|
zer0spunk posted:Not true, certain camera systems are significantly less, especially when you factor in fixed lens bodies vs interchangeable systems. Regardless, the point is 4800 for a body vs 1400 for a body. If you're going to run audio into a recorder, that's a tough sell for a low budget producer/director. Well that's one thing, though - a $1400 body means you need a whole different system for recording audio, and that requires another person to run it. On a small budget program, that may not be viable. I'm gonna be doing a shoot in el salvador coming up, and I'm it for camera crew. No way am I gonna be running around w/ a DSLR + separate equipment for sound, I need to be able to pull the camera out the case, flip it on and be ready to go in a few seconds. But then that's sort of the whole point of the discussion - there are different cameras for different jobs. I would be interested in the AF-100 because clients want a lot of shallow DoF, but at the same time since I already have a great camera for run-n-gun, a DSLR might be the way to go to balance out what I've already got.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
zer0spunk posted:I think zacuto and redrock have been doing a decent job on that front..not a fan? I hate Zacuto's rigs. They are so off balance and so expensive. I love the Z-Finder, but not the rigs. I have never used a redrock rig. I have heard good and bad about them. I ended up getting a Genus rig because it was a little cheaper than a redrock, and also has a tripod adapter directly underneath the camera as opposed to on the shoulder pad like on the RR. I also got the $450 Genus Follow focus. It does have some play in it, but it is still fantastic. The rig also sits nicely on my shoulders and is fairly well balanced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
We have the Af-100's now, spent a couple hours today learning it. My findings: -Tested it with Zeiss Super Speeds and found the crop factor to be manageable despite the sensor being even smaller than the 7D. With a standard 5 piece lens set ranging 16mm - 85mm you get the same range of view as the HVX zoom. -The shallow DoF looks nice, but it still definitely has a more "video" look in the details, just make sure you turn on the shutter and set it to 180° to make the motion look less "video". The DSLR's and RED still look more filmic in this respect. -Records to SD cards. is hot-swappable for up 12 hours for one continuous clip. 16GB holds 1h 14m in 1080 24p high quality. -Has a dynamic range booster function that's pretty nifty. It works alright but the more you boost it the more it puts noise in the shadows. Outdoors it looks very nice, indoors it looks awful. -has an iso setting instead of calling it "gain". Base iso is 400. It's much faster than the HVX. -Get ready to sell your old panasonic batteries you used for the HVX/HPX/3D-whatever. This is a new battery that is the exact same shape and pin configuration except that it has a groove in the middle that makes it the only battery that fits in the af-100. Lame move panasonic, super lame. -SDI out, yay! -HAS ROLLING SHUTTER ISSUES! The verdict: The af-100 is best suited for stylish but inexpensive, fast and light shoots that require long takes. i.e. documentaries, concerts, weddings. will work for narrative if you can't afford a red and don't want to hassle with the 7D's limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:We have the Af-100's now, spent a couple hours today learning it. My findings: I'm pretty sure the AF-100 uses the same batteries as the HMC's, so just grab any VBG6's. I use these: http://www.adorama.com/IBYVWVBG6.html - they're roughly equivalent to the Panasonics that cost 5 times as much. I haven't gotten my hands on this camera yet, but if the DRS function is similar to their other cameras it's probably not worth using as it will make the shadows grainy as hell. Are you sure on the recording times? I could swear that Panasonic made no changes to the AVCHD recording, and a 16gb card usually gets you a little over an hour and a half. Have you had a chance to mess around with scene files? I like tinkering with the scenes to get as flat an image as possible. Sorry about the barrage of questions, but I'm trying to decide if the features are worth the price tag or if I should just get a 7D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 11:03
|
|
|
Boss-man wants to rent out the package with v-mount batteries mounted on a rod support system so it'll be powered through the D-tap, therefore no new batteries will be needed anyway. Recording times are approximate because it uses a variable bit-rate so it all depends on how much motion is going on in the frame. I didn't mess with scene files but the settings look exactly like the HVX/HPX.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
dvxuser has a whole bunch of people messing with scene files at the moment. Some are tweaking for minimal noise, others are tweaking for range etc. early favorites seem to be cinegamma v with a norm 2 matrix. Rolling shutter is minimal, you can spray the camera around without it being as bad as you'd think. Moire...nope, none. Had a 500mm lens on the camera and as long as I was moving the camera, following action, it was fine, but when i just held the camera still, every little bump, and heartbeat made it the picture go jello-ish. Awesome to have the xlr's in. VFR 1080 at 60p is beautiful The ability to dial the WB up and down to customize it is nice. Basically you set white balance then alter it incrementally if you want. big hiccup with the camera is that when recording VFR, no audio is recorded (like every Panny I've ever used) however the meters still show audio, and the headphones still play audio. So if you slip into VFR by accident, say 1080p30 VFR, it will look like regular video, and you will be monitoring good sound, but no good sound will be recorded. It's pretty much the number 1 firmware fix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Crossposting this from the DSLR thread in the dorkroom hoping for some extra feedback. I finally got comfortable enough with my first camera that I bought a couple months ago to try and put something together. I am a total newbie to filming and editing so any suggestions and advice would be appreciated. I had trouble with the white balance since all the cars/streetlights had different color lights AND because I'm a little bit colorblind. And forgot to set it for the indoor fluorescents. I tried to desaturate the footage and cool it down a bit but some of it was so green or orange it was hard to do much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0kOlj1Ws5U It's a collection of footage from the massive blizzard here in Chicago last week that I took after leaving work early (first time the gov. building I work at was closing down in 20+ years!). Long story short we took a bus over to the lake to try and see the 25 foot waves and ended up wandering unknowingly onto Lake Shore drive which was completely snowed over and abandoned. We only realized we were on it when we stumbled onto a tow truck stuck trying to get away from the car it was trying to tow... and then a couple abandoned cars... and then more cars with people in them, and buses, and plows, all covered with waist deep snow drifts (and this was still fairly early in the night). There's more about what happened at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/chicago-blizzard-stranded_n_817771.html My camera was all frozen over with ice but still seems to work fine! Again, I'd love to hear feedback.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
