Simon Wyndham

Hi Steve, There was actually mention of somebody doing quite a lot of videoing of welding on another forum recently. I'll try and dig up the thread and post the link here. But what I do remember is that he said to be sure to put a good protective filter on the front of the lens. He said that he was amazed at how over time the sparks pock marked the filter quite dramatically. If that was the lens itself it could be expensive! There shouldn't be any problem with the brightness of the welding. Just risks to the camera (and yourself) from flying sparks and other hazards.

From watching the clips I think you would have a problem using them as a chroma key because it looks as though the camera sharpness was set way too high. There were a lot of edge enhancement artefacts in that footage. You need to go into the menus or get an engineer to set it up for a much milder detail setting.

I found some videos here http://www.lvideoservices.net/ but couldn't find the SPX800 one.

Word is that it has 1080 capable CCD's.

Not sure, but the factor of 1/3" HD cameras not being able to resolve HD resolutions very well (if at all) above f5 should be mentioned more.

I haven't examined the slow shutter of the 510 at great detail, but I haven't noticed any resolution degredation on the tests that I have done. I was under the impression that it created the effect by layering frames. I can check with a Sony rep if you like.

The FLM gamma settings give you around a stop extra to play with in the highlights. As for enlargements it might be worth downloading the trial for Magic Bullet, use its deartifacter plugin, then use Algolith to upres.

Interesting. Although I would be careful when adjusting all the settings to get colour saturation. One of Sony's techs told me that they are all highly interactive with one another.

Peter, I should mention that you only need to adjust the R-G and B-G components. This is because they are all interactive and can cancel one another out and perform all kinds of weird stuff. New information fresh off the press!

Hi Peter, The Multi Matrix Sat will not affect the whole frame. The Multi Matrix is used for affecting slected colours. For example you could make a red dress black and white while leaving the rest of the picture alone. Rarely does this work that nicely, but thats the idea. Instead go to the Linear Matrix menu. Turn the User Matrix on and reduce the individual components equally to reduce the saturation to your liking.

Colour is a subjectove thing, but as I said the camera can be set up to the users precise liking. I'm not sure what you mean by 'electronic look'? All other processes such as knee compression, low light saturation, highlight saturation etc can all be turned on or off too. The 450 would give you the flexibility you needed to create the image you wanted. The same goes for a Varicam, F900, F950 etc. I believe 2/3 cameras need to be judged on signal/noise ratio and contrast abilities, followed by detail and colour since the latter two attributes can be fully adjusted. {quote]light. A nice day at that. I'm sure in lower light the Sony will be less noise. Not just in low light, but overall. Thats at odds with my experience with the Sony cameras which have produced nice natural looking pictures. Although I have set my camera up to have minimal electronic enhancement, so that could be the reason, which backs up what I said in the first paragraph. You missed my point. Turn the knee off or use DCC on the 450 and select FLM gamma 1 and then compare dynamic range. With this setting if I am shooting a human face when there is a bright background the person in question is slightly shaded, such as today when I was shooting run and gun interviews with farmers at a market who were under awnings, I know that I can bring the faces into good exposure and realise that I can keep a lot of range over 100ire on the bright background. I can then bring things back into legal luminance in post. You need to push things in order to make a subjectice comparison. Bang for your buck is also subjective and dependent on what one does. Incidentally I am also heavily involved in indie moviemaking. Sometimes it is full of compromise, sometimes not. Not all indies shoot with MiniDV. Many shoot S16 or 35mm. If there isn't much choice in the matter then you have to go with what you are given. On the other hand renting a Varicam might cost you more, but then again it would probably give you more chance of a better distribution deal (assuming the movie is good) and therefore more chance of making your money back. In simple terms you have to spend money to make money. Are you aiming to rent the camera or buy the camera? To be honest, between a DVX100 and an XL2, or the other Sony cam you mentioned, I would actually be much more concerned about supplementary equipment such as a really good tripod, access to good lighting, dolly's and jibs etc. When I used to be using a Canon XM1 day in and day out to make my bread and butter the reason I used to fool people into forgetting stuff was shot on a handycam was through extensive use of Glidecam and other camera movement. If you can compose a great shot, light great, and have great camera movement, then I think the choice between several different MiniDV cameras is much of a muchness. Without knowing what the aims for distribution of the project are, or whether you have a sales agent or good producer on board already I can't really say any more than that.

