|
That may have been true a year ago, but I put up a 1080P file the other day from a 2-pass, high bandwidth h.264 encode and the end results were pretty god drat close to the original. It's better looking than a lot of digital cable HD channel feeds I've seen. By the way, if you're encoding to Flash first, you're doing it wrong. Transcode as efficiently as possible, with as much bandwidth as possible. It's going to transcode it again no matter what you do, you want to feed it as much information as you can. Anyway, a bad transcode still doesn't affect the latitude as much as the resolution. They must have seriously hosed up the encode in some bizarre fashion if there was really supposed to be detail in those blacks.
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
Yep, sucks to be you. Conform everything to Prores at 720p24 and be prepared to spray doo doo everywhere when the batch monitor ETA comes up. Hope you don't have a deadline! The flip video is going to be the worst, since it has to interpolate frames and motion estimate to get to 24p. If you can trim down a majority of what you think you'll need for the edit, do it before the conversion. also next time have a timecode clock running somewhere the cameras can see it. have the camera ops shoot 5 seconds of timecode at the top of every clip. that way you can stop on a frame, enter the timecode on the screen and everything will sync up nicely. this is known as "ghetto rear end smpte" Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
quote does not equal edit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
1st AD posted:edit: How would you manage SMPTE sync when the festival is set up like this? Jam sync at the start of the day, then free run and hope it doesn't drift too much (it will drift too much) If you have multiple angles of the same event, use this: http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html If you do multicam shoots, you can't live without this software. It will even automatically make multiclips for you in FCP. It is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Our IS guy thinks I'm a fool and we could have got more for cheaper if we were on PC's running Avid, with Avid shared storage. have him give avid a call and see what they quote him for a Unity ISIS with the same specs and storage. that should shut him up pretty fast. bet some money first if he'll go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:I'm going to be shooting a webseries in a few months on a Z5U, and my friend who works at a film lab said that she's willing to strike a 35mm print for free (labor). Yeah, there's no point whatsoever unless you want to present it in a theater that doesn't do digital. The materials cost is the bulk of the expense anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Some DPs probably still love the look of video noise. Sometimes it's the director. Dion Beebe does great work, except when Michael Mann demands he shoots with a 24fps shutter and the grain pumped up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:I think Michael Mann didn't necessarily make that demand. Moreso, from what I hear about how he works, he just demanded they stop wasting time and just shoot. DP had no time to light, so he probably instructed the camera ops to push the gain up so they'd at least have an exposure. Many of the shots looked great in "Public Enemies", but some looked absolutely poo poo. Beebe didn't shoot Public Enemies. Mann's been using that technique since Collateral, I'm pretty sure he's doing it on purpose. Public Enemies was a multi kazillion dollar movie, he could have gotten any look he wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 13:43
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Interesting video of previs for 3d shoot. Annotations list their concerns about certain shots. It's awesome that you're getting to play with that stuff though. People experienced with 3D are already in hot demand, and there isn't even a consumer format yet. It'll be a great thing to have on your resume.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Slumdog won because it was incredibly well shot despite an incredibly challenging environment. I seriously doubt the Academy considers format over technique, if at all. For the record, it definitely wasn't shot on HDV.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:Please don't ever do this again. This is a recession, it's nothing more than an rear end in a top hat move to post a job listing that you have no intention of hiring someone for, even if it is for *science* I completely disagree. I have different RSS searches linked to different boilerplates, it takes me maybe 10 seconds to tailor a cover letter to an ad. It's really no skin off my nose if someone is just doing research. Who knows, maybe he'll like my reel and remember me when he's hiring.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:I got the idea somewhere that the 5D had a 35mm sensor. In photography terms, it does. Even the crop sensor in the 7D is way, way, way, way, way bigger than any standard video sensor. 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:Yeah, poor ethic on my part for going off the assumption it was smaller because its chart(posted a few pages back) was shittier. I don't mean to drag this out, but how does a resolution chart tell you anything about sensor size?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:40 feet of dolly track (5 sticks of 8) running over a natural washout in the desert. i just had a really horrible visceral reaction to that sentence i do not actually want to know how long that took to level but i'll ask anyway