I liked it, all though it might have been a little long. I would have tried to pull a little story out of it. If you had established the group of guys earlier and made it seem like they were trying to get somewhere I think it would hold people's interest better. It's not a matter of making it seem like some epic journey it's not, you don't need a sense of urgency. But most people need to believe that there is some sort of point to what they're watching. Even if it's as simple as, "we're following these guys through a blizzard". As for the color correction. Fixing color temperature is often a matter of push/pull. Move the mids one way on a color wheel, then drag the highlights in the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips with working with flashing strobelights? I'm new to everything that isn't just screenwriting and I'm trying to create a scene lit by flashing strobes. The only camera in use is my HMC40. The shots are going to be completely stationary. I'm just having trouble keeping focus, and confused about how I should be doing the white balance in this scenario. Should I have some other lighting in addition to just strobes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Are you using manual focus? Do you have that option? I'd go with that, just try to balance as best you can and fix it in post. You may want to consider having a second duplicate video on top, desaturate it and pump the levels and white balance that, then drop the opacity so it's consistent. You might even be able to screen matte it if your blacks on the non-desaturated footage are good
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
The HMC40 does have a manual focus, definitely go with that. Is the scene completely dark other than the flashing strobes? If so, I would probably just go with 5600k and then adjust everything else in post. The other thing you could try is bouncing some lights off a large piece of foam core to try to fill the shot with even light, white balance using a card, then just crush the blacks in post, but it sounds like that might be too much production for you to handle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Alright goons, I need some advice on some things. Some friends of mine are doing a music video for a local solo artist, and I got asked if I wanted in on it. Since I've never done anything video related and have always been curious, I figure this is a good shot at it. This will be a total DIY job. We have plenty of DSLRs and lenses to use, so that's not really an issue. What they want to do is a video at night in the woods, and have a cityscape painted onto white sheets and backlit. They also want to have some bare lights hanging from overhead. I was thinking we could handle all of that with plain lightbulbs. I was thinking something like this: http://www.bulbtronics.com/Search-T...CookieSupport=1 I realize it would be best to have all of them the same brand / type so we have a consistent color temperature. We may throw in some colored foamboard or reflective material to give some variation in the background as well. And there will also be a fair amount of rigging the wiring / lights from overhead too. There will be a reliable power source there, as well as a backup generator just in case. And if we need some additional front fill light too, I can use the modeling lamps from some alien bees. Like I said, I've never done anything like this before. Are there some pitfalls I'm not thinking of? Is this feasible? Is there a better kind or cheaper bulb? We'll be testing the crap out of this setup before we shoot, but if this is a bad framework from the get go, I'd appreciate some input from you more knowledgeable goons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:Is this feasible? Could you give more details and some definition of success? Whats the song like? How about the artist? What mood do you want to convey? Is it going to be styled after an existing video? You've given a list of equipment, but that equipment might be perfect if the song conveys one thing or useless if the song is supposed to be about something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
I actually haven't heard the guy, but the idea for all of this was given to me by the two guys heading up the video. I'm going to just assume it fits, because it's what the artist and the two others wanted. I think he's more of a folksy solo artist, but I'm not 100% on that. They really just asked me how I'd go about it, and since I'm a strobe user, I thought you'd have more of a knowledgebase about this kind of thing. Those are really all the details I know at this point, I just wanted to go into the first meeting armed with an idea of the technical points of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
"At night in the woods" is going to be horribly painful. You need massive amounts of light for wide shots, and regular lightbulbs aren't going to cut it. They could work for closeups, but you're going to have to throw a LOT of light out there. The big thing is that not only do you have to light the person, but you have to light all the background so s/he's not just standing in front of complete darkness. You'll also have to deal with the fact that a backlit white sheet is going to WAY more bright than your artist, so you'll have to find some way to balance them out. In this sense I'd really try to go for a daytime shoot and then day-for-night it. I think doing it at night could *probably* work if you stick to closeups and throw massive amounts of light on the artist to compensate for the backlit sheet, and you go into it knowing this, but it would be *way* easier to day-for-night the shot in post, and if you're talking about shooting in the woods, it would be an easier sell. I would suggest going out and doing some test shoots of your setup before you try it at night, you really don't want to get everything out there and set up and find out you just don't have the light to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Just to reiterate, you need a SHITLOAD of firepower to light a wide shot at night, and there is probably no amount of piddly little light bulbs you could rig up that would even come close to making it work. Day for night is your best bet. Try to avoid shooting the sky if at all possible, and then grade the footage in post.
