Blaise Douros
Forum Replies Created
-
Well then why bother starting a “discussion” about it? ????
I get it, you have strong feelings about it, but all your examples are based on narrative, which really has no bearing on the (sole) context in which I use this technique. That is, for a multi-camera, product-focused shoot in which (a) we’re trying to preserve a live feel, or actually broadcasting live, (b) need a cutaway shot showcasing product features which will, inevitably, result in off-axis eyelines, and (c) still need to use the secondary shot to cover minor edits, in the case that we’re not broadcasting live.
My point being, in many ways my use of it is much closer to live event coverage; just as we don’t complain that a TED speaker isn’t looking at the active camera at all times, in the presentation-oriented context, it’s not always crucial that eyelines are preserved. Camera 1 is always the direction of the audience, but camera 2 needs to rove in order to pick up details of the presentation that the audience (i.e. camera 1, in a wider shot) wouldn’t necessarily see without the assistance of the second view.
-
Yes, but that assumes that I’m trying to give the impression that there’s a conversation between the presenter and audience. I’m not. The presenter is there to showcase the product, and a multi-camera environment is established by “live” cutaways to product details, etc.
My point is, it’s NOT entirely unmotivated in certain contexts; we establish a secondary view of the object that the presenter is discussing, and usually handling, and additionally, we use that secondary view as a closer shot on the presenter when detail shots of the product aren’t relevant.
-
Speaking as a user of this technique, I’d like to defend it for specific scenarios.
I use this technique for live and fast pseudo-live presentation-style setups. The wide shot is meant to be the “audience” view, and the closeup, which is inevitably a bit off-axis, is my detail catcher; either as a closeup to catch more nuanced facial expressions, or details of the product being presented. I often am shooting a CEO who has 10-15 minutes, tops, to actually shoot these, so I get one to two takes; the result is that these pieces have the feel of an off-the-cuff presentation, rather than as a highly scripted piece. Think of it like the shot that appears on a jumbotron on a stage presentation–the speaker isn’t always looking at the camera, but he’s addressing the audience at large, and the camera is there to catch the things you wouldn’t always see otherwise.
Now, Mark, if you’re referring to the thing where we see the side of someone’s head in a high-production-value documentary, I agree–that’s a little weird. But for a less formal presentation-oriented context, I think it can be quite acceptable, especially if you pay attention to the lighting and framing.
-
In your footage bin, highlight all the 23.976 footage. Right-click it, and select Modify > Interpret Footage. Set the framerate to 25. Boom, you’re done. That will interpret your footage to play back, frame for frame, on a 25p timeline–it will be slightly sped up, but you’ll have no artifacts.
If you’re trying to keep the footage the same speed, you won’t be able to do it without artifacts; all you have to do, though, is drag the 23.976 footage onto a 25p timeline, and Premiere will interpolate the frames. Don’t expect it to be artifact-free, though.
-
Dave’s right. AE is not the right tool for this. You’d need to hire someone to digitally re-create her head, match the movements, lighting, and texture, and then re-composite into the scene. That requires a true 3D modelling application. I suppose you could composite the results in AE, but that’s the very last step. Re-shooting with a bald cap is the absolute cheapest, fastest solution.
-
On the shows you’re referring to, they use two matching (or similar) cameras, and frame up two different shots.
-
We use Rev.com when we don’t have a written script. Upload your final (or at least, picture lock) and they send you caption files. It’s $1/minute, and their turnaround time is fast at around 24 hours. They deliver whatever type of Closed Caption files you prefer, and have an automatic tool to convert to other types if you need another file type later.
Alternately, just copy-paste your scripts into Premiere’s native captioning tool. Have you ever used it? It works pretty well, mostly, though I’ve had some weird crashes that only happen when I’m captioning. Save often!
-
Yes, with the SLog flavors; the way you expose for SLog2 on one camera should be the same on another.
In practice, though, SLog2 on the A7sII or RX100 is slightly different than, say, the FS7, because one shoots 8-bit and one shoots 10-bit footage. So you may see banding in A7sII footage where the FS7 footage would be clean. Exposure-wise, though, it would work the same way.
Don’t make the mistake, though, of assuming the numbered Picture Profiles on the A7sII and RX100 work the same from camera to camera. PP1 might be, for example, “Cine” mode on one camera and “Vivid” on the next. And even the look of “Cine” mode might be totally different from one camera to the other. The only time you should assume they’re the same is when they’re specifically spelled out as a certain color space, like SLog2.
-
You mean 23.976…right? I hope you’re not putting 23.976 media on a 24.00 timeline!
Any of those platforms can handle any framerate natively, so use the native framerate for your footage in your timeline, and render it off the same way.
-
You can try Sony’s dedicated FS7 forum: https://community.sony.com/t5/FS7/bd-p/FS7