|
If you can get a used camera you can probably get a little bit more for your money, but if you're just starting out then the Aiptek A-HD should be just fine. Early reviews say that it records to .mov so if you're editing on Windows you may want to have a look at that before you plop down any money.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
nous_ posted:Looking for a cheap digital camcorder to hack around with shooting and editing. I don't really plan on doing anything with it other than maybe shooting ultra-low-budget shorts for fun, but I doubt even that. The Aiptek A-HD looks like the cheapest and best option. Any other cams I should consider? On that note, I'm in the same boat, and I've been looking at getting a Canon 550D plus a buncha lenses. I work in film & TV, but I'm not a cinematographer at all -- I work in post-production -- and I'm keen on using my spare time to get back to shooting a buncha shorts for fun, but having them look nice for a limited budget. (Case in point: I'm upgrading from a shittastic Sony DCR-HC42E from 2005, which only shoots standard-def interlaced footage which I occasionally attempt to make look nicer in effects shots like this.) I was going to go for the 7D but apparently the 550D does all the same things, at least for filmmaking purposes. Is this a great idea or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2010 12:46
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:On that note, I'm in the same boat, and I've been looking at getting a Canon 550D plus a buncha lenses. I work in film & TV, but I'm not a cinematographer at all -- I work in post-production -- and I'm keen on using my spare time to get back to shooting a buncha shorts for fun, but having them look nice for a limited budget. (Case in point: I'm upgrading from a shittastic Sony DCR-HC42E from 2005, which only shoots standard-def interlaced footage which I occasionally attempt to make look nicer in effects shots like this.) I can't tell how that's a VFX shot so you must have done a good job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
I was wondering that as well, and my guess is he faked a narrower depth of field?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:I can't tell how that's a VFX shot so you must have done a good job. Thanks!  Frost posted:I was wondering that as well, and my guess is he faked a narrower depth of field? It's a few things, actually. I did that, plus I put in the fake tank, painted out a white SUV, and finished it off with some colour correction. Here's a before-and-after: http://vimeo.com/13153036 And a Quicktime: http://www.box.net/shared/static/thdij8ydne.mov So yeah, is the 550D a good choice for somebody who wants to make decent-looking shorts? I'm blown away by the price difference between it and the 7D, when they supposedly capture exactly the same quality of video. schmuckfeatures fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
I had a chance to play with the 550D this weekend during a fashion show, I'm very impressed with the quality of the video recorded on it. You'll probably want to get a monitor if you get one though, I had a difficult time trying to manually focus using the LCD screen (and the autofocus is really iffy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I had a chance to play with the 550D this weekend during a fashion show, I'm very impressed with the quality of the video recorded on it. You'll probably want to get a monitor if you get one though, I had a difficult time trying to manually focus using the LCD screen (and the autofocus is really iffy). Sounds cool. I've ordered one, with an EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens Kit. Is there a specific lens for the 550D that's good for shooting with a nice shallow DOF?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Sounds cool. I've ordered one, with an EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens Kit. Anything f/1.8 or lower? You can get a 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens for $100. It's the cheapest lens you can buy and it takes great frames, just don't hope to ever put a focus ring on it. SquareDog fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
I'll post up video later this week, but I used a 24mm Sigma f/1.8 lens and it looked pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Thanks! Chiming in to say that looks great too! People usually underestimate what can be pulled off with no budget. Some people just don't have that vision and can only see what's in front of the camera in reality and not what it could become with some good lighting, camera placement, color correction, and massaging in post. Not that you shouldn't try to get things as close to the way you want them when they're actually being shot, and not simply say "screw it we'll fix it in post". We all know how that ends I'm sure. It's simply a balance of taking it as far as you can before the take, and knowing how much you'll be able to get away with in post. I just recently uploaded a new teaser for a project I'm working on. A promo video for it was posted earlier in the thread that I did a year ago. The project has come a long was since then, but its still got a long ways to go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0wfP2INlUA
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:
