One of the things about HDV, as far as I can see, is the need to get the image as right as possible in production. This is a philosophical problem as much as anything else, with DV, the footage looked recognisably below film/HD/High End SD/broadcast video, so you could get away with sub par imagery as it looked impressionistic, in the same way that there are many fans of 8mm still around. However with HDV, we're pushing closer to a high quality, pro look, so deficiencies look rather more like mistakes, as opposed to an "artistic effect"
One of the problems with video (HD or SD, DV or DigiBeta) is that it has problems with the "mid range" sort of look, by which I mean that it's possible, resolution notwithstanding, to shoot wonderful landscapes and sunsets, to which people will go "wow, looks just like film!" However filming two people in close up in a room with generally high key soft light, will look kind of... blah. Even 16mm will take on a kind of luminous quality, even if not properly exposed, regardless if it's in B/W or desaturated, etc. (take a look at
Pink Flamingos or the '60s Kuchar Brothers films if you don't believe me). Sorry if I sound like one of those audiophile nuts who claim that they can hear the difference between certain kind of RCA connectors, but I can see it, even in downloaded quicktime movies, and even in big budget HDCAM films (it was certainly there in
Star Wars: ROTS)
Anyway, the HDV user needs to use any and all tools to make the video look as good as possible - though of course in this day and post-modern age, looking "good" has more than one meaning (CF the Saving Private Ryan look that is dominating action movies these days).
Anyway, I found this link on using filters with DV and this could be the way top go with HDV too...
http://www.lafcpug.org/curseofdigital_feature.htmlCertainly the idea of doing proper HDV "emulsion" tests is one that appeals to me.
Labels: filmlook, HDV, lighting, Video