|
ACanofPepsi posted:I really hate the camera with a video-feature thing. CMOS sensors work fantastically in still cameras, just keep them the gently caress away from video until the shutter issues are worked out. Most modern HD video cameras are CMOS, not CCD. The vertical tearing issues have more to do with the software and image processor that read the image off the sensor.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:CMOS problems have to do with the shutter. Most modern HD cameras are still CCD. Most consumer HD cameras are CMOS and there is a good mix in the prosumer world. RED is the standout in the pro world. Neither CMOS nor CCD technically use a shutter at all, the "shutter speed" is how many times a second the software reads an image off the sensor. CMOS images are read in horizontal lines from top to bottom, CCDs are read in vertical lines from right to left. CMOS are also less laggy, cheaper and consume less power than CCDs. CCDs are just as vulnerable to skew as CMOS, it's just less noticeable because tilts are less common than pans. It's ultimately up to how well the image processing firmware is capable of compensating for it. RED is not a standout at all. The SI2K, the F900, F950, F23, EX3, EX1, and James Cameron's new "Fusion" system are all CMOS cameras. The majority of major release films shot in HD this year were shot on CMOS cameras. CCDs are more expensive to make, require more power, are slower, laggier and more prone to smear than CMOS. They're being phased out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
oh you're right about the top end sonys excuse me. the SI2K was used on Slumdog MIllionaire. What I'm trying to say is that CCDs have just as many inherent problems as CMOS does. They used to be horribly smeary, low contrast, bloom-prone and stuttery. All of these problems are now compensated for by better manufacturing and in-camera processing. CMOS actually solves more problems than it creates, and is on paper a better technology than CCD. The consumer-level implementations have been iffy so far, but I've worked with some pretty extreme RED One handheld footage and there's no hint of skew, wobble, banding or partial exposure like would happen with the Nikon D90 or my Canon HV20 or something. It's all about the implementation. So far, "video DSLR" functions have been pretty badly mangled by low on-board processing power and crappy codec handling. The CMOS is only one part of that. Once the growing pains get worked out, It'll be a great thing for videographers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2009 07:08
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I guess that brings me back to my original question. What is a good budget audio recorder for portable use? And then, what sort of problems can I expect to run into when using Adobe Premiere Elements when syncing the audio in post? The Zoom H4 is pretty much the best bang for the buck. You may or may not have drift issues, but for action you're almost certainly going to replace your audio anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2009 04:15
|
|
|
new reel! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvFN6vRlvKY&fmt=22 I either directed or shot everything in it (or both), so please ask questions and let me know if there's anything glaringly wrong (or right).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2009 01:35
|
|
|
If you're going for a cinematic in-camera look, I'd also consider a 1/4 warm black promist filter. I've found that a little black diffusion goes a long way when you're shooting DV, and can help prevent ugly macro blocking in the blacks. Obviously, if you intend on doing color in post you want as flat a look as possible, but Spaceman is right in that the compression doesn't leave you a lot to work with anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2009 06:37
|
|
|
The Affair posted:So while we're on the subject of color before compression, have any of you had good or bad experience with Vortex Media Warm Cards? Can you dial in a custom balance? I can't imagine spending 75 bucks on special balance cards for something that takes 4 seconds to select in camera or do in post.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 06:11
|
|
|
Alasdair Crawfish posted:constructive criticism? I haven't made anything in forever so I know there's lots of stuff I need to improve on! I don't really know where to start because every element is basically as wrong as it can possibly be. Do you watch a lot of movies?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2009 22:34