Nice, there are some really good shots in here. Boy I hate rolling shutter though. (I found it pretty noticeable during those running shots.) It's the one thing that bugs me about my new 550D. There are supposedly workarounds and plugins to get rid of it but I'll have to give them a go -- a friend of mine recommended something you can do without any plugins in After Effects, using frame blendings and a time displacement effect on a precomposed gradient, but it didn't quite seem to pull it together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 09:45
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Nice, there are some really good shots in here. That's why they say those cameras are good tools for specific uses, but not really great all-arounders. As always, there is a compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Chiming in to say that looks great too! People usually underestimate what can be pulled off with no budget. Some people just don't have that vision and can only see what's in front of the camera in reality and not what it could become with some good lighting, camera placement, color correction, and massaging in post. Not that you shouldn't try to get things as close to the way you want them when they're actually being shot, and not simply say "screw it we'll fix it in post". We all know how that ends I'm sure. It's simply a balance of taking it as far as you can before the take, and knowing how much you'll be able to get away with in post. Are you based in NYC? Always good to make contact with film goons in NYC. I just did a year at Pratts film school and it was terrible so Im transferring over to SVA. Me and my roommate(hes an assistant editor at Bug Editorial in Manhattan) are working on some projects and are always down to help out and lend our skills as well. What did you do on Husk? There were some great shots in there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 11:21
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Are you based in NYC? Always good to make contact with film goons in NYC. I just did a year at Pratts film school and it was terrible so Im transferring over to SVA. Well, at this point, like everything. I wrote it and I'm directing and shooting it guerrilla style on the streets of NYC. I've got a couple other guys who sometimes shoot when I need a two-camera setup or I have to do more intensive directing. It's been fun so far, and it's really coming along. I'm going to try and start getting some real funding via Kickstarter.com and some other sources soon and try and take on some bigger scenes. I definitely could use some help down the road. Shoot me an email so I have your contact info. My email is in my profile. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
So I bought the Panasonic AG-HMC40p. I got it mainly for the PH recording...only I can't seem to find an SDHC card that will support PH/HA recording. I thought any SDHC card would do but apparently not. What's the deal!?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:So I bought the Panasonic AG-HMC40p. I got it mainly for the PH recording...only I can't seem to find an SDHC card that will support PH/HA recording. I thought any SDHC card would do but apparently not. What's the deal!? Google tells me you need a Class 4 card or faster. Newegg had some Class 2 SDHC cards so it's apparently not all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
I think someone in this thread told me class 6 or better? At any rate, I've been able to find 16gb class 6 cards for about $40 each.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
I had the most pain in the rear end shoot yesterday. Was hired at the last minute to cover this conference, then when I get there I find out everyone's shooting 1080i HDV. Well, with my HVX, 1080i is not really as doable, even with a 32GB P2 card. So at the last second I had to set up to do a live capture to my laptop, a 2005 powerbook, and I'd NEVER done that before on a powerbook since it can't even play 1080i back. No testing, no seeing if it worked in advance, I had to set up, plug everything in, then just start capturing and praying it worked. Well, it did. Aside from audio being de-synced by about 5 frames or so, the bloody thing actually worked. But one important lesson I learned (AGAIN): Make ABSOLUTELY SURE your "abort capture on dropped frames" is turned OFF. In my defense, I always turn it off, but I loaned the laptop to a friend of my fiancee's, who decided to change every setting for every program she could find for no loving reason and I didn't find out about this until AFTER FCP had dropped a frame and deleted half an hour of footage. Yeah, she's gonna get an earful soon. Either way, at the end of the day I came out (relatively) unscathed and I think my laptop's got another few years of life in it yet still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
I found this awesome little camera app for the iPhone and have been using it extensively on my last film. It's called Toland Digital Assistant and it has a bunch of really handy features to help you keep track of your poo poo. Aside from the usual DOF calculations, which it does in a very elegant manner, it will actively adjust shooting stop for you as you set your filters, ISO, and shutter angle. It also allows you to create, and save, as many camera packages as you want so you can just create a little database of your frequently used packages and load it up as needed, and it will know what lenses are in there, what format your shooting, everything. And it will set up all your options accordingly. Works very fast. Even nicer is the logging feature. It basically creates a very extensive camera report using all your data, it even uses the accelerometer to let you find the exact tilt angle of the camera (great for vfx). You can mail the log straight from the app too. My department loved the hell out of it and so does the post house! It doesn't have the same amount of functions as Pcam but what it does, it does so much more elegantly. It's not cheap at $39,- but I think it's totally worth it! Just thought I'd throw that out there for you all. Enjoy! http://appshopper.com/photography/toland-asc-digital-assistant
