[Gord Stephen]

Yeah, from what I’ve seen it’s just under 50 Mbps (48 or so). I think 4:2:0 is a fairly safe assumption, unfortunately. But if you can record live out of the HDMI port and bypass the compression… I think a lot of creative pros will be taking a long hard look at this thing.

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Hey Mark,

I use CineForm to edit HMC150 footage and love it – but I’m editing with Premiere on a PC. If I was using FCP I would definitely just be sticking to ProRes (unless I needed to send files between a Mac and a PC).

You probably could get smaller files than ProRes using a lower quality CineForm setting – but as Noah said, at that point you’re probably sacrificing image quality, at least to some degree. And that AVCHD footage has been through enough already… Storage space is pretty cheap these days anyways.

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Hi John,

Are you planning on colour grading in post, or do you want to get film-like images right out of the camera? I would really recommend getting a flat image out of the camera and then making the colours look the way you want them to after the fact, when you’ll have more control over (and ability to change your mind about) the way everything looks.

I shoot with with the CINE-D scene file (F6 on the scene file knob) for increased dynamic range, and then color grade in After Effects. CINE-V (F5) is supposed to provide a more contrasty, film-like look – but even then you’ll want to do some work on the image in post to get it to pop.

If you really want to, you can push your in-camera image settings further than the presets – but you’re going to be cutting out image information that you could preserve for the time being and gain more flexibility in post. Here’s some interesting reading on the different settings if you want to go that route – but my reccomendation is just to get a flat, flexible image out of the camera and worry about achieving a look that you want in post.

Hope that helps,

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Hi Juan – The 200A, 170, and 150 sensors are all improved over the first-gen 200, and provide better low light performance. I can’t say for sure that the 150 has the exact same sensors and processing as the 170 and 200A – but it would seem to make sense…

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

So I emailed CineForm a little bit after I posted here – this was the response I got:

“For CS4 with Prospect HD you are actually not yet using the RT engine. Adobe made so many changes in CS4 that it has taken third parties a very long time to ramp up full support. So today Neo HD and Prospect (within CS4) are very similar in features and performance. When we release the RT engine for CS4 in around 6-8 weeks you’ll see your performance literally double (or more) in Prospect HD and have virtually no render lines.

The RT engine for CS3 is included with Prospect HD v4, so if you use CS3 you can see this right away. You’ll notice in CS3 that you also have CineForm presets (these come with the RT engine).

If you haven’t purchased yet, then you could purchase Neo HD now, and when our RT engine for CS4 is released you can upgrade to Prospect HD at that time.”

In other words… there is no difference between Prospect and Neo right now.

Just thought I’d post what I found in case anyone else has a similar question.

Thanks,

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Ok, thanks Ty, I will.

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Thanks for the input guys. I think I’ll stick with the VideoMic for a shotgun for the time being – I do shoot outside so I’ll be sure to get a dead cat to use with it.

I’ll check out those lavs, thanks for those suggestions too. I’m in Canada though and the video equipment stores I generally buy from (Vistek and Henry’s) don’t seem to carry Countryman or Sanken… I’ll keep looking though. Seems to make a lot of sense to get something that I a) won’t want to replace later and b) can use with a wireless transmitter in the future. Ty, I looked at the Countryman site but couldn’t find anything about the ‘link’ you mentioned – could you expand on that?

Thanks again,

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Hey Ty,

Thanks so much for your quick response and recommendation. You’re totally right, I am looking at ‘throwing $500’ at my setup… but I’d like to do it as intelligently and strategically as I can.

I know that I won’t get superb audio out of a camera-mounted solution, but as far as I can tell, right now it’s my only option (other than a lav or handheld). I just don’t have an operator for a pistol grip or boom (and if I did, chances are it wouldn’t be the same person every time, but someone new who I’d be thrusting the gear at and hoping for the best). It’s not ideal, I know, but for now it’s the reality of my situation.

Wind protection is a good point, I’ve neglected that so far. Should I be looking at investing in a dead cat wind filter then?