1st AD fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
This: Click here for the full 1200x618 image. Plus this:  Click here for the full 1200x512 image. Made this:  Click here for the full 1200x584 image. God I love being a film student 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
EnsGDT posted:This: Jesus, that looks pretty high-budget for a student film. Backstory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Jesus, that looks pretty high-budget for a student film. Backstory? 1930's bank heist period piece! To expound, the production rented the condor but everything else you see there is school owned/leased. A little town in Georgia let us shut down a 200 yard or so length of street with old, sort of occupied buildings on it and we got those picture cars from local old dudes. Hell, the costumes are from the FSU theater dept. Granted it is a thesis film but I think this year's thesis budget was ~$4k plus I think the DP and Director threw another grand or so in for design budget and renting kinoflos. Really, I was BBE and temporary one day dolly grip, so I didn't care about budget as long as my generator truck had fuel haha. EnsGDT fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:
Hey bro, I really dig this vid and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it a while ago after being linked from somewhere I can't recall exactly. Anyway, I love how it's just "Blizzard" and that's all there is to it. Excellent music choice and really good editing. It went a little awry for me when the focus was mainly on your buddies but if there was a common people to people interaction theme going on it would have looked fine. Just to me it seemed the vid was about a city snowstorm and then all of a sudden some guys on the freeway. You got some really good shots overall considering how short of notice you got (If any). I have to disagree with the poster who wanted a story though, I don't see what the purpose of one would be. It is simply nature, combined with the urban way of life we are accustomed to and how they clash. That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 08:46
|
|
|
So...I bought a JVC GZ-HM1 for $630 bucks. I'm just curious as to how versatile a 46mm lens diameter when it comes to add-ons like wide angles. I am wondering if I should try out a cheap ebay wide angle adapter or just go straight to the actual JVC lens for $200 plus. Ideas or suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 09:33
|
|
|
If anything, look up the lens model names on Youtube, you'll probably be able to find a few test videos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
Just use a 46-52mm step up ring and use any number of adapter lenses with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
I'm currently in the process of applying my own music to various video game trailers, but I'm having trouble re-encoding the video files. Also, I know next to nothing about working with video. My procedure goes as follows: I download the .mp4-file from youtube via a plugin, insert my own audio file in premiere, and encode the whole thing. Now if I chose H.264, it always comes out with lots of stutter/skipping. I re-encode with the same ratio/size, as well as audio resolution. Last night I tried doing the same thing using MP2, and no stutter/skipping happened. At first I thought it was because I've used the 44khz/16-bit audio track instead of the 48khz/32-bit one, but H.264 wound up stuttering just as well with the alternate track. It's not the CPU, it hardly goes over 50% during playback. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:Try using VirtualDub after exporting the whole thing as a lossless AVI. You could use just about any recent codec. Try DivX or XVid. Also, exporting H264 files tends to work best if you use Quicktime Pro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
You need an intra-frame intermediary codec. DNxHD can be gotten from Avid for free or through FFMPEG. I'd download Avid Codecs LE and convert using MPEG Streamclip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:Crossposting this from the DSLR thread in the dorkroom hoping for some extra feedback. I just bought a GH2 myself. Footage looks great. I don't know how you managed to hold it so steady, that camera is light as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Try using VirtualDub after exporting the whole thing as a lossless AVI. You could use just about any recent codec. Try DivX or XVid. I thought Quicktime is just a container format? I wasn't sure if Youtube accepts it, so I took a different option. butterypancakes posted:You need an intra-frame intermediary codec. DNxHD can be gotten from Avid for free or through FFMPEG. I'd download Avid Codecs LE and convert using MPEG Streamclip. Just dl'd it, will check it out. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:I thought Quicktime is just a container format? I wasn't sure if Youtube accepts it, so I took a different option. Quicktime Pro can edit and encode video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Hey how can I do the 3d name effect that the name sticks in one place like in the beginning of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SktbO9_Y7Qs Thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
