[Bill Davis]

Mark’s solution works really well.

The other part of the equation is lighting. The best way to light a green screen is with a broad, diffuse light source. long tubes work better than short tubes. So the best solution is to use color balanced fluorescent fixtures.

If you’re going to be using them with traditional tungsten video lighting for the people appearing in your videos, you want the tubes that are color balanced the same as your other lights.

Look at https://www.coollights.biz. Richard A sells some really nice affordable fluorescent color balanced lights that work well for greenscreen. I recommend the 4light fixtures. With your ceiling height, you can mount one of these directly above a single person subject – lowered to about 9′ to provide 3 feet clearance over their head – aimed back at the green surface and get a smooth key behind someone. If you want to key more than one person – you’d mount more than one fixture – spreading them out so that as the light from one falls off, the spill from it’s neighbor reinforces the fall off. Your goal is a smooth, even field of green.

Then light the people as you would for any decent interview keeping them at least eight feet out from the wall to avoid too much green reflected spill off your key wall.

That should get you started.

Good luck, and let us know how things work out.

[Bill Davis]

CROSS Posted in Audio Professionals. Better Info there.

[Bill Davis]

Jarred,

Simply accept this REALITY.

The Canon 5dMkii was an ACCIDENT. NOBODY (including from my reading, the original designers!) really expected the DIGIC processor at it’s heart to have the capacity to reliably blast frames using a significant portion of the HUGE raster of the sensor out at video speeds. There was much concern in the early days about chip overheating and other problems about using the camera for extended video shooting. None of that came true. Which was great. But the REAL astonishment was that nobody expected the results to be such INCREDIBLE, BEAUTIFUL video imagery. In short, nobody ever expected this thing to work like it does.

They were caught short – just like the ENTIRE market – when they learned just how STUNNING the video was from this camera.

For proof, look at how they’ve scrambled to re-program the camera to add video features AFTER THE FACT.

So we were all given a wonderful, dynamic accident. But it was still an ACCIDENT. There was NO parallel accident on the AUDIO side of this camera. It’s audio capabilities are MARGINAL at best. They’re about what you’d expect from a Flip camera. Limited bandwith, lo-fi, “always on” Auto Gain Control (AGC) audio that will NEVER be acceptable in any professional workflow – no matter HOW many interim boxes you attach to the gizmo.

The issue is that, on a scale of 1 to 10 – the VIDEO from a 5dMkii managed by accident to be a 20. Therfore all the ruckus.

However, the fact you have to FACE is that the AUDIO will never be better than a 2 or a 3. That’s the NATURE of the design of the audio section of the beast.

You can work your ass off to make that 3 the best 3 it can by by chasing it with tricks (pilot tones) and adding expensive mics and pre-amps, and other stuff – but ALL YOU CAN DO IS GET IT UP TO A 3 because that’s all the audio it was EVER designed for.

3 is fine for home birthday parties. 3 is NOT fine for real professional work.

So we use the Zoom or something similar because it gets us an audio 10 which matched with the VIdeo 20 is pretty damned amazing. And some folks with HUGE budgets use the video 20 of the 5d with a whole hollywood sound department to match the Video 20 with an Audio 20. Which is why you get HOUSE and Lucas Films in the game, etc.

But ACCEPT that the camera is an Audio 3 and will NEVER be anything else, no matter how much you WISH it would be. The lightening struck in the Chip and in the Processor. There was NO lighting left to hit the beast’s Audio circuits.

Sorry.

[Bill Davis]

I have one of the Glidetrack units out of England – and I like it a lot. It’s a LOT cheaper at a couple of hundred bucks. It works great within it’s limitations. (Don’t mount a Betacam, it’s designed for a DSLR dangit!)

I do agree that you should only use it at it’s full lengh with a couple of “outrigger” stands. No matter WHICH unit, even the expensive ones, will develop some “shimmy” if supported only in the middle.

I keep mine in a light stand soft case with a couple of small Bogen “Stacker stands” which work great for stabilizing the ends of the track – and I can get smooth moves across the whole width of the unit.

YMMV.

[Bill Davis]

Chris,

I’ve seen EXACTLY the same thing out here in AZ.

