[Bob Cole]

Thank you Don! That’s a great find.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thanks, Andy. I’m still stumped.

I’m having two issues. First and foremost, I can’t seem to get a good-looking SD output from Compressor. The file is actually larger than the high def file I’m inputting, and the image is not crisp.

Andy, your settings gave me a predicted 2+ hour render. I stumbled onto a “European 1.66” output and tried that, as follows:

Source Inset (Cropping) set to Europe Standard 1.66. (No details about how much this crops)
Output Image Inset (Padding) set to Europe 1.66, which automatically sets Top: 50 & Bottom: 50.

This setting seems to give me the result I wanted (reducing the size of the letterboxing when putting a widescreen show into a 4:3 format).

But, as I said up top, the main difficulty is that the output file is large yet ugly. When I make DVD files they actually look crisper.

Any tips on how to use Compressor to make decent SD files from HD? I’ve read earlier threads on this topic, and I have the Kona LHe, not the Kona 3, so that direct option is out.

When I use my SD monitor, fed by the LHe card, to look at the HD files on the FCP timeline, they look so much more detailed than the SD files from Compressor. Is there any way to approach that quality with an output file?

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

So many good ideas here. I have to thank and congratulate Karyn for eliciting such interesting solutions from some people whose work I am in awe of. (How can I say that so my 7th grade English teacher would approve? “from some people in awe of whose work I am?” nahh)

The dialog between some of our industry’s giants reminds me of why I love this business: you can do great work in so many different ways – there is no one formula. The only thing I can add is some advice from my late, lamented photography mentor, Rodney Boyce: if you are going in a certain esthetic direction, go there all the way. As with Dennis’s lens flares, a tiny bit might have looked like a mistake, but allied with his overall vision, it was wondrous.

In your case, alternating between very utilitarian lighting (for rehearsals, dialogs between the dance director and the dancers, warm-ups and drills) and very extreme lighting (to evoke an actual performance) might work well for the storytelling. I don’t think the “artistic” lighting solutions here would be good for rehearsals – the lighting has to make sense with the story. If it’s a doc that you’re working on over a period of weeks, you can experiment. Oh, and add a dolly (or a little red wagon or a wheelchair or something) to your arsenal so you can move the camera back and forth, even go amongst the dancers.

Above all, Karyn: STEAL. I hear there’s a pretty good movie about dance up for an Oscar.

[Bob Cole]

Right. Listen to John! I like his ideas about throwing the shadows off-frame, and using foamcore to make the fill broader. I think I was channeling a dance photo (perhaps from The Family of Man exhibit/book), that used strong crosslight from both sides (and a bit behind, as John suggests) to emphasize the sculptural, muscular qualities of the dancers. But if you’re going to see the floor, those shadows in motion are going to be deal-breakers.

[Bob Cole]

It depends on your goals. If this is a clinical instructional video that has to be lit like an operating room, you don’t have enough light. But if you are free to be “creative” (after all, it’s dance), perhaps you can turn the mixture of daylight and tungsten, light and dark, to your artistic advantage. Instead of looking at it as “not enough to do the job,” just change your goal to “stylize with three lights.” (A lot of fully-lit dance stages use lights with all sorts of gels over them, so I wouldn’t worry about the windows and their color temperature.)

You could establish a base (slightly underexposed) light level by (1) keeping those windows open, (2) restricting the area in which the dancers perform, and (3) using one DP at flood near the camera. Then use the other two at full spot, crosslighting them, so dancers go in and out of strong light.

[Bob Cole]

I don’t have much call for downsizing HD to SD, but I do have to do it occasionally. So I appreciate the real-world experience that is behind this thread.

[walter biscardi] “If you don’t have access to an AJA Kona board, then export your Sequence and use Compressor to make your SD file from the HD original and crop off the video to 4:3.”

Can Compressor crop an HD image to 14:9 also? I want to deliver a 16:9 show in a way that preserves at least some of the original aspect ratio, while still making the image reasonably big on a 4:3 screen.

I have several programs on a PC that I haven’t used for years (Digital Rapids, with a DR card; and ProCoder). Where does Compressor stand in relation to those programs for downsizing?

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

A reminder of what the stickie at the top says: this is a public forum and is indexed by Google, etc. If there is anything you don’t want your producer/friend to read, you shouldn’t post it here.

(but it has been interesting to read…)

[Bob Cole]

[Tim Wilson] “dude, it’s Sears. Not gonna happen”

So true, and so sad. An American icon back in the day. They sold HOUSES, for crying out loud.

[Bob Cole]

[Andy Stinton] “We get paid for what we do making us creative whores”

There were a few years, way back when, when I was trying to graduate to corporate video (from making documentaries with meager grant money), when I said “I would be happy to prostitute my art, if only somebody wanted to …” You get the picture.

Then I started doing corporate video, and yes, Andy, you are correct, in a way. But I doubt many businessmen would be thinking of it in such a pejorative context. Video for hire is a business relationship, not a matter of art. And we have no monopoly on “creativity.” There is plenty of creativity in other aspects of business, like writing leases, choosing inventory, and evaluating prospective employees.

There are even more examples of what Sears is attempting, on the COW’s Jobs Offered No/Little Pay forum. That’s fine. Take it, or leave it. But they needn’t strike a moral pose; really, all these ad agencies are doing is trying to sell the notion that it’s a matter of right and wrong. Baloney. Both sides will do whatever they can get away with. Always have, always will.

[Bob Cole]

It’s less about ethics than practicality. Everybody has to get by, and everybody has his reasons for doing what he does. But you as well have to be able to make a living, and live with yourself.

As a rule I agree with Mads and Walter. Common sense dictates that the freelancer should offer to pay the producer/former-friend APPROPRIATELY, e.g. 10%, not 50%. If the producer wanted 50% of the tiny budget, good-bye producer, so long friend.

Probably like most of the people on this thread, I’m basing this on personal experience. I’ve been in Lisa’s position, and had a client approach me directly — I always, always talk to the producer who introduced us, and make a deal (sometimes 0%, sometimes 10%) — and usually go on to do more jobs, where the client goes through the producer, who hires me again.

I’ve also been in Lisa’s producer’s position, when a hungry freelancer and a penny-pinching client collude behind my back. That’s a good way to find out that a client is a grinder, imho, and not worth keeping. And of course, although I’ll still hire him when necessary, the hungry freelancer won’t get the first call again.

Bob C