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:On another note, let's talk about lighting. Specifically, motivated vs unmotivated lighting. Say I want hard, raking Noir style shadows in a scene, is that going to play if most other scenes have "realistic" lighting? If the story warrants the change in mood, then sure. The only rule to that sort of decision is "Can I get away with it?" You'll notice in old noir films the closeups are always super soft key with a huge punchy hair light, then they cut to the wide and it's all hard light and long shadows. They get away with it by consistently using the same lighting "language", even though it doesn't necessarily make motivational sense. quote:Night shots especially trip me up because it's obvious that all the light you need is NOT coming from the moon and any practicals you might have, especially if I need some really directional fill or spots on certain foreground or background objects. How do you deal with multiple shadows from one object if you don't have enough light to use diffusement? "Night lighting" is a kind of broad statement, can you talk about a specific scene you're having trouble with? If you have multiple strong shadows off the same object your light is probably too hard and too low. Generally, moody night scenes are lit very soft and then filtered in post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Wouldn't it have been cheaper to use Tungsten lights with CTB for night shots? HMI's are way more expensive to rent. You lose around 2 stops with full CTB, so if you go tungsten you need a loving ton of it. It can be done, but it's a hot, inefficient pain in the rear end. Kinos are a cheaper alternative to HMI, but they're super soft and short throw. If you only have one color of light in the shot, you can use whatever you want and fudge the color in camera or post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Wouldn't you need a gently caress ton of Kinos to do anything worth while EXT NIGHT? Tungsten sounds like a better choice, 10ks are a good time. definitely, and unless there's a super strong moon out, you shouldn't have to bother with gels, just blue it up in post. edit: you don't really want to run 10k of tungsten off a genny though, it would be cheaper to get a smaller gen and use HMIs. the reason they're used for EXT scenes has more to do with efficiency than color temp. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:It all depends on the situation, really. For instance, what if you don't need a genny? how else are you going to get 150 amps on an EXT NIGHT location? full CTB drops tungsten efficiency down by about 3/4. 10kw tungsten gelled with full CTB is effectively 2.5k, the same output as a single 750w HMI. now which one is cheaper to rent? edit: i'm bored let's run some numbers let's assume you don't have to gel your tungstens because they're the only source. let's also assume you have a magical tie-in close enough to your location to actually run 10K off the grid. 3 phase, 300 amp camlock to stage pin distro - 20/day either 2 babies or a tenner - around 90/day total 110 versus 2500w arri hmi - 180/day you save 70 bucks. pretty good! now let's get real because you are probably never going to do an ext night within 50 feet of a 300 amp tie in. a blimped 5k genny is around 165 a day. you would max out two of them to run your tungstens. you would need one of them at half load to run your HMI. now the HMI is cheaper by 95 bucks a day not even counting fuel, plus you have 2500w left over to play with. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Nov 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Last week we lit the poo poo out of a large night EXT without a genny, not that you're "wrong" or I'm "right", just saying is all. you can do just about anything if you have power and the g+e guys to make it work, lord knows i've done enough exteriors with tungsten because that was what i had to work with. all i'm saying is that HMIs are a better, cheaper way to do exteriors in almost every reasonable scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2009 00:29
|
|
|
Everyone ends up wearing a lot of hats on small features, it's not uncommon. Unions might raise stink about it but unless you're building your hours nobody will care.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:AT AFM a couple of years ago the DGA was allllll about 3D. If you don't mind me asking, why were you at AFM?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
The Affair posted:An interesting article came across Reddit a few days ago concerning the "film look" and how it relates to depth of field. It's here. That guy can rage against the machine all he wants, we're all slaves to what current audiences will accept no matter how illogical it is. The reason everyone is aiming for "film look" is not because it's technically better in any way. It's what audiences accept as quality. Deep focus may be a more interesting and challenging way to shoot, and you can go on for three paragraphs about it in your press package, but audiences will still equate it with small chip video. Until that paradigm shifts, you better risk sounding like a loving wank and demand the "creamiest bokeh" you can get because it actually will make a difference to distributors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
