[John Sharaf]

Rich,

This is a very good question!

The answer is not really easy; it depends on many things. First of all you must consider what the ultimate use of the footage is.

If it’s for film out, you must be pretty careful not to overexpose, as the film will go totally clear and the brightness will be way beyond the ability of the film to register any detail in the whiteness. Now if it’s white numbers on the car, it probably won’t matter, as there is no particular detail in the numbers anyway, but if it’s the white t-shirt, there is detail there, even if it’s only wrinkles, ultimately you’ll miss the texture in the picture.

If your footage is for broadcast overexposure can often distort the sound track, although there are clippers built in to the system to prevent this. I don’t think this is as serious a problem as it was in the past.

Ultimately though it’s the cameraman’s creative decision about exposure; if you have to open up to see the subjects face (rather than sillouette) then you’ll might have to live with a white, clipped sky; what starts out as technical decision, inevitably ends up as a creative one!

[John Sharaf]

Joe,

I’ll bet you’re shooting Film Rec at 500% Dynamic Range! This will assure the milky washed out look you describe. Theis setting is really designed for “film out” transfer to motion picture film which adds the contrast back in, or for extensive post production color correction, as one might do on a Da Vinci.

For good looking uncorrected footage, try Dynamic Range ay 200%, crush the gamma to .55 or .60 and press the black to -1. Let me know if you notice a favorable difference!

JS

[John Sharaf]

Michelle,

I’m not familiar with Hedler lights, I don’t think they’re imported to Los Angeles, where there are already many brands of lighting in play, but I think you would be happy with the Kino Flo fluorescent products. Especially the large sourced units like the 4’Fourbank and the eight tubed units like the Image 80’s. These lights are cool (very little heat), very efficient (1.2 amps at 120v per tube) and can easily be lamped with tungsten or daylight balanced tubes. Furthermore, the tubes themselves are long lasting and sheathed in a special material to control breakage if mishandled.

The Kino Flo designers are constantly improving the units and have expanded the line with specialty lights over time. I don’t know if they are popular in Europe, but here in Hollywood they have become a standard which are always carried on motion picture and television productions and used when power is at a premuim, heat would be an issue or practicalities like small sets and/or low ceilings preclude conventional approaches.

You can check out their website at http://www.kinoflo.com

[John Sharaf]

Carlos,

I’ve read Peter Greys’ website before; he’s very informed and articulates many HD issues with great care and accuracy. In fact I prefer his explainations to the Goodman book, and anyone who aspires to HD expertise should definately bookmark and study his site. Obviously, there’s too much there for one sitting, so many visits over time are recommended.

As regards the gain vs. noise issues you’ve raised in the first place; it’s true that the least amount of gain (-3 db) will yield the quietest picture. As you increase the gain the noise increases. This is a fact of video photography. Myself, I’ve set my Varicams so that -3 Db is the low setting, 0 is the mid and +3 is the high. This is because I use my cameras mostly in unplanned documentary situations. When in production use, I’ll most likely be connected with my Telecast Copperhead Cine fiber cable system which affords CCU control with the EC3 unit and I can easily adjust the gain position (and every other setting) from the rack with the benefit of a 14″ HD monitor and waveform/vectorscope.

Again, my preferance in most scenarios (exept for guaranteed film out and high end commercials where Da Vinci sessions are assured) is to use the Dynamic Range control in the least amount possible. This assures that the dailies will look the least washed out and that minimal color correction will be necessary. In fact, my hope is that the pictures I create and paint will be carried through editorial exactly as I made them on the set. This is what everyone looked at and approved.

What I’ve discovered as you increase the dynamic range is that you run out of master gamma control and that both the highlights (whites) and the shaddows (blacks) get compressed and the tonal range (to borrow from Peter) gets compressed towards the middle grey. This results in the washed out look we’re all familiar with. You can clearly see this if you aim up on a chip chart and go through the settings observing the results on a waveform display.

As a default setting, I’ve found therefore that the -3 Db Low Film Rec setting, with 200% dynamic range, master gamma crushed to .65, the black pressed to -1 and the detail as -26 gives me a real good starting place. Lord knows, others have there own preferances. Some folks, like Leo always shoot at 500% dynamic and neither crush the gamma nor the blacks like I do, but he does color correct everything! My clients, and perhaps your workflow, presume that the video they’ve paid me a lot of money to create will look just right upon playback normalized on the bars at the head of the tape. They most often edit and finish on their Avids (in SD) and therefore have minimal (if any) color correction. In fact if they bring it in and out SD-SDI there is no tweaking (at least on my Meridian Avid), I’m not sure if Adrenaline is different.

You’ll notice that I haven’t brought up the noise in a long time! That’s because I don’t think there is anything I can do about it. It’s a characteristic of this camera and the Film Rec settings, so you just have to embrace it. I know, because I also own a Sony F900 that it is definately quieter (noise-wise), but it did cost me about $33000 more, just for the body, and in every other respect, I prefer the Varicam, especially because I have the four dynamic range settings which I can invoke if I need them.

