[Jeremiah Black]

Thanks for everyone for posting, and helping me out.

I usually color HD or SD files, but for this 16mm short, I thought I’d try 2K cineon files in After Effects. Obviously, I’ve never done it before, but it seems like a lot of fun- provided I don’t screw it up. I supose I could just transfer the 16mm to D5, but this seems like more fun (plus I don’t have a D5 deck and renting one won’t be any cheaper than paying for 2K scans).

Obviously the 2K DI is for a 35mm print, but can anyone give me any advice on also making an SD master for television from the same 2K timeline in AE? I’m a little concerned given that the 2K file is 4:3 (2048 x 1536) and broadcast is 3:2 (720 x 480). And I’m also a little confused on how I can color correct for both from the same timeline. I guess I could color for broadcast and then make an adjustment layer based on a custom LUT, and leave it off for my render out to broadcast (digibeta master) and then turn it on for the render to cineon for the 35mm print. I’ll just have my NTSC monitor to grade on, so a few test frames will be in order. I know I don’t have all the ideal equipment to do this, but I just can’t help but try anyway.

Thanks again, everyone! I’m sure I’ll be posting more questions and results as the time draw nearer.

– jeremiah black

[Jeremiah Black]

Thanks guys. I found the cables and everything looks great. Much appreciated.

I will say that finding a male to female RS-422 cable proved to be a huge pain. You have to buy a male to male and then buy a gender changer. Odd. But works.

thanks again,

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

just wanna also say: (1) that’s a retail price. The price you’ll actually pay will probably end up being lower. (2) The 10,000 may even come down depending on how P2 prices fall in the next 5 months.

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

[Barry Green] “A full-aperture Super35 frame has a maximum possible area of 24mm x 18mm, which is exactly half of the size of a 35mm still frame. Accordingly, lenses look more telephoto on a movie frame”

B,

Thanks again for all the help.

Since Super35 is 3 perf, what would standard 35mm (4 perf) be? About 25% smaller, no?

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

Well, I’ve never green screened for as big an area as Jeremy, but I’ve done quite a bit of greenscreening on the DVX-100a. It came out pretty good, but it was a nightmare to do (4:1:1 color, 5 to 1 compression). Took forever in post.

I can’t wait to try it on the HVX-200!

No matter what the foramt, I’ve found that Ulimatte AdvantEdge in After Effects is the best keyer.

I’ve done green screen at 24p, 24a, and 60i; and I found that 24pA came out the best, and 24p with a 3:2 pulldown came out the worst. Anyone else care to share there experiences with various frame rates?

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

[Barry Green] “The 7.33 multiplier you used is typically rounded off to 7.2 — you’ll find most manufacturers, when listing a “35mm equivalent” for a 1/3″ camera, will use 7.2x. So the DVX lens, at 4.5 to 45mm, is listed as equivalent to 32.5 to 325mm on a 35mm still camera.

With a cine camera, the frame is much smaller than it is on a 35mm still camera, so you use a smaller multiplier. For cine equivalency, the multiplier is 4.2. A DVX lens delivers the equivalent of 18.9 to 189mm on a 35mm movie camera.
“

Barry,

I can’t thank you enough for sheding some light on this for me. The math I’m using are entirely my own deductions, and, in a sense, it’s gratifying to know I was correct, if not entirely. But help me out here. Why is the diagonal of the frame smaller (around 25mm by your numbers) on cine cameras? 25mm seems awfully tiny. Also, shocking to think that 35mm cine only has a diagonal four times mini-dv.

And why does it still not look very wide when I rent the adapter and put it on? Still doesn’t look like a 12mm to me at all by a long shot.

thanks agian,

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

[Brian Wells] “Your assessment is terribly inaccurate.

In Super35mm motion picture speak, a DVX100 with a 0.6X Century Optics adapter is roughly comparable to the field of view offered by a 12mm lens on a film camera.. as a generalisation… The DVX would actually be a tad bit wider”

Brian,

I don’t mean to be rude, but, I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers from.

On a normal lens (53 degree angle of view) focal length is equal to the diagonal of the image area. The diagonal of a 35mm piece of film is 43.27mm. The diagonal of a 1/3 inch CCD is .236 inches (5.9 mm)- yeilding a 22/3 ratio between the two, or 7.33. At 4.5mm (the DVX) at it’s widest point is a 33mm equivalent (4.5 x 7.33). Using the .6x century optics adapter, multiplying the magnification of the lens by the zoom focal length, gives you a 35mm film equivalent of 20mm. And that’s on the DVX which has, as you stated, the widest capabilities of the dv cameras out there. And since the PD-170 has a 6mm wide, the widest point it can achieve it is 26.5mm.

I’ve shot with the PD-170 using the .6x century optics adapter, and in my opinion is doesn’t look like a 27mm equivalent. To my eye it looks more like a 35mm or even 40mm equivalent. So, I’m hoping someone can chime in who knows his or her stuff, and lend a hand to the conversions.

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

Jan,

Not sure about still cameras. Not my area of experience or knowledge.

I was just hoping someone here could tell me why the widest of the “wide” adapters for fixed lens cameras such as the DVX-100 is only around a 30mm equivalent. And then there’s also a fisheye. But nothing in between where a “real” wide is on film cameras- something around 12-18mm. Event the removable “wide” lens for the XL2 isn’t even close to wide- maybe a 40mm equivalent. If you called a 40mm lens a “wide” lens on a film shoot, you be laughed at.

For the money and ease of use that shooting digital brings us, I can live with a little noise or grain. I’ve always thought digital looked fine in terms of image quality, and it just seems to get better and cheaper every day. But, I’m seeing no progress on the lenses, really, and don’t know enough to say why. I always say, “If you’re willing to live with a little noise and a shortened dynamic range, you can shoot your entire movie, not on film, but digitally.” The only hitch (besides depth of field that everyone mentions) is that you can’t get any real wide shots. I know this a board primarily concerned with the digital world- chips and DSPs and codecs and so forth, but maybe somebody knows why there are no really wide lenses or adapters for cameras under 100,000.

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Jeremiah Black]

Luis,

thanks, man. I’ll call first thing monday morning. Luis, if there are any specific questions you’d like asked, or photos you’d like emailed to you, lemme know. Sorry you can’t be here with me.

jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card

[Jeremiah Black]

Thanks, Luke. Will give that a shot, and keep the fingers crossed.

jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card