|
Walnut Crunch posted:Thing about a pre-production camera is performance can change dramatically, and so can the menu system. It might well be the way you describe when it's released but I wouldn't count on it. A lot changes between pre-production and production. The director did mention it was a possibility that they still may be making changes to the camera, so I wouldn't be surprised if they clean things up. Let's keep our fingers crossed! I guess I should have specified fast WA lenses, as the standard zooms do start at 14mm. The 17mm M. Zuiko 2.8 gives you the equivalent of a 35mm lens for $300, but that's in the top range for WA focal lengths. The 7mm-14mm f4 will set you back around $1k. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, as the versatility of being able to adapt nearly any lens is definitely a plus of the system. I would love to be able to use all my garage sale Canon FD lenses! I'm actually thinking about picking up a GF1 for everyday photos, as I need something smaller than a dSLR when I'm not working. It seems like a good compromise between body size and feature set. snugglysheep fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Nov 7, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
This isn't a cinematography question, per se, but I was looking to submit some demo reels lately, and I've noticed that a lot of people are using vimeo over youtube for their submissions. Is there any reason why? I'm thinking of getting a new account using my real name instead of my username (is this misguided professionalism?). edit: VVVVV I said "instead of Youtube." Unless I'm mistaken, Youtube sends links, too. mojo1701a fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
Because everybody has a computer, phone, or iPad with internet access and it's easier to send a link? edit: Oh, I see. From what I've seen the bitrate for Vimeo is a little better than Youtube, and the quality of Vimeo on a mobile device is leagues better than Youtube. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 03:11
|
|
|
It was also one of the first to stream in HD, and it's possibly got a little more prestige over YouTube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
I use vimeo for hosting all my stuff because a bunch of my videos are over 10 minutes long, but the quality is nice and the site layout is nice, too. It's pretty easy to work with. I have a client who is not technically savvy but she manages to set up and run her vimeo account just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
I use Vimeo for my reel, too. One thing I find useful is that its URLs are easier to remember since they're just something simple like vimeo.com/10885324 instead of the whole question-mark alternating-case thing you get on YouTube.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
I'm a complete videography and camera newbie and am still learning the fundamentals. I have a small-chip camera, the Panasonic AG-HMC40. My number one complaint is the sheer impossibility in having a smooth, non-jerky moving shot. I got the camera with a pretty cheap tripod (40-50 bucks) and it pans semi-fluidly but it is impossible to tilt without a violent jerking motion. Is there a low-budget friendly way to be able to walk around with some sense of stability? Or perhaps a cheap dolly rig? Will buying a higher quality tripod make a huge difference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Having a nice fluid head tripod definitely helps. A $50.00 hunk o' junk isn't going to get you very far. If you're serious about it, invest in a nice one. I'm not familiar with the camera you're using, but chances are it's also contributing to rolling shutter problems (that jerkiness when you're panning). For now, stick with static shots, or learn how to do handheld very smoothly. You aren't going to be able to get a cheap dolly rig that's worth a drat anyway. e: Be sure to learn the basics before you spend any money, and make sure that it's something you really care about. Good equipment is a huge investment, and it's only worth getting if you're going to work enough to get your money's worth. For just starting out, basic equipment is just fine. Once you get the technique down then you can start looking in to better gear. Rogetz fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Nov 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
You should also note that the HMC40's image stabilizer will cause jerkiness if you try and do a slow pan, even on a nice tripod. Disable it if you know you're going for that kind of shot (though honestly I just put it through the stabilization filter in FCP and it looks fine).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 08:09
|
|
|
Also, learn good handheld technique. Always use the top handle, never use the strap. Your HMC40 is too light to handhold without some added weight, grab a cheap monopod and attach it (collapsed) to the bottom for balance. If you're looking for a budget tripod, a Velbon DV700 or Matthews M25 are both decent for the money (under $200) and will be universes better than what you're using now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