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
Is there a thread on film school and the pros and cons? People have spoken to it in this thread... I'm just curious to have people speak to it directly. It's been a long thread. Basically, I'm curious what it can do for people looking to get into the industry, and how it compares to other avenues (if there even are any). It just seems VERY expensive for a tough industry to go to a top program (NYU, UCLA, USC). I guess you could also find another decent, cheaper program...but then I don't know how placement would be. If there's a thread for this sort of stuff, just pass me along.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
I think film schools of any kind need to be taken with a huge grain of salt as far as their value down the line goes. They are great places to learn about theory and get a chance to practice in a safe environment and ofcourse to network and meet people. It is, however, all of very little value once you get in the real world. Nobody really cares what school you went to and having that piece of paper will not get you any work. If you go into it with realistic expectations and a definite idea of what you want to learn, you will have an enjoyable experience and meet people who could potentially get you in the industry. If you go into it expecting a piece of paper from an expensive school to get you work then you will be wasting your time. Most anything you can learn in film school can be learned quicker on set and with some google. In fact, being on set is probably a way better learning experience since you're forced to learn fast or leave fast. What it boils down to, in my opinion, is don't worry too much about how expensive/well known a school is. It won't make a difference. Worry about what gear they have and what they can teach you. I should add the caveat that I've never been to film school myself, but I've worked with enough students and lectured at enough schools to have a pretty good idea! I'm sure others who have been to film school will chime in with more focused answers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
You could go the the best film school in the world and it won't be worth a drat if you don't have talent and don't work your rear end off. Film school can be a nice way to start relationships, make connections and hopefully learn something. However none of that will help you when you start working on real sets with seasoned professionals. If you have the cash to blow and like the whole school thing then go for it, but it's not worth getting in to debt for tens of thousands of dollars if you don't have the cash when you can get in the business through much cheaper avenues. Also, whether you go to school or not, you'll still have to pay your dues and work your way up the ladder like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:What it boils down to, in my opinion, is don't worry too much about how expensive/well known a school is. It won't make a difference. Worry about what gear they have and what they can teach you. Nah, you pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Let's get one thing very clear: film schools don't know how to teach filmmaking, as it really exists. They teach the idealized version of filmmaking, but that's not how the business works. So that begs the question, "Then why would I spend tens of thousands of dollars to attend a school that can't teach me what I need?" Well, here's my comparison, and it depends on what you want to do (and yes, what you want to do in the industry may or may not change while in school or after): You're paying someone to show you that idealized world, familiarize you slightly with "filmmaking" as they think you should know it, and soften the blow. That's where 10-20% of your money goes. The other 80-90%? Opportunities, facilities, faculty contact and equipment. You want to be a writer? Maybe paying AFI over a hundred thousand dollars a year will help get you closer to Stephen Gaghan or Aaron Sorkin so they can give you some life-changing tutelage. Or, maybe paying a few thousand a year to take creative writing classes and a feature writing class will work. In both scenarios, you graduate, you get your degree, and you have varying degrees of debt. Was AFI worth it? Maybe. Just make an informed decision. People working in film all have one thing in common: we all have a bizarre, unique story explaining how we got here. Some people pursued it, some people fell into it, but one thing's for sure: we all are perplexed by the luck we've had in that we're making a living (or trying to) by playing make believe and helping other people dream. So with that in mind, let's return to the beginning: FILM SCHOOLS DON'T TEACH YOU HOW TO MAKE FILM. They give you some tools, but mostly they'll give you opportunity to teach yourself!. That's the core of filmmaking, and the sooner you learn that you gotta be a self-starter