Mike Smith
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
To stir in extra thoughts, have you considered (for video) the sony alpha 7s2 or the Lumix GH4r?
If you are thinking stills-only, then you are comparing a mid-range Nikon with a much higher spec Canon – which will be reflected in price, in adaptability and ease in professional results, and, if you are careful use good lenses and have talent, in results.
-
I’d second that (Reisz and Millar) . Possibly the most useful source I’ve seen. And a great primer on aspects of direction too.
With actors in mind, and bearing in mind the importnace of story too, then I’d wonder about adding something perhaps like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Actor_Prepares to start an insight into what performers and directors are working on, and something like Goldman’s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_in_the_Screen_Trade
to get thinking about story construction into focus. -
It sounds good to be shooting at higher frame rate for faster motion within or across the frame, though I’ve found slo-mo cleanest on whole-number dividers of frame rates. But if your eye says it looks clean enough at different slo-mo rates, great.
Otherwise, if you’re conforming your 50fps footage down to 25 by dropping frames and then conforming to 24fps, wouldn’t you expect your tearing problems on movement within the frame to reappear – a function of how our eyes integrate motion within the frame, affected by distance travelled per frame and almost certainly also by “viewing angle” – how big the screen is and how close we sit to it (as well as the quality of the display).
Sometimes we just have to accept that there are limits to what we can show. Better to go super-fast – whip pan, as it were, and embrace the effect – or slow enough to hold image quality. It’s sitting on that margin where it’s nearly nice but not quite that can feel uncomfortable to watch, I think.
-
The “cinematic” look – how would you define that? The history of cinema – and current practice – shows us that there are many different “looks” that are achievable, and that have been desired and admired on different projects. The “deep focus” of Citizen Kane? The shallow depth of field and medium-telephoto portraiture of romances and many comedies, or the grittiness of Mean Streets? The ultra-polished effects of, say, Inception, or the off-the-streets realism of the french new wave, of the Dogma group?
So, what style does your project suit? What do you (your cinematographer) want for it, in terms of look?
TV historically and still typically uses interlaced frames .. effectively doubling the frame rate and allowing for faster in-frame movement before picture tearing. If you want to use progressive-scan then you need to think like a film cameraman and pan, tilt and track slower, keep the speed of motion of objects across the frame slower than you could do with interlaced footage.
If your outlet is TV then why not shoot 25p, if you must have the progressive scan element? The big plus for progressive scan is on output to film – really not likely to happen on most projects ever, and even less so now as digital cinema projection spreads everywhere.
-
Maybe it’s possible in AME but I don’t know how. Does either of these help, or have you seen the already ?
https://www.lynda.com/Premiere-Pro-tutorials/Adding-custom-metadata-export/149702/154530-4.htmlor this ?
https://helpx.adobe.com/media-encoder/using/export-settings-reference.html -
OK. So it looks like mp4 fietype supports custom data fields via xmp metadata standard – see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14Looking at that showed up a possible approach – though a pay for
https://www.digitalconfidence.com/MetadataTouch-Supported.htmlAnother that might do it is Daminion
https://daminion.net/user-forum/index.php?/topic/1643-can-xmp-metadata-be-written-to-mp4-video/https://daminion.net/feature-tour/daminion/support-for-xmp-iptc-exif-mwg-metadata
-
Covers should be straightforward – just pay the required royalties to rights holders. Parody could be more tricky. In essence if your version is intended to make money then it may well be necessary to clear rights and pay royalties to copyright holders.
https://occupypeace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/recording-cover-song-most-basic-things.html
and
https://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/music-copyright-and-youtube.htmlhttps://www.artslaw.org/parody.htm
https://www.songrights.com/infringe.htm -
This sounds like fraudulent activity. https://www.stopfraud.gov/report.html