[Bob Cole]

I should’ve known better than to doubt you!

Bob

[Bob Cole]

Very nice work! When I see a gifted photographer, it makes me a little jealous, not just of your eye, but of the photographer’s ability to manipulate light. There are a number of shots there which you could probably shoot with a video camera and minimal lighting – but there are several which would be a bear to shoot as well on video.

Even more than before, I recommend that you avoid buying tons of video lighting (and other) gear, and adopt a hybrid approach: shoot video when you can use existing light, and shoot stills for everything else.

Stills photographers can do so much with time exposure, multiple exposures (essentially what Bill D described), that video folks have to bend themselves into pretzels to emulate – and why bother?

In your situation, since you’re an ace photographer, I’d still recommend that you leverage your still photography skills and the flexibility of still photography to the hilt. Buy a slider, and shoot some video that is obviously a “moving picture” because you’re moving past a tree or down a hallway; and then cut to a still that you’ve animated with After Effects (or even inside your NLE) to create a zoom, tilt, or pan – or all three.

NO, it won’t be exactly the same; it will feel a little “flat” compared to an authentic video move. But I’d rather see the beautiful still, than the crappily-lit video clip.

btw – there’s more to good video camera work than the continuous lighting – it takes awhile (and an expensive tripod head) to learn how to make smooth, well-considered camera moves. Whereas, if you shoot a beautiful still, you can animate it all sorts of ways in post.

About buying “budget” HMI equipment: I don’t know about the pluses and minuses of budget HMI gear, but I suspect that the reliable brands of HMI are expensive for good reasons. Sorta the difference, in still cameras, between Hasselblad and … Instamatic?

[Bob Cole]

If the expense and hassle of HMI is going to make this impossible, why not combine video and stills?

I have a friend who shoots for high-end architectural magazines. His lighting is absolutely incredible; he makes the room look as if there is no artificial light at all, using window light and very judicious flash. As Bill Davis said, what you can do as a stills photographer for a fraction of a second is very difficult to achieve with the continuous lighting which video requires.

Suggestion: Shoot video where it’s easy and makes a difference (dolly shots would be great), but use your electronic flash to shoot wide-angle, high-resolution stills for the rooms which demand flash, then take the results into After Effects and do your pan/tilts there.

[Bob Cole]

Freud said “free association” was a prime source of creativity. Back to standing desks: I suspect that being able to move is also conducive to creativity; I don’t have the cites handy, but I think a number of famous writers used them. But the lying-down desk sounds even better….

[Bob Cole]

I’m guessing the OP has tuned out on all of these expensive options. Real estate videos probably don’t have the budget even for a one-day rental of an HMI.

I’d suggest EDITING.

If you want to show the view from the windows, shoot the view, properly exposed for the exterior. Then for the rest of the shots, just close the curtains if possible, or choose an angle in which the outside looks as dark as possible (wait for dusk?), and expose for the interior. The windows may be blown out – so what? The customers are going to be focused on the interior anyway. Look at it as a benefit: you won’t have to worry about what the neighborhood looks like.

Or look up Todd’s inexpensive window ND trick, and use a roll of that material to gel the windows. But again, I doubt that there would be time enough in a real estate video budget for that.

Good luck! Don’t sweat the blown-out windows!

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thanks very much. Your answers were great. In the actual event, I was able to get three EX1R’s, and there was so much to do at the last minute that I just set the white balance to tungsten, and manually copied the Picture Profile from camera to camera; it looked fine.

[Bob Cole]

The flangeback adjustment process is a lot more involved than that – the full answer is on Don’s website, though. Sorry, Don!

[Bob Cole]

[Dave LaRonde] “do you intend to deliver the final product at 29.97 or 59.94?”

It’s headed to DVD.

That is very, very interesting about 59.94. Forgive the stupid question, but what about the whole issue of p30->29.97 and p60->59.94? Is that just a fact of NTSC life, or a choice?

If I understand it correctly, 29.97 and 59.94 are relics of interlacing, only here because of history. I need a refresher on all of this stuff.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thank you Dave. Very interesting! I’m glad to get your answer, because several hours ago I decided to bite the bullet and manually drag each shot of this 23.976 timeline into a new 29.97 timeline. A real painstaking pain, what with the software’s confusion over timing the shots differently – especially as multiple layers of video were involved.

Any idea as to how FCP dictated using a 23.976 timeline? I sure didn’t specify it on purpose. My SOP is to drag a clip into the timeline, let FCP adjust the timeline’s setting, and go from there. I’m guessing it has to do with the use of 720p30 footage, which is not something I usually do.

When I use FCP’s automatic sequence settings, here is what happens:

Footage that was shot 720p60 is characterized within the FCP bin both as 720p60 and as 59.94. The sequence auto-sets to XDCAM EX 720p60 with an editing timebase of 59.94.

Footage that was shot 1080p30 is characterized within the FCP bin both as 1080p30 and as 29.97. The sequence auto-sets to XDCAM EX 720p60 with an editing timebase of 29.97.

I’ve been trained to ignore this discrepancy; am I missing something critical?

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thanks for solving the mystery! I appreciate the explanation of why setting the preference menu has no effect on the actual video standard. One wonders: wouldn’t it have been nice for Adobe to explain that in the Preferences? Or did I miss that too?

Thanks again.

Bob C