|
1st AD posted:edit: How would you manage SMPTE sync when the festival is set up like this? Jam sync at the start of the day, then free run and hope it doesn't drift too much (it will drift too much) If you have multiple angles of the same event, use this: http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html If you do multicam shoots, you can't live without this software. It will even automatically make multiclips for you in FCP. It is amazing.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:If you have multiple angles of the same event, use this: http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html Wow, that's pretty smart. I could have used that a year ago... and for AVID MC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Looks cool but two Vegas versions and no Avid support is lame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
I think AVID users are more apt to of had their poo poo together in the first place. All though it seems like it would be easy money for the people who wrote the other versions. AVID's multiclip tools are a bit of a pain in the rear end anyway. I giggled when the guy grumbled about FCP's multiclip capabilities, it's totally a "grass is greener" sort of situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
Man, typing AVID in all caps is a bad habit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Man, typing AVID in all caps is a bad habit. AVID, AVID, AVID! Speaking of Avid (hah), I'm buying an edit in place system for our 3 seat FCP setup. It's ethernet based with a switch, a card for the server, and 24 TB of storage for $17k. That will give us a guaranteed 9 streams of realtime. I think it is a pretty good setup, especially considering our reliance on Final Cut Server. Our IS guy thinks I'm a fool and we could have got more for cheaper if we were on PC's running Avid, with Avid shared storage. As memory serves, Avid shared storage is in an entirely different price range. He thought it would be cheaper then the setup we are buying. Anyone know what Avid shared storage goes for these days? I'm edit software agnostic. We're FCP because when we bought in there was adrenaline or mojo, and nothing in between. FCP was really the only choice for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Our IS guy thinks I'm a fool and we could have got more for cheaper if we were on PC's running Avid, with Avid shared storage. have him give avid a call and see what they quote him for a Unity ISIS with the same specs and storage. that should shut him up pretty fast. bet some money first if he'll go for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Or have him troubleshoot a problem with AVID's ever helpful support. He'll change his mind when it needs to be reinstalled every few months due to massive bugs that may corrupt his media libraries, they'll try to tell him that he should reinstall his OS, personally install/modify dozens of patches and fixes to get it to run on his system and never connect to the internet ever. Only to be told it's his fault for not buying one of the three compatible video cards first and that it's not their responsibility to make the program versatile and run on anything but a custom editing suite. I swear they're going to go out of business at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:It's ethernet based with a switch, a card for the server, and 24 TB of storage for $17k. I'm not sure you'd get 9 streams to one machine over ethernet, but that's not a common situation. Is that storage redundant? If all you're getting is a server with non-RAID drives and some gigabit equipment, 17k is probably too much.. all though a lot cheaper than any Avid solution. Your IS guy sounds like he has something against Apple. SquareDog posted:I swear they're going to go out of business at this rate. I hope not. It is true that they don't give a drat about anyone without a service contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
Thank you both. I was arguing pretty strongly against it, but then I thought that I could actually be wrong because I haven't priced Avid in 4 years. He said he had quotes proving it was cheaper. I told him to send them my way. No quotes so far. Doesn't matter anyway. I bought the stuff. I just want some reinforcement that I still know what I'm doing when it comes to hardware. IS doesn't really understand us anyway. They put LANdesk on our OS X edit machines without us knowing. We just wondered why we were having problems all of a sudden, then they took it off. They also don't like my gigabit setup. They don't understand why we can't use existing switches, even though I tell them that we could but there would then be no guaranteed real-time, no lag editing. They counter with, nah it will be fine, and I counter with "if it even hesitates for a heartbeat when I push the "i" key I will lose my mind. We're actually buying our network hardware from small tree. They write the mac code for intel networking stuff apparently. I'm thrilled that I can get an edit in place system installed for under 25k. XSAN is in the 60-70k range installed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
I'm going to be shooting a webseries in a few months on a Z5U, and my friend who works at a film lab said that she's willing to strike a 35mm print for free (labor). I was wondering what the advantage of that would be, though, since it's going to be shot on DV. Wouldn't it just look like a grainier video? I'm new to the world of film stock and HD video, and I feel like it would be a post nightmare to go from digital to film to digital on Adobe Premiere without losing any quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:I'm going to be shooting a webseries in a few months on a Z5U, and my friend who works at a film lab said that she's willing to strike a 35mm print for free (labor). Yeah, there's no point whatsoever unless you want to present it in a theater that doesn't do digital. The materials cost is the bulk of the expense anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
Good to know. I was considering shooting on Super 16 but I can use the Sony for free so I may as well save the budget for renting lights and actually paying people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
Season final of House shot entirely on a 5D - http://photocinenews.com/2010/04/08/house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5d/ Huh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
Just a tool like any other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:Season final of House shot entirely on a 5D - http://photocinenews.com/2010/04/08/house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5d/ I don't really get that. Seems strange to me unless they were taking on a different shooting style for that episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Just a tool like any other. Yup, agreed. What is House shot on normally? I can't remember if they were film or not. I'm just imagining a 5D MK II body rigged with Panaglass on a Panahead. I remember reading a very cool article in the ASC mag about Panavision outfitting a 5D MKII with a mount for their lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
I just got my hands on a Minolta Super 8 camera (XL-250) in great condition. And, since you can still buy Super 8 film, and because one of the last places in NYC that develops Super 8 cartridges is apparently just a few blocks away, I think I'll give it a whirl. Are there some tips to this? Documentation for this model is thin. I plan to try out a roll of either Ektachrome 64T or that Vision 200T and have some other place just turn it into h264 for me. Also, an unshot/unexposed cartridge of Ektachrome 160 has been sitting in this camera for about 30 years. Will I get some crazy colors from it or nothing at all? Or can that particular speed not even be developed now for some reason? And what is this "A/+" knob? 