to really succeed, the better. People apply, people get accepted, everyone enrolls and pays tuition. What sets you apart is what you do with it. Want to be a DP? Cool, you got accepted based on those skater videos you shot. Now what? Go sign up for an internship at a local camera rental house. Work in your school's equipment room. Learn how to set up a C-stand. Learn lights, equipment, cameras, EVERYTHING YOU CAN. When you get out into the real world, your "experience" will only make you more open-minded to the real world learning you receive once on a real set. I've got a mouthful to say about film school, if only because I have a real strong love/hate relationship with my film school experience. If you have questions, feel free to message me and I'll blab with you about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
I went to a four year university and majored in film production, it was great because I got a BA and a lot of network contacts. Of the people I graduated with, only one other still lives in SF, all the rest are down in LA but most are still working in the film industry (almost 6 years on now). One dude that graduated in the winter class is still up here, too, he does mostly music videos w/ a 5D. If you really just want to work on films then heading down to LA isn't a bad bet, just be prepared for a long slog. I decided to stay in SF because I prefer to do things my own way, but a lot of people go down there and work their way up. A film school degree or any other degree isn't really worth more than anything else there because no one cares if the PAs went to film school. What really matters is getting your foot in the door, busting rear end ALL THE TIME, and then being the guy who comes through in a crunch (and there is always a crunch on a live shoot - Harrison Ford got his start working on a set for George Lucas then just happening to be in the right spot when Lucas needed to cast). What really got me started in the industry locally, though, were two different things that both happened after I graduated. The first was that one of my screenwriting professors passed on my screenplay to a local screenwriter's group that gave me a scholarship to go to their summer class, and I've stayed on ever since, working as staff and meeting tons upon tons of filmmakers. The connection to the leader of that program happened during college, but most of my work since that has been capitalising on that one opportunity that I got through meeting her. The second was a video production internship I took right after college, which I eventually grew into a full position once they realised the value of turning over video in 1-2 days for the website. That gave me money + free time to take on a lot more projects and network. Every job is a networking opportunity. That's really what counts. You show up, you work your rear end off, someone sees you doing a good job and they ask for more information. The screenwriting job eventually parlayed into freelance editing for CBS, because an executive producer saw my editing at a live performance for a project I got from someone who went to the screenwriting program a couple years back and was impressed w/ how I answered her technical questions on doing a multi-screen live performance. That was networking leading to a job where I networked and landed another job. And I've never taken any classes in editing (my focus in school was writing and cinematography) so everything there's been self-taught, post-college. Had I never gone to college, I may never have met the professor who got me into the screenwriting community, but it wasnt my degree that's been getting me jobs and work ever since, it's been the quality of my work and my focus on being fun and easy to work with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
Can you guys talk about a particularly inspiring scene you recently saw from a cinematographers standpoint. Speaking to how do you apply composition and lighting to tell a story. I've been studying still photography for the past year and want to learn more about the motion side of things. This thread is great by the way!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Hey goons, I've been considering buying a DSLR that shoots HD video, and I was hoping some of you had some insight as to what's good or bad about the Canon 5D MKII, 7D, etc. I'm leaning towards Canon because I already have a few EF lenses. My main goal here is to get a really crisp image with a shallow DOF. My Sony HDR-HC1 gets the job done, but its DOF really leaves me wanting more, and 35mm adapters seem like more work and more money than just getting an SLR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
DividedFrame posted:Hey goons, I've been considering buying a DSLR that shoots HD video, and I was hoping some of you had some insight as to what's good or bad about the Canon 5D MKII, 7D, etc. I'm leaning towards Canon because I already have a few EF lenses. I got a Letus Extreme for $350 used, there's definitely deals out there if you look hard enough. I have shot with a 550D and they're great for some situations, awful for a lot of others. I guess as everyone says, it's just one more tool in the toolbox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