tcdohl posted:Hey how can I do the 3d name effect that the name sticks in one place like in the beginning of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SktbO9_Y7Qs They're a practical, in-camera element in that particular video. Often though, you'll see titles nowadays that are composited into the scene after the shot has been matchmoved. To do that you need to use matchmoving software like Syntheyes or Boujou, plus a 3d CG program like Maya or 3ds Max. In certain circumstances, though, you can get away with using a 2d track in a compositing program such as After Effects or Nuke. Edit: If you were going to create something like this without using live-action elements, you'd have to also do some rotoscoping to composite your guys on bikes back over the top of the text where necessary. schmuckfeatures fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Has anyone used Twixtor extensively? I was wondering if there was any benefit to shooting 60p footage at any higher frame rate than 1/120 in preparation for doing an ultra slowmo video using the plugin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Has anyone used Twixtor extensively? I was wondering if there was any benefit to shooting 60p footage at any higher frame rate than 1/120 in preparation for doing an ultra slowmo video using the plugin. Twixtor can achieve quite good results if your moving subject/object is fully visible. If for example, an actor runs across the frame and is at one point behind a street-sign, it can happen that you'll get motion artifacts or jumping image-/body-parts in that area. Also, ultra slowmotion video is usually quite sharp. Since you're shooting less frames per second and probably with a longer shutter speed though, you will have significant motion blur in your frames, which Twixtor will keep, if not make "worse" by blurring it more when interpolating. If you have too much motion blur in your frame (e.g. when shooting a train running by full frame) it might not even work at all. It all depends on your setup, so you should be aware that this might happen. Try to shoot with as many fps and as fast a shutter speed as possible and have your moving stuff not behind anything like poles, branches, leaves, fences, etc. EDIT: I haven't worked with Twixtor much, but the few times I have, those were the issues that cropped up when shooting test scenes. Das MicroKorg fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Oh I know the limitations of the plugin, the image distortion around edges can be pretty prominent and distracting. So shoot at the highest shutter possible?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Has anyone used Twixtor extensively? I was wondering if there was any benefit to shooting 60p footage at any higher frame rate than 1/120 in preparation for doing an ultra slowmo video using the plugin. In my experience it's really no better than AE's pixel motion. You have far more control, but the results are about the same. 1/120 should be fine, like FLX said, shot composition is going to make a much bigger difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
I'm probably going to get poo poo for this in this thread, but I'm thinking that if I want to get into shooting video rather than still more, if I get something right now like a Flip or a GoPro, then I'll get more experience actually working with footage and going out and shooting straight away, rather than waiting until I can afford a better camera. Bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
It's not a terrible idea. Sort of like the tripod philosophy, the best camera is the one you always have with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:I'm probably going to get poo poo for this in this thread, but I'm thinking that if I want to get into shooting video rather than still more, if I get something right now like a Flip or a GoPro, then I'll get more experience actually working with footage and going out and shooting straight away, rather than waiting until I can afford a better camera. Bad idea? Please folks, do NOT hesitate to make posts in this thread. I've said before that this is one of the most vitriolic threads on this whole forum, and it's really a shame because I know there are lots of people interested in film/video but they read a few posts in this thread and get scared off. So please, post your questions, ignore the haters. Pants, I think that's a fine plan, but two things that will help you practice are being able to zoom and using a tripod. Being able to zoom will give you control over framing and composition without having to rearrange your scene or move your camera. Using a tripod is what will set your work apart from Caffiene McShakyhands' backyard wrestling documentary. But in the end it's just about getting footage recorded and learning from the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Get the best camera you can afford and start shooting. Do go pros not have zoomconttols? That would be tough for me to swallow. I'm pretty sure the flip cameras do, so I'd go with that. If you're making good stuff and know you want to continue investing in your equipment, then great, but you can start with anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:I'm probably going to get poo poo for this in this thread, but I'm thinking that if I want to get into shooting video rather than still more, if I get something right now like a Flip or a GoPro, then I'll get more experience actually working with footage and going out and shooting straight away, rather than waiting until I can afford a better camera. Bad idea? What kind of still camera do you have at the moment? Does it record video, and if not, would it make sense to sell it and get a low-end Canon DSLR (e.g. the 60D) with video capabilities?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 17:23
|
|