and make up quality are also things to consider. I was involved in a project about 3 years ago that was shot with the then new Sony F900. When one of the older (around my age) actresses saw her performance on a very large screen (30' or 35', can't remember exactly) she was more than a little horrified by the results. In addition, this was supposed to be an Australian location and no one caught a few refrigerator magnets in the kitchen which clearly revealed that it was in fact LA until we saw the big projection.
 
I agree art departments are going to become more critical in HD. Most set decorators are decorators first then if they have been around a while they pick-up some of the film aspect. However under HD they are going to have to be knowledgable of not only set design, but color, texture and reflectiveness from the cameras standpoint.

Secondly DP's will have to pay more attention to detail, about the set, wardrobe and makeup. Also lighting, I know several will disagree, but I think lighting is much more critical in HD then it is in Film. Also I think you'll see it become more common to haze or smoke the set. This has many advantages over filters, it lets you paint your light, covers some of those slight imperfections and generally softens the look.
 
I've always wondered about the technical reasons for the increased need of detail in props when, theoretically, film has more resolution than 1080p.
 
Because film isn't as sharp in the mid-frequencies as HD video. HD video is quite sharp across all ranges. Added to this is the way that people aren't properly setting up their HD cameras either using the default settings, or just turning down the detail. That isn't going to do it. You need to reduce the detail enhancement in the mid-frequencies (such as human skin), but allow some boost of the high frequencies.

Its a misconception about film 'resolution', Film doesn't have a defined 'resolution'. As well as this, while the original negative is of extremely high quality, by the time it has been made into a distribution print, reducing quality a fair bit along the way, and then projected (gate weave reduces the perceieved resolution even more), digitally projected high def is very sharp in comparison.
 
Thanks everybody. I am now getting that sinking feeling, because the realization to me is that this camera may be amazing, but it will be a lot more complicated then just point-and-shoot like it feels with the DVX. Now, before I get flamed I know that shooting with the DVX is not truly a point and shoot, but it inspires a sense of ease of use that makes it feel at home on great, low-budget projects. It seems to me that maybe making the switch to HD is going to complicate things more than folks are willing to admit? Are most people (including myself) diluding themselves into believing tha this will be the holy grail for indie projects? I was thinking that this would be a great alternative to originating on film, but I just don't know. I've got a great concept, a good set of actors coming together, but now I'm wondering if I won't blow the balance by over reaching with the technology and now the technology will stand out like a sore thumb.

Of course all this depends on the end user, but now I'm a bit scared. Maybe the crew and budget that I had planned for my next feature will not be adequate to handle the more finite elements of HD.

Do I store this HVX thing under the heading of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" ?

thanks for listening.
 
in my short stint as a 2nd AC on several Varicam shoots the DPs always used promist filters to soften the sharp HD image.

as for art departments missing things on a tiny monitor this is probably why a large 40+ inch HD display on set will be useful. not for color correction but to discover things like LA fridge magnets for a place supposedly in Oz. i would imagine that a 23 inch LCD display would be appropriate for location and in the field shooting with larger crews.
 
contentlab said:
in my short stint as a 2nd AC on several Varicam shoots the DPs always used promist filters to soften the sharp HD image.

as for art departments missing things on a tiny monitor this is probably why a large 40+ inch HD display on set will be useful. not for color correction but to discover things like LA fridge magnets for a place supposedly in Oz. i would imagine that a 23 inch LCD display would be appropriate for location and in the field shooting with larger crews.
Click to expand...

The whole situation is ironic to the point of weird.

Here we are, scrambling for high definiton formats, sharper lenses etc.... and then finding the picture too sharp.... then scrambling for softening solutions.

Don't get me wrong... I love sharp and high resolution (I like shooting the fabled wrinkle faced fisherman).

Perhaps we don't need anything sharper than the HVX200... varicam and anything better sounds like overkill. :)

Here's another way of looking at it:

HVX200 = Varicam + promist filter.
 
DVX100 looks great in close up, but too soft wide. Maybe soften the close up on the HVX, and let the wide go, getting the best of both worlds?
 
Softening the HVX

The title says it all.

I need a HVX, I just NEED it.

I can't produce anything good with my crappy DVX, I just have to have an HVX....(insert foot stomping and breath holding here).....


Oh and by the way......

how do I soften the look?



You want to get Panasonics latest and greatest newest bestest prosumer video camera soon to be out....

and you don't have even the most basic understanding of film making.


Softening a shot is a bloody basic still photography technique thats been know, taught and used since cameras were invented, and you haven't gotten even the most basic of techniques?


Too much money, too little understanding.

Sad, very very sad.
 
Actually I'm hoping the HVX200 will have the cleanest sharpest video possible.

If I'm looking for a soft look, I can do it with filters or in post.
 
pookie said:
Softening the HVX

[Oh and by the way......

how do I soften the look?

[
Click to expand...

Pookie:

I've reread the previous posts.

Nobody asked the question, "How do I soften the look?" and therefore demonstrated lack of knowledge.

He did ask: "Will soft filters and such make a difference on these HD cameras?", and got some nice answers from pros who have used HD cameras.

