First HD-100 Movie? "The Hitchhiker"
 

I see that the first movie (that I'm aware of) shot on the HD-100 was "The Hitchhiker".

Click here for details on "The Hitchhiker"

Were any of the users here involved with this project?

Great post. Dont the images just look spectacular?

I am particularly interested because I will be shooting a drama in November.

Rob

Good reading. Thanks for the post.

The images look fantastic, however there are some green chromatic aberrations on the front of the car in the first pic...

Diogo, well seen. And this is with the wide angle lens.

Rob

It can't temper my enthousiasm that much, I have to say...

I think this was actually the first film to shoot on the camera:

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/2-pop/article_13595.shtml

So, it seems that both lens have CA. I can accept that on the cheap lens, but the wide one costs about $10.000... it's unacceptable!

The article does not say that this film was shot with the 13x3.5. It says that JVC gave him a 13x3.5 for his second round of tests.

I think the images look just like film, as close as I've seen so far from from any miniDV camera. Let's hope it looks just as good in motion...

Can't find any CA anywhere...

I also can see chromatic aberration on freeze frames from footage shot on a Sony F750. I don't know what the lens was in the stuff I saw, but I imagine it was something that cost more than the Fuji 13x.

Many, many lenses suffer from it. I wouldn't be TOO picky or you won't have anything to shoot with!

[edit: How did this forum become this sort of weird "Spot the defect in X camera" dogpile?]

Hear, hear! Nate.

Don't see what the nitpicking is all about. Besides on still shots it's always more likely to see imperfections.

Unacceptable?!... Oh well...

Looks like Colorists will still have job security, hehehe.

I took a pretty good/close look at them in my NLE and they could have adjusted the camera quite a bit (it seems like) to get better contrast and could have used some reflectors here and there to light up some faces (particularly for the halo shots) but I'm impressed. I'd like to see the motion as well. Of couse they're cutting it apart over on DVXuser.com but just getting stills this clean out of a $5000 motion picture camera is gold.

Just think, you can shoot a commercial and then give them solid stills for print ads. I really like it.

BTW- I have a reasonable suspicion that this was shot on the stock lens and not the 13X. The way I read it is that they shot and then saw the CA and then JVC sent them the 13x lens for a second test.

I'm with you Nate, If you have to take this much effort to find some little CA-effect in stills (for crying out loud)...

Lookin' good, as far as I'm concerned...

Of course colors and all can be adjusted to personal taste...

Of course... what's in the name?

I definitely wouldn't want to disparage the DP on that project, but I can think of at least 3-4 things that could have been done differently to lose the giveaway videoness of those stills.

Then again, I've had the camera for 3 weeks, and been able to view my tests on many different displays, of wildly varying sizes and qualities. I'm sure he didn't have the time to suss that stuff out.

For those picking the image appart, they should note that this was a pre-production cam with which in exchange they gave JVC feedback and reports on what was to be finalized for the shipping cams. This was not final firmware but a beta cam. The menu's weren't even set. As well it has been stated by Ken Freed that they are continuing to upgrade the firmware even now.
That said, I think even these nitpicks would be far less visable in a moving shot not a jpeg still. Regardless the stills are undeniably georgeous.

I don't know, the CA on her arm is pretty bad, certainly worth a mention. I think this camera produces pretty good video, but I think it isn't particularly "filmic." As it is a solely progressive camera, a "filmic" quality is important to the majority of buyers.

The basic information is all present aside from the CA and cut-off highlights, a little CC makes the picture look pretty nice.

I would love to hear the 3-4 things Nate :)

Yes, a moving shot displayed on a TV, not on a PC screen. The stills are great, I can't understand why some says they aren't. This is a fine affordable camera, it's not a Varicam or a Cinealta... give it a chance!

I shot a short on the Sony F900 with a pretty good lens and some of the stills showed chromatic aberration so I agree no one should be worried.

The images are splended and we should all be very grateful for such a terrific camera.

Rob

Just as Robert just mentioned, I wanted to stress this is visible in stills. It doesn't alarm me in the worst. I've seen a lot worse...