If you have a cheap tripod and you can't seem to get it to START a movement without an initial jerk in the direction you're moving adding a bit of weight to your camera rig can help. Obviously not so much your tripod will collapse. Just enough to create the inertia needed to overcome the cheap plastic friction happening in the tripod head. Instead of beefing up your camera and adding accessories and things, just invest in a nice Fluid-head. If you invest in a good head, you can use it later on a monopod, slider dolly, suction-cup mount for cars, etc. A good fluid-head is ALWAYS valuable to have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
A fluid head is great but if you're on a cheap tripod then the head/sticks are probably one set, and even if you could separate them, a decent fluid head will normally need a 75mm+ bowl to fit, and cheap tripods won't be able to take that. If renting a decent tripod is an option, go with that, or if you can't get a rental, then yeah normally you want the best head you can get w/ a decent pair of sticks (legs) to upgrade later. When I bought my tripod I got a 503 fluid head and the most heavy-duty sticks I could find. Turns out to have been a huge PITA because the sticks are huge and heavy, but at the same time the only advantage I'd get from smaller sticks would be less weight, so there hasn't been a need to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
I've been meaning to try this to get decent-looking tilts and pans off a cheap-rear end tripod: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj6fMcJ18aA It's kind of a DV Rebel approach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
Thank you guys so much for the heaps of helpful advice! I am primarily a writer, but bought this camera on a tax-return because I feel this horrible urge to stimulate my visual side. Most of my screenplays are heavily image oriented and I don't know jack about professional cinematography. The camera came with a very helpful and accessible "intro" book. I think I should figure out exactly what I want to use the camera before I spend any more big lumps of cash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 09:51
|
|
|
Crosspostin dis from the CG thread. My producer wants to start incorporating a lot more matchmoved elements into the stories of the TV show I work on, and so basically I need to find a way to explain what kind of shots can and can't be matchmoved. It'd be best to have somebody there on the shoot who's matchmoved stuff before, of course, and I've supervised on set quite a few times so I know what will and won't work. But since these guys shoot all over the world, that won't really be an option. Is there any Cliffs Notes out there that would explain this kinda stuff succinctly to people who haven't done it before? Also, as camera crew guys, what have you guys found useful in terms of preparation for this kinda thing in a situation where detailed storyboards and previz weren't possible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 09:55
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Crosspostin dis from the CG thread. I think you're going to have to deal with a lot of less than ideal shots purely because they won't have the time to create an ideally marked and measured setup, that's why you're on set normally, but they should still be able to deliver plenty of usable material once they know what you need to work. I wouldn't worry about how to explain it because most camera crew will pick up on the logic quickly enough, I don't think you have to simplify it anyway. Just explain that you need as much reference as you can get to build your move and they will keep that in mind (if they're worth their salt that is). Maybe they can get a demo of how you actually matchmove an ideal shot so they'll understand what it takes. Show them the raw footage and then what your software does to it, followed by the result. You can explain what happens as you go along. That alone should do it, hour or two at your workstation and you're set. The most important thing is that whatever they need to do for you should take minimal time away from their primary duties, so teach them how to find and use natural tracking points in the environment and things like that. I'm constantly amazed at how well shots can be tracked from very little information nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 10:31
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:I've been meaning to try this to get decent-looking tilts and pans off a cheap-rear end tripod: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj6fMcJ18aA This is actually kinda cool, the pan is pretty smooth but you have to ignore the WHOA THIS TRIPOD IS SO UNSTABLE one first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:advice This is all great, thanks for your advice duder. I've followed your posts for years so it's excellent to get feedback from somebody with your experience.  