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
What the hell school do you go to where you get to shoot your student film on panavised 35mm?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 08:28
|
|
|
leave the zoom alone. just leave it alone. stop it.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:This is a short I wrote, directed, composited and edited last year. It was set up on a saturday, shot on a sunday and I spent a few months in my spare time working on it. I'm aware the actress has a bit of an accent, but I don't mind it. I like the concept, and it's well acted but there are a couple things that kill it for me. 1. The music. loving hell. Get rid of it. Do literally anything else. Your pacing was fine, you do not need to fill the gaps with an amateurish rehash of the Ghostbusters score. 2. You lost her eyes. Noir is fine, but you need to keep something reflected in the eyes or people seem dead. This is especially important with long monologues like this one. Next time get an obie or something on camera to spark them up a little. You also clearly needed fill on the closeup, but I can't tell if that was a style choice or a mistake. 3. Was the fact that her lover is a woman supposed to be a shocking twist or something? If so, you should be aware that this is the year 2010, and the fact that lesbians exist is generally not considered a revelation.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:It was a stylistic choice. It was shot green-screen in a very cramped space so the lighting got kind of flat. This was an attempt to make it look more interesting. I'm actually quite pleased with how the DOP made it look, especially under the circumstances, but the colour correction may have gone a bit overboard (uncalibrated monitors, sigh). I definitely prefer stark shadow contrast to the usual flat greenscreen look, I think you made the right call there. The eyes are still an issue though. Keep a 25w bare bulb in a clip lamp in your kit, and stick it on the camera rig. Cheap, easy fix.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Do not cheap out on softboxes. They will burn the gently caress down. Stick to Chimera, Lastolite, Westcott or Lowel. Make god drat sure they're meant for continuous light, not strobes.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Cut up some black T-shirts and get some clothespins. You can control china balls pretty well by flagging them off.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Gossamer posted:Just wanted to get a little feedback on this. I've been shooting some short scenes for my first feature project, trying to create a trailer and a good 30 minute portion of the film to show to potential producers. I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for. It's 5 minutes of MOS B-roll. It's very attractive B-roll, but if I were a potential investor I'd need a hell of a lot more to go on.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:1. The AC white balanced occasionally to what? What color temp did you want to be shooting at? Who was operating, and why didn't they notice the color temp changing? This was the first thing I wondered too. It looks like he white balanced to an errant orange rolling across the set. How do you fail to notice that on the monitor? The lesson to be learned here is not "the AC hosed us over" or "the DIT hosed us over" or "the colorist hosed us over". Those people are there for the day to do their jobs and go home. The responsibility ultimately lies with the department head. In this case, the DP. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:I see no reason why you can't film a feature with a tiny cast and crew, as long as you're realistic about your capabilities and craft your script to reflect that. I don't think you need a director + DP + cameraman + AC if you can build a script around one person wearing all those hats and choose equipment that reflects that choice. What is your filmmaking experience so far? What are some films you enjoy watching?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:But I also know that a lot of people in the industry feel threatened by the possibility that this new technology will make their job obsolete. That's a huge pile of bullshit. The only production job I can think of that has been obsoleted by digital cameras is clapper/loader. It wasn't even really obsoleted, just replaced by DTI. I guess if some career 2nd AC never learned how to ingest files they'd be out of a job, but nobody stays a 2nd AC for very long anyway. Even if you think cameras somehow take less people to operate now than they used to (they don't), the fact is that lights, sound, production design, producing, directing and acting are still basically the same departments they were 30 years ago. All that said, please don't think I'm trying to discourage anyone from making a film. Just be realistic about what that phrase actually means. If you have the talent, drive, time and cash to make a movie with just you and your buddies, DO IT. I'm only trying to dispel the notion that your $800 T2i is a replacement for a competent gaffer or feeding your actors. Camera gear is number 35 or so down the list of poo poo you need to worry about when making a movie. That's probably being generous come