Forum Replies Created

Page 18 of 36
  • Randall Raymond

    September 19, 2007 at 5:27 pm in reply to: why does video look harsh?

    [DSE/Spot] “For giggles, we’ll specify”

    For giggles, what not stay on topic?

    How is a higher resolution going to fix ‘harshness’ and the ‘video look’ – the fact is, it can’t – it just makes it worse.

  • Randall Raymond

    September 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm in reply to: why does video look harsh?

    [DSE/Spot] “So based on your theory, you’re saying that 720p from a film source looks softer on a 720p display than 1080i/p will appear from the same film source when displayed on a 1080 i/p display system?”
    Yes, resolution is resolution. That’s another variable – but I think most HDTVs are now 1080 and 720 is scaled up which is where the difference shows.

    What I am saying is that counting the pores on my favorite actresses face is a big distraction – Hollywood knows that and will not allow that to happen in either broadcasted movies or those delivered on disk. It’s probably going to stay that way for decades to come.

    We’re not talking about the news here. The suspension of disbelief is the goal of all drama – that’s why the ‘look’ of film is so important – it’s what we expect in helping to pull us into the story – we expect a softer picture if the picture is not to call attention to itself.

    I shoot 720p – it just looks better to me on a plasma.

  • Randall Raymond

    September 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm in reply to: why does video look harsh?

    [DSE/Spot] “It’s not at all a 1080 vs 720 discussion.”

    Sure it is. The lower resolution of 720p appeals to the perception that one is watching a film that has been converted to video and not an HD video. The opening post is complaining about the too crisp picture of 1080 since he’s not going to film. Resolution has a lot to do with the viewer’s perception of what they are watching on their HDTV.

    A 4K picture projected (scaled up) for the big screen is going to soften a bit because of the scale and look more like what? 720p in their living room.

  • Randall Raymond

    September 19, 2007 at 4:58 am in reply to: why does video look harsh?

    The best ‘film to video’ look is 720p not 1080i – the varicam has proved this. Richer colors and less edge enhancement to make it look more HD, especially HDV, which adds contrast as well. ‘Video to Film’ is another story.

    So add a mist filter to your shooting (the H1 is guilty of edge enhancement) or add gaussian blur in post.

  • Randall Raymond

    September 15, 2007 at 10:33 pm in reply to: Oh man…!

    As a follow-up question: Is FCP’s ProRes 422 essentially an AVC-Intra codec?

  • Randall Raymond

    September 15, 2007 at 10:28 pm in reply to: Marine Lighting, sailboat

    You know, you might want to try a truck/trailer parts supplier. My Lions club recently bought a BIG mobile stage trailer and every light on it is a multiple LED fixture and they are bright! Some are round, some are rectangular, and all of them are water proof and perfect for a sailboat.

    An anchor light LED on a deep-cycle battery would run for months!

  • Randall Raymond

    September 15, 2007 at 1:58 am in reply to: live lighting

    The typical wisdom in stage lighting is to light warm from the left and cool from the right – using gels – creating the illusion of shadow and adding depth to the scene.

    Warm being yellows and reds – cool being blues and greens.

    In any stage lighting scheme there are areas predetermined by blocking – so there may be 5 or 6 areas and 10-12 (or more) fixtures to accomplish the lighting plan. Every play is unique but, generally, that is the way it is done.

  • Randall Raymond

    September 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm in reply to: Oh man…!

    [Jan Crittenden Livingston] “Let’s pull this thread back to what started it the AJ-HPX3000 cacorder. Frankly I have never seen such a gorgeous luscious picture delivered in 100 Mbs in my life! It looks like HDD5. The guys did this showgirl with feathers doing a dance against a green screen, ubelievable. I asked them to limit this part of the demo real because the guys looking at it were no longer looking at camera quality, if you know what I mean. Then the footage goes to a restaurnt scene and there was easily 3 stops of light under the table to play with.”

    It’s the one camera I want. Were they using a video lens or a film lens w/adapter?

  • Randall Raymond

    September 14, 2007 at 2:33 am in reply to: Oh man…!

    ‘The Theatre is Dead’ was a great bugaboo when I started college in ’65 as a Drama (read – ‘theatre’) major. The fact is, it’s pretty much proved out. It’s live, it’s quaint, and the largest audience is, without a doubt, springtime high school play audiences. (I’ve been to New York City plays where there were 100 of us in the audience wondering, ‘Will they make a movie of this…’) They didn’t.

    4K cameras are for optimists. Deliver to disks, get your story out. Stop stressing about the BIG screen, when your audience is watching it on a 50″ Plasma. That IS the big screen from now on.

    ‘The Movie Theatre is Dead’ Given the clarity of HD, is there anyone who wants to argue that.

    So, is 4k the wave of the future when the future is upon us?

  • Randall Raymond

    September 12, 2007 at 7:01 pm in reply to: Exporting an FLV Directly From Vegas

    [CitizenCaino] “Yes, that is pretty much the current work flow. We are in a time sensitive, live news environment and are looking to cut out the step of the avi pre-render.”

    The only way to do that is with the Premier bundle (w/flash). I render out to a MOV file in Vegas and encode with Flash or On2. The later is the better and cheaper way of doing it.

Page 18 of 36

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy