Brendan Coots
Forum Replies Created
-
There is an excellent tutorial right here on the Cow covering that very topic:
I should warn you – nothing good comes easy. This effect does require patience, time and the willingness to do a lot of manual tinkering. No real way around that.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
College courses are great, but I always felt like I didn’t have enough access to the actual gear. I also felt like the instruction was heavily tilted toward people looking to shoot fictional narrative work, rather than corporate-style video which is where the money is for most of us. There is a lot of daylight between fictional work and corporate video, so you might find yourself needing to supplement your education a bit.
I would highly recommend that you consider buying your own gear so that you can practice as much as possible, because doing is much better than reading. You can pick up a used Panasonic DVX100 (which is a great camera being used by a lot of people for professional video) for about $2,000, a basic (but good quality) light kit for another $1,000 and a good lav mic for a few hundred bucks. That $3,500 investment will probably teach you more about the actual process of video production than anything else. Worst case scenario, you will have a leg up over your fellow students and, when you are ready, you will already have what you need to go out and starting shooting for pay.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
Speaking only from my own experience, I don’t think you could find that rate in CA if you need someone who actually knows how to use their lights, mics etc. effectively. You will always be able to find people for any rate you can imagine, but the level of quality is directly tied to the rate you offer, so bear that in mind. $300/half day in CA will probably get you someone who isn’t as experienced (recent grads etc.), has inferior gear and may not deliver very pleasing results.
Videographers usually charge more than half of their day rate for half day shoots, because it makes it nearly impossible for them to book the other half of the day. It is, as far as their wallet is concerned, a full day shoot. In CA (and in my own personal experience, NOT an absolute), videographers who charge $1k/day usually charge about $650 for half-day shoots. Based on this you are looking for someone who charges around $450-$500/full day, which is pretty low for someone and all of their gear. I would be concerned about the quality I might get for this rate.
As you look for people, remember that wedding videographers are typically much cheaper than professionals because they don’t do much but hold a camera, and rarely have experience setting up clean lighting and audio (no offense to any wedding guys out there!). As such, don’t use their rates as a benchmark for how much you should pay, and I would be cautious about hiring a wedding videographer to shoot a professional video. They are two very different formats with very different requirements.You also mentioned that the end product will be 90 seconds of video, but that could require 3 full days of shooting depending on what/who is being shot, how prepared the client is and the editing process. I have edited 15 hours of footage down to a :30 spot before, so final run time means little to a videographer. You might want to include this info when searching for your guy, but just know it won’t mean much to them.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
Agreed. And as one last note from me on the subject, pans are not easy to camera track, most tracking software needs actual translation (aka physical movement in space) of the camera to interpret the movement.
All of this may add up to a lot of technical craziness to keep track of, but the alternative might be having to use less impressive, potentially cheesy tactics. If you want to explore computer enhanced cinematography, be prepared to get technical!
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
Here’s another idea you might consider – Since it is loosely based on a children’s story, and you need sets that essentially don’t exist, maybe you could use the camera tracking technique mentioned above to create 3d bedrooms/sets that have more of a Tim Burton, almost other-worldly feel. If you have access to a few decent 3D artists (if your story is good and you shoot it well, you can find some who will help for credits I’m sure) they could create your sets to look fairly realistic in 3d, but very strange and interesting.
If you go the route of using greenscreen and replacing the set in post, make sure to have as many real-world objects, set dressing etc as possible for your actors to interact with where needed. This also draws some attention away from your otherwise CG sets.
Pan’s Labrinth is a good example of a movie that used CG in interesting, subtle and very effective ways, primarily as set extensions (or replacing greenscreen with artificial sets).
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
When you do the camera matching you can account for changes in lenses, focal length etc. on a per-shot basis. That way any post effects that use this little 3d camera will always match the shots. If you used this to do some sort of wallpaper effect, it would change in each shot to properly match in.
By the way, you do not have to use greenscreen on the walls to do camera tracking. It is commonly done when shooting in normal environments, such as a set. You will only need to do greenscreen walls if you plan to completely replace them with something the actors can move in front of.
If you’d like to learn more about camera tracking, here’s some good resources:
https://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/smc01.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_tracking
https://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials/3d__and__animation/the_rules_of_camera_tracking
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
Cool idea. Just as a thought, another angle you might consider is investing in some 3d-based motion tracking software. This will analyze the shots and export a 3d camera that can be used in After Effects, Maya etc. for adding in effects to your shots.
Using this and some basic After Effects work, you could have wallpaper that is very slowly and subtly melting or moving (think Fear and Loathing), or a million other things that would add visual coolness to your rooms. This would be quite easily if you have reasonably skilled AE guys/gals at your disposal.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
A good place to start might be doing some “proof of concept” work. This is commonly done in commercial/film work before committing to very expensive processes.
Since you are shooting 35, you really can’t afford to experiment on set and screw around trying new things. To avoid this, shoot some scenes on DV using any non-actor you have around, and ideally on the same set since it sounds like you have easy access. If you don’t have access to those sets yet, mock up a sloppy set for the sake of experimentation. Key them out using FCP or AE depending on what you have immediate access to, and start playing. This will give you an opportunity to visualize out your ideas, but also discover any problems, pitfalls or downright cheesy ideas.
The final product of your tests can serve as a video storyboard (or just to illustrate concept) for your crew and post people, which will also save you a lot of time and money trying to explain things to everyone.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
I think I’ve been misunderstood here. What I’ve been saying is that, based on the poster’s definition of how the work will be used, it technically falls under the Fair Use rules:
#1 – Purpose and character of use. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes. Scholarly work is fair use, use in a classroom is fair use.
#2 – Effect on the potential market for or value of the protected work. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the new work is not a substitute for the copyrighted work. If it can be shown that the public is not only confusing your work with the original, but also buying yours instead because it is less expensive you have a real problem.
Given that the work will, as I understand it, be used in an educational manner, it falls under Fair Use guidelines. Since copyright cases go through Federal courts, it is highly unlikely that a company/individual would pursue such a complex and costly case that is so unlikely to end in their favor. Sure, be safe rather than sorry, I almost never allow clients to use copyrighted works. But the poster didn’t ask what was the safest option (because that’s pretty obvious) he asked what the LAW was.
Copyright law is definitely murky, but that doesn’t mean people should scaremonger with talk of a studio owner’s assets getting seized and the like unless you can cite examples of studios being shut down for using a copyrighted song at the client’s request. In the case the poster describes, the copyright holder would have almost no legal recourse against the studio (other than a cease and desist perhaps). Since the client is requesting specific music, the studio is merely assembling various components per the client request, they are NOT passing it off as though the song were their own work and selling it as such.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
HD is almost always upper field first, not lower field (even HDV). That would be a good starting point in your troubleshooting as accidentally reversing these will cause image problems similar to what you have described.
The codec you are using is great, so I would start with the upper/lower field issue then go from there.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com