Dear Nate,

Could you tell us the three or four things you mentioned in your email? Would be much appreciated.

Rob

Alright. This is not meant to imply the D.P. did something wrong, because I can also say from experience that the stills posted in that article will not look nearly as "video-ey" on a proper HD display (as opposed to a computer screen)...especially any sort of CRT.

1-The stills are definitely exposed like video. I would have exposed 1 to 1.5 stops down to save the highlights in the hair. Bump up fill on faces to compensate.

2-Bring down in-camera detail maybe 2 notches. This does soften the image a tiny bit to the eye, but the info still really is there.

3-Bring color level (saturation) down a notch or two. Not many of what a colorist would call a "flat transfer" would have colors this saturated. If you did shoot film and told your colorist you wanted things more saturated, chances are he would try to find out what more you were after than just bump up the saturation globally. Or maybe not.

When shooting DV, I try to save the highlights, always...even if sometimes it means I'll have to pull my subject out a little with CC work later. There is a limit though, of course.

I think this is the key to all criticism I've heard regarding this camera... A lot of people seem to be expecting to get a CineAlta for $5k. Not gonna happen.

They look good to me, especially the skin tones. I know what you mean, but I have no idea how this camera would handle underexposed areas - maybe they'd get to grainy to be useable in post. That's what usually happens with DV in most cases. I think they did a good job on this one.

I definitely agree with this... although, as you said, on a TV you'll probably notice less the sharpness of the edges, but it would have looked even better with slightly less EE. Mainly the first shot with the guy sweating, it looks a bit too sharp in a videoish way.

Maybe bring it down a little, but I think this one is quite subjective - it really has a lot more to do with the DP's perpective on the look he wanted to achieve. Some films look more washed out, others more saturated.

Frankly, none of the shots (or grabs) I've seen posted have had the other elements one would usually see when viewing Cinealta footage, like:

Art dept.
Color correction
Good location

Which brings me to a parallel situation

I see the same thing going on in girlfriend's knitting. She'll pick a pattern for say, a top out of a book...based on a photo of a model in a setting where everything in the frame is art directed to match the color of the top. The model of course is beautiful, and the top is knitted by an expert to fit her perfectly...and suited to her type of body. The photography usually is excellent

So now I have a girlfriend that's knitted this top, and the reality of it is that the top is NOT suited to her frame, and standing in the mirror there is no expert photographer to show it at a good angle, and the rest of the house is NOT art directed. The overall impression is much of a let down.

If I had a music video coming up, I could post grabs or footage on here of that, which would be art directed, probably have a real good looking girl or guy in it, it would be lit (almost) expertly, and they would be in a setting that is interesting and looks cool. I bet $500 that everybody would be talking about how "filmic" it looked. Even if I HAD screwed up detail settings and exposure or whatever. Know what I mean?

Exactly!!!

That's so true. The nitpicking is already getting ridiculous. As others said, even the Cinealta produces some Ac and other imperfections. I have to agree with the author of the article. The bang for the buck is unquestionable.

That's a great point Nate. Most samples we have seen from the HD100 was just people randomly shooting stuff. The one test we saw which strived for some production value, looked incredible and also extremely film like. I'm of course, talking about the test with the Mini35 done by you, Charles and Barry. The L.A. footage you posted looked very film like and sharp too.. I think it's because you under exposed it a little. I think it's a matter of knowing what one is doing. If the person doesn't know or doesn't care, he can shoot with a Panaflex or Genesis and it will look like crap. Not saying the D.P. in the article didn’t know what he was doing. But, as you said too, he might not have had enough time to get to know the camera. Besides it was a pre-production model.

Charles very much knew what he was doing. Underexposing skin tones by 10 IRE (70IRE standard vs the 60 we shot) was a conscious and discussed choice while we were shooting.

...and not because he suddenly thought it was a good idea. He's shot a ton of Varicam and F900 before, and knew what it would look like.

I've been dying to get that out for weeks, but didn't have the patience/skill to write it out with a diplomatic analogy.

