John Sharaf
Forum Replies Created
-
Yeah, it’s coming back to me now; the workflow for what you want to do is either upconvert by playinmg your DV tape in the 1200A and capturing out the HD-SDI spiget into a capture card, like a Kona or else use two 1200A’s, one to play back and the other to record the HD-SDI output, then you can play back the upconverted tape through FW into FCP.
Sorry for the lapse and thank you Chris Bell!
JS
-
Todd,
Let’s check the following:
#600 VIDEO IN SEL must change from default to 0002 (1394 setting)
#880 DIF SPEED must change from default to S100Let’s see if this works!
JS
-
Todd,
You only need a capture card if you want to output from the HD-SDI spiget on the deck, you can also import to FCP viw FW, just use the appropriate “east Setup”. In general, I’ve had more reliable capture with my Kona Lhe card that with the firewire, but this is a very subjective oppinion!
JS
-
Todd,
I believe that you cannot capture directly thru the 1200A, but must play the DV material through the firewire into the deck and record it onto a tape, then you can playback that tape either through the FW or HD-SDI and a capture card to import to FCP.
JS
-
Pat,
Please tell us where that is?
Thanks,
JS
-
Florian,
HD video really started to catch on when Sony obliged George Lucus in providing the first Cine Alta camera that offered 24p. It has been since then that a “video” camera could imitate (and ultimately replace) film cameras in creating identical motion on screen.
With the additional electronic wizardry of “cine gamma” where the video camera can now more closely also imitate the reproduction of tones similar to film (a greater ability to compress the highlights while at the same time reaching into the shaddows) these new HD cameras are finding wide acceptibility because of the cost savings and their subjective similarity to film qualities. Ultimately, when the imagers are able to equal film resolution (4K) and recording techniques evolve that allow uncompressed mastering you’ll see many (if not most) cinemas convert to digital projection in order to take best advantage of a end-to-end digital solution.
Yes there is a difference between 24 and 30p aestheticly; just look at it yourself. This is not to say that 24 is better, it just is what film does. 30p is actually smoother and for that matter 60p might even be the “holy grail” but recording that much information creates a bottleneck. I was lucky enough to have seen a 60fps implimentation of film called “Showscan” many years ago at a cinema in Westwood Village. It truely was spectatcular, but I remember that my impression of it was that it resembled television more than film (granted a high resolution version), but due to it’s costs that format never was adopoted.
The 24fps film speed was implemented in the first place to accomodate the reproduction of sound; prior to sound, silent movies were shot and projected at 16fps, and this speed was chosen to be the slowest possible frame rate that human “persistance of vision” would allow to recreate flickerless viewing of projection of moving images in a dark theater. Even then the cost of film and processing figured highly into the calculation.
Ultimately with these new HD cameras, producers must make intellegent descisions regarding what speed to shoot. These are based primarily on the anticipated exhibition platform; if for “film-out” to the cinema, 24p is the natural choice, if for progressive DVD (or the internet) 30p makes a lot of sence and if for networks that have chosen the 1080i standard then 60i is for you. Sometimes of course producers are not sure, or want to hedge their bets, then some compromise takes place. The same discussion and consideration must often also be engaged in determining 4×3 or 16×9 formatting, or protecting both (although this has also been done in film production for years).
24p is often chosen because replacing (immitating) film and saving money are both attractive alternatives; also the conversion to 25 European PAL standards is most seamless.
For your particular project, you should consider all of the above, but do not make a decision without testing both speeds and critically viewing the results on the viewing platform your project will end up on. Only then will you have made an informed choice.
JS
-
Detail is one of many settings made and adjusted on all cameras (gains, peds, gamma, flare, etc). When the master detail is set too high (as it sounds like it was in your case) a black line can be seen on the edges of objects, especially against the unifprm green. Other adjustments to detail including frequence, balance, coring etc. can be optimized for particual shooting situations, but no amount of book reading will arm you with this information; it really must come from experiance and careful observation. In lieu of this a qualified video controller or DIT should be employed, or the camera should be setup at the rental house for the intended use (assuming the engineers there are more than QC trained!).
JS
-
Sounds like detail setting was too agressive. For green screen foreground shooting detail should be backed off a bit to prevent exactly what you’re talking about.
JS
-
OK, here’s a link to the item on Adorama’s website:
https://www.adorama.com/LF3676.html
The attachment is made with a 1/4-20 threaded (headless) bolt. You just super glue it into the head and this way you don’t have to but a 1/4-20 to 3/8-16 adapter to put on the camera handle, which you pretty much have to do with an Isreali Arm to make it super-strong (and then use the 1/4-20 side on the monitor end).
Everyone who’s seen my Linhoff rig really likes it vis-a-vis the more typical Isreali Arm setup!
JS
-
I’ve had great success using a large Linhoff “ball head” which I purchased from B&H instead of the Isreaili arms (which are now filed away in a storage drawer). These units center up the weight of the monitor and provide ready “tilt” for adjustment of viewing angle based on the height of the camera. They’re a lot easier and faster to mount and dismount on the camera too!
LS