John Young
Forum Replies Created
-
[Alex Campbell] “I use Premiere and the program allows you to have a 24 FPS timeline, which keeps the file size down while using whatever footage you want.”
Let’s say it again, frames per second is NOT a contributor to large file sizes. For almost all situations you want to have a timeline that matches the attributes of your source footage. If you need to change attributes, do it on the export. (Slo-motion effects are one of those odd situations where your timeline will not have the same attributes as your source footage)
John
-
Yeah. That is what I mean when I say it gets “more web programming than video production” at that point. We only do H.264 at this point. I believe Chrome should play the H.264 file, but that may depend on your version of Chrome.
If done correctly, if Chrome does not play the H.264 file, it should fallback to Flash and play through Flash. -
[Michael Saffan] “After all that I am wondering if it is worth shooting ANYTHING (except slow motion) in higher than 30fps or is there something I’m missing to get my short film online without sacrificing it’s quality to a very high degree? Did I miss something in post?”
Yes. You are. The reason your file is huge has much more to do with the codec, resolution, and bitrate than the frames per second.
Give us some more information so we can help you out. Exactly how are you exporting your file?
-
-
[David DiNenna] “Do I have to encode all the different video formats and load them in the server directory in order for their “Option B” to work correctly… I’m assuming I do but it didn’t see anywhere on the site that mentioned this.”
We only do H.264 right now. Which I think it will work on all browsers currently (either natively or in Flash, [as long as the have Flash 9 or higher, which has a 90% market reach]). But Google Chrome and Internet Explorer have both announced their intentions to not support H.264 in the future.
We may need to go to multiple versions of each video on our servers in the future. But, as far as the user goes it should be seamless and all done behind the scenes.
Here is how we are using the HTML 5 player right now. https://beta.prosoco.net/ There are embedded videos on the front page and then videos in “lightbox” in the Multimedia Library.
-
[David DiNenna] ” Is there a format that can run on everything?”
There is a simple answer to that question. No, there is not.
I think the way to think of this is not to find the one video format that works on everything, but to find a way to a deliver the appropriate format that will work on whatever device is playing it.
If you are talking about remote delivery or “streaming”, I am pretty sure there is no way to accomplish what you want without embedding into a html page.
The way that we have accomplished something that I think is very close to getting “” the final video to run on all devices and platforms” is by using a html5 video player. We ended up using MediaElement.js (https://mediaelementjs.com/) This player will play the video with H.264 for devices that can handle H.264, it plays the video with Flash for devices that can handle Flash, and it plays the video with Silverlight for devices that can handle Silverlight.
At this point, I am discovering that this step of delivery is more web programming than video production. But we should start learning this stuff, because this is where content delivery is going.
-
-
Brent is right on the AF100. But keep in mind that is $4,7000 without any lenses. By comparison, the Canon XA10 HD you mentioned is $2,000. Where a 60D with no lens is $950, even with a kit lens is $1,200. Oh and look a the sensor size of the Canon XA10 1/3 CMOS sensor versus a 60D or 7D which has an ASP-C sensor.
The point of the DSLR is what they can do for so little money. Again, they are not easy or simple, but high quality stuff is possible.
-
[Kendrick Price] “Can somebody please tell me how these cameras work?”
You are going to have to do some research yourself. Nobody on this forum can answer that question without writing you a multiple page thesis for a reply. There are many good places to start. https://nofilmschool.com/dslr/
and the dslr podcast https://podcasts.creativecow.net/dslr-video-podcast will give you a good foundation. But you will have to (like the rest of us) research the pros and cons of DSLRs.DSLRs are many things, simple is not one of them. Good Luck
-
I can’t speak to the specific lenses you listed, but if you are asking whether to get a f2.8 or an f4 lens, I say go with 2.8.
You can always buy the f2.8 lens and set the aperture to f4 if you want deeper Depth of field. But if you buy the f/4 that is the most light and shallowest Depth of Field you can get, no matter what the situation calls for.
For my money, I don’t buy a lens slower than 3.5. You can always go up in f-stop but you can only go down as far as the lens will allow.
Now as far as Canon vs. Sigma and 17-50 vs. 24-105, there are many other issues and things to consider, but the answer to your f-stop question is a resounding “go with the 2.8”, (in my opinion).