DividedFrame posted:Hey goons, I've been considering buying a DSLR that shoots HD video, and I was hoping some of you had some insight as to what's good or bad about the Canon 5D MKII, 7D, etc. I'm leaning towards Canon because I already have a few EF lenses. disclaimer Had pretty much no experience with photography and cameras prior to the following, so take my info as such, and i apologise if i insult your intelligence. I bought a 5D mkII back in april, along with a Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4. Then later a Zeiss 28mm 2.8 with Contax mount, and a 135mm 2.8, also Zeiss Contax mount. Those two lenses are older models which don't fit with the ef mount, so i have to use a adapter. Older and cheaper lenses, sure, but still Zeiss glass. The 50mm produces a pretty freaking crisp image, with outstanding bookeh, even at wide open. From what i understand lenses like that don't really shine until f5.6 -> , but it's pretty good wide open. And apparantly it's the poorest of the ZF line, which the price probably reflects. It's 30-50% cheaper than the rest of 'em. There are 3 prominent drawbacks with the 5D (or any other DSLR, i guess). 1. Slow sensor. The sensor records the frame from top to buttom noticably slow, which reveals itself in fast movements, first and foremost pans. I can be remedied, though. Check this out -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt0u9hsPuZY&feature=related . I've tried the plugin, and it works pretty great. However it seems to produce some artifacts if there's alot of blur. Haven't really played with it that much. Research "the jello effect" and "rolling shutter" 2. Moire. Seems like moire is somewhat of an issue, too. But that's not really unique to the DSLR's. Remedied by avoiding grid-like textures like brick walls, clothing with similar texture etc, and/or slightly put the area out of focus. 3. Dynamic Range. Again, i guess this is something that all digital cameras have a problem with, and one of the factors to the footage looking digital/home video -like, and is probably the main reason as to why film is still superior, if we ignore the high end professional movie cameras, which seem to now be on the level of film. Probably many a goon with a shitload more knowledge on these issues. I'll stop there at the risk of a probation. The obvious problem with limited dynamic range is, for example on a sunny day, a exterior shot which involves the sky and some foreground. Expose for the sky (to catch the detail), and the foreground is too dark. Expose for the foreground, and the sky is blown out. A way to fix this is to use a gradient filter. I intend to fix this by shooting on gray days. I plan to have a low saturated gray look anyways, like The Road. Filming on overclouded gray days means i can cram a lot more info into the footage, and it will look less shite. (blown out whites, crushed blacks) This brings up another point. Cramming as much information as possible into what one could call a digital negative. A way to do this a by tweaking on-camera properties like image contrast, sharpness and saturation way down, simply to capture as much info as possible, then do post color correction. So much info is lost with the predefined setups. I'm planning to shoot a microbudget feature with it, and i think it'll work out nicely, as long as i work around these issues, and plan accordingly. As the wisest of goons have already said, they are only tools, with advantages and disadvantages, and it's only a matter of working around the problems. Personally i think the advantages of these dslr's outweight the disadvantages. If you have the money, i would go for the 5D, simply because of the full frame sensor. The 7D, with it's 1.6x crop sensor, means that a 50mm will function as a: 50 x 1.6 = 80mm, a 28 as a 45, etc. I can be tough finding a nice wide angle for it. Also, i think most people are overdoing it with the extremely shallow DOF. It's also just a tool, but everything in moderation for fucks sake. It looks amateurish, but from another viewpoint. Trying too hard to make cheap digital look like film is a dangerous game. Oh, and one last thing. Because the camera is so light, hand handling it, along with the aforementioned slow sensor produces lovely jelloish shots, because of many rapid movements. Not really ideal for shooting POV running shots and stuff like that. This effect can be somewhat dampened by adding weight, and/or attaching it to shoulder mounts, poo poo like that. The difference between crap and nice often lies in the movement of the camera, perhaps more so then any other factor. It depends on what you want to do with it, really. I dare say the optics is equally, if not more important then the camera, but what the gently caress do i know, i'm a blundering novice. Isosceles Kramer fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
nice write up, all I would add is that if you're thinking about getting a 7D just get a T2i instead. It's the same thing and $900 cheaper. The only differences are totally irrelevant from a film making perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
Oh my God, how did I miss the EOS 550D? The price difference is astounding, and I don't see any differences aside from the burst mode. That plugin to correct the rolling shutter side-effects looks invaluable. I'm not concerned with a full-frame sensor. It's simply not worth the difference in price to me. I've had one of the old, original Canon Rebels since it first came out, so I'm used to working with the crop factor. I'd rather save $1300 and use that to get a nice wide-angle lens. Thanks for the input, all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
