Simon Wyndham

I use the sony xdcam (the 530) allot and i have been able to make some real nice filmic settings in camera.

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.

The short answer is no.

 

For reasons of latitude, contrast, color reproduction, framerate and many others. No.

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.

It almost looked like out of phase fields do when shooting interlaced. I have a feeling it is not true progressive at at all.

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

That blurring and smearing that is visible when watching the television show may happen in the broadcast stage during the various compression schemes the video is put through.

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?

Dr Who looks loads better than "Torchwood". John Holland ,London.

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

Having used a Sony LMD 9050 on some HD work recently my concern is that you can't really tell if the picture is in focus.

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 said that there really wasn't any.

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?

Do know where you find them in the menus on the HDW750? I've only got a 1st edition operating manual.

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?

AFAIK the 'Hypergammas' on the 950R are the same ones that are in the 750's V2 firmware, which in turn are also the ones in the XDCAM HD's too.

Could you post a link to the article? Now I'm curious.

http://www.sonybiz.net/images/product/X/CSTGB08-0.pdf

Without correction it will have an effect on saturation. As the gamma is decreased the saturation will increase. Apparent or real, it affects the look, yes.

By default, most cameras are overly contrasty, overly saturated, and then each manufacturer tends to have it's own unique color cast, even when white balanced against the same reference.

Sometimes I find the opposite. I think the XDCAM is a bit flat out of the box for example, and certainly not oversaturated.

Usually a 'technically' good picture is not the most aesthetically pleasing. Hence why many shows these days ramp the contrast and saturation up. I don't think there is such a thing as overly contrasty and overly saturated (unless we are talking about illegal levels on a scope) because different looks suit different programmes.

It is good to have a neutral starting point though. Hence DSC charts.

I'm going to wait for the first digital IMAX camera :D

A better strategy for Red would have been to reveal the projects existence at IBC along with the footage. A lot of rubbish could have been prevented that way.

Hopefully Jim still reads these forums. If so I just want ask a very simple question that will satisfy the issue I currently have seeing as I can't get any sense over at the other place.

Is the rail mount that is currently on the Red website the general purpose shoulder mount that has been mentioned in the past, or is another one also in development? I know you've said that things will change, and thats great. But will Red offer a general purpose cage/shoulder mount that will offer pefect balance and have the ability to be tripod mounted and demounted quickly?

Has anything firm been decided as far as viewfinder options go?

On the pro cameras you can disable most functions.

*BUT* theres a catch. You NEED a lot of those functions. You won't achieve the equivalent of a stills camera RAW mode. The only way to achieve a similar image to that in video is to use a camera like the Viper Filmstream, or the Andromeda mod to the DVX100.

If you turn off all the functions on a video camera, such as gamma, you will have an extremely limited image with really bad contrast ability.

I find that turning the detail off doesn't make things soft. Just more natural. The DSR450 for instance can look very '16mm' with the detail off.

All a matter of personal preference. Different camera heads behave differently, so -20 on a 450 may not be the same as -20 on another camera.

I prefer my master ped to be just above digital black. Going this low will not crush the blacks, it merely changes the 'brightness' of the blackest black. I also usually shoot with the detail off. but since I am in charge of the productions I make I can dictate stuff like this. When I shoot commissioned work it is down to client preference.

Ahh right. Okay.

Okay one thing to check is that the Knee Sat function is turned off. That will reduce saturation in the highlights. Unfortunately it will affect all colours. If you really want to do this in camera rather than in post, the only other function I can think of using for specific colours would be the Multi Matrix. This will allow you to select a tone and change its hue or saturation. I think the camera can hold two or three memories of different colours to affect. But I've never really used that function so I can't be sure. I would really advise this sort of adjustment to be made in post though.

Adjusting the R-G and B-G functions in the User Matrix will allow you to reduce overall saturation. Go to the Linear Matrix menu (in the main Paint menu), turn the User Matrix on, and then switch the Preset Matrix off (it has to be done in this order otherwise the preset matrix can't be turned off).

the Low Key Sat function adds, or reduces, saturation in the shadows. It is like the Knee saturation function but affects the lowlights instead of the highlights.

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean that you want less saturation in the highlights or more saturation in the highlights?