Steadiman posted:I think you're going to have to deal with a lot of less than ideal shots purely because they won't have the time to create an ideally marked and measured setup, that's why you're on set normally, but they should still be able to deliver plenty of usable material once they know what you need to work. Yeah, that's why I'm thinking I may have to ask for a "Plan B" in case we end up with shots that simply can't be matchmoved in a reasonable amount of time. Usually there's always some kind of a workaround, but with the turnaround times we've got on this show we can't really be spending a week trying to fix a shot in post. Fortunately, though, they're only going to be wanting a couple of fairly simple elements to be thrown into the shot rather than doing full background replacements, and it's a stylistic thing rather than a fooling-the-eye VFX thing, so that leaves me with some wiggle room. Interestingly, I've found that tracking markers are usually only needed if you're filming on a greenscreen set or in otherwise totally featureless environment. Steadiman posted:Show them the raw footage and then what your software does to it, followed by the result. You can explain what happens as you go along. That alone should do it, hour or two at your workstation and you're set. Cool, good plan. Thanks again! schmuckfeatures fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Nov 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 09:51
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:This is all great, thanks for your advice duder. I've followed your posts for years so it's excellent to get feedback from somebody with your experience. quote:Yeah, that's why I'm thinking I may have to ask for a "Plan B" in case we end up with shots that simply can't be matchmoved in a reasonable amount of time. Usually there's always some kind of a workaround, but with the turnaround times we've got on this show we can't really be spending a week trying to fix a shot in post. Fortunately, though, they're only going to be wanting a couple of fairly simple elements to be thrown into the shot rather than doing full background replacements, and it's a stylistic thing rather than a fooling-the-eye VFX thing, so that leaves me with some wiggle room. . Well "Plan B" might just be having a second, locked off, take of every sequence. Could even be a second camera if that's possible. Though a second camera wouldn't work if you have a host playing to camera but I don't know what type of show you're doing of course. If you're doing basic elements then maybe all you need is some simple tennis balls for every element you wish to add and track those. This could save some hassle and give the people on set some tangible feedback on how to make your elements interact with the real world. Does that make sense? Then you'd only need to know the camera's focal length and you should be good to go. It might also be worthwhile to have the crew take some HDR photos on location to help you with light matching, maybe even give them the old mirrored/grey sphere to photograph if you want to get fancy in your rendering. Though again, I have no idea what the show is so that may be way too much.quote:Interestingly, I've found that tracking markers are usually only needed if you're filming on a greenscreen set or in otherwise totally featureless environment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
I have been meaning to pick up a slick HDcam to film some practical special effects. I'm not ready to buy something like the Panasonic HCM40 as a jumping off point, but the Panasonic TM700 looks incredible for less then half the price. The only thing that is holding me back from buying it, is that I'm reading you are forced to use the default Panasonic software, or a converter, as the TM700 1080p/50p captured footage is .mts, which is a non-AVCHD compliant 28Mbps format that most editing suites wont accept. Is this going to be a major headache later on, or only a minor inconvenience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
I'd say minor inconvenience, your workflow wouldn't be so different than most DSLRs. Buy something like Clipwrap and take your footage to ProRes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
I know it's not cinematography, but I'm 2nd AD on a film school set today and holy Jesus am I bored out of my goddamn mind. On the plus side I get to BBE tomorrow and that's at least doing math and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
that is one of the many reasons the ipad is the best production tool ever invented. is he checking the storyboards? logging a shot? going over sides? who knows, but it looks important! (is actually playing angry birds)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
I'm not even that surreptitious. I've got my iphone tethered to my laptop and am surfing SA with the excuse that I'm filling out our daily production report paperwork. Which was done like 3 hours ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
well to be honest if "hurry up and wait" drives you crazy, you're in the wrong business. at least some tiny part of why I made the leap to directing was so that I would actually be doing something the entire time I'm on set. of course I still do my own post which is why I'm browsing SA while my quad core melts itself rendering a project that's due to be shown in 2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
Nah with other hurry up and wait jobs on set I'm ok cause I can be planning ahead or staging equipment or building the next set we're going to be shooting on or tweaking lights or something. Film school 2nd AD is the king of doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 09:15
|
|
|
EDIT: Nvm. Found a better thread to ask my question in.
