Michael Nash

Yeah, you're showing your age... and mine. ;) I had one of those Canon A1's, and had a similar experience to yours. But cameras have come a LONG way since the old High-8 days. Cameras and recording formats are leaps and bounds better now. JVC isn't any "higher definition" than Canon or Sony though, unless you're comparing the JVC to standard def models. All the manufacturers make prosumer HD cameras that are comparable in quality, just with different characteristics. In addition to the JVC there's the Panasonic HVX200, Canon XL-H1/A1/G1, and several Sony models like the Z1U and now the EX1. Lots of good choices. Each of them handles 24p and compression in a slightly different way, but all yield good looking results. Don't get confused with the lens mount issue though. There aren't that many lenses that will fit JVC's 1/3" mount ("bayonet" is a misleading term: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...=30446&hl=), and alternate lenses from larger format cameras just become really long focal lengths on the 1/3" format (IF you can get the right adapter). All of the prosumer cameras have a pretty good useable zoom range, if anything you usually want to go a little wider which requires a wide-angle adapter on most cameras anyway. FWIW, the JVC's stock lens is nice to use but optically not that great. Some of the fixed-lens cameras have better glass, but not the same manual control. The Sony EX1 is one of he first to have a fixed lens with full mechanical control.

Do you know the number?

The problem with "creative white balancing" like this is that it's really impossible to do fine color correction in the field. You can bias your image one way or the other as a start, but don't expect to get it exactly right in the field. One thing that happens with this kind of white balancing is that while it pushes the red and blue channels up and down to warm/cool the image, it can make subtle differences in the green channel more apparent. For example, biasing the image warmer with CTB can end making the image too yellow for what you want, rather than orange, depending on the scene. The heavier the bias the heavier the error in subtle color rendition. That said, I use a swatch book all the time. I just try to be conservative with it.

Well that's one way, but not always practical for most shoots that need to deliver a decent look in-camera... As for particular settings, you really have to test them for yourself for the look you're trying to create. I'd suggest starting with -3 db gain and everything at "0", using whichever REC mode works for your look and post path, and adjust your settings as desired. Just keep in mind that the more you raise black stretch, gamma, and gain, the more you're amplifying the noise that's in the signal. The blue channel is the noisiest so sometimes it's better to err on the side of the white balance being a little too blue rather than too orange, in case you need to fine tune the color balance in post.

And how many warm brick and concrete buildings are there around that apartment, reflecting warmer light? In my 20 years of shooting (and years of working with color before that) I've found that indoor light is highly dependent on the color(s) of whatever's outside bouncing light in, plus what's inside the room. I don't doubt what you see on your meter, but you can't say that applies to every room. An interior with hardwood floors will obviously have a warmer ambient color. In another thread I had someone insisting that sunlight is much warmer than ambient daylight, and that you had to cool it off with CTB to use it as fill in exteriors. You're telling me the ambient daylight inside is always warmer. I'm saying 5600 works just fine. Are all three of us wrong? Ambient light is the composite of the colors of all the sources and surfaces around. As those things change, the color of the light changes. For example, I've been picking paint colors for my back bedroom, which has large windows overlooking the mountains. Near the floor a gray trim color turns decidedly blue-gray (lit by blue sky), and near the ceiling that same color looks decidedly yellowish (lit by sunlight reflecting off trees and foliage). Against the windows (white walls), it looks neutral. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has been using exclusively 5600 light for day interiors for years with perfectly acceptable results. If 4400 blends better with the ambient light at the location, then use that.

There are some great books about lighting in the "books" link at the top of the page.

I'm not sure about trademarks, but as I understand it Sony's 2/3" "bayonet" mount is called B4. 1/2" and 1/3" video camera mounts are definitely a different size than the 2/3" mount, and they're sometimes called "bayonet" also. Not all 2/3", 1/2", or 1/3" mounts are the same either. I think Sony calls their 1/3" mount B3. Arri also uses the term "bayonet" to distinguish from "standard," hence the confusion when that's the only term used.

Just trying to clarify. You might be able to get a little more "Oomph" out of your camera than you realize! ;) Try shooting 1080 24p"A" and remove the pulldown in post, if your edit system supports that. The tad bit more resolution might help with your keys. Also, shooting standard def in the DVCPRO 50 codec is less compressed than HD in DVCPRO HD, offering a potentially cleaner key but lower resolution.