Gong fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Panasonic just announced their Micro 4/3 sensor camcorder with interchangeable lenses: http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...082010101919040 Basically a GH-1 put into a real camcorder body, with improved specs. No 1080/60p, but I'd rarely shoot that anyway. If it's anything like the GH-1, almost any lens mount under the sun can be adapted to it. They haven't announced a price yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
Unverified on DVXuser says the price will be $6000. Since the display camera is just a prototype it's probably pretty unlikely that the price is accurate. Interesting, the comments from the product manager are funny: "First the sensor is the same as the GH1 Lumix camera, then we optimize it for HD recording. There will not be aliasing as we actually have a clue about what causes that and since we actually build video cameras, we can engineer in the resolution. so no aliasing." Seems like professional video at Panasonic regards the stills division as not having their act together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
they're right, the GH-1 has the worst image quality and encoding of any video DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
I'm currently looking to get a Panasonic AG-HMC40 camcorder for shooting some stuff on my own. Do any of you have any preferred websites for ordering this sort of stuff? I was going to go with Primocameras.com but they started doing this bait-and-switch saying that I ordered a "gray market" version and that the "real" version I wanted was 2000 bucks instead of the 1700 they wanted on the camera's page. So needless to say, I'd like another option for ordering online.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
Holybat posted:I'm currently looking to get a Panasonic AG-HMC40 camcorder for shooting some stuff on my own. Do any of you have any preferred websites for ordering this sort of stuff? Pretty much everyone is going to tell you http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ . I am too. EDIT: There are very few highly regarded video/photo/etc sites out there. Adorama is the other big one, but B&H is basically the go-to shop. The rule for all this type of equipment is if it looks like an amazing deal that you can't believe is true, or is even just a few hundred cheaper than elsewhere, then you will likely regret trying to buy your camera from them. They'll cancel your order and strong-arm you with accessories or bad warranties, or just steal your money and never send a camera. FordTimelord fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Holybat posted:Primocameras.com I have a friend that recently bought some HVX-200 package from them and had nothing but headaches getting it shipped it in full. Just buy from B&H, they don't have too good to be true deals because they don't gently caress around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I actually cancelled an order I had with Primo Cameras because they were trying too hard to upsell me on accessories and warranties (the camera comes with a THREE year warranty, why would I pay several hundred for the same from a shady company?).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
FordTimelord posted:The rule for all this type of equipment is if it looks like an amazing deal that you can't believe is true, or is even just a few hundred cheaper than elsewhere, then you will likely regret trying to buy your camera from them. They'll cancel your order and strong-arm you with accessories or bad warranties, or just steal your money and never send a camera. Thanks for the information, especially this bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
If you want to buy HVX-related stuff, I'd buy from spec-comm.com, I've bought a ton of stuff from them and they've been fantastic. The prices are great (they only deal with Panasonic, P2, etc) and I've had times when I called them up, needing something overnighted, 5 minutes before they close for the day and they still got it to me. I'm interested in the Canon Mark whatever, I forget what it's called but people have been raving on about it forever. A buddy of mine has one, and I hate the CMOS problem, but I've already got an HVX and I'm in the market for a DSLR so it sounds right up my alley. It'd be something nice to have in the lineup, especially considering how much my work is making me travel, that I could put my HVX on the tripod and let it run, then get HD video w/ a shallow DOF for closeup cutaways, along with photos at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Finally amateur hour is over. http://www.arridigital.com/alexa  800 EI at 3200k 13.5 stops of latitude Made by a real company, not some jackass sunglass maker rehousing still CMOS's into an xbox. I can't wait for my local houses to get some.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 02:29
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Made by a real company, not some jackass sunglass maker rehousing still CMOS's into an xbox. Bitter, party of one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Finally amateur hour is over. This post implies serious rear end professionalism. Look out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 07:44