DividedFrame posted:Oh my God, how did I miss the EOS 550D? The price difference is astounding, and I don't see any differences aside from the burst mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
It also uses SD instead of CF, a different kind of battery, has no sync cable output, no b&w lcd screen on the top, it's a little smaller, and a slightly different control layout. But the picture and video quality is exactly the same. Again, no changes that are relevant from a film making perspective at half the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there's a way to manually set video gain on the 550D? I had a buddy accompany me on a shoot and capture b-roll with the 550D, but the noise killed almost every single nighttime shot (and was probably unneeded in every shot). I ended up fudging it by applying a channel blur, but it still looks like a mess. Here's a screencap from the original movie:  Click here for the full 1280x720 image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
I do work for a university in the UK, shooting on a Sony V1E and I'll be soon taking delivery of a Panasonic AG-HMC41. I have some questions about focussing. Sometimes I leave my camcorder in autofocus mode, because I don't want to have to keep adjusting it when people are moving. But then I see programs with actors moving around all the time, or news presenters when there's a live shot outside and the camera follows a walking presenter. How is this accomplished without losing focus on the subject, or the overall scene around them? Is it because the aperture is kept narrow, so there isn't any Depth of Field effect, like you would get in photography if you made your aperture nice and wide?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
If you're talking news video, normally those are shot on ENG cameras with big fuckoff lenses that you can ride pretty well for focus. Having a completely manually controllable focus on your lens is miles different from having a focus on a camcorder. On top of that, most of those dudes have been doing that poo poo for 15+ years (most of the guys I know who shoot specifically for news have at least 20 years pro video under their belt). They can pull focus in their sleep, while getting eaten by sharks. On top of that, they probably also just use really wide lenses so you get a great big depth of field. Shallow depth of field is nice for music videos and for the occasional shot in a movie, but deep focus is really a much more generally useful tool. Generally though, the tools they're using are much more specific and precise than "one-size-fits-all" camcorders which need to be able to do both shallow DoF and deep focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Does anyone know if there's a way to manually set video gain on the 550D? I had a buddy accompany me on a shoot and capture b-roll with the 550D, but the noise killed almost every single nighttime shot (and was probably unneeded in every shot). You should lower your ISO setting, and compensate to let more light in by opening up your aperture and slowing your shutter speed. Failing that, there's always the NeatVideo plugin for After Effects. A friend of mine just finished a contract using that plugin for a major feature film & he swears by it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
thehustler posted:I do work for a university in the UK, shooting on a Sony V1E and I'll be soon taking delivery of a Panasonic AG-HMC41. I know the feature better than the name for it, but a lot of ENG cameras include a "focus assist" feature. Basically, when you turn on the feature, it gives you some sort of guide (red diagonal stripes, a green glowing halo, etc) on or around where the camera detects your focus. The rest is just the skill of knowing the lens' focus change per small adjustments and riding the focus yourself. Easier with ENG cameras, since most of them are still just 2/3" chip cameras. Harder trick to pull when operating 35mm film, a RED or something with a full 35mm-sized sensor. Not so hard with a 5D or 1D (full 35mm-size sensor) with standard EF mount and still lenses. To visualize:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Excellent, thanks. Edit: Furthermore, can someone please confirm or deny the fact that the HDMI output on my Sony V1 camcorder is some sort of pre-HDV-encoder output, and is pretty much the raw feed from the sensor? I am tempted to use it to record things in our little studio directly into a computer, if possible. Rather than HDV record and then waiting to ingest, thehustler fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Aug 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
I believe that the HDMI out is pre-HDV converter, but post-image extraction from the chips, so you would get a better colour space (maybe 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0) and maybe you'd get all the frames instead of the long-GOP frames that are typical of HDV (ie you get an image every frame instead of an image every 12-13 frames with data on the differences between frames) I shot a couple music videos using the HDMI out on a V1U when they were first released, we captured to a mac pro w/ a blackmagic intensity card and the colour space and image were definitely better, although the downside was that our RAID took a dump in the middle of the second day of shooting and we lost all that footage anyways (and were left with the HDV recording on the tape, thank god we were rolling w/ a backup)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 17:33
|
|