|
You're still transcoding, it's not like it's going to gain quality when you convert from H264 off the DSLR to ProRes, even 444. I'll be honest I just worked with my first raw files off of a DSLR last week, and I didn't notice any quality difference using MPEG Streamclip to convert to ProRes but this was more for a bunch of quick after effects tests, so I wasn't paying super close attention. It seems more like converting an MP3 to a WAV, where you're converting from a lossy format to a much less lossy format, so you're not losing quality or data, but then when you convert *again* to your final product (say, back to MP3) then there's another round of data & quality loss. Maybe that can be avoided by offlining and then onlining the H264 edits, but I'm just speculating. EDIT: I will say, though, that the quality loss from going to ProRes to whatever the final distribution codec is is probably not going to be a noticable loss of quality. It seems like DVD and web video are the most likely places for it to end up, and both would have to be transcoded so hard that you'd lose more there than in any other step of the process. bassguitarhero fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 2, 2010 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
this is in 2 threads now, but the reason to go to Prores is if you are doing any colour or effects work. Rerendering a clip with colour or effects on it in h.264 is going to be worse then step up to prores, and rendering your effects in that. h.264 will fall apart with multiple renders, prores won't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:this is in 2 threads now, but the reason to go to Prores is if you are doing any colour or effects work. Rerendering a clip with colour or effects on it in h.264 is going to be worse then step up to prores, and rendering your effects in that. h.264 will fall apart with multiple renders, prores won't. Not gonna be doing any colour or effects work with my footage. It's very basic editing. (If anyone still has advice on the situation, I took it to the Final Cut thread as per bassguitarhero's suggestion so just answer there. I don't wanna clog two threads with my small problem)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
That's a busiest I've seen the FCP thread in a long time. I assume peoples have seen this: http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=661996&postcount=58 Looks amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:
Sure is, I'm just not sure if I can "man up" enough to ever use it. Cool tech, such a shame that Jannard is such an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Woot, a doc I shot in Ireland a while back just got into the Globians doc fest in Stuttgart, Germany. It's the European premiere of our little doc, I'm really impressed with its festival performance. Not too bad for an ultra-low budget doc from San Francisco The trailer's up here http://www.destinationrossport.net but no idea when the director will update the site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Sure is, I'm just not sure if I can "man up" enough to ever use it. Cool tech, such a shame that Jannard is such an rear end. You actually don't have to talk to him to use a RED camera, he might not even show up on set.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
HDRx looks pretty cool, probably a quick way out of a bind when you don't/can't light an interior to match an exterior, or use one of the countless lighting tricks to match exposure. Another tool of the trade, I guess. butterypancakes posted:You actually don't have to talk to him to use a RED camera, he might not even show up on set. He hasn't shown up on any of the sets I've been on that were shooting RED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:You actually don't have to talk to him to use a RED camera, he might not even show up on set. That is true but his "man up" comment in a nutshell, perfectly describes a "film guy" attitude that I loathe. I don't really care about RED cameras truthfully as they aren't appropriate for any of my applications. I like following them more for how they are pushing the industry and how the big boys respond, which is fascinating. His personality, and the follower personality is so wrapped in RED it is really a bizarre study.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
Has anyone messed with T2i image settings? I've got a shoot tomorrow with a T2i and HMC150 inside a limo bus and want to try to match the 2 as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:You actually don't have to talk to him to use a RED camera, he might not even show up on set. I love you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
I need a copy/paste generic credit roll (with fake or blank names, I'll find-replace fake ones in) to throw on a short video. The internet yields nothing. I'd rather not spend 3 hours writing/doing layout for credits that will roll by in <3 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 09:24
|
|
|
Do you have final cut? I know there's a text generator that will create a scrolling text, you can just use that and type in whatever you want. Would take probably half an hour or so. I'm not sure on other editing packages but I imagine they all have something similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Just finished this short for the Chiller TV Monster mashup contest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z9QwPODcXQ T2i A various sort of old Pentax K-Mount lenses Shot in one day. One week of post (At home, we have jobs still  )
