John Sharaf
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi Dale and All,
It’s funny, I was thinking the same thing the other day and checked to see how long it had been since there was posting on this forum and was a little suprised! I think Panasonic’s pricing agenda vis-a-vis the HDX900 and their misguided abandonment of the Varicam concept with the new P2 models has effectively taken the wind out of the original Varicamers like us.
It’s not to deny the effect of evolution that is naturally taking place both technologically and economicly; obviously 10 bit is great and sub $10K cameras are now very attractive, but there is much to be said about the early adopters and the cameras that we’ve been using for many years now.
I also think the general state of the economy has put a pale on everybody’s life and desire to “upgrade” their cameras and business plan. I’m in the middle of the slowest month I’ve had since 9/11 and I don’t foresee much change ahead. My network clients are cutting staff and frozen most freelance calls and those queries that do come in are all looking for low ball deals, and I suspect that these lower standards will prevail even after the inevitable recovery.
I do still plan to go to NAB next month and I’ll be very interested to see what kind of turnout there is and to take the temperature of the crowd, but I expect more lookie-loos than ever and less buyers, which is actually quite ironic, because it’s likely that the dollar will continue to loose its value against the yen and euro and all the gear we want and need will become more and more expensive.
Even if you were prepared to sell your Varicam(s) presumably to upgrade to a newer, better(?) more versatile cameras (like 1080 and 720) the going prices are about $10-12K and I find that really depressing. Unlike my Betacams, which I’ve almost sold all off, I can’t bring myself to part with Varicams at that price (until off course ABC bails out on them). Most of my other Varicam clients I think I could switch over to the PDW700’s.
So there, there a posting! Dale, don’t choke on your coffee.
Regards to all,
JS
-
If you shot 25p or 50i audio is not embedded.
JS
-
The simple concept is to rig a mount for the lights (even the kit you describe would be adequate) that puts them in the best place.
Consider a goal post in American football, where a cross beam is supported by two uprights; you want to mount the lights on the crossbeam so that there is an even amount of light coming down on the large group of singers over the width of the group.
Practically speaking, you need two large grip stands called hi rollers, made safe with sandbags and either a 2×4 piece of lumber or speedrail span. You will need appropraite hardware to secire the crossbeam to the stands and the lights to the beam and voila!
JS
-
This is a gross misstatement. Film look, as others have said, is primarily an imitation of film motion which is accomplished by frame rate of 24 and shutter of 1/48th. In addition the modern Hd cameras mimic as best they can the gamma curves of film with their various Cine gamma and Film Look settings, which include gamma, matrtix, detail, knee, etc. The concept that filters create a film look is a marketing device of filter manufacturers.
JS
-
Ryan,
I’m at a loss myself to think of any presets (other than 180 degree shutter) that would affect the film like motion from a video camera. Of course there are gamma, detail, knee, matrix and other settings (presets) that make video more filmic or filmlike, in addition to the biggy being 24fps in progressive mode with half shutter (180 degrees aka 1/48th of a second).
JS
-
Mark,
It’s funny that you mention that because I had a similar reaction; except my thought was that the job of Director of Photography (DP) is so broad and all encompassing that both technical and creative aspects must be considered and if not that it’s up to the DP to bring the discussion around to include all aspects of the solution.
It’s really only by knowing the job skills of all the other crafts that this is possible and it reinforces the thought that one never stops learning how to become a really complete cameraperson.
JS
-
Yeah, definitely rolling shutter from CMOS imager; a very good example! Of all the cases that you’ll see it though, in a rock video with moving lights you can almost get away with it. I predict you’ll use the footage here (because you have to) and are more careful in the future not to use a CMOS camera (think Red) when you might encounter similar problems. No one tool is appropriate for all conditions; the skilled camera person these days must possess a myriad knowledge base so as not to get “snookered” buy their chosen technology. Of course the best result of your problem with this shoot is that you are now an expert on CMOS rolling shutter effect and by sharing with us may have saved others from repeating your problem. Thanks!
JS
-
Kenny,
Here’s a few thoughts:
Use point of view camera to see door open, but your Brevis and 50mm lens are too long and tight. Need wide angle.
Try using a dummy look alike for the kid as he “flies through the air”
Have real actor fall into closeup.
I don’t get the fascination with these DOF devices, I’d recommend rethinking, and using the appropriate tool for the job at hand.
JMHO,
JS
-
The Israeli crew will know that setting the shutter to 1/100th of a a second will eliminate any flicker, and no problem mixing formats. Issue remains as to how you’ll “transport” the media off his SXS card to you in the states, but you must have already considered that with thinking that you’d be shooting P2 card on HVX200.
JS
-
If you do as you suggest, you’ll need to “standard convert” the PAL footage to NTSC. This will be expensive. Whatever speed you shoot in Isreal it should be NTSC to match the footage here. I’ve hired crews there with NTSC Betacams, I’m sure you can find an appropriate camera. I’d suggesy you find a Varicam or F900 and shoot at 23.97 and downconvert on the way into your NLE. Another alternative would be to ship a NTSC HVX200 to the crew; I guarantee it will be cheaper than the standard convert.
JS