Rick Wise
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks for drawing our attention to this Indian company. Very interesting.
Any kind of body-vest, Steadicam-like system adds a fair amount of back strain and needs lots and lots of practice to use well. It also takes time to get into, and to get out of. You might consider the much cheaper shoulder mount by the same Indian company. It looks like you can adapt it to be as minimal or complete as you like. There is one thing this shoulder mount will not do: let you make smooth tracking shots. To do so, I’ve found that the simplest solution is the best, barring using a full-up Steadicam device: remove any shoulder support, zoom out to the wide end of the lens, hold the camera with both hands lightly and loosly in front of you letting your arms act as shock absorbers, and stay CLOSE to the subject. This works only if the subject is moving. If you want to walk up to a stationary subject, you will definitely want to use a full-up type steadicam — or lay down track and use a dolly, probably not an option during a wedding.
If you add a quick-release plate to the shoulder system, you can quickly move back and forth from shoulder mount to fully-free handheld, or to a tripod. Just make sure you get a plate that works with both support systems.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
I suspect you’ll be very happy. You may want to eventually get a Beachtek audio XLR box.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Does your $5,000 have to cover camera, mics, tripod, lights? Or just the camcorder itself?
Assuming the 5 grand is for your camera alone, I’d consider:
–Sony HDRFX1000 ($3,200 at B&H last time I looked)(consumer model with most of features of Z7u)
–Sony HVR Z5u ($4,099)
–Sony HVR Z7u ($4,900)
–Canon XH A1 ($2,999)
–Canon XH A1s ($3,999)No doubt, others will have other ideas.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
I would love for you to be right — the tide will change. But the influence of FCP isn’t a tidal wave, it’s a tsunami. Unless Vegas becomes so overwhelmingly better than FCP, and unless Sony seriously pushes its advertising, FCP will continue to rule.
FCP has almost pushed Avid aside because getting into FCP was relatively “cheap.” FCP itself has become much, much more expensive than it was and now costs about double the price of Vegas. But it still costs a fraction of a full-up, hardware based Avid system. And that’s cheap enough.
It also appeals because it’s Mac based, and so believed to be “better” for graphics than a PC, even though that’s just not true.
If you want to make a living as a video/film editor, you really have to know FCP and preferably also Avid. There are only a tiny number of places that even know of the existence Vegas. How many “Vegas Editor” want ads do you see, anywhere?!
As much as I admire you, and as much as I love cutting with Vegas, I think you guys are whistling in the dark.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Backlights (like all lighting) are a matter of taste. My preference is to set them so the intensity is just barely visible. Note that bald or balding people tend to have shiny heads that the backlight can make look pretty bad. In general, you might want to set a single backlight for both people, diffuse it, and scrim it down to taste. Sometimes a little color gel helps — a blonde or read-head’s hair will look better with a slight warming gel, while a regal senior with silver hair might benefit for a pinch of blue.
A lot depends on the color the hair. Really dark hair may call for a stronger backlight, while light hair will call for less.
One advantage of hard light(s) is that you can use a split scrim to reduce the light on the hair, but leave it stronger on the shoulders if the suit is really dark. Equally you can reverse that, with more hair on the head and less on the shoulders. Etc.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Actually, if you have at least a couple of nets, say a single and a double, plus a c-stand, there’s no need to shoot the couple with the key light head-on. Place the key at the usual side angle (roughly 45º off center and 45º above horizontal to the talent) and net down the person closest to the light. Depending on how close your key is to the talent, you may need a single, or a double, or a triple.
You can also do that with a split wire scrim in the key, placing the wire side so it cuts down intensity of light on the nearest person. However, this is harder to finesse if your key is a soft light.
A third method would be to fly another piece of diffusion so that it only softens the light on the closest person. If you have the right density of diffusion, you can also balance out the light falling on both people. However, using diffusion to cut light is not the best solution — you will get a decidedly softer key on the nearest person in comparison to the person more distant from the key.
A fourth method is to make your own “net” with some screen mesh you buy at Home Depot. Again, fly it so it cuts light to the closest person, and leaves the other person in the clear. This is easiest to do if you have at least one C-stand for the job, but you can rig something else with clamps and a dowel — either suspended from the ceiling or cantilevered out from a light stand.
To make your job a little easier, it usually works best to place the darker-skinned and/or darker clothed person closest to the key.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Some of the more subjective footage on the landing was shot with the shutter and pull-down claw purposefully placed out of perfect alignment. As a result, the negative was pulled down before the shutter was completely closed, causing a partial blur of the image.
It might be possible to accomplish something like this effect in video by the following: duplicate the video. Unlick, “enable snapping.” On the upper line, shift the image a tiny bit to the right, and slide the “Level” slider to the left until the combined images please you. Not sure if this will work, but worth a try.
Combining the above with the methods previously described of bleach bypass and a more choppy look may get you somewhat close to the Private Ryan landing look. If you do that, please post a link where others can see the results.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
For some reason, none of the real experts seem to want to answer any questions about 30P renders. My post a short while back lies unanswered. By considerable trial and error, I have done the following with 30p HD footage (shot on the EX1):
–render to AVI
–template: HD 1080 60i YUV (there is no 30p template for AVI)
–custom/video: set Field order to none (giving you 30p again)I suspect there’s a better way, but don’t know what it is.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Here’s one more book for your list: New Cinematographers, by Alexander Ballinger. Lots of diagrams and photographs. $35.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Richard, your strong words about the San Francisco Academy of Art University are great to hear. I teach grad lighting there, and from time to time grad Cine 1. Almost all of us have “day jobs” making movies in various forms, so we know whereof we speak. My experience is that every instructor puts a huge amount of work into making our classes really worth while. Your feed back is heartening.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com