This is the particular setup I’m thinking about now. What’s your reaction to it? (Bearing in mind that I’ve just been working with onboard audio or a camera mounted VideoMic in the past, but have been satisfied…)

1. Keep the VideoMic as a camera-mounted shotgun (buy an adapter to use it with XLR inputs)

2. Buy a Rode DeadCat windshield to put on the VideoMic

3. Buy a wired lav for more controlled situations (spend $300-400… for that will I be able to get something that will sound better than just pointing the VM at a subject?)

Thanks again for sharing your expertise.

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

A higher shutter speed does create an unnatural effect and can seem quite ‘video-y’ – but hey, it *is* video, and for a technical product such as you’re describing there’s no need to hide that. Generally I would stick to 1/48 or 1/60 as well, but for my application, 1/100 makes myself and my clients happy. I’ll admit that going much over 1/100 would probably be a little extreme, though. That all being said, your experiments will be your most valuable feedback.

Are you absolutely sure that you want/need to convert to 4:3 for final output? I’m not familiar with Vegas, or its output options, but if it were me I would just stick with 16:9 clips as my final output and not worry about cropping, letterboxing, or anything else. No need to sacrifice resolution or parts of the frame. It *should* be possible to crop the sides if that’s what you need to do. Maybe try starting a 4:3 project and importing the 16:9 footage into it? (But could you get a 4:3 project in HD?) I’m just speculating now, I really don’t know.

All that’s for later down the road though, and that stuff shouldn’t have an impact on your choice of camera. It is good to think about now though. If you’re going to crop the sides of your footage for 4:3 output, just make sure that you’re conscious of that while shooting and you keep your subjects (and their extremeties) well within the centre of the frame… but without some sort of guide on the viewfinder to help with that framing, it’ll be tricky and risky… You know your project best – if it needs to be output in 4:3, then it needs to be output in 4:3. But why not just use the full 16:9 to your advantage? There shouldn’t be any issue playing it back – widescreen video is supported by common video players and codecs.

Hope that helps.

Gord

[Gord Stephen]

Hi Peyton,

Really interesting. I’m working on a project in ASL right now, so lately I’ve found myself thinking about similar things. My input in response to your questions:

1. 30p. The interlacing process means that with fast movements (such as hand movements), the field sets don’t display fast enough to ‘keep up’ with the movements, meaning that one set of fields will show hands in one position and the other set will show them a little to the left or right. The result is a comb-like edge on moving objects – distracting and difficult to study. Also, 1/60th of a second is really fast, faster than an eye blink (how many times can you blink in one second?), so I wouldn’t be that concerned about missing anything. That being said, your shutter speed is really important. Motion blurring is bad news in project like this. I’m shooting with the shutter speed locked at 1/100th of a second – but you might want to go even higher, I’m still getting a bit of blur in fast hand and arm movements (nothing that would impair the viewer’s ability to understand what’s being signed, but for analysis purposes it might be an issue).

2. Computer displays are progressive, and any video that you show on them will probably (or at least should) be deinterlaced anyways.

a) If you can, export your footage with a square pixel aspect ratio – then you won’t have to worry about your footage appearing ‘squished’ to anyone. You can convert from 16:9 to 4:3, either by cropping the right and left sides of the video out or by ‘letterboxing’ the footage (resulting in black bars on the top and bottom of the screen). With the first option, you’re not losing any picture quality, technically… But you are chopping off the sides of your image. With letterboxing, you’re losing resolution, but keeping the entire image.

b) PAL/NTSC/SECAM are television broadcast standards – the video file you render (for example a .mov or a .wmv) is independent of that system. The only issue might be if someone didn’t have the correct player or codec to play back the video (for example, if you emailed me a .mov file and I didn’t have Quicktime).

c) Just remember to shoot with a high shutter speed. You could be shooting at a really high framerate, but with a low shutter speed, things would be a blurry mess. And to avoid the other kind of blur… make sure that your shots are always in focus. If your talent isn’t moving around in the frame, manually focus in on them and leave the focus locked there. It’s frustrating when you rely on your camera’s autofocus only to discover that it decided for you that the plant in the background is the focus of the shot, leaving your actual subject fuzzy.

Hope that helps!

Gord