[Glenn Chan]

If you can get an AVI file onto a PC, you can use Windows Media Encoder which will give really good quality (for free)- arguably better than Quicktime/sorenson3. It’s good to encode Windows Media anyways for compatibility, and let people pick and choose whatever’s appropriate for them and their bandwidth.

H.264 also looks really really good, although your audience will need QT7 to play it back (which most people won’t have, and windows users have the public preview).

[Glenn Chan]

Have you had any cases where a cell phone corrupted data on your DV tapes?

I have a tape eraser (realistic tape eraser) and it has problems trying to erase a DV tape. It’s just not powerful enough. Most of the picture is still there with a rolling bar of dropouts.

From other people’s reports, the high power version of that tape eraser can erase mini-DV tapes.

I’m talking about miniDV tapes here, which use metal evaporated tape. Metal particle formats like DVCPRO should be more suspectible.

[Glenn Chan]

For widest compatibility, I would shotgun the audience with different choices and they can pick something that’ll work on their system and for their bandwidth.

Windows Media 7/8/9 (7 is most compatible, 9 is better quality)
Quicktime – sorenson3 for video (the codecs you pay money for are a lot better than the free ones!) mp3, qdesign, or mpeg4 audio (lower compatibility, but free and good quality) for audio codec.

And if you want:
FLash/SWF
A codec with really good compression for advanced users. H.264, VP6, etc. Not sure which is best, although H.264 is looking good.

MPEG4 has low quality/compression and low compatibility (Real Player will try to play back Quicktime MPEG4s, but it can’t).
divX is same or worse quality than WM8.

2. Also, for security, Is there a way to of Encrypting video so it cant be downloaded into cache ?
Some systems support Digital Rights management. Windows Media does.

Streaming videos like Real and Windows Media can be ripped, although most computer users may not know how.

Ultimately people can figure out how to rip your video, or point a camera at their screen (or use a scan convertor). So it comes down to the level of security you are looking for.

[Glenn Chan]

Some ideas I can think of:

A- You could finish the edit in Vegas. Versions 5 and 6 of Vegas have really strong audio tools (no point in going Pro Tools) and strong color correction tools.

On the other hand, the learning curve may be a bit high. If you’re used to FCP, Vegas will make no sense to you. As well, a lot of things are not obvious (example: s is for split/blade edit). Vegas doesn’t create broadcast-safe colors by default, although you can make it do so. In Vegas, 16-235 on the histogram is the legal range for luma values (ignore the waveform monitor). Laying black (16 16 16 in Vegas RGB units) underneath will make fade to blacks right.

B- You can try:
EDL, XML from Vegas, Vegas to AE or PPro and then Automatic Duck to FCP, AAF export from PPro, AAF from Vegas, or try to manually conform the edit.
I think some of those options don’t work, from what I remember from reading the Sony Vegas forums at Sony’s site.

Another thing to watch out for is that Vegas captures AVI and is slow with Quicktime. FCP is the opposite. So you may need to re-capture in FCP, which isn’t a big deal since you can tell FCP to batch capture things (right click a clip, select batch capture). If there’s timecode breaks on the original tapes, that will be a problem.

C- If you just want to do the color or titling or audio stuff in Final Cut, you could just print to video and capture into Final Cut that way. What exactly do you need to do on your friend’s film?

[Glenn Chan]

I’ve played around with Final Touch HD a little. Here’s my impressions:

Good:
Fairly powerful – can do lots of things. Motion tracking rocks, and having four grades is nice (you can quickly compare between up to four looks).
With noisy DV footage, some functionalities in FTHD may not perform
that well. The “curves” in the secondary controls can change hue,
sat, or luminance based on hue. Changing luminance based on hue can lead to noisy results.

Reasonable rendering times + good preview speed- I’m seeing about 2-4 : 1 rendering with FT HD with 24p 720p (not sure if the system can be
configured to go faster). Haven’t tried rendering extensive colorFX,
although you can preview them well when I was playing around with it.

