Blaise Douros
Forum Replies Created
-
But…just because an exposure is dark won’t make it automatically noisy. It will only become noisy if you went too far, and you’re trying to brighten it back up in post. I wasn’t suggesting underexposing and brightening in post. Just exposing darker than one normally would, in order to provide the illusion of a darker scene.
-
To be clearer, I probably should have said “expose it darker.” What I meant is that rather than exposing for 75 IRE on skin tones, a dark scene will just require a darker exposure.
-
When I Google this webcam, it shows up with a $72 price tag. I think the problem is that it’s a cheap, crappy webcam.
The footage looks slightly out of focus, if anything. If there’s a focus adjustment possible in the software, I’d start there.
-
How do you get dim-to-dark stuff without grain? Simple–light it like you would normally light it, and underexpose by a stop or two. Soft, colored lighting, especially blue, gives the impression that light is dimmer than it actually is, as well.
-
Nah, 59.94 = 60hz for all practical purposes on consumer equipment. Interesting problem. I don’t have any other useful suggestions other than to maybe try other combinations of cameras with the TV, or the C300II with another monitor.
-
The Sony RX series are great–I use the RX10 II for a B camera, and it is good enough for any amateur. I haven’t used the IV, but I’m sure it’s nothing but an improvement on a great little camera!
However, if you want a REALLY killer long zoom camera for reasonable money, you should check out the Canon SX70. I have sent the previous version, the SX60, into the field on backcountry documentaries many times, and it works really well for a little camera. It’s lightweight and is the perfect size to fit in a backpack. The main benefit is that it has a 1365mm lens. 13-frikkin’ hundred and sixty-five! Do you know how long that is? IT’S SO LONG. It’s not as advanced as the RX10 in terms of color science and codec, but that lens. You can count the hairs on an animal’s nose at 50 meters! You’ll get shots you never thought were possible.
If you need a few more advanced video features, the RX10 IV is a great choice, and is probably better for general use, but I couldn’t let this thread go by without mentioning the SX70.
With either of these cameras, it DOES NOT MATTER how good the stabilization is. You need a good tripod, especially when you’re shooting video; the slightest breeze, let alone your wobbly human hands, will cause vibration enough to make the viewer sick when it’s zoomed all the way in. So for someone just doing hobby work, I say: get the SX70, and have money left over for audio accessories (because you need those, too!) and a good tripod.
-
I’ve had issues getting HDMI signal from an FS7 into certain consumer monitors unless the camera’s system frequency is set to 29.97 (or multiples thereof, e.g. 59.94–basically anything but 23.976). If your camera’s system frequency is set to 23.976, it could be that your TV will only take a 59.94 signal, and your splitter box is doing a conversion.
-
YouTube or Vimeo? Don’t go to any trouble, I was just curious 🙂
-
When you “desqueeze” the image, the machine takes the original readout and stretches the pixels horizontally. This obviously gets mapped to the pixels on your monitor, but that’s how the computer “thinks” about it. A similar thing used to happen with HDV footage: it was actually 1440×1080, and would be desqueezed in post to get the equivalent of 1920×1080. There shouldn’t be an appreciable quality loss, not at 1.33x.