Simon Wyndham

I've had some okay success with both the SD and HD cameras. Although I have to say that these days I do not really believe in chasing a 'film look' as I do not believe that it is really that possible. I like the look of proscan modes, but I think that the HD look should be embraced as a look on its own rather than trying to make the camera into something that it isn't. Film handles edge detail and overall detail in a different way to video cameras. Video cameras can be made to emulate this to a degree, but not totally. Certainly if I am shooting 'filmish look' with a camera like the 330/350 I will usually turn off the detail altogether. Although access to the service menus will give you more control over things. You can try reducing overall detail, but play around with the Aperture Detail controls, Crispening, Frequency and Fine DTL adjustments. But you need a pretty controlled environment and the right equipment to be able to do this properly. The best settings I ever had were from the Swiss Effects film transfer company. For the Standard def cameras they had some good settings that were a nice compromise between going too soft, but still retaining overall crispness.

PDW-530 is of course tapeless. But the two cameras are definitely comparable, esp when set up correctly. You may find that the 900 has stronger colours out of the box than the 530, and the 900 does perhaps have finer colour matrix controls but they can both be set up to be equal. To be honest if you are using Vegas 7 you would be better off with the 530 because the two interface directly, and the IMX files can be copied directly to your hard drive and placed straight onto the timeline. Using DVCpro50 with Vegas can be done if you have the codec installed on your system, but it is an additional hassle.

Well, okay, but those factors are the same for any video based format. However you can still deinterlace footage and record back to VHS. And if you are using SVHS things will stand up better. Though Christian, why are you using VHS?

If you saw a lot of line flicker there are a few possibilities. One is that the detail level of the camera is set too high (even the out of the box default setting is set too high). The other is that in combination with the last point your monitors could not display a PsF image properly. For example, take some of the progressive footage from the 450, and output it from the NLE to a progressive display, or render out a progressive DVD and play it back through component or HDMI to a progressive display. You cannot really judge it based on composite on-site monitoring.

Then something was wrong with either your camera or your monitor. The 450 has true progressive scan.

So why is Torchwood the only production that suffers from it? The only other similar effect that I have seen is when something is shot interlaced and then deinterlaced using a blend fields option. That, and having the shutter switch on the camera off when shooting progressive scan. The blurring won't be caused by the compression in the broadcast, otherwise all progressive output from the BBC would suffer, which it doesn't. Torchwood is supposed to be one of their flagship programmes, so the fact that this artefact exists is incredibly sloppy on their part. In earlier parts of the series there were shots that looked correct, and it was mainly the shots inside Torchwood HQ that had the smearing problem. I know Stuart worked on the programme, but I have come across even experienced BBC guys that don't know that you should enable a 1/50th shutter manually when shooting with a camera in progressive scan. I constantly find it incredible how much mystique there is out there shooting progressive even amongst supposedly incredibly experienced people.

I loved Buffy. It was incredibly well written with superb characterisations. The characters started off as teenagers, but progressed as they left school, went to college, left college and had to get real jobs etc. Yet there always quick banter, good action, and good multi-level storylines. I agree with you totally on all the points you mentioned Andy. The BBC has drastically underestimated the sophistication of the audience. It has forgotten that programmes like 24 are a global phenomenon and that we watch those programmes. Therefore Torchwood, Dr Who, Spooks etc are all competing with them. Although I do have to say that Spooks IMHO is the one British programme that I hold in similar esteem to the US series, despite one or two cock ups, which every series has from time to time. The useless smeary video look given to the cinematography is the nail in Torchwoods coffin.

Any chance you can find out what the hell happened then? I can't think of any other way that awful look could have happened unless they purposefully added a motion blur filter. And that would seem a very odd thing to do. HD production at the BBC is quite entrenched with many newer dramas shooting on it. So I would have thought that it wouldn't be a problem. Anything to do with the whole Panasonic/Sony thing?

One reason Torchwood looks so awful is because the fools left the shutter turned off, so it has that horrible smeary videoey look. Hopefully they'll correct that issue with the next series. Looking at the recent Christmas edition of Dr Who, it looked a bit more like it was HD. Certainly looked slightly different to the last series. Although there are some instances where they really should use film. Whoever convinced the BBC that shooting Robin Hood in bright patchy sunlit forests with a video camera should be strung up. Whenever the scenes were moved to the forest it looked like bad video. Compounded by the fact that the script was awful, the actors were awful, the costumes looked like they came from the local fancy dress store, the action was also rubbish, and the grandeur of the orchestrated musical score came across as if it had been overlayed onto someone's home video due to the whole shoddiness of the programme as a whole. Hopefully thats one series that won't be coming back.

The more recent Christmas one might have been HD. Though it seems that half the last season was still Digi. http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/cu...issue/7486.html

Are you sure? The one I used the other day had an Aperture (peaking) knob that allowed me to get focus. In fact it saved my backside because the camera had a backfocus issue (note to self, never listen to anyone who tells you that they've already set up the backfocus, especially on a high def camera!). Mind you, it was only a small amount out, impossible to tell on a viewfinder. If not for that monitor I would have been screwed.

He's wrong. For example where the adjustment of knee point and knee slope is concerned that will cram in more highlight information. You couldn't leave the camera on a default setting and hope to bring that back in post. Thats why the likes of the F900R have hypergamma, and the Varicam has Film Rec gamma. Then there are issues of noise. The camera has coring and level depend adjustments which can minimise the noise in certain areas of the picture (such as the darker areas). This is more difficult to achieve in post. The fact is that you will get a cleaner picture by having these adjustments made in-camera.

You shoot with 7.5 setup with a digital camera?

Afraid I don't know since I haven't used it. But I would imagine that they are in the Paint menu under Gamma.

Stretching the blacks can often be a good thing. However remember to make the distinction between black level and black gamma(stretch). The black stretch will not affect the absolute black level. I like deep blacks (ie when something is black, I want it to look black, not grey.) Often I find that the standard black level setting on cameras is too high for my liking. I nearly always end up adjusting it in post. As long as you don't go below the zero line on a waveform with the master black you will not crush detail. So I wonder if getting a good master black setting, and then using black stretch to bring back some detail might be the best way to go?