Hmm. Yesterday I visited someone who has also just bought a 510, and who also owns an XL2. The 510 appears to have a similar head to the 450. The guy in question was blown away by the picture produced by the 510 in comparison to the XL2, most specifically in areas such as picture noise and colour reproduction. Making comments such as saying that the XL2 is more filmlike is rather a sweeping statement. The 450 has 9 seperate preset gamma tables for standard use and for filmout. The cameras picture can be modified in every way, and indeed it is meant to be set up to personal/company tastes. What you see out of the box is the base level neutral look. Certainly in low light, as you mention, the 450 will beat the XL2 hands down. But in other areas too. Highlight handling for example, especially using the FLM gamma modes where they are rolled off very smoothly. With the knee circuits turned off, or using DCC, a lot of detail remains above 100ire. You will probably also find that the 450 reaches deeper into the shadows too and also has full control over black levels and flare in addition to the fully manual gamma controls. Then we come to the lens. Much is dependent on this. Stick a HD lens on an SD camera and there is a good improvement in the picture. But also the quality of the lenses in general, especially the broadcast lenses, is very high indeed. The Canon J11 4.5mm lens for example has an exceptionally wide field of view, but with practically zero distortion to be seen anywhere. Verticals are perfectly straight. Different people have a different idea of what is a great picture. I'd take the 2/3 camera any day of the week. Especially with offers such as the one on this page http://www.dvwarehouse.co.uk/products.php?cat=216

Sounds interesting. It may be that somehow they have found a way of optimising the electronic 5600k filter for minimal noise and hue shifts.

I am currently working out how I want to shoot an upcoming production in Sept. The whole white balance issue and post adjustment is something that has been bothering me. I want to retain the cleanest signal possible. Hue shifts and other artefacts resulting from white balancing the camera were something that I wanted to avoid. The Sony document added the issue of reduced signal/noise ratio to that concern. In contrast to an article I wrote recently I am shifting more and more towards the idea of shooting the production like a film before Digital Intermediates came into being. I won't be going for any extreme looks, and so, as Peter has also mentioned, I am considering using correction filters in the matte box as much as possible and then only performing very, very, basic adjustment in post to compensate for the FLM gamma setting. Peter, I thought that it was just the 400 that only had electronic correction?

Good points Peter. The DV25 of the 450 and the 510 do not hold up so well with strong blues and reds. So the HVX will have an advantage as far as certain situations go with its 4:2:2 8-bit native footage. However as you mentioned the bigger cameras can output 4:2:2 10-bit uncompressed footage via SDI. I recently shot a low budget fictional piece in the mountains of Wales on the 510. I used my usual settings, and corrected for the FLM gamma in post. I rendered the DVD MPEG file out in progressive scan with the correct flags and then played it on my progressive DVD player on a fully high def capable CRT via progressive component inputs. The results were fantastic and exceptionally film like. Zero noise, but absolutely amazing detail in areas such as the zips on peoples jackets as well as the texture of the materials, even in medium shots. Amazingly the landscape shots of the incredible views up there came out extremely well too. Of course it won't hold a candle to 1080p from an F900 or 950, or a Viper, but for my purposes at my level the picture quality was amazing, and in fact look far better than any of the HDV stuff I have seen.

Progressive scan at higher rates such as 60fps still has a sligtly different look to interlaced footage. I think that all it would take is a big name director to shoot a really good film in 1080 60p (when it arrives) for people to start to want to copycat that style. Although it may remain a niche. I love 24p. But I still think that 50 or 60p is viable for digital projection in theatres. I do think however that such framerates may bring about their own shooting style. Can you imagine what slow motion would look like in 60p? Pretty cool I think. There is one drawback to shooting at such high progressive rates. Unless home equipment keeps up there will be no way of making a progressive transfer to HD DVD or whatever is doing the rounds. The movie would have to be converted to interlaced form in order to keep the framerate. Not good.

Linear is fine. Circluar is for cameras with auto focus functions on SLR's I believe. Although possibly I am wrong...

