Dale Paquette
Forum Replies Created
-
Mark, when I use a tripod, I have a relatively cheap Veblon. My question relates more to hand held work. In other words, a very poor man’s glidecam or equivalent stabilizer. Dale
-
I have never used a PC to monitor, but I have used a personal portable DVD player. I’m certain the technical aspects of the imagery are not accurate as stated in the previous response. However, the DVD player does capture the “framing” of the shot which is what I am after. I shoot with a Canon HV30 which is a great little cam but is to be sure a consumer cam. When action is involved and rapid pans and tilts are required, the stationary DVD player monitor allows me to handle the cam (on a tripod) without having to move my body. If I try to track motion by physically moving to maintain the subject in the view finder I invariably shake the cam way too much. I note that the DVD player is very difficult to see in bright sun light and requires some kind of light shield to be effective. Dale
-
Thanks Mike. I’m particularly interested in the ground-based extreme telephoto shots of wildlife where much action needed to be captured. Were the cams mounted on a tripod? Seems like they’d have to be substantial and thus very difficult to haul around. Or, were they hand held with optical stabilization (or with a stabilization rig of some kind)? Perhaps the resolution was high enough to enable stabilization in post and then some zoom to fill the edges? Thanks again. dale
-
Dave, I understand about the codec. Let me explain further. First, my footage is indeed mpeg2 (it actually says .m2t which I believe is the same) which I shot in 30p. That’s what I’m stuck with with my Canon HV30 outputs this. When I import to AE, the footage looks great! Footage is interpreted as separate fields off and other options default to hdv 1080/dvcpro hd 720 (1.33) as I would expect. I save out one frame of footage and open in Photoshop and it tells me the image is 1440 X 1080 HDV anamorphic 1.33. Again, what I expect.
Next I render and set up 4 output modules. They are (1) vid for win and all defaults (in this case, stretch is unchecked and the lock aspect ratio is checked at 4 X 3, (2) vid for win, strecth checked and it comes up 1440 x 1080 and lock aspect ratio defaults to 4 X 3, (3) vid for win with stretch checked and changed to hdv 1080 and lock aspect ratio defaults to 4 X 3, and (4) vid for win stretch checked and set to hdtv 1080 29.97 and lock aspect ratio defaults to 16 X 9. When these are rendered and saved and imported back into AE, all show up as absolutely identical to the original footage. I save frames from each and examine in PS and get the results expected.
Now, I follow the exact same procedure but this time I select QT instead of vid for win. In the 1st 3 cases, I get a picture aspect ratio of approximately 970 wide X 1080 high. Not quite square! When the module is set to hdtv 1080 29.97 I get a picture aspect of 1368 X 1080! Again, I save out frames and examine in PS. In all cases, the “image” is 1440 X 1080 but there are white sidebars so that the actual viewable image is 1290 X 1080.
So, it would appear at this time that I must work with avi vs QT unless there is some setting in QT that I need to make. That is, to move AE outputs to my NLE.
This is where I need some help – what is the procedure for rendering in QT?
-
Nick, thanks. I believe you are right. When I was a kid, many years ago, I thoroughly enjoyed Disney’s “nature” movies. If Planet Earth was awesome in HD, then I can’t even begin to imagine it on the big screen. I’ll be at the head of the line! Dale