>Published : 24th July 2005
>We're shooting a low budget HD (Sony F900) feature and need a couple of underwater shoots. Our budget won't allow for an underwater housing. What we do have is a Sony DSR500WS and a Panasonic DVX100, both of which we can get housings for.
>Any thoughts on which camera would generate the better image in the end (with respect to matching the HD24p material): i.e. do we go with the higher resolution native 16:9 DSR500WS image in 30fps, or a mini-24P but 4:3 chips in the DVX100? Any tips on how to best match the underwater footage with the original HD footage?
>The underwater shots are brief and take place just below the surface of a murky river, so resolution wouldn't be that critical.
DP, Sarnia, Canada
>It's a mixed bag. If your shots are "just" under the surface and you're using something like a splash bag, then the DSR would be fine. I'm a big fan of the DXV though, and have had some success in matching it back to our Varicam (with obvious limitations). I have no experience matching back to an F900, but we recently shot underwater scenes for a German film (16mm) using a PAL PD170. PAL is easier since it's just a straight de-interlace...
>How much movement is there in the shot? If there is not allot, or a huge amount (drunken person staggering into the water) I'd probably go with the DSR. If it's in the middle I'd probably go with the DXV so as to maximize the benefit of it's 24p.
>I'm not familiar with housings for the DSR and to my knowledge there is only one company making housings for the DVX, but it's a great deal easier to maneuver with a small camera than a big one.
>My gut says the Sony will be easier to match (colour obviously) and a little post on the frame rate. I'd question if it's better to shoot at 60i and run it though a film motion filter than to shoot at 30p and try to get that down to 24p.
>As always, I'll defer to the experts
Creative Junction Inc.
>do we go with the higher resolution native 16:9 DSR500WS image in >30fps, or a mini-24P but 4:3 chips in the DVX100?
>Try to get a DVX100A which has a real 16:9 mode
(< http://www.actv.info/fichasocio.php?ID=61>ACTV )
DoP Spain, Barcelona
>Why would a 1/3" camera with a 4:3 imager be considered over a 2/3" native 16:9 camera with high end interchangeable lenses. The 500 makes a significantly cleaner quitter smoother image and the lens selection is huge. All this for a 24p capture? I am assuming there is confusion in model numbers and what was meant was the SDX900. Otherwise Pete I think you got some 'splainin to do.
Chief Technology Officer
Band Pro Film & Digital
>Chris Cooke-Johnson wrote :
>If there is not allot, or a huge amount (drunken person staggering into >the water) I'd probably go with the DSR. If it's in the middle I'd probably >go with the DXV so as to maximize the benefit of it's 24p.
>I'd go for the DVX route as the 24p will look closer to the F900 based on frame rate, and lack of interlace artefacts which really get ugly IMHO. Frankly its the same codec used on the DSR and DVX so there is no real advantage in color space one over the other. You can pretty much match up the frame rate and shutter speed between the F900 and DVX.
>A friend recently shot an F900 project where some time after principal photography some other inserts had to be shot and they didn't have the $â€™s for another f900 rental. They shot the inserts on DVX with anamorphic adaptor @ 24P and they integrated into the larger project very well according to my bud, and he is a very sceptical, critical customer.
Oh Seven Films
143 Grand St
Jersey City, NJ 07302
© 2018 copyright CML - Cinematography Mailing List all rights reserved