Watch out for:
Bugs. FT HD is a work in progress. Sometimes your project doesn’t conform right and FTHD does crash (which may really disturb your clients).
From reading the FTHD forum, it seems many people have problems with
XML/EDL import.
On the other hand: New builds come out pretty often to fix bugs and
accomodate feature requests.

If you want things to be broadcast safe… FT HD is confusing to me.
I would get an external vectorscope to check your levels. I don’t
think FTHD has a way to monitor the (composite voltage) of a signal on
the waveform monitor, nor does it have a broadcast safe filter with soft knee.

A control surface may really help. Support between devices may vary.
(I haven’t tried a control surface myself.) Some parameters are hard
to adjust with the mouse… it can be easier to type things in with
the numpad, which slows down tweaking.

Learning curve. Documentation is weak.

Dislike:
No Photoshop or Color Finesse or Combustion-style curves. You would use such a feature to get film-like gamma, or to have lots of control over crushing blacks or highlights.
No luminance operations. Gain and gamma affects the image’s hue/saturation.
The falloff on vignettes/masks/power windows and the secondaries’ key blur looks wrong.

At its price point, Final Touch is pretty strong. Other options would be
Combustion/AE + Color Finesse + Automatic Duck (should be really powerful, should conform well)
In a similar vein, Shake.
FCP + Natress’s Film Effects (fast)
FCP + Magic Bullet Editors (easy to get great results, but REALLY slow rendering)
FCP + Color Finesse.
I haven’t really investigated these other options.

You can also compare FT HD to the higher-end color correction systems out there- Da Vinci, Quantel iQ, Lustre, etc. From what I can gather, it does mostly what those systems do at a fraction of the price.

dv.com has a review of Final Touch (HD) if you register and click on reviews and search in your browser.

FTHD is definitely a cool program to have. For mid-to-high-end color correction, it definitely is a capable tool. It does have a learning curve because the documentation is weak and because it does have bugs. For simple color correction, I would probably also consider Nattress or MBE and/or Color Finesse (perfect conforms, should be stable, easy).

[Glenn Chan]

One perspective on this:

Figure out what your goals are, and where you are lacking.

Room acoutics

Microphones- technical quality, aesthetic quality (do they impart a nice coloration that’s along your artistic/aesthetic goals; or use really accurate mics, and mess with their sound with filters)

Filter quality – it’s likely better to do this with computer filters as opposed to having effects unit. It comes down to which filters you buy (Waves anyone?).

Technical quality – S/N ratio, freq. response. Some of this depends on your A->D converters.

Productivity- how productive you are with the software (i.e. real Pro Tools, Pro Tools LE, Sonar, MOTU, Cubase, etc. etc.). How much button pushing you have to do, learning curve, stability of the system.

Monitoring- depends on room acoustics, speaker, and a little bit on studio setup (i.e. SPL calibration, speaker placement).

Learn about acoustics:
You can go to the library and read F. Alton Everest’s books, in particular “Sound Studio Construction On A Budget”. If you want to get in-depth, try the latest edition of “Master Handbook of Acoustics”. I would try to read the latest edition, because there’s many advances in acoustics and there’s still a lot that isn’t known about acoustics.

You may find that a lot of info on acoustics contradicts another source.

Various resources on other audio stuff:
newsgroups, i.e. rec.audio.pro
prorec.com – great site; they have a forum
https://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/
For particular audio programs, there are some great forums for that particular program.

2- Pro Tools or Cubase or other (there are many great audio programs out there):
It seems to me that Pro Tools is overpriced and that the interface of other programs may be better than Pro Tools depending on what you do.

For high-end film work, Pro Tools TDM may be worth the money. Don’t confuse that with the watered-down Pro Tools LE.

