Getting better with the HD200
 

From the series title holder of the "Worst HD200 frame grabs ever seen" comes a breath of fresh, low light, still don't know what you're doing but your improving - air..

Thanks for all your help guys. The result of your time here on DvInfo.net has helped me to finally get footage that doesn't make me want to sell everything and go manage an Ihop.


Also, here's a 20 second clip of Emilio Castillo - which was my first attempt to dive into the sound pool.
http://www.gotagteam.com/QuicktimeVI...erpt-30fps.mov
30fps, 1/60th shutter


.

Hey that really looks good. How do you like the 200 overall? Have you owned/ used a 100 to offer any comparison?

Thanks Hayes. To be painfully honest I didn't actually love the HD200, myself, or even videography until after this past weekend. Now suddenly (thanks in great part to finally capturing better images rather than just dreaming about them) I want to sleep with it under my pillow..

The first time I got to use the HD100 was actually on this shoot, during this wedding. Both cams were set the same, but as expected, they looked a little different. I have read on this forum that these two cams don't handle color the same, but I didn't have enough time with the 100 to understand exactly how or why. This 100 was a rental and it was a bit abused, but the images look great to me. I would/will buy a 100 as a second cam in a heart beat. In fact if I had it to do again I'd probably buy two 100s rather than one 200. Or I'd get one 100, and half of a far better lens than the 16x that my 200 came with.

To put your question into my blue collar perspective, I've raced superbikes now for about 19 years. Some years we've got the best equipment out there, other years our bikes get "dated." Trust me, it feels a lot better winning on last years bikes, than it does losing on this year's...

I read a while back, before I pulled the trigger on this 200, that in the darker areas of the images that both cams might take (shadows, low light, blacks), the 200 records more info. Steven L. Noe offered up a great comparison between the two cams that you can find here - http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79436

In the grabs I have up here, there are examples of both cams taking shots of the same guys at the same time in the same light, wearing the same black suits (original post has the HD200 grabs, this post has the HD100 grabs). In my opinion, both cams captured more info in the blacks than you can even see unless you amp up the exposure in photoshop. Ping me if you want the full res versions for comparison - these are compressed for the web.


ps, the shot of the dork on the bike is NOT a frame grab...

Thanks for the reply-Hey great superbike shot LOL

Well done
 

HI, just had a look at your vision using the 200. I use the 250 and do actually sleep with it under my pillow. You've done a really good job Eric. Well done.

hi Eric,

could you share your HD200 setup ? i see no grain at all in your pictures ! unbelievable ! mine are awful even at 0dB outdoor !!!

Hi Eric, all the shots I've taken here were at 0db gain. If I wasn't so timid around this cam I'd break that Gain switch off with a pair of pliers. It's only done me wrong so far, and I HAVE hit it by mistake. Attached here are the settings I used for the particular shots in this post. These are not exactly anyone's settings, but they are closest to Paulo Ciccone's True Color V-3.

Originally I shied away from the noise I was plagued with by doing a few different things - one of which was to reduce detail to minimum (as it's been suggested here). But doing that always kind of pissed me off because after all this is HD? I'm no scientist and the only degrees that I have make up my core temperature - so take my advice with a slice of pizza... But my shots turned around when I got better at setting my backfocus. I know, what the hell, right? I discovered it by jerking around in the back yard shooting flowers with the Macro all twisted. Flower shots looked incredible (no noise), but once I snapped it back into position the shots of our kid at the beach looked horrible (whole lot of noise) - both taken the same day.. So I went on a better-backfocus mission (monitor!) and all has changed since. Up until then all I use was the camera's lcd - not good enough for me, apparently.

The other strategy that I've adopted, which I hadn't before when I used to get the noise, (this could make absolutely no difference here what-so-ever) is the use of ND filters rather than higher shutter speeds.

Oh, and lastly, once I got released from Zoomaholics anonymous (been sober for a whole month now) my images look a lot cleaner as well. I don't go deeper than 65mm now. For instance, in the "Drums" pic attached here, I would have burned myself good on both the chrome and his white shirt against his black pants if I went deeper than 65mm.

I wish I could help you more Eric, but the rest is simply the JVC..


ps, thanks a million Matt. Means a WHOLE lot!

What's up with the motorcycle guy wearing the texas longhorn pants?

Sorry Stephen, I threw that in there for a little HD100 human aspect. While the HD200 might be a better camera, the 100 is still phenomenal I think.

The Longhorn suit was, I admit, a design mistake. But the Ducati 749R was definitely not. We got hired in 05 to run that middleweight bike against the big bore machines in somewhat of a "David VS Goliath" season long - battle royal. That pic was taken just after we won the championship (which kind of made my point - it feels way better to produce more with less, than it does to produce less with more, like I had been doing with this 200).

The Longhorn bikini section of the suit (which should have been red, I know) is NOT leather so you can move around on the bike better. Without that section, you can't do stuff like this:

thanks Eric, i will start to check these settings ;-)