:)
 
stabwound said:
Pookie:

I've reread the previous posts.

Nobody asked the question, "How do I soften the look?" and therefore demonstrated lack of knowledge.

He did ask: "Will soft filters and such make a difference on these HD cameras?", and got some nice answers from pros who have used HD cameras.

:)
Click to expand...

And the most basic application of common sense will answer that question before it's even asked.

Again, even the most basic understanding of camera work will show that question to be a foolish one.

What would be occuring within an HD camera that would make applying a diffusion filter non effective, yet functional with a DVX?

The most basic of skills.......
This is still a sad thread.
 
I call it "too much truck syndrom." I see it all the time at my local Target; insert Soccer mom and a V8 Crew Cab and a parking place.

Too Much Truck Lady.

Even insanityfw knows it's too much truck.

(DVX100 Point and Click, huh? I'll refrain from flaming you)
 
pookie said:
Softening the HVX

The title says it all.

I need a HVX, I just NEED it.

I can't produce anything good with my crappy DVX, I just have to have an HVX....(insert foot stomping and breath holding here).....


Oh and by the way......

how do I soften the look?



You want to get Panasonics latest and greatest newest bestest prosumer video camera soon to be out....

and you don't have even the most basic understanding of film making.


Softening a shot is a bloody basic still photography technique thats been know, taught and used since cameras were invented, and you haven't gotten even the most basic of techniques?


Too much money, too little understanding.

Sad, very very sad.
Click to expand...

Wow! You need to get off your pedestal. To come to the conculsion from my original post that I'm some pouty baby is ridiculous. I'm simply a writer/producer/director trying to learn more about the technical end of film and video. I've never been a cinematographer and have a lot of respect for those that have a great understanding of the art and craft. All I'm trying to do is learn as much as I can so that i can be a better filmmaker in general and communicate better what I am looking to get out of a project.

If you care to look at any of my other posts you will see that I love my DVX, but am tyring to weight what I have from a budgetary standpoint with what is available from a technological standpoint. I was also trying to get some real world technical solutions, which apparently I'm not going to get from you....so be it.

All I know is that HD is going to be claiming more and more of the markethshare in both feature films and television, and offers many advantages over film in it's own way, but the look it still a bit off to me in most cases and I need to figure out why. I think there is more that can be done to bridge the gap between traditional film and the harshness of what I'm seeing broadcast in HD and if that offends you in some way I really don't care.

Don't confuse repeating sad, sad, sad in a post as being profound or enlightened...I guess I do care after all.

See you at the movies. :)

J.
 
pookie said:
Emanuel said:
Why? Can you be more - a little bit - specific to enrich the debate?...
Click to expand...
Softening the HVX

The title says it all.

I need a HVX, I just NEED it.

I can't produce anything good with my crappy DVX, I just have to have an HVX....(insert foot stomping and breath holding here).....


Oh and by the way......

how do I soften the look?



You want to get Panasonics latest and greatest newest bestest prosumer video camera soon to be out....

and you don't have even the most basic understanding of film making.


Softening a shot is a bloody basic still photography technique thats been know, taught and used since cameras were invented, and you haven't gotten even the most basic of techniques?


Too much money, too little understanding.

Sad, very very sad.
Click to expand...
I understand your POV but I only can agree with it in 50%.

Did you see the XL-H1 footage? Native 1440x1080, sharp as wanted as possible. And so what? Videoish ugly (PERIOD). Or maybe not for some purposes. Not mine: BIG SCREEN, 2.35:1 if possible! So, sharp features with high resolution will be "the" must for 2.35:1 but...where is there "the" cinematic/film look or feel that a softening technique can achieve for that effect? For instance, in the (foruns & some truly indy manufacturers) answers about the use of 35mm still lenses adapters like Guerilla-that spirit!-35 (but it'll be always the cons like "not so much resolution with these devices", etc.).

Sometimes, as I've been saying in another threads, it talks about resolution, blá blá blá, blá blá blá, blá blá blá...but not so much or enough about colour features as I could see in Cinealta world when I had the possibility to work with that marvelous F900 cam. It's only 1440x1080, who cares? The technology guys, maybe? But not who needs a cinematic way - in my case and many others 100% - to storytelling.

Of course, we prefer (high) resolution with a sharper result than less. But - attention! - resolution is not everything! Did you see yours/american "Tarnation"? Or the ours/european '80's "The Mistery of Oberwald" of the greatest Michelangelo ANTONIONI? [unfortunately, we've got plenty of artifacts, unfortunately 'cause the available technology in that time]

Sure, you're right and it's a bad idea to give the impression that sharp HD resolution it's not ALSO necessary! (My/yours 50%)

It needs: HVX native CCD resolution, if possible, and not the 960x720 announced for that rumor - not confirmed but not even satisfactory denied (despite the "pixel shift" speech: "better?!..."):
http://www.hdforindies.com/2005/10/prosumer-hd-camera-roundup-updated

HD will be always a better option than SD - frankly my friends! including (the) technology gurus - but sometimes there is who doesn't agree 100%...that in this case, it's not the strongest one (gurus or not).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top