3- As far as the computer goes, AMD64-based systems are the fastest because AMD64 procesors have better floating-point performance than Intel CPUs and G5s. If audio latency is a problem, look at getting a dual core dual Opteron system.

As far as getting a working computer without configuration issues, I would try user forums. Try to copy someone’s working configuration exactly. Or you can look at a VAR or turnkey vendor for your computer.

A custom-PC can also be a lot quieter than normal PCs or G5s. Read silentpcreview.com if you want to roll your own (or get a vendor like monarchcomputer.com or a local computer store to assemble it for your), or go with a VAR or turnkey vendor.

[Glenn Chan]

The Beachtek is only useful if your camera doesn’t have XLR inputs.

If it does, you might find a field mixer handy (i.e. Sound Devices 302).

For documentaries, a wireless lav may not be that useful?

If you shoot events where they have a PA system, you may want to get a feed off it. I’m not too sure what’s the right equipment you need for this.

[Glenn Chan]

Indoors:
AT835b sounds nasty. Shotguns indoors don’t sound that great. Shotguns (my definition: a microphone that uses the line-gradient design; they have a series of slits in the tube, instead of just one or two) have extremely uneven freq. response for sounds that hit it off-axis. It may be that the reverbs/echo hitting the mic off-axis cause the overall sound to be weird/artificial/hollow.

Listen for yourself:
https://www.dvfreelancer.com/media/beaser/ME66Left_OktavaRight.MPG

The Oktava has the hypercardioid capsule I believe.

There’s also other clips on that site. In particular, a 416 that’s within 2 feet usually sounds pretty good and comparable to a Schoeps MK41 (hyper).

For interviews, you might want to look at a wired lav so you don’t have to deal with wireless (dropouts, battery). The lav mic you use may have an adapter avaible so it’ll terminate in XLR.
For short films, wireless can be useless in wide shots and for shots with multiple people with lines. You’d use the wireless for whatever the boom doesn’t cover. If you want to cover your bases a little better, you can use a third mic that’s either wireless or a plant mic (a mic you hide somewhere). Hook all three into a field mixer (i.e. Sound Devices), with the boom on its own channel. This is if you want to record to your camera and not have to deal with recording audio seperately to an audio recorder.

If you have novice boom ops, get them a headphone feed! It’ll help them spot handling noise and things that sound wrong being the mic isn’t pointed well enough.

For the camera, look at:
shock mount – Lightwave makes ones for around $200. If you’re using a wide-angle, it can help to put the mic out of shot. Beyerdynamic and AT sell cheaper ones (the AT one needs a thread adapter for hot shoe if I remember right).
Beachtek DXA8 or lower.
In-ear monitors? (or headphones)

2- What’s your budget? I assume that’s inclusive of all the accessories, which can cost a lot. (boom pole, headphones, beachtek or similar device, shock mount for camera, windscreen, XLR cable, field mixer, etc.)

If you make a living off this, I suggest you get the top-of-line shotguns and hypers like the 416 and schoeps instead of the more budget-friendly alternatives like AT4073a (shotgun) and Oktava MC012. The higher-end mics sound better and do not depreciate quickly (unlike computers, audio recorders, software, cameras).

3- Mixing lav and boom:
Generally, if the boom is within 2 feet it’ll sound excellent. In that case, just use the boom sound.
Otherwise, if the boom is getting too much room noise you may want to primarily use the lav. Mix in a little bit of the boom for room tone/noise + reverb.

4- Good books:
Jay Rose’s books. “Great Sound for Digital Video” is more appropriate for field recording stuff and covers things you need to know. Audio Postproduction gives more info on audio post.
See dplay.com for info on buying those books for $30.

Ty Ford’s Audio bootcamp book may also be good, but I haven’t read it myself.