That's what I meant. I know Charles knows his stuff. But even your L.A footage, which was casually shot, only respecting the limitations of video, looked way better than the stills from the article. It just proves two things. First, if you know what you are doing, you will get good results, if you don’t, you will get crap, and that's with any camera.
Second, this camera is capable of great images and all the nitpicking just makes no sense. Those who want a Cinealta for 5k are just dreaming. It's not gonna happen with the HD100 and neither with the H1 or HVX200. At this price point, the name of the game is compromise. But at least, the HD100 let's you shoot real progressive HD for 5k.

Nate, what I meant about the CineAlta is that people expect the same features, color rendintion, etc. of that camera, ie, they want to obtain the same results a 150k camera would regardless of the production values.

And speaking of production values, yes I do think your mini35 stuff was the best I've seen with this camera but I also think it was kind of a 'cheat'. Most people will use it without even the 13x lens, much less a *very expensive* mini35 setup. I'm not dicing your tests, they were great and are worth gold but I think the stills from this film are a better example of what the camera will do on most indie productions.

Another note on production values is that a lot of people say the camera isn't everything, you need proper lighting, etc. I agree but I have to add I saw pros shooting with a PD150 and it still looked sooo video. David Lynch's PS2 advert springs to mind and I'm sure he had all the PVs he wanted. Lynch is regarded as one of the best to handle the visual side of his work but the camera wouldn't go any further... so yes, the camera can make a big difference and the HD100 is great for its cost.

My point being, if you shoot the same scene side by side with both cams (HD100 and CineAlta), I'm sure the Sony footage will win, regardless of production values or art direction. But the difference in quality won't be as big as the difference in cost...

Of course the Cinealta will win. Why do you think it cost 30 times more?
But I think what Nate meant, is that the Cinealta also has shortcomings, but as you normally see Cinealta footage coming from productions with high production value, many tend to think the Cinealta is perfect and the HD100 is crap, because it has shortcomings. I mean, when was the last time you saw some Cinealta footage uploaded of a guy who filmed his friends at a barbecue in his house? Never! What you see from Cinealta are feature films mostly. That's the reference for most here. If somebody point a Cinealta straight to the Sun or don't watch for high lights etc, I guarantee you it will look like crap cheap video.
About the mini35 test not being fair, well, it depends how you see it. That test shows what the CAMERA is really capable of doing, without the limitations of an entry level lens. The lens is basically a give away to get you started. You shouldn't expect to get awesome results with a $800 HD lens. It's just not realistic. The indie productions out there which are thinking about going with the stock lens, should know that. That shouldn't expect too much. But the question is, what in this price looks better?

Michael, I agree with all you said, in fact I was saying the same in a different way.

It's obvious CineAlta stuff looks great because it's being used along with pro movie (or whatever) setups.

The mini35 is fair, it's just not representative of what most people will do with this camera. Don't think most people can affort to rent one and will settle with the stock lens.

In the end of the day we, and any intelligent person will agree that this cam is great and you can't really expect much more for $5k.

CA, 18db gain split screen, dead pixels, who cares. With this cam you CAN go out there and do something great.

My suggestion for JVC's new catch phrase on HD100: Quit the bitching and start pitching.

"Quit the bitching and start pitching."
LOL.

Myself...I find this somewhat odd....While the Z1 certainly isn't perfect, it's a damn good camera. No split pixels, no glass issues, no dead pixels that you can see. Some folks beat up the Z1, yet it's in constant daily use for television, budget motion pic, documentary, and other project uses. Other than the lack of 24p, but with the access to 25p, all of this "quit bitching and start pitching" makes no sense. Apologists for a camera? I thought that was reserved for religion and politics?
Trick out the HD100, it's a VERY fine cam. Just not many folks can afford the 15K it costs to acquire a tricked out cam.

Well, the Z1 is not 25p. It's frame movie mode and it half the resolution, killing the point of shooting HD in the first place. Besides that, it's a fixed lens camera and much more limited in terms of image control and accessories than the HD100. There's no need to apologize for anything, if one understands that the lens is a give away, and meant to meet a price point, and the other shortcomings are first production run glitches, which every camera has in some extent, and are being worked on as we speak.