Why do we white balance?

[DocWong]

>>>PerroneFord writes: Doc! That was magnificent. I've always wondered what video would look like lit by red laser light! That was funny<<<

And now you know! :mooner:

>>>In all seriousness, very nice for Youtube. And really shows how the camera to subject distance really changes things underwater.<<<

Yep and when I do a manual white balance any lighting turns red so I try to avoid that! I may be getting a real camera soon. Possible is an FX1 or the last gen SD camera.

<<<Were you on a scooter or did you speed up the video?>>>

Nope, that was just swimming or the surge.

Here's some scootering:

YouTube - Scooterbatics and the Caverns of Pt Lobos

 

[PerroneFord]

Be forewarned, the FX1 is not a great choice for low light work. There are better choices out there for that. I am also curious why you say your footage turns red when you white balance. There is an easy solution to that problem. Change what you are white balancing with! Use something more orange, and it will push your video more blue.

 

[DocWong]

Be forewarned, the FX1 is not a great choice for low light work. There are better choices out there for that. I am also curious why you say your footage turns red when you white balance. There is an easy solution to that problem. Change what you are white balancing with! Use something more orange, and it will push your video more blue.

Thanks, I did shoot the FX1 last weekend and will be reviewing the footage in a couple of days. What are better choices for low light as that is important in our Monterey waters.

What turns red in my footage are my buddie's HID lights, otherwise I'm happy with it. I'll try something more orange to see how that goes.

I'm seriously looking at a Sony VX-2000, Light and Motion housing, 21 watt HID video lights setup with a 100 degree wide angle lens that I can get at a pretty good price. It's not HD and I'll be working with SD technology so I'm not sure.

Seems like my choices are:

FX1 camera, Light and Motion housing, 80 degree wide angle lens, macro lense, 35 watt Halogen lights. Decent used price but still more than twice that of the VX-2000 price. HD technology.

VX2000 camera, Light and Motion housing, 100 degree wide angle lens, no macro lense, 21 watt LMI lights. Very good used price but SD technology.

Hm...I'm thinking, should I spend twice the money now to go HD (but less capable low light capability) or stick with SD technology with better low light capability and the 100 degree wide angle lens?

 

[PerroneFord]

I'll be honest.

There is a difference between HD and HDV. The FX1, and cameras like it are not HD, despite what the marketing says. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am just saying they aren't HD. The long GOP structures, the way the codec falls apart in editing, etc.

SD, because of it's lower pixel density, will nearly ALWAYS beat out any HDV or HD camera for gathering light. Sony owns the underwater video market because of it's LANC jack. If you can live with mechanical controls you can get a LOT better performing camera though.

Cameras like the DVX100 in the SD market are amazing. Sony's PD150/PD170 are incredible in low light also and hold a bit more color than the DVX when used in low light, but they can't shot 24p. Not sure if you care about that or not.

The HVX200 is a true HD camera, but it has some workflow issues that cause it to be a problem underwater. Shooting to the P2 cards is easy in theory, but expensive and somewhat limiting time wise. Sony's new EX1, even though it has some teething pains right now, is going to look better than nearly any common HDV camera. It's amazing for the price. But you're into a real camera here and real money.

If you wait a few weeks, have a look at Panasonic's replacement for the DVX100. If they do what everyone THINKS they are going to do, that will be the hot ticket for the near future. Providing you can live without the LANC jack.

If you know what you are doing with the camera, you can get away with less light than other shooters. But it takes some tweaking of factory settings.

To answer your direct question, I would not spend twice the money to go HDV. It's just too much money and too much trouble. AVCHD is going to kill HDV in 18-24 months. Better quality, smaller file size.

 

[DocWong]

Makes sense. SD is a mature technology whereas HD/HDV/AVCHD or a new technology and changing fast.

What do you think of the VX-2000? Maybe I'll just shoot that for a couple of years. Anything will be a vast improvement over my old Sony PC-110 or my Canon SD870 which is just a digital point and shoot that can take video, although it's very impressive for such a dinky camera with manual white balance capabity in it's little housing.

 

[PerroneFord]

VX2000? It's pretty limited. Sound is mini jack, and although it's stereo, you can't change the volume per side. No progressive shooting at ALL. Limited adjustment of picture, weak stabilization, etc. It's consumer through and through. I think you'd tire of it pretty quickly. For the money, you can get a nice HC7 or a used DVX and be MUCH better off.

HD is not really "new" technology. It's new consumer technology. The basic consumer market in video is still 5+ years behind the professional market.

 

[limeyx]

I'll be honest.

There is a difference between HD and HDV. The FX1, and cameras like it are not HD, despite what the marketing says. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am just saying they aren't HD. The long GOP structures, the way the codec falls apart in editing, etc.

Um, dont you think you're being just a *little* snobbish
I agree that HDV is a compromise and leaves something to be desired, and AVC will (or at least can) likely do a far better job eventually if it is pushed to do so.

