G4 Challenge footage
 

The Sony G4 Challenge "Behind the Scenes" DVD arrived today and I must say I am a little disappointed with the quality. It looks underexposed, with faces difficult to distinguish in places and it also has a very "warm" look. Has anyone seen it who is familiar with XDCAM footage, is this typical or has the process of going from HD to MPEG2 effected the quality greatly.

I am not trying to take anything away from the effort involved in this very difficult project and I am assuming that not all of the footage on the DVD was shot on XDCAM. I also realise it was a demonstration of how the format behaves in difficult conditions but for someone who is considering moving away from the comfort of DVCAM this was a little concerning.

Does it look like the web movies?

They went real warm, and with a post vignette. I think it looks great.

I also like the look of it. It wasn't under exposed at all. Maybe it was your TV?

They did post grading to the picture.

Yes the footage looks very similar to that on the web. The look I do not like but I would be interested to know what process has been applied to achieve it. However its the lack of clarity which really concerns me. There is a comment on the DVD about the quality of the footage and being able to see "the beads of sweat on faces" I find it difficult to see faces clearly at times. With the 350 now less than £12000 in the UK XDCAM is very tempting but this DVD would not convince me.

I simply cannot see a problem on the DVD that I have. What do you mean that you cannot see faces clearly?

For example

Yeah, the people in question are in shadow. Looks like a realistic portrayal of the lighting conditions at the time to me. In other words an artistic decision to get the overall look of the picture. The picture was graded afterwards, so the look that you see was the directors intention. I liked it.

For ungraded examples you might like to check out this;
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan..._jeldred.shtml

Simon,

Thanks for that link, the footage was impressive and what I expected to find on the G4 DVD. I do not like the G4 look but of course this is subjective. I like footage to be as realistic as possible and not have processes applied which detract from the image, which I think has happened in this case.

I really just wanted to be able to view XDCAM sourced footage and make a judgement on its quality in an environment similiar to what my clients will experience, that is, a standard DVD displayed on a standard TV. The G4 DVD did not come up to my expectations in that respect.

Hi William,

My website also has a number of XDCAM examples up. My reel is all done with XDCAM SD, however I also made a music video in a day with the F330 that can be viewed here;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/project_valkyrie.htm

Again, the picture is graded so it isn't how it was untouched from the camera.

I also put up more links to XDCAM video in the General XDCAM links sticky thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=62598

Simon,

Many thanks, that should keep me busy for a while.

One of the tenets of "the film look" of course is to save your highlights, almost at any cost. That's no biggie in controlled circumstances, but in reportage it means you either need fill light, or to lift your dark bits in CC. Looks like they did neither here.

I would have done the same, but I'm guessing that they had so much material to create that they couldn't always do shot-by-shot CC work.

Hmm. I don't think fill light is really an option in a documentary circumstance on a wide shot on a street!

But as for lifting in CC, again, its the look that they wanted. If they wanted to lift those dark areas they would have done. Besides, what you are looking at is a still image, not moving. The shots on the DVD are the same as the ones in the video logs on the Sony websites. I never noticed a problem on the DVD that I have.

Not always. Quite often it is desirable to blow them out. I think a lot of people (not that I am saying you are Nate) obsess over every single highlight in a picture.

I got the DVD today and I thought it looked really good, no probs with exposure that I could see. It looked 'warm' because they where in bleedin 45 degree heat lol! William, when the guy spoke of 'being able to see the beads of sweat on their faces' he meant watching footage on a HD display. Anyway, the dvd was free and it meant I had an excuse to interupt my son watching cartoons mwwahahahahaaaa! Poor sod.

One thing I noticed toady working on the Sony stand at IBC and viewiing the original HD rushes is that it appears that the edge enhancement was turned right down and it should also be noted that the material is progressive, which always has a tendancy to look softer than interlace. The HD rushes look very nice to me. When I get home I'll have to look at my camera as I have an ex G4 challenge cam and the setups are still in the memory.

Thats interesting. I've always thought the opposite :)

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-