Hoborg fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Nov 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
Hoborg posted:EDIT: Nvm. Found a better thread to ask my question in. Actually, I'll ask here as it's semi-appropriate: Would a "first answer" copy of a short film/documentary have a soundtrack? I've been reading online and it seems that when referring to film-stock processing then a first-answer release often has bad colouring and no soundtrack (since that's a separate process for film). It's a kind of first-draft. But what about video shot by a non-film camera (VHS, DV, etc)? I read a PDF recently (I didn't save the URL, sorry) that referred to first-answer copies as having a soundtrack, but that isn't true of film-based films at least. Can anyone give me a straight word on whether a non-film stock 'first answer' video would have a soundtrack? FWIW the video was made around 2001, but I don't know if they used a separate sound recording system or just whatever was built-in to the cameras. Thanks. Hoborg fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Nov 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Nope. I found one source (it doesn't look very authoritative though, and it isn't the same one I saw before), but it's here. It says: Some book posted:The first answer print is the first combined (action and sound) print produced by the laboratory... Whereas this paper on celluloid film (page 8) says: Some paper posted:Since the first answer print is usually made for timing purposes; that is to check color balance and exposure, it is almost always a silent print (MOS-without sound). Finally, this book here implies that some film-based prints do have soundtracks: Some other book posted:...and the laboratory marries the printed film to the soundtrack [...] the lab then strikes your first answer print Of note, all of these apply to film-stock printing as opposed to video, which makes things even more confusing for me. But I'll take your word for it. EDIT: I've found a few more. This one implies that they're silent, but not always, if post-production soundwork is going on at the same time as color timing, in which case it's a blacktrack print. But this other glossary contradicts that, saying "Answer Print - This is the first corrected print made from the A&B Rolls, printed with the optical track. It is sometimes called a married print because it is the first time that picture and sound are wed together on the same piece of print stock." In conclusion, I hate the Internet. Hoborg fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
What's your situation? You're probably not going to be able to playback an optical audio track anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
I get to gaff my first paid green-screen work this weekend, I've had green-screen in shorts I've dp'd and I've worked with it in my digital SFX class as well as in an editing class. But boy, I'm still a little nervous about properly exposing it and using my lights to light the subjects without loving continuity or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 10:22
|
|
|
Andraste posted:I get to gaff my first paid green-screen work this weekend, I've had green-screen in shorts I've dp'd and I've worked with it in my digital SFX class as well as in an editing class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 12:28
|
|
|
Andraste posted:I get to gaff my first paid green-screen work this weekend, I've had green-screen in shorts I've dp'd and I've worked with it in my digital SFX class as well as in an editing class. Make sure all of your subjects stand as far from the green screen as double the height of your tallest actor. Otherwise, just remember which side your key is on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
Hi all, I posted this originally in the hw/sw forum probably not the right venue. Any information would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of trying to identify what are the most popular formats used by production companies to transport and work on their media digitally. Breaking down the industry into live events and productions such as films/commercials, their media format is most likely dependent on the type of camera they use and how the media is then recorded to tape. Since I am interested in how they then record it digitally that is a more specific question. I have two examples below can someone either correct or validate my thoughts on this? Thanks! Example #1: FOX records a live football game using Sony Cameras. They record the game onto tape in the recording truck. FOX wants to immediately send a copy of the game digitally to a post-house for editing. FOX takes the tape and ingests its content into a computer that then creates the digital file(s) possibly a variant of MXF to be sent out via secure FTP or even FEDEX on a drive to the post-house. Most post production shops must be able to accept a variety of digital formats I’m trying to find out what are the most popular formats they get. Example #2. Peter Jackson wraps up a day of filming The Hobbit and wants to get a copy of this work to England A.S.A.P. The fastest way would be digitally. He used a RED camera so his media is already in digital format. He simply has one of his minions send a copy of the R3D Files to the post house where they immediately start to work on the files.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 13:04
|
|
|
Most popular formats. At low level: News: no one knows what is going on. You talk to researchers and they have no idea about format. Normally you send 720p h.264 .mov and no one ever complains. The promo units want Avid DnxHD or however you spell it. Footage sales to production companies (for discovery, major broadcasters) take your pick. They normally want our DVCPRO HD .mov, or prores files. We use an accellion system to send our files out. Client gets a link that they can download huge files from. If we're sending out bulk footage we fedex it out. The big boys have a private, digital, highspeed, encrypted network they send their files through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Most popular formats. At low level: Thank you so much for the feedback I've been having a very hard time getting any opinions to match up. I assume the industry is in a flux with the introduction of digital formats and lack of standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
eclipse232 posted:Thank you so much for the feedback I've been having a very hard time getting any opinions to match up. I assume the industry is in a flux with the introduction of digital formats and lack of standards. It's always "in flux". Digital formats are not new.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 18:08
|
|