A post for other filmmakers/videographers who also lurk here

[Rune L-H]

You have to remember I'm a producer and not a camera op.

Mostly all I'm interested in is the "delivered look" to the client.

Of course no sane person would deny what a great piece of glass can do for "the look".

But there are so many other variables that affect the delivered look, eg, performance, location, lighting, editing, timing, fx and a hundred other things.

Overall I find cameras are over-rated as contributors to the finished product.

I suspect I might get an ear bashing for saying this ... but what heck ... I'm only a producer.

Prolly says it all

No ear bashing
It's so very true indeed that the amount of variables that can possibly mess up the final video is frustrating. The client will have a hard time appreciating high resolution and nice colours if the performance lacks etc. The worst element always steals the picture

But I've worked a lot with post polishing up the look of various video & film productions...and in my experience I have just always been blown away by how much the original camera/format means to the rest of the production chain. Bad lighting looks worse on DV than on Digibeta, simulated filmgrain looks better on digibeta than on DV etc.

But hey...maybe it's just because I worked too much with DV and wished for higher budget productions

Cheers,
Rune

[tkmattson]

We shoot on a Sony DX50 with a Fujinon wangle.

But since the dawn of software fx I refuse to get excited over hardware any more.

For instance, who's tried Film FX?

The results from this are awesome.

No ... let's say this properly.

You can choose frame rate, filters, film speeds, etc etc to find the exact look you're looking for.

Saving Private Ryan, The Godfather, The Guiness Ads, halos round heads, old people looking young ... it's all in there.

These days we almost never use footage straight from the camera, any more than a musician records the guitar and says "okay - that's it".

Hmm... That would equal saying that a musician could just as well record in 22,050 Hz because he can always apply an eq afterwards

What format is that Sony model? Is it DVcam?

No doubt you can do nice stuff with FilmFX, Magic Bullet, Cinelook etc, but it doesn't change that the higher quality you begin with the better.

Don't forget that if you you want to create the feel of 24 fps in FilmFX you are messing with field interpolation/merging etc. This WILL reduce the image resolution. It is far better to get 24 fps progressive source material to begin with.

Cheers,
Rune

Never tried the Sony DX50, but if it's shooting Sony's consumer HD, or even prosumer HD, it falls well short in comparison to the HVX200, and if it's the consumer HD if falls short in comparison even to Panasonic's SD DVX100. Film FX is okay, for what it does, but it's far more specialized in "looks", as opposed to the more important ingredients of motion, at least last time I checked. I used to use DVFilmmaker for turning 60i projects into 24P, but I have no use for software based solutions since I bought my DVX100. It really is a whole nother level getting the look right, or close enough for color correction, at the aquisition stage. I've really tried every motion program there is for getting 24P out of 60i, and none of them look as good as the DVX shooting 24P as is, with the rare exception of possibly Twixter or dedicated hardware.

[Mr. Tunes]

Better make sure whatever host you're using is not only capable of counting in 29.97 fps (30 drop frame), but 23.98 fps as well, otherwise you're going to be in for a lot of fun with math.

That's a new one on me, allthough it's been ages since I did any sound for a visual project, and those were VERY low budget local things.
Current hosts that support this?

Pretty sure DP & Logic do, but I'm not sure about others....This is the framerate that some newer (last few years) prosumer/professional video cameras use to get a film look, and/or for transfer to film. The amount of projects that are in 30fps (drop or non-drop) will most certainly dwindle in the next few years....

shouldnt it be fairly easy to add new frame rate support to sequencers/DAWs as the frame rate adjustments are just sample rate tweaks at the end of the day?

and a hello to Kevvvv!

[tkmattson]

You have to remember I'm a producer and not a camera op.

Mostly all I'm interested in is the "delivered look" to the client.

Of course no sane person would deny what a great piece of glass can do for "the look".

But there are so many other variables that affect the delivered look, eg, performance, location, lighting, editing, timing, fx and a hundred other things.

Overall I find cameras are over-rated as contributors to the finished product.

I suspect I might get an ear bashing for saying this ... but what heck ... I'm only a producer.

Prolly says it all

No ear bashing
It's so very true indeed that the amount of variables that can possibly mess up the final video is frustrating. The client will have a hard time appreciating high resolution and nice colours if the performance lacks etc. The worst element always steals the picture

But I've worked a lot with post polishing up the look of various video & film productions...and in my experience I have just always been blown away by how much the original camera/format means to the rest of the production chain. Bad lighting looks worse on DV than on Digibeta, simulated filmgrain looks better on digibeta than on DV etc.