|
|
|
Honestly the new arri doesn't do much for me. What I did with 1/10 the light, 1/10th the price: http://vimeo.com/6862321
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
mechaforce posted:Honestly the new arri doesn't do much for me. I like the EX1 (and moreso the EX3) too, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Noise reduction always means a drop in information, as is evident even in the tiny vimeo window. A larger latitude and light sensitivity will beat that easily but comes with a higher price tag. Different tools for different needs, as always.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
IMO shooting directly to ProRes on SxS cards is the Alexa's best feature. RAW is neato, but often unnecessary. Especially now that Media Composer edits ProRes natively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
mechaforce posted:Honestly the new arri doesn't do much for me. At some point I really hope you guys realize that you're doing yourself a serious disservice by attributing the quality of what you shoot to your equipment and software, rather than your skills, your experience, and your creativity. Doing so devalues your own work and the work of others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
Spaceman Love posted:At some point I really hope you guys realize that you're doing yourself a serious disservice by attributing the quality of what you shoot to your equipment and software, rather than your skills, your experience, and your creativity. Doing so devalues your own work and the work of others. True but I don't think anybody could make that look decent on one of my school's DVXs or XL1s edit: or were you being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
Tatrakrad posted:True but I don't think anybody could make that look decent on one of my school's DVXs or XL1s I'd assume he wasn't being sarcastic. People were shooting great looking low budget stuff even before the DVX and XL1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Tatrakrad posted:True but I don't think anybody could make that look decent on one of my school's DVXs or XL1s You mean, you don't think anybody could make a low light / candlelight shot look decent on an DVX or XL1? I think that for years, cinematographers would bring the light levels to meet the needs of the cameras rather than pushing the gain through the roof and getting pissy about video noise. I really am skeptical about all of the new DP's appearing on the scene who have little or no creative vision for lighting. They think like cameramen, rather than doing their homework, collaborating with other departments, and serving the needs of the script. People have warned for years that the camera doesn't see things like the human eye. Well, that's a double edged sword: why should the candlelight scene show only what the camera is capable of seeing? Our eyes see much more in the dark than those cameras. So, light it as such.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
digital video cameras have really messed up the lines between cameramen and DPs. It used to be that DPs rarely even touched the camera, now we're down to 1 or 2 man crews to shoot everything and suddenly a cameraman thinks he's a DP because he's determining the angle of the shot. There's so much more that goes on other than "Just use available light and shoot," that's not a DP's job, there's a reason film shoots have had cameramen, DPs AND gaffers, all who had different roles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
Frost posted:I like the EX1 (and moreso the EX3) too, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Noise reduction always means a drop in information, as is evident even in the tiny vimeo window. A larger latitude and light sensitivity will beat that easily but comes with a higher price tag. Different tools for different needs, as always. Yes and no - - my main point was that you don't need to drop 60k to shoot in ultra low light and keep it looking good. The noise removal plugin we used actually retains 99% of the data since it uses sampling. Spaceman Love posted:At some point I really hope you guys realize that you're doing yourself a serious disservice by attributing the quality of what you shoot to your equipment and software, rather than your skills, your experience, and your creativity. Doing so devalues your own work and the work of others. You're right, they should've shot Blade Runner on Hi8 - would've saved em millions too! Filmmaking is a visual medium, and to ignore the quality of a shot is a disservice to the viewer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
mechaforce posted:Filmmaking is a visual medium, and to ignore the quality of a shot is a disservice to the viewer. You seem to qualify "quality" in terms of highest quality, but not highest quality as dictated by the story. Lower resolution, digital filmmaking very much so has it's place in the "visual medium". As much as people attuned to the visual aesthetic of filmmaking find higher resolution, higher quality images gorgeous, we tradesmen working as DP's, we owe it to the total story and total film to put personal feelings aside and shoot what fits best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2010 21:24
|
|