Also, tape is obviously the way backward and solid-state recording will probably kill all tape and in not that many years will wipe out 90% of hard-drives on comsumer PC's/laptops too is my guess.

I am far (far) happier with the output of the FX1 compared to my old DV camera (admittedly the old cam was no TRV900) despite the lower light gathering (which is somewhat inevitable for the amount of money most of us can afford)

I can push the HDV footage around a *lot* more than I could with DV, and you can get some really nice DVD-sized material out from it.

HAving said that, Perrone is correct in that it's a difficult time to go HD because everything is in flux, with tapeless, AVC, bigger sensors, interchangeable lenses etc. and especially the long-term effects of what RED has managed to do being as yet unknown (I firmly believe they put the nail in the coffin for all kinds of tape/film, and we are now getting to watch the resulting train-wreck in slow motion).

I think even though for most of us RED is super high-end, we'll see a lot of its innovations (hopefully the customer-service/disclosure ones too coming in future cameras.

Also, the FX1 is a dead-end and the L&M housing is only going to fit that one camera etc. etc. etc.

However, do we really see this slowing down? If you *need* a camera, then buy what you feel suits your needs and go out and shoot. If you want to wait ... well, there will always be a new super-duper thing right around the corner.

From a size perspective, the FX1 in L&M housing is about the most I want (or am willing) to haul around on my own dime, and I wont be taking it to the red sea this year based on size alone mostly (and my desire to get some stills)

It is exciting times for sure, but knowing what to buy, and when, and for how much is not an easy trick.

 

[PerroneFord]

Don't mean it to seem snobbish at all. I think HDV was always introduced as a stopgap to get consumers out of DV and to dip a toe into HD without the MASSIVE cost and requirements of real HD. Look at the HD standards that were in the field when HDV was introduced...

HDCam? DVCProHD? Are you going to honestly ask consumers to buy a Varicam or an F900? or anything close? A camera and a deck could cost as much as some small homes. So how do you supoort the consumer who is moving to 720p or 1080i TVs and wants a camera that can shoot for it? An economical solution had to be found, and it would be better if you could do that in a tape format they were already familiar with. When HDV was introduced, compact flash and solid state recording was HUGELY expensive.

If someone is finishing to DVD, HDV looks AMAZING. I've been VERY pleased with what I've gotten from it. If you are finishing to 720p, then shooting 1080i and downresing in post is still pretty clean depending on light, movement, etc. with the footage. Staying at 1080 with HDV really starts to show up the issues. With zero effects in the footage, you can see it break up easily on early HDV cameras.

Newer cameras like the EX1 start to bring better bit rates, better GOP structures, and other things that allow the consumer to push further into the world of HD. I think cameras like the EX1 are the future. Two years from now, that will be the new standard at $3500, much like the FX1 is now. Panasonic upgrading the DVX to the HMC and AVCHD compression is going to be amazing. When they decide to upgrade the HVX, I'd expect them to REALLY push the market again.

Is the FX1 a viable option for shooting? Abolutely. I've seen some GORGEOUS images with it. Would I choose it for shooting underwater? Probably not if I had a choice. But with the right lighting, smooth camera work, etc., it can be made to give some GORGEOUS images.

Dos Palmos HD (downstream) on Vimeo

 

[DocWong]

Dos Palmos HD (downstream) on Vimeo[/url]

Beautiful footage. What camera, lens and lights did you use?

 

[DiscoverTheBlue]

Our eyes and brain automatically see and recognize colors in all sorts of lighting situations, be it in sun, clouds, neon, halogen. Video cameras (when set to automatic WB) don't do the job as well and definitely not as quickly as human eyes do. In order to reproduce any color adequately a video camera needs first to "know" what "white" is. Once it "knows" that, it can display all other colors correctly.
So we have to "teach" our camera what white is - again and again, ideally every time before we take a shot in new lighting conditions. E.g. on land: as long as the sun keeps shining and the WB has been set all is good, but when a cloud appears we have to "teach" the camera the color conditions by showing it something white. Now this is actually simple enough because most cameras have exactly these (cloud, sun and some more for artificial) settings included.
Underwater, however, the big manufacturers don't provide us with pre-settings for WB. So we need to do it ourselves if we want to get reliable color display. Even changing depth by a mere 5m can make a great difference.
I suggest: set your WB when you are at your shooting location (it's so quickly done!). You can leave that setting as long as you remain at that spot/depth (just watch out if the sun suddenly pops out - or disappears behind a cloud. That's when I'd recommend re-setting). Also, if you change depth (and thus lighting conditions) do a new quick WB. If you enter a cavern, cave or overhead environment, if you switch on or off you lights - it'll save you you frustration in editing - just do quick WB. At night, I agree with you, I usually set only once - unless I change the lighting.
You can use a white slate, a white fin or even sand and if you don't have any of that, just use the palm of your hand (the last is not as perfect as a pure white, but often better than what the camera "assumes"!). Just point your camera at any of these objects, fill out the viewfinder so the camera "sees" no more than that object (never mind focus) and click the WB button. That's all there is to it. GOOD LUCK!