pagancow fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Just finished this short for the Chiller TV Monster mashup contest. I thought it was fantastic. The soundtrack was especially well done. My only criticism was that it went instantly from dusk to pitch black early on, but if you only have a day to shoot, things like that can happen. How did the T2i hold up overall? Mine should be arriving in a week or so, and I can't wait to take it out for a spin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:I thought it was fantastic. The soundtrack was especially well done. My only criticism was that it went instantly from dusk to pitch black early on, but if you only have a day to shoot, things like that can happen. We were strapped for time for just about every aspect of the production. The guys I work with at Volition-Inc are all very incredible artists and the audio really shows well. In any production "Audio is half the picture". I'd say in a horror movie it makes or breaks the mood you're trying to create and these guys nailed it on such short notice, so kudos to them. The T2i is slightly more grainy than the 5D Mark II, but it's nothing that a denoiser can't fix. Some of the shots are as high as ISO 3200, and it shows because they are softer than some of the daytime shots. For a feature length film I would be a little scared of cleaning every frame on my own and would probablly outsource it to a vendor with some high end tools for cleaning. For our broadcast version we added in some film grain. Hopefully you'll be able to check it out on Chiller TV if the choose us to air on Halloween night. For YouTube Grain just breaks apart the video signal. 2,000 kbps is hardly enough for HD video.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
pagancow posted:We were strapped for time for just about every aspect of the production. The guys I work with at Volition-Inc are all very incredible artists and the audio really shows well. In any production "Audio is half the picture". I'd say in a horror movie it makes or breaks the mood you're trying to create and these guys nailed it on such short notice, so kudos to them. For a quality image for a feature/music video/commercial I wouldn't shoot any higher than 1000iso on the T2i or with the 7D/5D, 1280iso and even that's pushing it. If you can't shoot it for that then you need to spend more than $40 on lighting rentals. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:For a quality image for a feature/music video/commercial I wouldn't shoot any higher than 1000iso on the T2i or with the 7D/5D, 1280iso and even that's pushing it. If you can't shoot it for that then you need to spend more than $40 on lighting rentals. This was a no-budget outdoor nighttime shoot. I think we did alright given those constraints. Also this is an amateur film contest. More lighting would have been nice, but we didn't have the money for 10K HMIs
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 14:09
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Just finished this short for the Chiller TV Monster mashup contest. Really nice work. Very well done considering you only had a day to shoot it, too. On that note, I just missed out on the 48 Hour Film Project for my city... I'd hoped I could participate in it and finally shoot something substantial with my T2i, but I was just too drat busy. Oh well. Anybody else ever taken part in that particular competition, or something similar? I enjoyed doing it last year but it's a hell of a challenge to make a decent four-minute film in 48 hours, especially since you gotta do the whole thing from scratch in that period. It's a really good creative exercise though. There's an artists' workspace around the corner from me that apparently does a film challenge every once in a while which is similar. Apparently the audience writes a rough treatment during the late afternoon, hands it off to a small group of filmmakers and demands that they come back with the finished product at the end of the evening. I haven't managed to catch it yet but it could be hilarious and/or interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Not sure if this is an appropriate thread or not for this but I'm in the works of starting a Wedding Videographer business. I'm trying to decide between cameras, and I'm looking at two in specific: Canon XL H1s or Sony HVR-S270U I've used the Sony f900 before and liked it. I've also used the Canon XL2 and seen demos of the XL H1 when it first came out and really liked what I saw. I'm more familiar with menu systems on the Canon as well. That being said, Canon is way more expensive. Both cameras I assume will put out great image quality, so that's not my issue. The issue is, what camera will get me the most mileage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