What I witnessed over the past two years is that in a headlong rush to cut LABOR COSTS (the single largest fixed ongoing costs of ANY business enterprise) corporate execs would do something that, on first analysis, looks sensible…

If you have, say, 30 folks in a department – and you want to generate significant savings – you cut the MIDDLE personnel out. In other words, to get down to TEN associates, you’d protect the seven lowest salaries of the admins or new folks at the bottom – because they do the bulk of the paper shuffling and phone answering and keep things actually RUNNING. AND you’d cut down to two supervisor types at the TOP of the department, plus a Department Manager or VP cuz you’ve got to have someone to liaise with the suits in the executive suite. And so you cut out the MIDDLE of the department to generate the largest savings while still keeping just enough bodies around to make it seem like you’ve still GOT a department.

BUT…

While yes, you GUT the people who COST you the most – sadly these happen to be the experienced middle and upper middle folks who’ve put in time learning their crafts and who actually know how to PRODUCED QUALITY for the department. These are the folks who’ve risen from the ranks and typically after learning the game, have become what I call the “smart heart” of the business.

The problem is that when you dump these folks, the ONLY people you have left above the FUNCTIONARY level are the upper managers and VP types. And suddenly THESE FOLKS have to do the actual WORK of the department. They’re typically smart enough, and if they came up through the ranks, they also may even have had writing and/or creative chops at some point, but now they’re suddenly having to cover for ALL that lost talent in the middle.

Over the past year, I’ve worked side by side with VPs and Senior VPs trying to write video scripts. They’re educated and intelligent – but the are NOT scriptwriters. And in other businesses, just as your note describes, I’ve worked with rank amateurs who have been tasked with “supervising” work they have NO CLUE about.

These companies will, someday I believe, look back and realize that while the brain might be at the top of the organism – it’s HEART is in the mid-levels. And you can’t create anything lasting and wonderful when you cut the heart out of any enterprise.

A\And someday those same companies will wonder why they can’t DO STUFF like they used to.

And the answer will be that they LET GO of their companies institutional wisdom in the headlong rush to keep profits up. And it’s going to be a LONG TIME before these companies can build that back.

Such is life.

[Bill Davis]

Marcus,

I’m going out on a limb here and say that from reading your original post – it’s likely that this project is NOT going to go well.

Sorry, but it’s reasonably evident that you don’t have enough background to pull off what you say is the end result that you want… PROFESSIONAL video of a product.

Product shots are HARD to do well. Particularly on products that are composed of arrangements of many, many small and dense parts (zillions of knobs and buttons!) like mixers. The lighting approach to the product itself – in the hands of a pro – might require anywhere from 3 to 15 lights plus a variety of stands and arms and reflectors and flags in order to get you the kind of image that you’re used to seeing on slick brochure covers. And that’s for a STILL IMAGE. One that can look good frozen in time. NOT an action shot where you want a HAND to come in and turn a nob without that hand casting a huge ugly shadow over everything.

In a shot like this, the talent lighting might require another 3-5 instruments. The background might require a few as well unless you want to just let it drop into black – which is one approach – but a difficult one since you’ve got one tall thing (the talent) and one VERY short thing (the mixer) and to put them both in a single frame simultaneously means you’ll have some substantial negative space on one side of your frame or the other. And letting that just “go black” is a pretty boring visual arrangement.

Yes, you CAN do this yourself. Just don’t expect more than mediocre results without paying for BOTH equipment AND the knowledge of how to arrange and use it.

Sorry to be so blunt. But product videography is NOT trivial to do well. Much harder than people think. And neither the talking person NOR the mixer can be done “professionally” by someone who’s going to go out and buy new lights and come to a newsgroup for instructions on lighting.

I’m truly not trying to be harsh. And if your real purpose is to start your learning on lighting for video – than by all means – dive in. Just understand that from what you posted you’re going to be WELL in over you head on this gig.

Better idea is to start small. Shoot some stills of the mixer using the lights you have and see if you can learn to control highlights and shadows on THAT first. LOOK at a lot of equipment brochures and ads and try to deconstruct the lighting they did. And work to replicate it.

Step by step you’ll learn how to do this. NOT by spending some bucks and then thinking you can just turn on lights and move them around in order to get great product lighting.

Sorry.

[Bill Davis]

Another thing that everyone is leaving out is PERMISSION to shoot there.

Trade shows are private enterprise endeavors. The show promoter has the right to allow – or disallow – anyone to shoot their event. It’s typically not complicated to contact the press office and get permission to videotape on the show floor – and the credentials you’ll secure will make it less likely that someone will challenge you when you’re leaving with YOUR camera gear – and the security team suspects that you might have picked it up at a manufacturer’s display!