to think of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:My only point is that new technology is bridging gaps, and it now makes it _possible_ for tiny crews to do what once took an army. I don't understand why people continue to believe this. I don't understand how people read camera forums and flip through Gizmodo and Engadget and come away thinking that digital cameras sprout robots that do your budgets, scout your locations, feed your crew, light your sets, drive the trucks, generate your power, level the dolly, write your shot lists, supervise the script, build your sets, paint your props, workshop your actors, get clearances, hold the boom, record the audio and operate themselves. I bet the next model will write your script and edit it for you. You can make a movie with no money and a bunch of friends. Plenty of people have done it, you might have even seen a tiny percent of them. El Mariachi, Clerks, Following and Primer are all absolutely amazing movies, shot for next to nothing that propelled their creators to fame and fortune. They were all shot on film. I would never, ever, ever discourage anyone from making a feature film. It's one of the most rewarding experiences I can imagine being a part of. However, if you're arrogant enough to think you don't need professional help, incredible amounts of debt and years of dedication to pull it off, well I can introduce you to about a dozen people I know with projects on "permanent hiatus" while they work off their credit card debt and beg everyone they know for another couple hundred bucks so they can just finish that one scene. Know what you're getting into. Do the work you need to do to make sure that your film can be completed. Nobody will ever watch the half finished movie you can't get finishing funds for. Once you've done that, then you can pick up a camera and tell your story. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:Everything in this post is spot on. How do you know that? edit: holy poo poo steadiman we got some weird rear end avatar sync going on Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:No film vs. video talk, dammit" You seem to have missed not only my point, but the point of the thread title. I cited those movies because they were shot before the DSLR craze. Some of them before HD video even existed. My point is that people have been making zero budget movies for almost as long as people have been making movies. The chances of those zero budget films to gain any sort of mass media traction is the same now as it has ever been. Digital filmmaking is absolutely changing the way people make movies. It is not, however, changing the business of making movies, at least nowhere near as significantly as you seem to think. Jalumibnkrayal posted:You're forgetting something called distribution. 30 years ago it would've been limited to the physical reel and finding someone both with a projector and a desire to see the movie in a specific setting. Now you can upload a video to websites dedicated to showcasing independent films where it can be viewed by hundreds to millions of people. Online distribution is also a red herring. No, you don't have to rent a theater to show your movie anymore, but buying a Vimeo Pro account is not the same thing. Unless your film is either uniquely amazing in some way or backed by a marketing push, you are no more likely to attract viewers to an online presentation than a run down cineplex in Skokie. And if your film is that amazingly unique or you have money for marketing, it doesn't really matter what format you're on. People will see it. There is also very little monetization available yet. You are going to go into debt making a feature film worth watching. You are not going to recover that debt online. You seem to believe in a glorious new dawn of DIY digital filmmaking, and I honestly want to share your enthusiasm. In a lot of ways, I used to before I tried to make some sort of a living doing it. The fact is, the physical act of making a movie that people want to watch takes an inhumam amount of effort, coordination and talent. It can not be done by one person alone. Digital technology doesn't change that. Making a zero budget movie requires a script that can be shot with no significant post, five actors or less, natural light, free locations and no extras, while staying incredibly compelling for 90 minutes. If you have that script, please send me a PM, I will buy it immediately. In fact, I'll trade you all of my digital camera gear for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
I heard they're gonna show off the Scarlet for real this time, now it comes with an evf and the sensor is a new kind of bwahahahaha oh god i can't do it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
The biggest thing I'd like to see in Final Cut is being able to use audio unit plugins and keep the native plugin interface window. That would save me having to export to pro tools for probably 85% of the projects I do. That and integrating something like pluraleyes into the multiclip system would blow my god drat mind. Motion and Color need a whole lot of work, but most of that is just getting them on par with FCP's UI and stability. I would probably use Soundtrack once in a while if it wasn't a buggy piece of poo poo, too. Oh and Compressor needs to be burned to the ground and rewritten, but people have been saying that for three revisions and it just keeps getting worse so yknow. whatever. anyway, none of that depends on Quicktime afaik. Also, Quicktime was completely overhauled for Snow Leopard as well (badly). I don't see how messing with Quicktime helps Final Cut at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