That's a pretty broad statement! It depends on what indoor light sources are present. If all he's got is ambient daylight coming in, full blue on his tungsten should get it pretty close. Nothing wrong with cutting back on the density for a few extra footcandles though, if you don't mind the color of the window spill going a little cool.

I guess I'm not understanding. Don't you mean 24p/48i and 30p/60i (24 frames constructed from 48 interlaced fields; 30 frames constructed from 60 interlaced fields)? I can understand if the camera is actually scanning at 48Hz. and 60Hz. and interpolating fields to construct progressive frames at 24 and 30 fps, respectively. But if the camera can scan and "upshift" to 720p at 48Hz., why would it need to scan at 60Hz. to upshift to 1080? As I understand it, in 24p mode the camera is always using the same "up-shifted" 1080 24p images (540x960 is exactly half 1080x1920) and recording them as either 720 24p, 720 60p (adding redundant frames), or 1080 60i (adding pulldown). That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the camera having to interpolate 60 to 24 and re-add pulldown to construct 60i. As far as I know the only reason 1080 is recorded as 60i and not 24p on this camera is because that's all the DVCPRO HD codec will support. DVCPRO HD only supports 24p Native at 720, which is why the real-time variable frame rates are only available at 720, and only in the "Native" mode. If it's true that both the 720 and 1080 images are being scanned at 48 Hz., then the 1080 24p frames should just be as effectively "progressive" as the 720 24p images. It's only the recording pulldown that's different.

Are you trying to replicate the look of movies from those time periods, or just use lighting to create a different sense of time and place? Unless you've already been watching a lot of movies from those time periods as research, you're not going to "get" the looks in your head, by description, in two days. You might be better off coming up with your own looks that feel right to you, and evoke the right tone for each segment of the film.

Is it interpolated from a 60i image, or a "48i" image? That would make a huge difference in quality. How have you determined this, and what artifacts or evidence have you noticed in 24p/1080 60i? Does it present any problems when using the 24p"A" pulldown to create a 1080 24p timeline in post? I've used the camera many times, but always in the 720pN mode. I realize it's all uprezed from 540x960.

Are you sure you're not confusing interpolation with pulldown? If it works like all other Panasonic devices, it's capturing 24 progressive images and adding a 3:2 pulldown to record them as 60i. The 24P"A" option even makes it easier to restore a 1080/24p timeline in Final Cut Pro by removing the repeated fields. http://shop.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/store...072005012903035 Interpolation is when you start with an interlaced image and "compute" or "interpret" what a progressive frame should look like, based on the pixels in both fields.

I Googled "Panasonic HVX200" and the first result is Panasonic's page: http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/s...delNo=AG-HVX200 It should tell you everything you need to know. You can record 24P onto 1080/60i with a 3:2 pulldown or "advanced" pulldown.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...&hl=monitor

Different film stocks have different characteristic curves and exposure ranges. You can look up the curve for the film you're using to get an idea how it may respond, but ultimately you have to test it to know for sure. http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...f002_0142ac.pdf http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.6&lc=en With a hypothetical, linear 8-stop range you'll have detail in midtones up to about 4 stops over, but no highlight detail because the highlights would be beyond the range of the film. You'd have to keep your exposure limited to no more than 2 stops over if you wanted to capture highlight detail that's 2 stops brighter than your midtones. That's what's meant by "2 stops overexposure latitude." http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...0.4&lc=en#L In the real world though, latitude is rarely linear. Color negative has much more overexposure latitude than underexposure, and video cameras and digital still cameras are just the opposite.

It's all relative, so it's hard to say one camera is noisy and the other isn't. It's what you do with the camera that creates the noise. Simply put, noise comes from signal amplification. The more you boost the signal through gamma, gain, black stretch and color controls, the more noise you get. It's highly dependent on how you're pushing the signal around.

Just to clarify (not nitpick), it's not that "latitude" means film and "dynamic range" means digital. The terms describe two different concepts. Latitude is the amount an image can be over- or under-exposed in camera and still brought back to an acceptable looking "normal" exposure. Range is the range of brightness that the system can capture. In the strictest sense the term "dynamic range" comes from electronics and not film, so perhaps simply "range" is the better term. They're two different things. If an imaging system can capture detail in medium-value subjects from 4 stops underexposed to 4 stops overexposed, it has 8 stops of range, but certainly not 8 stops of latitude. You could probably only underexpose the image about 2 stops before you'd start to lose too much shadow detail (and get increased grain), or two stops overexposed before you'd lose too much highlight detail. That means it has a latitude of + or - 2 stops. So when people say things like "this camera has 8 stops of latitude," it's very misleading and incorrect. That would mean you could over- or under-expose the image by about 4 stops and still recover an acceptable looking image. And that simply ain't the case!