Just sayin.

[Bill Davis]

Hi Tony.

Your post made me reflect back once upon a time when ALL titling was done by all standalone gear. Because the raster for SD TV is so coarse one wanted character forms that started and stopped on full scan lines and had no glyph characteristics that would cause interlace shimmy or other raster problems. So specialist equipment was easier because you traded flexibility for convenience.

Along came computers and the ability to composite computer graphics with live video in an alpha channel and the whole world changed. Suddenly everything was anti-aliased fonts, alpha channel transparency settings and the ability to place 8 drop shadows (if you really wanted that many!) on every glyph on the screen.

I think it literally took about 10 years (from the late 80’s to the late 90s until designers got their brains around type for video screens – but when they did, I don’t know of ANYONE I know who went back to the tradition of buying a standalone titler that constrains it’s output to only “safe” fonts and typeface choices.

Today, MOST of the titling I see is done in general purpose EDITING packages like Final Cut, After Effects, Premier, and the like – and it’s an integrated part of the video composition process so there’s not much demand for specialized gear when ALL the software has the capabilities built-in.

What I’m trying to say is that the success of titling today is likely to be MUCH more a function of designer skills than it is a function of what character generator and/or font package you buy – as it was in the old days.

I know I have more than 200 typefaces at hand in my studio. I can use ANY of them in titling (tho some obviously are much better suited as screen fonts than others!)

But I think the industry has changed a LOT since those olden days. But I work in field production more than broadcast – so maybe someone can chime in who works in a station environment.

I just know that I haven’t touched a Chyron or other DEDICATED font system in more than 15 years now. And wouldn’t go back for all the tea in china. Times change.

YMMV.

[Bill Davis]

Just to try and clarify a bit more…

You have at least FOUR gain adjustment points in this kind of an audio chain.

The wireless unit on the talent has to be set to properly CAPTURE the sound (Gain setting #1) and then it has to properly modulate that signal onto the carrier and OUTPUT it at the proper level for transmission. (Gain setting#2)

Next, the Wireless RECEIVER must capture that signal properly – and demodulate it into an OUTPUT (Gain setting #3) which is then sent to the INPUT of your Zoom H4n which must be set to receive at the proper level (Gain Setting #4)

Now the more professional your wireless rig, the more control you’ll have over this with level controls available for at LEAST 3 of these 4 gain stages. (there may NOT be a control at Gain setting#2 since that is often pre-set at a fixed level that the receiver is expecting.)

In expensive rigs, you’ll have a mic sensitivity setting pot (potentialometer) for gain setting #1 typically on the wireless transmitter. And you’ll have a “sensitivity” setting (the gain of the reception) on the wireless receiver. And finally, you’ll have the INPUT LEVEL bars on the Zoom H4n. In less expensive units, these might all be INTERNAL settings that you can only adjust by accessing the software or firmware through menus.

To achieve the best sound, you have to set a GAIN STRUCTURE on this system, exactly as you would in order to set on on a mixer channel strip or any other audio chain.

First, set the WIRELESS MIC TRANSMITTER to output the proper level. Next, set the WIRELESS MIC RECEIVER to capture the incoming signal and output it at the proper level. AND FINALLY, set the Recorder’s gain controls to RECEIVE the wireless receivers output signal properly.

IF YOU SKIP ANY OF THESE STEPS or if something like a weak battery, a bad antenna connection or a failing component fails to deliver the signal properly at ANY stage of the signal – you’re NOT going to get optimal results.

So go back to square ONE. Start at the MIC. Set it’s level properly – then go through the gain stages one by one.

That’s the ONLY path to consistent good results in any audio chain. Period.

Good luck.

[Bill Davis]

I’d be careful.

Even with the double polarizers like the Fader – you can find settings where you get “blotchy” results due to the alignment of dual polarizer elements. Adding a third might be more problematic than helpful – but by all means experiment away.

I think the primary reason that so many of us use them is that DSLR chips are so much more SENSITIVE than traditional 3 chip cameras with exceptional light gathering capabilities, so being able to reduce light at the lens is a big advantage – particularly in places like here in the southwest deserts where instead of cooling forrest greens and blues we have a lot of highly reflective desert scenics and city concrete to contend with.

But let us know how it works out when you try.