I see more people shooting with Sony than any other cam so if you're interested in working with other cameramen and getting very similar footage then you could well be better off going to the Sony, but the Canon's no slouch. I've got footage from both those cams and they're both great. The only thing I would be wary about is HDV in general, I don't think it'll be around for more than a few more years. Everything's pretty quickly going to solid state recording, where you get more colour space & luminance data than HDV, although I'm not sure how different the compression times are. I shoot DVCPRO HD via Panasonic and I'm always pretty happy with that turnaround time to get it into Final Cut, but you don't have as many options at that price range for Panasonic stuff as you do for Canon & Sony. That said, there are a lot of people shooting HDV now (I just did another shoot on Friday where everyone else was shooting Sony HDV and I was the lone Panasonic P2 guy who had to record direct-to-laptop because I was covering a 3 hour performance) so you'll definitely get mileage out of the camera, just not sure how much. I'm not sure if a lot of people are covering weddings with the Canon 5D mark II, but the mark III is coming out next year and IMO that will probably be "the" camera to have for the next couple years or so. Lots of people will be requesting it specifically, I'll imagine, and if the audio issues are ironed out then it may be something that will get you a good number of gigs. I'm not sure how a camera like that would hold up for wedding videography, but there'll be lots of requests for DPs with that camera, so there'd be a fair amount of work for it either way. bassguitarhero fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:I'm not sure if a lot of people are covering weddings with the Canon 5D mark II, but the mark III is coming out next year and IMO that will probably be "the" camera to have for the next couple years or so. Lots of people will be requesting it specifically, I'll imagine, and if the audio issues are ironed out then it may be something that will get you a good number of gigs. I'm not sure how a camera like that would hold up for wedding videography, but there'll be lots of requests for DPs with that camera, so there'd be a fair amount of work for it either way. If you search Vimeo for "5d", every other video is a wedding video. While not indicative of how many weddings are being filmed with 5Ds, it does show that at least that there is a trend. As far as audio issues, a recent firmware update for the 5dmk2 allows you to turn off the Automatic Gain Control that was the bane of recording directly into the camera. Obviously it still doesn't provide phantom power to a microphone, but I definitely wouldn't expect to see a feature like that built into a predominantly still photography camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
I've worked with Panasonic and their P2 before, and the problem I have with it is it's terribly expensive. I loved the interface, and would consider it more if it wasn't so cost prohibitive to a start up like me. I personally don't like DV format either, but I'm not convinced that such a format based camera would become obsolete before I made back the money I spent on it. I live in Utah, after all, and weddings are extremely common. There's also a Sony XD. But I've just checked the price and that's out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
What about the Sony EX series cameras? I don't know that much about them but they record onto memory stick so you get the XDCAM codec and they use regular memory sticks so you don't have to pay out the rear end for P2. I feel you on the P2 thing, it really is the biggest hurdle with this camera. I need to drop another $500 on a 32GB P2 card so I can have two and be able to offload, I hate this direct-to-laptop recording setup because my powerbook isn't powerful enough to play 1080i so I can never play it back during a live shoot, so I've no idea if anything gets messed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
I was looking at those. I'd really like to see the quality of the footage though. Anyone seen any?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
If you can wait you might want to take a look at the new Panny AF-100. It looks to be a remarkable camera. Footage should be out in the next few weeks, and it will be on sale in the next few months. It has all the good things of a VDSLR with none of the bad and all the good things of a pro video camera. It's around the 5k range. It's not a P2 cam so recording media is cheap. Canon and Sony currently have no response to it. It records to the Panny version of AVCHD, so that's why you have cost savings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Wow that looks like a fantastic little camera, I'm not so sure on the AVCHD tho, I really like the 4:2:2 in DVCPRO HD, but it may be worth an investment. I'll be keeping my eyes on it for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
From what I recall the EX cameras and HDV are also 4:2:0. The real key is what Panasonic have done to the codec, how they are encoding. So many are waiting on footage to see if this really is the camera that Panasonic promises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Really nice work. Very well done considering you only had a day to shoot it, too. I did my first 48 Hour film Competition last year. the end products weren't all great but it was probably the most fun I've had on a weekend. Here's our entry, The Risk Locker, which actually won the whole thing (best film and audience choice awards, which I'm pretty proud of.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr0d95nlc8c Shot on a D5000, with only the in-camera sound, if you're wondering why it sounds like poo poo. A lot of things I'd do differently looking back but hey, 48 hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Really nice work. Very well done considering you only had a day to shoot it, too. I did the 48 hour film project and this is the product we made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNFQo79PAfI I was very disappointed with 48 hour film project for a number of reasons: 1) Not enough time to create a compelling product (5 minute minimum in my area) 2) Practically no time for reshoots unless you are editing in the location you are shooting in 3) A lot of average films (at best) get made and go against each other 4) The product you create you will not be proud of For those reasons alone I will not be doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
