Don Scioli
Forum Replies Created
-
No, it’s an exact dupe, yet sometimes it’s broken up into smaller clips with ascending numbers on each one. The “good” clips do not have the extra end number.
-
Sorry, I only have Avid 8.44 so the source browser workaround does not work for me.nay other suggestions?
I can’t get the .scc imported into a bin, it just imports a blank file, with no description in the bin, just the film frame icon. -
Well, they were the good clients. Many times it was an ARRI 2C or Eclair, 7247 at 30 Frames a sec and a Moviola or a KEM. Later it went to a Rank converter and a CMX.
It’s too easy now, HD right into a MAC and online, no cutting neg, no prints, no FEDEX deadlines to ship spots back East, too easy.
-
This cost factor is a major “problem” in the film/video business today. As you mentioned, I remember it cost over 100K for a D2 recorder in the 90’s, let alone a CMX suite. Because now, just about anyone can afford equipment that is reasonably good for web, social and even regional/local broadcast video. I cannot even begin to count the “hacks” which have flooded the Bay Area with video companies which you have to wade through to get to the client to see your work.
Yes, I agree that quality eventually stands out, but a potential client has to to swim through a lot of muck to see your stuff.
Give me those days of an ARRi BL, a Steenbeck and 5247!
-
I’ve had my Mac Pro 6 core, 32 GB ram, D 700’s since Jan 2014 and it’s been a great editorial station. I’ve edited many commercials, marketing videos, and an very extensive feature documentary in HD and it has been ultra fast, quiet and expandable via external drives. I had 2 older MAC Pro towers which were great, but this machine is far better. And paying only $4,500. for an edit station is a bargin.
-
Fosse’s work in “All that Jazz” was transcendent, then there is “Cabernet”
-
My XF 300 generates flawless images in MXF also.NYTimes Bestselling author Gary Braver:
-
I sorry, but I’ve looked at the test footage of the 4.6 Ursa and it doesn’t look that good. The color is flat, the skating shots are terribly backlit with no detail of the subjects and the overall image is washed out. The footage in the kitchen looks like 80’s Betacam underexposed with the classic video “brown” look.
I’m sorry to be so critical, but if we shot footage like that for our clients and own projects, we’d be in trouble…and I know you can fix it in post, but why use a cameraperson at all, just use a remote control or drone.
-
Todd, you have pinpointed the problem we face today. Anybody can buy a cheap HD camera, turn it on and capture a good looking picture. But since 95% have no cinematic training, it ends of having no substance and creativity. And I have seen this even at the high level in broadcast TV and even features.
The plethora of low end people with HD cameras has created a glut of so called camera people or filmmakers who have no real idea what it takes. This has impacted our business at the low end, but a lot of these clients probably wouldn’t use video at all for their products if it didn’t cost only $500.
And the over concern with tech is BS. In film school, in the real world, we shot some great stuff using an Arri IIC or BL because we know how to do it to move the story along. I’m afraid story is a lost concept today.
-
I will get in touch with you when you get the Sony. BTW, does Sony have similar picture adjustments as do Canons’, for example adjusting the gamma, knee, blacks, color, etc. I think is a big part of Canon’s strong picture quality output.