infiniteseal posted:You mean you don't see how Quicktime is the entire backbone for everything video-related on OS X? Final Cut Pro is basically a glorified XML-generator for organising Quicktime videos I know what Quicktime is. I mean that everything that needs fixing or improving with the Final Cut Studio suite is UI, stability or plugin related. Film is the "entire backbone" for a steenbeck, but better emulsion doesn't make editing with it any easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:FCP won't get any real 64-bit support or better multi-core handling without a QT overhaul, that's what I was talking about. That's definitely stability and performance related. Quicktime X is 64 bit, QTKit has been 64 bit since 10.5, and I don't really know how FCP could be more multi-core friendly, especially considering that most of the threading management is done by the OS now with Snow Leopard. If there's anything keeping them from making FCP a 64 bit binary, it isn't Quicktime. I like compressor too, I just wish it wasn't so crashy and broken into a bazillion applications. I would like to see one nice efficient front end that combines Compressor, Qmaster, Qadministrator, and Batch Monitor. I barely even open compressor itself anymore now that I have a droplet set up for everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:The way I understand it QT X provides a fraction of the functionality of QT 7. Everything I've read points to that as the reason why FCP hasn't had a substantial update since 6.0. They stripped a ton of stuff out of the player, which is now useless. The player doesn't have anything to do with FCP or QTkit though. I don't know what you'd call a "substantial update" but FCP 7 has a poo poo ton of new stuff I now can't live without. First and foremost being able to retime clips in a sequence without doing a ripple edit, which is loving enormous. That combined with the new ProRes stuff, the new tab and marker system, the multiclip improvements and the better-if-still-flaky 3D stuff in Motion... I dunno, I'd call that a substantial update. That and they FINALLY gave us a floating timecode window. The only thing I wasn't impressed by is the new alpha transitions, but that stuff always struck me as pandering to the iMovie crowd anyway. I would be a lot happier with Compressor if it didn't constantly decide to forget my cluster settings, but yeah I guess it's better than the alternatives. edit: wow, that episode thing looks awesome, but I'm really not paying $500 for a better version of compressor. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 01:01
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:Is B&H the most highly regarded online retailer? Far and away. Next runner up would be Adorama, but their customer support staff are some of the least pleasant people i've ever dealt with. The only reason to buy from them is if B&H is out of stock and you need something RIGHT NOW.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Without something for scale it's hard to tell, but it's either a 1/4"x20 or 3/8"x16 screw. Any cine shockmount should work. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/429633-REG/Rode_SM4.html
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I have h.264, 1080p/24p footage from a Canon T2i that I'd like to edit into a movie without having to convert to a lossy format like ProRes. This statement is pretty much the pinnacle of irrational pixel peeping.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2010 03:45
|
|
|
I finally got a magic trackpad after hearing rumors of how awesome it was for final cut and holy poo poo it's awesome for final cut. pinch to zoom the timeline, two finger horizontal / vertical scroll, three finger swipe to go forward and back by clip, rotate to scrub. I had a shuttle pro, this is much, much, much better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
It takes getting used to, but I haven't noticed it to be more or less accurate than a mouse after a couple of weeks. Get BetterTouchTool, it's practically a requirement.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
snugglysheep posted:The only other SLRs I've shot with are the 5Dmk2 and T2i, and both have much better LCDs. Unfortunately neither are really great at sending out a high-resolution signal whlie recording over HDMI. I guess it all depends on what you're shooting and what is important to you, the GH2 is a good camera for its price point. Did you try the EVF? Was it useful or was it like looking at an iphone through a toilet paper roll? Can you have the EVF and LCD on at the same time? I'm vacillating between the GH2 and 60D for my personal camera. I direct more than I DP, so for serious projects I would have my DP put together a package anyway. This is for little one-off projects, video art kind of stuff and the occasional micro budget music video. I shot a project with a t2i and a 7D recently, which came out nicely. I found I could focus fine with the LCD, but the lack of articulation was a total dealbreaker. I ended up tethered to a monitor, which for handheld sequences was a giant pain in the balls.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
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
|
|