HD10: Jon the DP has an interesting tidbit.
 

Jon's film that he DP'd on has wrapped, and is willing to clone all the tapes, but I'm broke. So that ain't happening. But I'm getting copies/downconverts of the HD10 and Varicam.

His tidbit that strikes me as very interesting is, to him, the HD10's image is TOO sharp. He's going to mess around with the HD10 over the next couple of days, and he's gonna use some diffusion filters.

The DVX100 comes back next week, so more tests then!

heath

Any time you shoot a movie with CineAlta, you add diffusion filtering, with Varicam too, or else it just does not look good. In fact, it looks terrible.

Christopher Toderman wrote: What exactly do you mean?

Chris,

We seem to question you a lot; tell us about your background.

Also, I don't think many use diffusion during produciton. I think that's something they may do in post.

heath

Guys, I just answered another post and I said I will not get involved in anything regarding this camera. So I rest my case the third time and last time after answering this post. Unless there is another HDV camera, I don't want to discuss HDV anymore. I already described my background in another post.

Why do you guy question me? Because there is a lot of misinformation out there. Certain manufacturers claim that their camera is better, when it is not; some specs or facts are left out from the manufacturer's literature. The camera expert usually owns certain technology and he defends it as being better. He has to do it in front of clients, and he starts believing it himself eventually and his defense helps him in getting more $. And there are not too many experts in this field where everyone sells himself as an expert to the client. A moderator may have a stake in promoting certain product, etc.

There are ads by a certain manufacturer in cinematography magazines that their camera has more film-like images, but the studios, or even the normal size independents never choose this camera for any movie production. Still in forums like this this camera is being promoted as equal or better.

When you see a film made with HD10 that is in any way equal to a decent made film with the Varicam camera, then you can tell that the camera is good. It will not happen, unless you go for a specific look that this camera brings.

As to adding difusion to the lens, there was a French film made, which was out in the US theaters this year, about a French student studying for a year in Spain. I don't remember the name. No diffusion was used and the image was awful.

Everyone I know uses diffusion with CineAlta on movie production. You normally add it to the rear element of the HD lens. You must experiment. You don't necessarily use filters. Use some coating, or whatever, but it makes the image look a lot better. But with this camera you need to use a front-mounted filter. Maybe someone has another experience. This is mine. Next time you see a CineAlta made film, watch for this, and if you get a chance, see that French movie, to see how not to shoot HD for film.

Christopher,

You sound like you're starting a flame on all your posts, and that's not cool.

I know movies shot on an XL-1 that look like film (28 DAYS LATER) because the DP was good. And I've seen XL-1 movies done that look terrible. It's all about the Director and the DP.

If you came here to start flame wars, move on, man. That's not welcome.

heath

Christopher T.,

Okay, yes, having diffusion is good. I figured it could be done in post, but why go through the hassle?

heath

Christopher,

People question you because your first post if I remember correctly was titled "why not to buy this camera" and it was more or less a direct assault on the integrity of the HD10. And from that post on it seems like you are only here to stir up trouble and start arguments.

In your last post you said "There are ads by a certain manufacturer in cinematography magazines that their camera has more film-like images, but the studios, or even the normal size independents never choose this camera for any movie production. Still in forums like this this camera is being promoted as equal or better."

Why does this upset you so much? What are you the protector of the Cinealta and Varicam reputations?

People also question you because, with all due respect, you sound like a kid spouting out facts and figures that you really don’t understand. Furthermore, you tell people to go see "the French movie" to prove your point. These sorts of vagaries aren't going to get you much credibility.

You asked so I'm just trying to explain why you're getting some of the responses that you're getting.

Brad

I agree, Brad. I had forgotten that Christopher started that don't buy this camera post.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Hawkins :
In your last post you said "There are ads by a certain manufacturer in cinematography magazines that their camera has more film-like images, but the studios, or even the normal size independents never choose this camera for any movie production. Still in forums like this this camera is being promoted as equal or better."
--->>>

I believe the ad he's referring to is a Panasonic ad, saying that the Varicam is more filmlike, and he's pointing out that the studios rarely choose the Varicam.

If he wasn't so eloquent I'd say his arguments bear a striking resemblance to a certain Joseph George...

For Christopher Toderman:

I have asked you via private email and publicly here on the boards to contact me a.s.a.p. -- unfortunately either your listed email address is invalid and/or you haven't seen my posts.

In an effort to get your attention and to get you to contact me immediately, I have temporarily disabled your posting privileges. Currently the only way for you to inquire about your account is to contact me at chris@dvinfo.net using a real, valid, current, working email address. Thanks in advance,

I think Christopher might have gotten the point, if not he never will. Let's keep this thread open minded and move forward to the point of the discussion witch is the fact that the DP (Jon) thinks that the JVC might be too sharp. I would like to know (from him) what he means by too sharp. Is he talking about edge enhancement or definition? I personally don't see the problem. Furthermore, adding a softening filter over a 720p image will of course unsharp it but how would it look upconverted, I don't think it would do good. Downconverted it would be fine, I agree.

Unfortunatley, sharpness is not an easily reverseable artifact - applying a blur does not get you back to what it looked like before it was sharpened. Because around very high contrast you get some pure black lines, you've lost information there you will never get back. I always shoot with sharpness as off as it will go because you can always add it in post, but you cannot remove it in post. By shooting without sharpness you keep your options open. That's why I'm really interested to see what the HD10 looks like in terms of sharpness. If the HD1 looks like the demo videos I've seen and cannot have the sharpness turned down, then that's going to be painful. Perhaps putting an Ultra Contrast 5 infront of the lens might help though??

Graeme

There is some edge enhancement on just about every camera I have ever seen. The HD10 has edge enhancement but at acceptable levels. Graeme is right, you cannot get rid of the edge artefacts once they have appeared.

Jon the DP's review is up!
 

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...921#post113921

Jon the DP, aka Jon Fordham, has posted his review, after the HD10 vs. VariCam slugfest!

heath