[Ken Zukin]

As long as you control the depth-of-field, it won’t show up in your recorded footage.

The fix is to send it in to Fuji or Canon — it’s the front element that needs attention.

Not the cheapest fix, but not that horrible, if my memory serves me.

If your lens is older, or has been exposed to the elements, you might consider having it serviced at that time.

[Ken Zukin]

You’ll want the sun behind your actors — as mentioned previously. A dark backround will help too — a lot!! You’ll want your actors to be at least as well illuminated as the backround. A site inspection beforehand will help insure there are no “surprises” the day of your shoot. You’ll have sunlight coming into the top of your camera’s lens — so flag accordingly.

There are many types of diffusion material for this job. It depends on how strong/weak the sun is. Be aware too, that if it’s very overcast — you’ll need some supplemental lighting to bring out your actor’s faces. This lighting needs to be daylight-balanced. If you “fly” diffusion over your talent, you’ll need lots of sandbags and people to make sure the whole apparatus doesn’t turn into a large sail.

You’ll also be needing to reflect some sunlight back into your actor’s faces. Ideally, the whole scene should look natural, and “unlit.”

Not meaning to offend here, but if you’ve never done this, it might be best to bring along someone in your crew that has. Or, maybe you can assist somewhere beforehand, so you can see how it’s done.

A lot of success with this kind of thing is drawing from experience, and you just have to earn your stripes.

[Ken Zukin]

If you watch Murch’s presentation here (12 minutes), his reaction to “X” mirrors the rest of us — confused by Apple’s new trajectory, cautiously optimistic, hopeful but realistic, and at the end of the day, wondering if this new software will work for him.

Illuminating — thanks Juan, for posting this.

[Ken Zukin]

Oliver’s post here says it all — to expect that Apple will somehow transform FCP into a workable tool is just tilting at windmills.

It’s been a good run. I loyally supported Apple for a decade — they profited from my involvement — I used their software (and hardware) to generate a nice revenue source.

Time to move on — wish it wasn’t so — but it is. Now if only I had some assurance that they will continue to make and support their desktop machines.

[Ken Zukin]

It doesn’t much matter — the final output is destined for a PBS station in northern california — they don’t care as long as everything looks and sounds great.

I suppose I should return to shooting in DVCPROHD, which yields a 29.97 timeline.

But the question still remains: are there any steps I can take to “treat” the 29.97 footage so that it “plays nice” with the 23.98 timeline.

Many thanks.

[Ken Zukin]

Thanks, Ty — I will take your advice and buy the adapter you recommend.

The shotgun I have is really old, and very mellow sounding. I’ve used other mics, including some high dollar DJ / VO types, and keep coming back to this old shotgun. Very mellifluous sounding.

Thanks again,

Ken

[Ken Zukin]

Well Bill, I suspect the huge volume of posts the last few months has a direct connection to editors feeling concerned about their workflows now that Apple has changed the game so drastically.

If Apple had simply released a milquetoast FCP v8, editors would have been disappointed, vented, and moved on.

Personally, I keep checking in here at the Cow, hoping for some sort of miraculous resolution to this drama. I’m looking at having to jump ship to Adobe or Avid; not something I would have imagined in my wildest dreams. Expensive, distracting, and could have been avoided.

So, I think I will disagree with you; very bad news (end-of-lifing FCP7 and assorted pro apps) and the strong reaction to it is never a good thing.

[Ken Zukin]

Why don’t you show instead of tell??

Take 3 photos:
First: place subject underneath some overhead office flourescents — raccoon eye syndrome.

2nd: open faced fixture pointed at subject’s face — harsh lighting syndrome.

3rd: nice flattering soft light illuminating subjects face.
since you only have one light — you’ll have to get creative here — use a white card to bounce some light back into the “dark” side of your subjects face — and figure out a way to highlight your subject’s hair from behind.

You’ll be demonstrating the effects of: #1, no lighting, #2, bad lighting, and #3, proper lighting.

[Ken Zukin]

I’m very interested in the Sony F3 as well, because of the use of PL mounted lenses, the light weight, and of course the large sensor, which throws the background out of focus so elegantly.
But it has drawbacks — it’s not really designed for documentary/eng type applications — with it’s viewfinder located behind the camera body and it’s default recording codec is 4:2:0.
Much as I envied it’s very light weight, I just purchased a Panasonic HPX-3100, which finally is a lighter full-sized P2 camera.

[Ken Zukin]

Hi Daniel,

Well, if it were me, I’d consider a cheaper, “full-sized” camera, and a Panasonic one to boot. That way, you do have a better chance of having things “match.” Have you looked into the Panasonic HPX-370, or the HPX-300, which was the earlier iteration? Those cameras are full-sized, with a detachable lens, and record onto P2 cards. A full sized rig, with a pro-type zoom lens, is much quicker to respond to documentary type work, which is really what you’re attempting (the 2nd camera will be capturing real-life classroom situations). The 370/300 uses 1/3 chips, so the “look” will be a little different than your HDX900, but since the shots are such different views anyway, it shouldn’t be too noticeable. If you are buying, rather than renting, those cameras can be picked up pretty cheaply, esp. the HPX-300.

More than the camera, you’re bigger concern should be the operator of the 2nd camera, as the end product will live or die with the strength of those images. If it were me, I’d have the less experienced operator on the lockdown shots of the teacher, and the stronger cameraperson on the student reaction shots.