SwedeRacer posted:This is a good point since shallow DOF costs a lot more money. Only on the bottom rung of filmmaking. Shallow DOF and tight FOV means less production design.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:My biggest critique is my main actor's acting, and the opening scene's eyelines, which we didn't catch until post. Oh well. I'll second the critique on the lead, he really ACTED THE HELL OUT OF EVERYTHING. I AM ACTING AT YOU RIGHT NOW. ACTING. It worked in the first scene but he never let up. The kids were phenomenal though, especially the ones in the second scene. Great job with that. I found the camera work pretty exhausting. Next time, give us an establishing master shot, OTS, some arty rack focus job, anything to break up the pacing. Just going from CU to CU to CU gets very claustrophobic, even exterior. I felt like it was a play of feet and faces without a sense of setting. That extreme shadowy wide was great, but it felt out of place in the edit. Everything from his house INT onward was pretty much straight up underexposed. There's a difference between "noir" and "i can't see anything". That said, the production value was good, the score was good and the overall effort was very solid. Do more! also don't forget the car trunk POV shot for your cliche list, i love that one
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
Andraste posted:We had a little girl (9) in a short we did last semester, and we had huge issues with needing a studio teacher, we ended up not getting one because of cost, but because of that, we also can't send our project to any festivals. I gotta echo squaredog's confusion, how on earth could not having an on-set tutor affect whether you go to festival or not? Are you the producer on the project?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Any of yous guys been using third party plugins for slow-motion? I've gotten okay results out of Timewarp in AE, but I wonder if any of you have had good experiences with Twixtor. Twixtor has saved my rear end more times than I can count. It's effectively the same thing as the optical flow built into Motion, so if you already have final cut studio, try that first. Spaceman's right about cross motion, it can be a big problem with complex backgrounds and deep DOF, but for almost everything else it's magically wonderful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 01:24
|
|
|
Andraste posted:I guess the fear is that if you're short turns out really good, and gets recognized at festivals and lets say someone wants to buy it or something, they will want to see ALL of the paperwork including the studio teacher paper trail, if they find out you broke state law, you could be in trouble. While it's important to get all your ducks in a row, that's the sort of thing a distributor will work out if they really want your film. A particularly shady distributor might just not mention it on the form when they fill out their E&O insurance, but it's no longer your problem at that point. To let something like that keep you from going to festival is ridiculous though. Even if you have insurance problems with distribution, the market for shorts is miniscule. Your chances of selling it are tiny, no matter how good it is. You don't need distribution to win awards, and I'm guessing you didn't make a short to cash in anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'm going to be shooting on an HV30 in a couple weeks and I was wondering if HD DV tapes were actually necessary for an HD camera? People have told me it is and some people have told me it isn't. HDV tapes are a marketing scam, they're physically the exact same thing as MiniDV tapes. It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to say that every major tape manufacturer colluded to create market confusion and then took advantage by selling repackaged tape at a 500% markup, but that's pretty much what happened. Not the first time in history either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
Andraste posted:I want to see stuff goons have made. Here's a music video I directed recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5V_O42uxXU
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
Photex posted:I like the quality of the HD, what camera did you use? EX3 with a letus ultimate primarily. I ended up using a lot of wides and B roll from the HVX200 and XH A1 as well. Transcoded everything to prores which was a giant pain in the balls.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Really? I love myself some ProRes. MPEG-2 is a bitch to shoot though. I love prores too but transcoding 168GB of footage sucks no matter the codec. What's wrong with MPEG-2? I've never had a problem with it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Encoding it to ProRes before editing for one. Color sampling and bit rate for another. I just greatly prefer DVCPROHD. You don't have to transcode to edit HDV or XDCAM, every editor I'm aware of handles them natively. I'm also not sure what you're talking about re: color sampling and bitrate. I'm aware it's 4:2:0, but I've always found XDCAM to be much easier to color and key than DVCPRO.