Randall Raymond
Forum Replies Created
-
[paul colin] “Thanks again David for your input. I’m going to the dealer this week to compare the 500 and the 2000 with the 17×7.6 lens.”
Let us know which camera looks more like Varicam footage – that’s the litmus test for me…
-
[Ron Shook] ”
It all goes to show that you can’t generalize too far when it comes to rates and rate structures.”If I’m busy – they get one rate, if I’m not they get another. If I like the project, they get another rate. By rates, I mean price – I normally go by the project. Even the bean-counters prefer that…
If the client is a butt-head – they get a big-fat NO – I’d rather go bowling and I hate bowling.
-
My suggestion would be to build your own – not all that difficult. Go to New-Egg – you’ll end up with 20-40% more computer compared to a Dell priced work-station.
HDV hammers any computer, btw. It’s best to convert Mpeg2 footage to an editing codec no matter what system you are using.
-
[DSE/Spot] “If 720p is the grail, why has Panasonic moved into the 1080 market? Why are we seeing development of 4K cameras and beyond?”
Again, if your intention is a film print – yeah, go to 4k. But that is NOT the topic of this thread.
You’ve already conceded that 720p is the grail by what the professionals use for acquisition in getting the best film to video look for delivery on TV.
Now, they’re all wrong…and millions of viewers. I don’t agree. Call us all stupid if that gives you any satisfaction. I’ll pass it along to all the ad agencies.
Frankly, I cringed when I saw you as a moderator on this forum…you have bullied people on other forums, but I am not going to let you bully me.
-
[DSE/Spot] “Varicam owns most of the commercial spot production market, that’s one I’ll give you, but that’s about where it overall ends.”
Why do you think that is? High-end commercials have always been shot on film. In delivering to SD and HD for national broadcast – why are all these professionals shooting 720p – because it looks less like their work on film???? Or more like film in the living room?
I’ll answer that for you – 720p looks more like film on TV – all things being equal. Now, you can continue to say that resolution has nothing to do with it. Have at it. But it’s not just me who would beg to differ.
-
[Rick Mac] “Your line of thinking that resolution is somehow the culprit of harsh looking pictures is just flawed to the core.”
Of course, I didn’t say that – what I said was that prosumer HDV cameras tweak the footage to make it look sharper – the result is harshness.
The aside to that was that 720p provides the best ‘film to video’ look – and Apple’s latest white paper on HD formats agrees with that, in part and BECAUSE of the lower resolution.
You may think their line thinking is flawed as well – that’s up to you. But try reducing your footage to 720p and see if the film look is improved on an HDTV and then we’ll talk. (Isn’t that what the cable and sat companies do anyway?)
Shooting for a film print is another animal altogether.
-
[Rick Mac] “That is how the big boys get the look of film using video cams.
They do not lower the resolution of their cameras. In fact they are all trying to get up to 2k and higher resolution, hince the big interest in the Red 2K Camera at all the shows.”What’s that got to do with the ‘film to video’ LOOK? Which is what 99 percent of shooters are looking for – they are not going to make a film print – they are going to deliver to disk in SD and HD.
You’re all talking about ‘video to film’. Get a 4k camera for that.
-
[DSE/Spot] “Varicam owns most of the commercial spot production market, that’s one I’ll give you, but that’s about where it overall ends.”
Oh, stop being such a shill for Sony. I made it clear that I was talking about the film to video ‘look’!
Not shooting video with the intention of going to film!
-
[DSE/Spot] “Resolution has nothing to do with why video does or does not look harsh.
However, you’ve raised a point that I would like to hear you expound upon, suggesting that 720p is less sharp or more aesthetically pleasing than 1080p or i when viewed on a display of corresponding size, when the source is the same.”It’s about scaling.
When 480 is scaled up to 1080 is the picture as crisp as native 1080?
This discussion is not about wowing people at a trade show. The games Canon and Sony play with their prosumer HDV cameras – enhancing edges and toying with contrast in processing the image is great for a trade show – win the sharpeness battle – but worthless and counter-productive for replicating the ‘film to video’ look.
The VariCam image looks more organic and less electronic to most people than CineAlta – 720 scaled up to 1080 looks great.
-
[Rick Mac] “The truth of the matter is that 35mm film has way more resolution that HDV or HD Video for that matter. The harshness described is not a function of resolution. If it were, movies shoot on film would look very poor indeed since film has way more resolution than our HD Cams. It is well documented that you can soften the look of HDV cams by lowering the detail setting and other internal camera settings. But, your lighting is going to have a huge effect on how hard or soft your end picture will look. At the network where I work, we can take our HD Studio cams and just by adjusting our lighting make the subject look hard and theatrical or soft and pleasing. It has been our experience that lighting the the single biggest factor affecting the way our picture looks.
I think we can all agree that a soft filter on the lens can make things look softer. But in my opinion ,resolution in and of itself does not give you that film look.”Of course, a lot of things come into play in getting the look. For me the ‘look’ to replicate is the projected film on the big screen which is slightly softened by the scaling. An outdoor shot is an outdoor shot – lighting is not the factor in those scenes – the resolution and scaling is.