Steve Freebairn
Forum Replies Created
-
Unless you are doing a lot of 3d work (meaning 3d studio max and maya type things) then I wouldn’t get a Quadro card. It’s been pointed out in the responses already, but they are really price, but excellent at what they are designed for. I have a quadrofx3400 at work that cost an arm and a leg (it is hard to edit with only 1 arm) at home I have a triple display setup with a 7800gt and a 6200tc. The programs use the 7800 gt for the tv overlay and for accelleration, the 6200 is just to run a third monitor (and also a 4th if I go crazy) But the important thing to know is that in most programs (besides PPro 2.0) you can’t direct the overlay to a different card. For instance, in P Pro 1.51 if I wanted an overlay on the tv, then I needed the main head of the main card to display to my main monitor, and the second head of the main card to go to the tv. If I would have tried (which I did at first) to have the 6200 drive the tv, it wouldn’t have had (and didn’t have) a picture. I’d have to test it at home to be sure, but I think that Premiere’s new output can let you manually overide where the overlay is going, but if I were you I’d 1. Buy a 7900GT (7800gt they are almost the same) or a 7600gt for the main card and then a 7300 for the secondary displays. and 2. I’d hook up your primary display and the tv to the same card and then change your Full Screen video overlay settings in the nvidia control panel. I haven’t checked this out, but I’d guess that it would put less stress on the system than having adobe feed the info from 1 card to the other. Hope that helps
-
One reason why the HVX200 is not as sensitive, is because of the nature of Progressive ccd’s vs. interlaced ccds. I’ve read articles (like this one) https://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172 that suggest an ISO of 320, but I’ve also read alot of people talk about how the HVX needs a lot more light. One thing is for sure, if you do need to boost your gain in post, it will still look better to downrez a hd signal that has been boosted rather than use SD.
-
You might look into getting a shoulder mount I think that porta brace probably has one that will work with the hvx or here is one from anton bauer https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=283268&is=REG&addedTroughType=search that might work. Basically if you are going to use a stabilizer, you’re going to want to get a should brace if you still want your shots to look handheld. If you get a steadicam and try to use it with a really long lens (for your shallow depth of field) it’s going to be a nightmare. Basically, I’d look for something that will go over your shoulder and use a standard tripod mount to hook on the bottom of the camera.
something like this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206346&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
-
are you cutting by using CTRL+K or the razor tool?
-
Your colors will match very well if you white balance your shots. You should be doing as much in production to avoid having to fix it in post-production. If you white balance under various light sources, someone’s blue shirt is going to be the same hue of blue no matter where you film them.
-
Color correction can help, but the real problem here is that you shot Daylight (outdoor 5600 K light) with your camera set on the Tungsten (indoor 3200 K light) setting. If you switch your white balance for either daylight or tungsten you won’t have either really blue or really orange looking images.
-
Ok, I started typing this thinking 10×10 blocks, but that isn’t going to be right, so use 20×20 blocks (so the numbers will be off, but I’m sure you can follow the math)
As far as I could see from reading my post (but I could be blind) I never said it took 10 minutes. but, it isn’t quite as hard as you may think. If you use 10×10 “blocks” you only need 3888 blocks! 🙂 That is a ton if you are going to hand place them, but if I were you, I’d create (and this is for a 720×480 project) 1 solid that was 10×10. Then I’d move the anchor point to the right edge of the layer(you’ll see the wisdom in this later) then duplicate it once. move the 1st instance of the layer to the upper left of the comp window (you shouldn’t have a camera or 3d layers yet) then duplicate it until you have 72 layers. then use align and distribute to place them side by side. Then Highlight all of your layers and duplicate them, before you deselect the layers I’d do a few things, first I’d change the layer color to something else, then I’d change the position of them so that they are at the bottom of the screen. Then I’d duplicate them until you have 3888 layers. This next part is the more time consuming one. You need to select the layers so that you have all of the layers that are one the far left and then use align and distribute so that they form into a column and then repeat that on each set of blocks. This will fill your comp window. Now check the 3d box for all the layers. then you need to duplicate all the layers and Rotate the duplicate of each layer 90degrees and then you need to parent each duplicate to the layer it was duplicated from. Then you’ll just need to slide these layers into z space at different depths (you could use an excell file to make a table with all the positions you need to cover and then randomly move each layer set into place.
And after typing all of that, I think there must be an easier way. I’m sure someone could write a script or an expression that would do this all in a few seconds. Like I said in my first post, I was doing something similar. My similar idea was a lot easier because I just used the wiggler to have my boxes move randomly and then i added enough boxes until it worked out. Sorry I don’t know an easier way.
-
Ok, I started typing this thinking 10×10 blocks, but that isn’t going to be right, so use 20×20 blocks (so the numbers will be off, but I’m sure you can follow the math)
As far as I could see from reading my post (but I could be blind) I never said it took 10 minutes. but, it isn’t quite as hard as you may think. If you use 10×10 “blocks” you only need 3888 blocks! 🙂 That is a ton if you are going to hand place them, but if I were you, I’d create (and this is for a 720×480 project) 1 solid that was 10×10. Then I’d move the anchor point to the right edge of the layer(you’ll see the wisdom in this later) then duplicate it once. move the 1st instance of the layer to the upper left of the comp window (you shouldn’t have a camera or 3d layers yet) then duplicate it until you have 72 layers. then use align and distribute to place them side by side. Then Highlight all of your layers and duplicate them, before you deselect the layers I’d do a few things, first I’d change the layer color to something else, then I’d change the position of them so that they are at the bottom of the screen. Then I’d duplicate them until you have 3888 layers. This next part is the more time consuming one. You need to select the layers so that you have all of the layers that are one the far left and then use align and distribute so that they form into a column and then repeat that on each set of blocks. This will fill your comp window. Now check the 3d box for all the layers. then you need to duplicate all the layers and Rotate the duplicate of each layer 90degrees and then you need to parent each duplicate to the layer it was duplicated from. Then you’ll just need to slide these layers into z space at different depths (you could use an excell file to make a table with all the positions you need to cover and then randomly move each layer set into place.
And after typing all of that, I think there must be an easier way. I’m sure someone could write a script or an expression that would do this all in a few seconds. Like I said in my first post, I was doing something similar. My similar idea was a lot easier because I just used the wiggler to have my boxes move randomly and then i added enough boxes until it worked out. Sorry I don’t know an easier way.
-
I’ve messed around with creating an effect similar to this, the way I did it, was to create a bunch of small square solids that I formed into cubes (for this, they would only need 2 sides) and then I placed 2 light sources (1 behind each “background”) and project that image onto the white solid blocks. If you put enough blocks out there in 3d space, then you’re project image will look perfect when you are looking dead at them, when you start rotating your camera to it’s second position, then your background will show that it is actually a bunch of blocks. Then you’d just place your keyed footage of your singer on top of the rest of that. Hope that helps
-
I’ve messed around with creating an effect similar to this, the way I did it, was to create a bunch of small square solids that I formed into cubes (for this, they would only need 2 sides) and then I placed 2 light sources (1 behind each “background”) and project that image onto the white solid blocks. If you put enough blocks out there in 3d space, then you’re project image will look perfect when you are looking dead at them, when you start rotating your camera to it’s second position, then your background will show that it is actually a bunch of blocks. Then you’d just place your keyed footage of your singer on top of the rest of that. Hope that helps