Yes. I have never understood why some think that 'warmness' equals film. Saving Private Ryan is about as desaturated as a picture can get without becoming black and white. Payback is very blue indeed. The Matrix is predominantly green. Anyone ever seen The Deadly Affair. Its one of my favourite films. Apparently Lumet used out of date filmstock for the ultimate in the grimy look. (correction, apparently he flashed the film)

Ckulakov, the main thing that seperates film and video, generally, is movement cadence, and the frequencies of detail that each medium caters for better. It appears to me that you are seeing things in DVD transfers that add in edge enhancement to films as making them look like video. The film look is full of many, many variables. I have just written an article on my website about filmlook, or at least 'generic' film look. As David Mullen has pointed out on occasion there are many different filmstocks with different kinds of looks and capabilities. My article is up at http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Hehe, well, who knows. Mind you Sony have run a few kit deals with cameras in recent months. H Prestons is such a weird place, with Basil Fawlty as their main salesman. The really odd thing about that shop is that it is actually a very small television and video shop that also sells broadcast cameras for some reason. its also in the most unlikely of places. Malvern is more a place in the countryside for walkers to walk on the Malvern Hills, as well as being famous for Elgar rather than somewhere to buy broadcast equipment from. I do wonder who buys from them sometimes! I have on occasion heard people swear by them. But my own experience of them is less than stellar. It was as if I had asked the salesman to cut off his arm when I asked for a firewire cable!

I'm not sure it is correct. Are they taking pixel shift into account? <Addition: Just found this info... 960x720p 4:2:2 (Varicam) 1280x720p 4:2:0 (HDV-1) 1440x1080i 3:1:1 (HDCAM) 1440x1080psf 3:1:1 (HDCAM) 1440x1080i 4:2:0 (HDV-2) 1920x1080p 4:2:2 (HDCAM-SR) 1920x1080p 4:4:4 (HDCAM-SR)>

Just had an update today. It appears that they should be able to get one 2k hmi and one 4k hmi. Where possible in the more difficult areas we will try to avoid expansive wde shots. Which suits me down to the ground as it means I can get shallower depth of field from longer focal lengths and make things easier on the compression. Most of the other parts of the forest aren't so bad although there is still the high contrast ratio to contend with. I will test out one of those ultra cons to see if it has any effect. The dense part of the forest is by a stream. The nature of the shoot dictates that we shoot in this one forest, and since the stream is a crucial part of the story we have to shoot there. I'm sure we'll find a way of getting a result. We've got a fantastic gaffer on board who had some ingenious ideas. Turns out his main experience is with some very well known 35mm films so this lowly DV25 DOP will be humbling to his every suggestion! A nice surprise. :)

Doh! Forgot to mention that the big problem is the wider shots.

Okay guys, here's a scenario I'm going to find myself in in a month or so. Not entirely sure of how I'm going to solve the problem mainly because of a distinct lack of budget. Although we might (being the operative word) be able to blag an HMI or two, but by no means guaranteed. The shoot is in a forest. A very dense one at that. I've shot a couple of test shots in there just to see what the natural light is like, but it is very murky. I had to put the camera on 6db of gain in order to get a halfway decent exposure. I don't want to switch the camera to 1/25 shutter either as it makes the picture too smeary. In the movie it is supposed to be sunny. In other words nice areas of dappled light 'shining through the trees'. We have the ability to get power in there, up to around 4k. Lighting the medium and closeups shouldn't be too much of a problem as far as the actresses faces are concerned. Whats bugging me is how to handle the background. I don't want nice sunny actress faces with a dark dull looking backdrop. Firstly it will look dark, and secondly it will look weird. For some of the early morning scenes I thought we might be able to get away with having some fake mist in parts of the background with a hidden light shining through it in order to establish the fact that there are pockets of light around even if I can't get any kind of wide area light in there. If it really is sunny when we come to shoot we might be saved in a few of the shots. But I am working on the assumption that the weather will not be favourable and possibly be overcast. Anyone got any ideas on how to tackle this?

fstop, as far as I know the Proms last year were recorded in high def. Although I will check out the info. If they were actually broadcasting it in HD I have no idea of who they were broadcasting to!