Of course. Agreed.

I've never heard this from the film D.P.s I know that shoot HD. I'm not saying you're "wrong", I'm just saying I'd have to look to find somebody who agrees amongst my circle of peeps. I know there ARE guys shooting episodic HD that are letting things get wild and wooley with the over-exposures on Battlestar Galactica and some others like that. But then again, usually the manner in which the whites clip let me know it was HD. Sometimes I can tell the difference between F900s and Varicams that way, if the CC work is mild enough. Regardless, it's just my opinion (and it stinks!) :-)

(p.s. I just got my 350 an hour ago. It's kinda a religous experience working with one, and knowing you OWN it! It's gonna take a while to realize it's actually mine)

Hehe! It depends on the look you are after. Of course once you blow something out in camera you can't bring it back in post. So it takes confidence. Keeping highlights under control is more about keeping the relevant highlights, and the highlights you choose to keep. As I mentioned, some people obsess over all highlights.

An example would be blowing out windows on purpose. Depending on what I am going for I know I can add a subtle glow to them in post rather than trying to blow them out in post and then adding the glow.

It is a different matter if you are talking about sky for example. Although nothing is written in stone.

But is knowing that it was HD a bad thing? HD isn't film. It behaves differently, and I think that the sooner people accept the differences the better. I rarely ever look for that stuff because I just let myself be taken for the ride the director and DP wanted. I just sit back and accept that what I see on the screen is their vision and I'm nobody to tell them if it is right or wrong.

Congrats on your 350! :)

Damian,

Free or not as a promotional DVD for XDCM (which is how I am judging it) it was not cool :). As an exercise in being able to alter footage to a particular look maybe that worked for some people but not me.

As regards exposure, if I am unable to see facial features because of shadow or because they are too dark I would consider that to be underexposed. I grabbed a number of still images from the footage and loaded them into Photoshop and found the levels histogram indicated they were all greatly underexposed.

Anyway enough for tonight, I have enjoyed this discussion and learned something along the way so for me at least it has been interesting and worthwhile.

Considering the footage had being altered and was shot at 25Mbps constant, then down-converted to SD I thought it looked pretty good, certainly better than any Z1 footage I'd seen.

If the footage was not altered to their particular look and it was shot at 35Mbps variable I'm sure it would have looked nicer.

XDCAM HD is not HDCAM remember, it is a step up from a Z1, which is pretty much how it looked.

It's a BIG step up from a Z1 and a small step down from HDCam, when shot at 35mbs, correctly exposed and viewed in HD!

I think we need to consider that the G4 challenge footage was not shot as demo footage. It was shoot under difficult circumstances, in far from ideal conditions in the middle of nowhere for a programme about the event. I am sure if Sony had set out to produce an image perfect demo production, that's what you would have got with very controlled lighting, no highlights, nothing that could trip the camera up. Instead Sony chose to show what the camera can do in a real world situation.

Good points Alister. Sony wanted to demonstrate that the XDCAM system would not skip and jump and lose tracking as the cameras bounced around all over the place. And the fact that they can handle extremes of temperature better than tape. They are saying, "look at this footage, isn't it amazing that the cameras worked", as opposed to look at how stunning the images are.

I have a good friend at Sony UK who has seen the original Professional Disc dailies viewed on a massive HD monitor, in their natural HD state and he said they look far superior to what you and I have seen on bog-standard SD DVD.

If you could only view the footage from the DVD or this

http://media.dvinfo.net/xlh1/disject...e_opening1.wmv

which camera would you be tempted to buy.

(A question I am wrestling with at the moment)

If I was doing broadcast work I would buy the one that is accepted for full production XDCam HD. If I wasn't doing broadcast, the H1 is a very good camera for the price as the Yellowstone footage shows.

Steve,

That has answered my question very well

I loved the H1 when I first used it, the quality for the price is unbeatable but I really am convinced by XDCam HD

I just shot about an hour of indoor and oudoor footage with 350 in 24p, cinegamma 3, with the detail at about 30. Absolutely stunning and delicious, all the detail I would want in a filmic sense. Yum.

I have to agree Bill. Cinegamma 3 is my favorite at the moment. I also like to run the HISAT matrix preset to get the colors to pop a bit more.

-gb-