[Glenn Chan]

Check out the following article, which will clear things up in regards to FCP.

https://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/video_levels_nattress.html

My Coles notes explanation of the whole setup issue (with some plagarism from Graeme Nattres’ article above):

In analogue video, all levels are represented by voltages, and measured in IRE or

[Glenn Chan]

For print work, there are products such as the Colorvision Spyder that will calibrate your monitors (it’s the cheapest, not necessarily the best). You may need a high-grade monitor like a Sony Artisan or Barco. I don’t know all too much about this, but you can try Google, https://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/computer.html

For video work, the best monitor to get is a BVM-series Sony monitor with the (calibration/color) probe. The calibration probe will help counteract color drift, which occurs from the CRT’s phosphors wearing out as electrons hit them (the phosphors get darker). I don’t have much experience with that, but you might get some useful information from search the TIG mailing list. tig.colorist.org (registration required I believe)
Ikegami makes similar monitors which may be just as good (minus Trinitron/aperture grille tubes).
*The Sony probe may not actually be all that good if I read correctly. Read the TIG for more information.

Video monitors should be calibrated to color bars. see https://www.videouniversity.com/tvbars2.htm
*The color gel method may not work that well unless you have the specific gel they mention. I have a filter sample book from Lee filters (doesn’t have a “”blue-only”” filter), and they will lead to results that are a little off.
**Some monitors have a auto-calibrating feature, and it looks like it works just as well as blue gun. You may need to adjust brightness and contrast though.

You can/should also calibrate with a color probe if your monitor supports that feature.

Other things you should do:

A- Make all light sources in the room the SAME color temperature. Your eye’s natural white balance can shift depending on what you see. This can make some whites not look white (or have a color cast).
Look for computer monitors with RGB controls.
Lighting fixtures should be the right color temperature and of reasonably high CRI (some florescents have low CRI ratings, which makes their light green-ish). Or turn the lights off.
Windows are also light sources, and the outside light’s color temperature will change throughout the day. You can get drapes or something to that effect.
B- If you can, the line of sight area around the monitor should be a neutral color. This is a vision perception thing, where colors around an object can change the object’s perceived color.

Excellent website:
https://www.finalcolor.com/Trick.htm

C- If you can, the area behind the monitor should be lit so it’s around gray. This appropimates real-world viewing conditions (most people don’t watch TV in a dark room with lights off) and may lead to less eye strain.
*Some colorists view in a darkened environment, so there’s a different side to this. A dark environment would be appropriate if your target audience is a theatre or something.
D- Ideally, your video monitor would be at 6500k color temperature because that should be the standard. I am guessing a different color temperature will affect the monitor’s color gamut.
(The videouniversity.com article doesn’t mention this.)
In practice, this may be too much effort?
E- Minimal glare on your monitors would be nice. Colored back and side walls may add a color cast to your monitor if they reflect off your monitors.
F- Use the same monitors. For video, using the same broadcast monitors will ensure reasonably-similar colors. One thing you should try for at least is to have the same phosphor types (SMPTE C or P22 are two major types).
G- 7.5IRE setup if you use consumer or prosumer DV equipment (i.e. DSR11, PD150)

A lot of the things above would happen in an ideal world. However, there are some pragmatic things you may want to consider:
1- Cost; Some of the things above may be expensive to achieve (i.e. BVM-series Sony broadcast monitor with calibration probe)
2- In practice, the majority of consumer TVs have high color temperature (definitely above 6500k), are overly bright, are overly contrasty, and have ‘mystery’ phosphors. They may also have a few cheats (excessive edge sharpening, flesh tone “correction”) which is why broadcast monitors are worth getting.
Consumer TVs’ colors are typically quite different from your broadcast monitor.

A broadcast monitor with SMPTE C phosphors is supposed to be the standard. In practice, no consumer TV uses them so you may not really need SMPTE C phosphors. P22 may be ok??
Also, perhaps a properly-calibrated broadcast monitor is a little dark and desaturated compared to the “average” TV??
(Sorry, I don’t know the answer to those two things above.)

3- What is good enough?