In-camera versus post with HDV
Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:32 AM
But given the amount of compression in HDV, I imagine that one would get a higher quality result doing as much image manipulation *before* compression as possible---in other words, with filters and in-camera processing.
When working with HDV, do people recommend trying to do more in-camera? Is there a significant qualitative difference in doing things like gamma and matrix manipulation in camera versus post due to the fact you're doing it *before* things like chroma sub-sampling and interframe and intraframe compression have taken place?
Posted 27 February 2006 - 08:29 AM
When you place a filter on a camera, you have an infinite latitude. For example, if you put a nice graduated filter to darken down the sky as a filter on a camera, you would probably reveal some interesting cloud information. If you tried the same trick in post, your sky would have burnt out completely on the video image and a post graduated filter would just darken your white sky to grey, because the cloud detail is lost in the video burn out.
The counter argument is that if you apply a filter to your camera, you are pretty well stuck with the results. Remember that colour filters particularly are subtractive processes not additive ones. In other words, if you place an orange filter on your camera you are actually getting rid of blue light. This means that if you later decide you need to get the blue back, well you can't, because it was filtered out at the point of recording.
With the high compression of HDV, both these arguments are even more the case, since burnout (loss of information) happens that much sooner and the ability to reverse a heavy colour grade is more compromised.
So there isn't really a definitive answer. It depends on the shot and what you want to acheive. I would suggest as a starter, if the effect of your filter brings a greater amount of latitude into the capture range of your recording media, then its probably good to use a camera filter. If however the effect you are going for is going to remove a lot of information, such as a strong colour cast or even heavy diffusion, then post will give you a finer control that is reversable and viewable within the context of your cut.
Baraka Post Production
Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:31 AM
I tend to take the position that with heavily compressed video formats, it's often best to take a top down approach. I used to keep getting asked how to make it look "Green, like the Matrix." The obvious advice was, of course, "shoot green objects." I feel that every stage should get you closer to what you want - production design, optical filtration, camera setup, postproduction. And yes, on heavily-compressed tape format, you might choose to try and get closer than usual to the final result in camera, at risk that it might not be recoverable, because that's just the tradeoff you have to deal with.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:59 AM
I use a very mild pro-mist most of the time and I always use a polarized filter when shooting exterior day shots. While I haven't used very many graduated filters, I believe David Cox is right that if you can pull detail out of your skys you should.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:58 PM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:46 PM
Should of tested. My own stupid fault.