|
I'm not much of a post guy, but on the last shoot I did AC on the EX3 (with Pro35 Adapter, the resulting images were quite nice) there was no 2nd and I had to do the file storage as well, the SxS cards fit right into the Macbook, we had a file browser/previewer and I used it to copy the clips to 3 hard drives, just drag and drop the thumbnails and it takes care of cue files, folder structure and meta data automagically. Then afterwards there was a prog to convert it from the proprietary thing to a file format of your choice. I can't remember the name, but it all was easy as cake and I think it came from the Sony website if that helps you any. EDIT: I might have misunderstood, if you don't have the cue files any more, you are screwed? No tool to rebuild them?
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Momonari kun posted:Each of the "clips" comes in a folder. I have the folder for each clip (it includes a .smi, .xml, and two others I can't remember, I'm at work now), but I seem to recall there being another file that lived in the parent folder. I can't remember if there was or not, and I don't have easy access to the camera to test the theory. Yeah, I tried moving them with the Mac file browser at first and noticed that as well, that's when I switched to the other prog. Too bad man.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2009 19:41
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:Hrm, I'm starting to question someone's commitment to sparkle motion... I always get strange looks from my friends when I use that quote even though they all saw and enjoyed the movie. Good to see someone else use it, that means either I'm not weird or you are too!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
I think once you get to reasonably well-paid jobs, people are hiring you as an expert in your department, and multiple credits on the same shoot might indeed weaken your outlook, if a production is looking solely at your CV. You didn't put a 100% into the job you were hired for is the way it might seem, or worse, you don't know what you really want to do. Camera? Catering? Grip? Lights? Extra? With productions where you end up by recommendations and reputation this doesn't count. On small productions, the more you make known you are the jack of all trades, the more it will be expected of you, plus you are breaking job opportunities for others. Why hire another lighting technician for a big day when you know the camera department will spend their idle time helping out? I always help out when the need arises, but I don't advertise it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
When it's sunday morning and your phone rings you out of a drunken slumber, you should really not answer it unless you want to find yourself on a set an hour later. It did turn into an excellent day though, good pay and a lot of explosions and cars flying around!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Even my sleepy self knows which calls to take and which to let roll to voicemail. I don't...I had said yes before I was even awake. Then followed a few long tormenting minutes of "gently caress I don't wanna get out of bed". But as I said, it turned into an excellent day once I accepted it. They just shouldn't do it every sunday or I will learn to say no one of these days.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 11:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Philip Bloom: http://vimeo.com/8100091 Thanks for linking, that was loving awesome! I think the only bad shot in there was the water splashing into the pond of the fountain. It was just too blurry and on the verge of turning into a blotch of artifacts. Other than that I really loved it, especially the tiltnshift stuff. Beautiful place and well captured. Edit: Did he even use tiltnshift? The shots at 1:18 and 2:29 look like it, right? I find nothing about TnS on his blog. Frost fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 13:55
|
|
|
mechaforce posted:Honestly the new arri doesn't do much for me. I like the EX1 (and moreso the EX3) too, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Noise reduction always means a drop in information, as is evident even in the tiny vimeo window. A larger latitude and light sensitivity will beat that easily but comes with a higher price tag. Different tools for different needs, as always.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
mechaforce posted:Yes and no - - my main point was that you don't need to drop 60k to shoot in ultra low light and keep it looking good. The noise removal plugin we used actually retains 99% of the data since it uses sampling. See, this is plain wrong. There's people putting up numbers, comparison tests and specs on everything and thinking that's what defines the quality of their work. You seem to forget that even the most beautiful and technically perfect shot is worthless dreck without being part of a good movie, which in turn depends on shots that work, not shots that are technically perfect. It seems a lot of young cameramen who call themselves DoP seem to be working for their reel instead of the project they signed up for. So they are more interested in shooting with the nicest equipment, and a lot of technical dickwaving ensues. No real DP should give a poo poo about camera specs beyond the point where the question "Is this the most suitable for the film?" is answered. The whole film vs. video thing has turned into video vs. video but it's still just as ridiculous an argument. Tiresias posted:You seem to qualify "quality" in terms of highest quality, but not highest quality as dictated by the story. Lower resolution, digital filmmaking very much so has it's place in the "visual medium". This is exactly what I mean. There's a book about Robby Müller where he talks extensively about putting himself at the service of the story. The interview was conducted by Wim Wenders. Müller is one of the people that are very hard to define in terms of visual style, because for every movie he does what is needed, not what his ego wants. I don't know if this book was released in English speaking countries, but if you can get your hands on it, it is a very interesting read and a lot of the spec-waving people would do good to seek it out. Frost fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Apr 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:The new tech still has several drawbacks, however. The sensor in the 5D that captures the video is much smaller than sensors in professional video cameras. This leads to a reduction in picture quality as the camera isn’t able to capture as much information. The sensor in the 5D is also prone to vertical aliasing on quick horizontal panning shots, due to the way the camera captures video. To make the video look professional still requires all the work of a professional set as well. Audio still needs to be recorded separately, lighting still needs to be set up, and your crew is still just as big. The glaringly wrong thing here is that the chip is smaller than your average professional camera. Actually the 5D has a fullframe sized chip which is significantly bigger than a 35mm frame or its equal in chip size, like the Red One has. (The 7D has a reduced size chip though) The 5D/7D do have a terrible compression and require lots of post work. The aliasing issues are right on though and the rest can be called an informed prediction. butterypancakes posted:Trailer for the finale of House. That's super shallow depth of field for you, plus youtube compression smudging out the little that is in focus. I imagine it won't be so soft in a proper HD broadcast. Then again it's a bitch to focus the 5D with photo lenses and I can guess even the experienced focus pullers on House were sweating a lot and some corners had to be cut. I pulled focus on some small 5D projects and it's not a walk in the park, especially not handheld and in dimly lit shots.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 11:17
|
|
|
I was wondering that as well, and my guess is he faked a narrower depth of field?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
I dayplayed on a tv movie on monday where we tested the HD Hero. We clamped it to a skateboard for some editing fodder and it does produce nice pictures for being as small as a pack of cigarettes. Sadly it also suffered heavily from rolling shutter as soon as rough terrain made the board vibrate. Started to look like the picture was made of goo. I guess with a higher frame rate and a dampened rig it would have worked better, but we didn't have the time for more testing. Still, I think it's a promising little tool. Here's some unrelated footage of the Hero, there's some cool rig shots in there that hint at the possibilities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aJzYioSDi4
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 21:50
|
|