[John Sharaf]

Alan,

Well yes, there is some referance regarding the newest version (“C”) of the Varicam software as regards shaddow detail. perhaps this is an effort to help the noise problem, but in general noise is a function of the hardware amplifiers in use. I believe that those in the Varicam are not necessarily the most quiet available!

JS

[John Sharaf]

Carlos,

Incorrect! Each of the three switch positions corresponds to a “group” of settings determined by the low,mid and high groupings on page one of the Film (Cam)Main Menu, these settings are independent of what ever gain setting you might have or program into the group.

Things like black stretch/press, master gamma, detail level and matrix/ color correction tables make up this set. The dynamic range is actually set seperately in the “gamma” line of Film (cam) Main Menu. The reference to low, mid and high is really a misnomer as any gain setting can be programmed into these three slots. It might be more useful to think of this switch as determining three prearranged “preset” settings.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Jason,

I think it safe to say that the Varicam will be around for a while yet!

The noise that Panasonic is making about a replacement revolves around a P2 version, which will use smart card storage instead of tape. This will benefit mostly news users who will be able to edit the material faster because they can eliminate digitizing time, they’ll merely transfer files at faster than real time. For others, including commercials, thaetrical, documentary and industrial users, I think the tape based master makes a lot of sense and will continue to do so, as even with the P2 storage, because of its expense, these users might just continue to archive their master materials on tape. For this reason, I think that even when a P2 version of the Varicam does come to market, they may still sell the current version as well. JMHO.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Linda,

At 24 fps with shutter off, the exposure is 1/24th of a second, with shutter on at 180 degrees it’s 1/48th of a second, effectively one stop difference. The Varicam allows you to describe the shutter speed either as a fraction of a second (like a still camera) or in degrees, which is the normal method used in a cine camera. They do this to add a comfort factor for film guys using HD cameras as replacement for their motion picture camera, and who are used to descibing shutter settings this way.

At different frame rates, both the fractional shutter speed and the speed measured in degrees of shutter result in different numbers. The manual presumes you understand either or both concepts, and merely ennuciates the procedures involved in setting the required speed. For example at 60 fps, the wide open (or shutter off) setting would be 1/60th or a second, with the shutter on and set at 180 degrees it would be 1/120th of a second.

While most film cameras use 180 degrees, some use a slightly wider shutter, such as 210 degrees. This increases both the blurred effect of each frame and opens the exposure another little bit. You might try this setting as an alternative for a film look.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Alan,

What you’re seeing is not “artifacting” it’s noise! It’s a well kept secret that the Varicam is inherently noisy. To some it resembles film grain, but that’s delusion. My theory is that bit depth is switched from the shaddow areas to the highlight areas to get more detail there, you must steal from Peter to pay Paul.

As far as setup in general, if you want to avaoid extensive color correction in post, I recommend limiting your dynamic range to the 200 or 300% settings in the Film Rec menu. Otherwise the image gets really milky and low contrast. While this is good for “film out”, it isn’t great to look at in the interim. In addition I often crush the black by at least -1 to make the “x” on a chip chart fill the scope better. It also seems that I end up crushing the gamma a bit to center up the crossover.

As far as a long term solution, it’s best to always use a proper monitoring bridge with a good sized high quality CRT monitor (or eCinema & ACD), a waveform/vectorscope, a remote CCU and a DSC chart.
Even if you’re going to film, some film out specialists still recommend that you make the best picture to eye that you can and let them do the rest. If this is your objective, I’d recommend extensive testing, including actual film out of various conditions at all the dynamic range settings. Otherwise, if your project ends up on a television/video display and you want to avoid Da Vinci costs and time you must limit the amount of dynamic range invoked and use your lighting and grip equipment to control the contrast in the scene.

Lately, especiually for television/video display, I’ve been letting the highlights go white sometimes and I’ve been real happy with the look. It’s counterintuitive and I definately wouldn’t advise it for film out, but sometimes it works to break the rules.

Other settings to consider are the detail, which I typically run at -26 (all the way out), and I always try to monitor the master ped on a waveform and often find myself crushing it on particual shots, but you must be careful to put it back to normal for others, when there are no strong blacks in the picture, this ajustment fills out the contrast, but if there are serious black objects they do it by themselves without any help from the ped.

[John Sharaf]

Steve,

I think you’ll be suprised just how bright the fireworks will be in the sky! For this reason, lighting the foreground subject should be done with supplemental lights. Because it’s basicly a night scene you’ll want to avoid flat front lighting; I’d suggest a back cross light to seperate your subject from the dark sky and soft fill light from the least flat direction that still reaches into both eyes. Small bettery lights should suffice. Lately I’ve been using the Lite Panel LCD’s which are very convenient and have a built in dimmer and many precut color and diffussion gels. They are pricey but perhaps you could rent a few for this assignment.

Good luck,

JS