If you took an incident reading with the meter's dome pointed toward the sunlight, yes. Don't confuse the scene with the subject. Once again, an incident meter doesn't know and doesn't care what else is your frame. The meter only measures the light falling on the dome. If you take an incident reading at a subject that's in the shadows, it's going tell you the proper exposure for the subject that's in the shadows. If your scene includes areas in direct sunlight, you might choose to underexpose the shadowed subject to achieve a more balanced exposure throughout the frame. But if your frame doesn't include areas of direct sunlight, you might choose to go with what the meter tells you. Case in point: This is an enlargement of the first photo, the one you say is an "overexposed image." Does this picture look like an overexposed image? No, because it doesn't include the areas in direct sunlight. Don't confuse the readings of the subject with the reading of the scene. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/up...1208380103.jpeg One of two ways. I'd either take an incident reading of the direct sunlight and an incident reading toward the camera and expose right in between the two readings; or, I'd spot meter a bright area (but not blown out sky), a dark area (but not pure black), and an area I wanted to appear middle gray, and I'd try to determine an exposure that would put all of those areas in the right place.

The HPX500 uses the B4 mount that's standard on all 2/3" 3 chip cameras. All the lenses you mentioned share the same mount. Forget the term "bayonet," as that refers to the way the mount works, not a particular mount or size. There are many different bayonet mounts. The depth of field is the same between all those lenses too, since the chip size isn't changing. There will be a qualitative difference between zooms and primes, but optically it's all the same depth of field characteristics. 2/3" chip cameras use essentially the same focal lengths as Super 16. For many productions that's shallow enough, for others 35mm optical characterisitcs are preferred. If you're upgrading from shooting with 1/3" chip cameras you'll notice a pleasant improvement with 2/3" optics. You can look up depth of field charts here.

Yes, Ed's right. The best approach is to take the info that the meters are telling you, and interpret that info to give you the exposure you want to create. Sometimes you have meter readings to guide you; other times you have to make an educated guess and compensate the numbers in your head. Practice makes perfect! Edit: Also, latitude is the amount you can over- or under-expose the film and still recover a normal looking final image. Dynamic range is the range of light values that the system can capture. Your DSLR doesn't have 4 stops of latitude, in has 4 stops dynamic range.

From the Wikipedia article I linked:

I don't have any direct experience with them, but I'd try Panasonic first. They may already have established policies for legitimate school programs. Nothing like building brand loyalty with new customers when they're just beginning their careers...

An incident light meter reads the light falling on the subject, from the angle the dome is pointed toward. The meter is only measuring the light hitting the dome from that angle, at that position. It doesn't know or care what other subjects or light values are in your frame. So in the first photo it looks as though the two women on the right are properly exposed, as though you took an incident reading at the sidewalk with the meter's dome pointed toward the camera. This is exactly the exposure I would expect from an incident reading at that position. Again, the meter doesn't know or care what other light values are in your frame, let alone how you wanted the scene to look. The reflected light meter in your camera, on the other hand, is reading ALL the light values it sees in the frame (depending on how the metering is weighted or biased), and averaging them together to find a mid point. It's trying to make all the values average out to middle gray, and since there are extreme values of light and shade in this frame you end up with an even distribution of values across the full tonal range. You say the second photo is "correctly exposed", but what exactly is correctly exposed in the frame? The men and trees are almost silhouette, significantly underexposed. The sky is blown-out white, significantly overexposed. And the overall frame has an even balance of values. My point is that YOU have to determine what a proper exposure is; a light meter can only read light and tell you what will render middle gray. Your incident meter is not being fooled by the backlight. It's telling you an accurate reading of the light falling on it. If anything it's the other way around -- YOU are being fooled (or influenced) by the backlight, deciding that a "proper" exposure is one that places the shaded side of the subjects darker than normal, in order to balance with the highlights in your frame. This is the fundamental art of cinematography. You take a reading of the light, and then you decide how bright dark you want it to appear, and set your exposure accordingly.

Nice job. My only critique is that some of the perspectives are off. If you're going to shrink the element to place it deeper in the background, you have to lower the camera angle as well to match the perspective. The couple on the left end up looking like they're about to fall forward.