Stumpus posted:Not sure if this is an appropriate thread or not for this but I'm in the works of starting a Wedding Videographer business. I'm trying to decide between cameras, and I'm looking at two in specific: With the wedding business the goal is to have a higher margin. You should buy a camera that is even cheaper than the two because your gear should cost almost nothing. I'm not familiar with Prosumer camcorders but I would consider something more along the lines of the Panasonic HMC-150 for two reasons, Price, and Solid state recording. You don't want to spend more money than the client is expecting, and you don't want to spend more time importing tapes than is necessary. There may be camcorders out there that are cheaper. A T2i won't cut it due to recording times, but they make a good secondary camera to grab stills and do more stylistic work like engagement videos. I started out my career doing weddings and I grew out of them real quickly after learning that weddings alone don't pay the bills, and you'll end up upgrading your camera anyway if you're doing commercial work or any kind of film making anyway. bassguitarhero posted:Wow that looks like a fantastic little camera, I'm not so sure on the AVCHD tho, I really like the 4:2:2 in DVCPRO HD, but it may be worth an investment. I'll be keeping my eyes on it for sure. Most clients are going to request a DVD which is 720x480 4:2:0 MPEG-2 and a Youtube clip which is up to 1920x1080 4:2:0. 4:2:2 is not going to make a difference unless you are going to do some extreme color grading which most weddings will not pay you to do so. They just want an archive copy. I wouldn't worry about codec issues when shooting weddings. At least in my lifetime I've never shot a wedding that was on a green screen pagancow fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Yeah your final product will normally be DVD & web video so you'll deliver a 4:2:0 product, but I always spend a lot of time colour correcting and the extra colour space in DVCPRO HD makes that so much easier. At least for me, when I've seen how well it holds up, then I get a little spoiled. It really does come down to ease-of-use for the media, though. HDV is still around because a tape is still 60 or 80 minutes of footage in one go, which is still really useful for most shoots, even at that cost of colour space and rendering time. But now that solid state is getting to the point where you can shoot an hour of 1080 on affordable cards you can swap out, it's really starting to get possible. For P2, it's not really quite there and unfortunately I don't think it will. I can shoot 70 minutes of 720P on one 32GB P2 card ($500) but it's only half an hour of 1080. If I need to shoot an hour of 1080, I need either a second 32GB P2 card (for a total of $1000 on media) or I need to capture live, which is never an exciting prospect. Compare that to a single HDV tape for 1080 and you can see why HDV is still hanging on. But I definitely think if you're going to be buying a NEW camera, then you want to aim as far ahead as possible. Getting something that can shoot an hour of HD onto solid state media is something that will be good and useful for the next few years. Buying an HDV camera now locks you into tech that's quickly growing obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Yeah your final product will normally be DVD & web video so you'll deliver a 4:2:0 product, but I always spend a lot of time colour correcting and the extra colour space in DVCPRO HD makes that so much easier. At least for me, when I've seen how well it holds up, then I get a little spoiled. I would be shocked to find out a wedding videographer knew how to use color correction tools, other than any auto contrast or auto color balancing. I know they're out there, but most clients aren't even going to know the difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Footage from the AF-100 http://vimeo.com/15765280 Can't really tell a lot from that. Weird though, I don't really think this is the big footage release from Panasonic. They have recently said they aren't interested in releasing pre-release camera footage. Then this comes out. The guy also breaks NDA I think. He mentions camera issues he had. Panny is pretty clear that when you get your hands on a factory sample, you are not allowed to talk about any issues with camera function and menu etc. There point being that the internet will magnify issues that just haven't been fixed yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I would be shocked to find out a wedding videographer knew how to use color correction tools, other than any auto contrast or auto color balancing. I know they're out there, but most clients aren't even going to know the difference. What clients would recognize is if it looked like an