Jack Guthrey
Forum Replies Created
-
That is true though he seemingly praised Avid’s rigidity at the same time (I may have perceived that as it’s one of the reasons I like Avid). He did mention that Avid has a huge pool of freelancers but it wasn’t clear if that drives many decisions in their shop (I’m guessing no).
-
I’m interested in why they went FCPX (I contend it’s X not “Ten” – “Ten” requires an “Eight”) when Avid MC6 received heaps more praise.
Overall a very good presentation, he illuminated his bias and did a fairly thorough job of outlining each NLE. It seems the final “answer” is the one typically spouted on these boards; “Different tools for different purposes.”
-
I think it’ll be pretty easy to get more light…
You’re shutter (typically) should be 1/(fps*2).
24fps – 1/48s (1/50 for most HDSLRs)
30fps – 1/60s
60fps – 1/120s (1/125 for most HDSLRs)
This is the equivalent of a 180 degree shutter angle.Off the bat you could have achieved at least twice as much light by reducing your shutter.
The biggest limiting factor is your lens obviously. An f/4 just is not made for low light. An f/2.8 (common for zooms) would have given you twice as much light and of course on the extreme side, an F/1.4 (common for primes) would have yielded 8 times as much light on the sensor.
If you had adjusted shutter and had an f/1.4 lens you would have had 16 times the light compared to your current exposures. You also could have decreased ISO to 1600 and still had 4x as much light and less noise (though overexposing is one way to help ease noise).
-
I was always told 10%.
How are you screening? Blu-Ray? DVD? I always tend to shoot in 1080 and deliver in 720 so doing post punch-ins is less of a worry.
-
I love them both. I prefer the way the legs work on the Sachtler but prefer the lock mechanism and locations on the Cartoni.
-
The DVCPRO HD codec is one of the better shooting codecs that exists. Intraframe, 115Mbps, 4:2:2 color sampling. The downfall of the HVX is the undersized raster that exists no matter how you interface with the camera to my knowledge. I’ve always recommended shooting in 1080 and delivering 720.
Basically, what are you missing that you’re trying to gain?
-
I didn’t mean in camera – use whatever settings you’re accustomed to though I’d recommend something “flat” – the crushing comes in the grade. [Lift/Shadows/Blacks] [Gamma/Midtones/Greys] same thing, different nomenclature. The actual application depends on the desired look.
If you are wanting to have a black that is “deep” then light low key with high ratios (Good info) and stop down enough to not clip any highlights.
In the grade, drop your shadows (lift) significantly and increase your highlights (gain) right on the verge of clipping. Set your midtones (gamma) where it looks best for you (most likely higher, towards highlights).
What you should end up with is very distinguished blacks and a compressed amount of greyscale leading up to your whites (depending on lighting).Here are some images to get it across better.
This is what would be shot
And then corrected to this
What has happened is increasing the contrast between Shadow and midtone so that anything dark turns black. Shoot wise, this means great care in lighting, controlling exposure and using a format that has some latitude – DVCPRO HD is pretty good in that regard.
If the subject is dark then you’re looking at needing a lot of highly controlled light in a fairly large space.
-
Too dark everywhere? In a stage environment I usually overexpose the highlights a bit and let the shadows fall to whatever.
“It was just a little too dark” – How much too dark?
What exactly were your ISO, aperture, shutter speed and framerate?
-
What’s your destination format? Broadcast? Web? That’s going to make a big difference. What do you mean by “Quality”? Resolution? Sharpness? Latitude?
I’d just light it ridiculously low-key and crush down the blacks. The lift-gamma contrast is what tells people that blacks are ‘inky’. Any of your cameras can do that just fine. The Panasonic has a more robust codec that will stand up in grading better though. If you use the Canon, I’d be looking to rent a great lens.
-
3 hours at ProRes 220 would be around 300GB. Since you said “Project Folder” I’m guessing that 500GB number includes audio, renders, etc. so that seems easily feasible.
When you saw “Raw” from the camera do you mean the native h.264 files? That should only save around 50GB if it’s just video.
After the project is over, you don’t really need to keep the ProRes as it’s just a better copy of the native h.264s. I’d keep those as your “master clips” which you can transcode later if there needs to be any adjustments.