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:No, you don't have to, but the footage is just easier to move between programs if you transcode it first off. In FCP I transcode as I capture to ProRes and in Media Composer I go to DNXHD. You also avoid problems with the lack of I frames and some interpolation issues with 60i footage. It's just a good practice. I have never heard of this, and I don't understand what you're saying. If you shot exclusively in XDCAM and you can post it natively, why would you transcode? If you're missing an I frame, how would transcoding help recreate it? Why would you interpolate if you don't have to?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:I can't recommond any specific cameras, but I'm a huge fan of AVCHD as opposed to HDV. Also, a used HVX-200 might even be in your price range these days. Not even remotely close. The P2 cards alone will eat half that budget. $1500 is a tough spot. You could get a used DVX100b in great condition, or scrounge up a few hundred more for an XH A1. I wouldn't go to consumer level if I could help it, there's nothing more aggravating than missing a shot because you're knee-deep in menus with a little thumb joystick and trying to focus with a wheel the size of a hamster's nipple. The HMC40 might be what you're looking for come to think of it. 1800 new, it's like an HMC150 got zapped with a shrink ray. It's a cute little camera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Wow, the HMC40 looks like the perfect camera for my current level, so the big question for me is how much render is involved when you plug it into FCP? Would I want to set a sequence to ProRes or Apple Intermediate Codec? I plan on using a lot of titles and some After Effects/Motion. Well, kind of a lot to be honest. It very much depends on your machine. I have a 3Ghz Core2 duo and it's somewhat faster than realtime, so it's still better than capturing DV or HDV. You want to use ProRes, AIC is all but deprecated. Also, you're going to need drive space. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of drive space.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
1st AD posted:-What does everyone think about shoe-mounted video lights? A lot of my shooting with be done inside dingy nightclubs and hotel bars, so low light is definitely a concern and I wouldn't be able to set up any lighting. 1. Meh. I've never found one worth a drat. LP Mini is the only one I've had decent results with, but it's heavy and expensive. Better to try and position your subject as best you can with what you have. 2. Class 6 or higher. Kingstons are supposed to be good. 3. Polarizer, maybe a grad ND for sky detail if you want to get fancy. The HMC40 has an auto variable ND built in, anything else you can do in post. Don't forget audio. Either get the XLR pack made for the 40 or a BeachTek or something. You need a decent short shotgun. I'm a big fan of my cheapo AT875. That and a lav should set you up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Usually it was 1/24, but there were a few times where I dropped it to 1/12 because...well I don't really have a good reason behind it other than I thought it would look cool in some spots. and you're complaining about jitter? you just answered your own question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
I would not agree to that without a percentage of net profit. The up front fee would depend on what his funding and distribution plan is, free should only be an option if the points make up for it. He's asking for much more than just using you and your facility, what he's asking for is perpetual distribution rights for your image, performance and program. edit: pretty much what walnut said. You would probably be better off taking out a loan, hiring a decent production company to do the shoot, selling the dvds online and retaining all the rights. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Some self busting, I had a accidental roll out recently because I misscalculated the side margins while rushing and some how turned a 23 into a 15 so the mag rolled out 70 feet early. AD was pretty pissed especially since we were down to one good mag as the others had registration problems. I swear it was the longest 25 minutes of my life unloading the mag, cleaning it, putting in a new load, scratching testing it and having a massive loving base scratch, then having to run lens tissue on every loving roller, pressure plate, and light lock I could get into, finally reloading it and running it to the set just in time for them to break for lunch anyway. This story reminds me never ever ever ever to give any poo poo to a second AC ever again no matter how far behind schedule we are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:
i'm guessing the daylight is a close 4 by kino with a grid, using the barndoor to flag off the bottom of that wall. tungsten fill is china ball? this is a fun game i'll grab a screen from something in a bit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:you'd think they'd take one of those nice CMOS sensors, pop it in a more traditional video body with proper video controls, and they would dominate. Think about the lens in the XH A1. Think about how much that camera sells for right now. Now think about what a lens with those same specs would cost if it could cover an APS-C sized chip. Prosumer cameras already stretch the limits of price/performance when it comes to optics and miniaturization. If slapping a big rear end sensor in a prefab body was all they had to do, they'da done it already. I'm sure they're working on it, and I'm sure they're racing Sony, Panasonic and RED to be first to market, but professional DPs are not actually the people buying these cameras. The primary concern has to be hobbyists, bottom rung broadcast, ENG and videographers, and those customers are already used to a ton of features in their video cameras that just aren't yet possible with a big sensor on the prosumer scale. edit: just for kicks i looked up the A1's lens. The equivalent focal range is 38.9-778mm in 35mm terms, with a f/1.6 to f/3.2 aperture. That is never, ever going to happen with an APS-C sensor for the prosumer market. I'm not even sure it's physically possible. To put things in perspective, the EF 28-300/3.5-5.6L is $2500 new. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Mar 31, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Really in there is no pro market any more for secondary cameras from the prosumer range. Everyone seems to be shooting with the 7d or 5dmk2 when they need a low profile, cheap camera. They really are cannibalizing their prosumer cameras. If you're a live producer and you're buying a DSLR to use as a B-roll cam on location, you should probably be loving fired. They're wonderful cameras, but good luck shooting sports events, concerts, ENG, cable access, frankly anything on earth you would need a prosumer video camera for. They're great, cheap alternatives to film cameras for shooting narratives but they are terrible, terrible video cameras. Think about what a remote video unit consists of. These days it's 4 people maximum: a shooter, an audio guy, a field producer and a host. You're a production manager and you've got 4 grand in the budget for a second camera to hand to the field producer as a backup / B-roll. Are you going to spend that money on a kludgy DSLR rig that the field producer has to build and operate without AF, IS or audio on location, or are you going to spend it on a tiny, rugged, handheld video camera with a fast, built in superzoom AF lens, built in switchable ND filters, an XLR you can plug a shotgun or cardioid into for interviews, variable servo zoom speeds, etc etc? Plus, the B-roll video camera shoots the same format as your big boy camera and can jam sync with daddy so your editor doesn't tear his loving toenails out when you give him the footage. The DSLR does not cut it as a video camera. Nobody I know would take you at all seriously if you said "there is no pro market any more for secondary cameras from the prosumer range." We would laugh heartily and beat you with an HMC40. I personally can't wait to get my hands on a T2i, I'm savin up my duckets to play around with one, but it is not going to replace my bread and butter machines. Not until they give us a real convergence device like they keep saying they will.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:I'm talking narrative or production of high-end commercials. That is where the market has died or is suffering or if you go even more mellow, is threatened. Those big boy commercials have a ridiculous amount of 7d footage in them these days because they are a very useful tool in their arsenal. I'll say it again: Professional DPs are not the people buying prosumer cameras. If you're shooting high end commercials, you aren't using an HDV handicam for B-roll. If you're shooting narrative, you are renting everything anyway. The market you're saying has died never existed to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
rule of thirds, expose for faces, 180 degree shutter, avoid gain, watch your headroom, keep it steady and in focus and don't get fancy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Nope, No, and no. I don't even have to justify my argument because the HDSLR crowd is almost as stupid as the red crowd. Do you have some stories or experience or anything interesting to add to this thread other than pointless bickering? What point are you even trying to make? I'll agree with one thing though, that commercial does look like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:You're going to judge the quality of look off that encode? Really? That commercial looked loving phenomenal during the Olympics, and it created a huge buzz. By all accounts that commercial was a triumph. Maybe it looked way different for broadcast, but the exposure in the video in that link is horrible. It's the same problem with pretty much all consumer video, you just don't have the latitude to keep sky detail without pushing the blacks so far down they look like blocky crap when you try and bring them back in post. These guys did what most people do, which is just crush them beyond recognition and try and make it up in the mids. It doesn't fool anyone. I have seen some stuff shot with a 7D that is genuinely breathtaking but that commercial looks like crap. They should have hired Philip Bloom: http://vimeo.com/8100091
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 04:17
|
|