actual feature. People dig that, and would pay extra for that if they are willing to pay. I went to film school and had a minor in cinematography; currently I'm not using it, but I figure a little wedding videography on the side while my wife rakes in the big bucks as a nurse, meanwhile I go to school, isn't half bad. That being said, I'd take the film style that I learned and bring it into the wedding business. That new panasonic, if it really can deliver a great 35 mm look, while allowing me to use whatever lenses I want, seems like something worth waiting for. Again, IF it delivers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Oh God, In a week I shoot a school project that we've been doing pre-prod on for a few weeks. Things are starting to come together, but there is so much in this shoot that I've never done before. Shooting from a chaser plane to another plane, sword fights, gun fights, stunts, hand to hand combat, and tons of costume and makeup changes with multiple characters being played by the same actress. Kind of stressful having a couple grand of other peoples' money dependent on me properly executing a ton of stuff I've never done before; but also very exciting. Now that it's crunch time I'm still struggling with figuring out some of the finer details, like a few specialty rentals and transpo, making sure we get the shots planned to a T and securing our lighting rentals. Our plan is two shoot two RED camera teams, we have the cameras with 1 set of RED primes. I need to lock down renting a matte box / follow focus settup, and some sticks for one of them. I need to secure two sets of IR- ND filters, and dear God I still have to pick which Tiffen Promist filter I want and get two of them. Does anyone have any good suggestions as to a Frame I can transport in a pickup? I'm thinking I can fit an 8x or a 12x no problem. What I'd really like is a 20x that comes in sections of 10ft speed; can't say I've seen one before though. And then a ton of random stuff like 10 cardellini's and source fours. Which is going to be really fun to rig; we are shooting one day in a chocolate factory warehouse and I'm going to rig a bunch of source 4s to the racks and then menace arm some 650 moles as spots so she will have pools of light to walk between and I'll blue up the source4s with maybe some window pattern cookies as background fill. This is a pretty rantalicious post, but it's helping me organize a few of my stray thoughts after a 14 hour work day and a new set in 5 hours. Oh god, I'm going to sleep, goodnight SA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
Andraste posted:Does anyone have any good suggestions as to a Frame I can transport in a pickup? I'm thinking I can fit an 8x or a 12x no problem. What I'd really like is a 20x that comes in sections of 10ft speed; can't say I've seen one before though. They make 20x frames made out of 10' speed rail, just ask for it at the rental house. Corners and ears are the same as standard 20x, but you'll need 2 speed rail connectors. Not really a specialty item, pretty common really. Sounds like a hell of a setup, hope you got enough man power to run the power, rig lights, and then shoot it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
Do any of you guys have experience keying out smoke? A lot of my projects involve gunfights and the muzzle flashes that come with Action Essentials are ok, but they don't have the large amounts of smoke and gas spewing out of the front of the gun and the angles are limited to directly to the side and straight on. My plan is to set up a row of lights beneath the gun so it will illuminate the smoke. I don't think a green screen would key out without artifacting heavily. Am I better off putting up a black curtain behind it and then using a luma key or extract? Or is it even better to just forego all the keying and just set the blend mode to screen? I also plan on getting the flash from several angles to give me a more variety to work with without having to do some extreme transforming. I have an HVX200a and I plan on shooting 720p60. Any recommendations as to shutter speed as well? Will this even work or does anyone have any better suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
I'm not sure on the best way to light it for actual shooting, but if you were to use action essentials you could mask out that smoke in a shape, speed it up so it seems more like gun smoke, and then make the layer 3d and rotate it to match the camera angle. If you animated the mask and feathered it, it should look pretty realistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:I'm not sure on the best way to light it for actual shooting, but if you were to use action essentials you could mask out that smoke in a shape, speed it up so it seems more like gun smoke, and then make the layer 3d and rotate it to match the camera angle. If you animated the mask and feathered it, it should look pretty realistic. They don't actually have the smoke that resembles that of shooting though. Plus I don't really like to use other people's stuff such as effects, sounds, and things like that. They have good smoke for fires, plumes, sparks and things like that, but the shape, speed, and look of their smoke doesn't match that of actual gunfire. Plus it gives me a chance to shoot my guns, try out different filming techniques, and try to record gunshot sounds again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 23:17
|
|