But hey...maybe it's just because I worked too much with DV and wished for higher budget productions

Cheers,
Rune

Could not have said it better myself. What this does, in my view, is raise the standards across the board. And, sure, sometimes the value of quality of the picture can be overlooked - a la Blair Witch / The Celebration - even forgiven in those cases. Ironically, NO ONE will EVER forgive crappy audio, even if they (Joe & Jo Audience Member) don't know exactly why they feel the urge to leave the theatre. Still, even with the recent past peppered with successful run & gun docs, and dogme pics, there is a certain standard of quality that people generally expect when they pluck down their cash for a movie, either at the multiplex or the rental store. VERY SOON the days of "this looks like crap, but it has a good story" wiil be so OVER.

[kevvvvv]

Hi Tunes ... nice to see you alive and well

tk ... our camera rig cost around £30,000.

We used to shoot on Beta SP but switched to Sony DVCam about a year ago when we switched to Premier Pro.

The dealer who we bought PPro from kept trying to push Avid or FCut on to us, but we stuck to our guns and said no.

Now he's round the studio wondering how we do it, eating his words

Now here's a funny thing about lighting:

We've been lighting, backlighting, dados, against green etc for years.

But the more we use fx in post, the more we prefer flat lighting.

We find that relatively dull flat-lit subjects "take the fx" better.

Conversely, smart lighting makes post more difficult to work with.

Now ain't that a bitch

[Landphil]

This is a damn interesting thread! I'm sure there are forums dedicated to this subject. Any suggestions?

[Mr. Tunes]

Hi Tunes ... nice to see you alive and well

yes you too man. it's been years! and we're both kicking it on kvr.
way OT but there was one quote from you many years back, you told me to not throw out my roland XP-10 because those sounds will be priceless down the road and i cant agree with you more i value the sound of all hardware keyboards now!

[kevvvvv]

To expand this thread even more:

Years ago a video company simply made videos. Period.

Now it's DVD authoring, web streams, multimedia video, animation, flash and everything else all rolled into one.

Video now just seems to be part of the package offered to customers.

Mind you, I welcome this as it means more opportunities to sell more stuff

Oh yeah ... and it's lots more creative fun

(and I got a Roland JV1080 hidden in the cupboard )

[deastman]

This new Panasonic does look nice, and I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more "budget" HD cameras coming out in the next couple of years. I can't really see spending that kind of money for a personal camera, but it sure lowers the price of entry.

I work in a corporate in-house video production group, doing mostly 3d animation/motion graphics, as well as multimedia programming, some editing, DVD production, and generally just keeping the place running (being the most technically literate person there can be a real drawback at times!). We have two AJ-HDX400s, which I have to say look fantastic! We do most of our SD shooting on Sony DSR300s, and we also have a DVX100, XL2, and various other odds and ends. With all the new gear coming out, I can see the day coming when we can easily afford to do five camera shoots totally in HD.

[kevvvvv]

deastman

I can see the day coming when we can easily afford to do five camera shoots totally in HD.

Now won't that be something

The new Matrox RTX card that goes with Premier Pro does HD ... and it only costs a measly £4.5k

[deastman]

We've experimented with various nonlinear editing systems over the years (old Avids, new Avids, Immix VideoCube, Accom Sphereous, Premiere, Leitch DPS Velocity) but we're fully committed to Final Cut Pro at this point. FCP is far from perfect, but it has a fairly flexible workflow and seem sto get the job done. We have two HD suites using Kona cards as well as AJA IO for SD, and another three SD suites with just IOs. We've also kept one linear room intact, although its fully digital (DigiBeta).

To be fair, I haven't looked closely at Premiere Pro, but my gut feeling is that they just slapped "Pro" onto the name in a desperate attempt to gain market share without actually improving usability.

[tetraplan]

To be fair, I haven't looked closely at Premiere Pro, but my gut feeling is that they just slapped "Pro" onto the name in a desperate attempt to gain market share without actually improving usability.

Hmmmno.
It's definitely better than Premiere 6.x, but only because of the bits that were stol^H^H^H^Hinspired by FCP.
Which is, by the look of it, 75% of the program.

Groet, Erik

[Rune L-H]

Hmmmno.
It's definitely better than Premiere 6.x, but only because of the bits that were stol^H^H^H^Hinspired by FCP.
Which is, by the look of it, 75% of the program.

Groet, Erik

Premiere inspired by FCP?...
Could be the other way around

[kevvvvv]

deastman

To be fair, I haven't looked closely at Premiere Pro, but my gut feeling is that they just slapped "Pro" onto the name in a desperate attempt to gain market share without actually improving usability.

Wrong.

But understandably so, as the Premier name has previously been associated with nothing more than semi pro or wedding work.

Adobe have created something really good that blows away the myth of needing to spend many thousands of bucks on top end software to get the job done.

And now it has HD.

Pro-sumer with a new twist

What it really means is lots more bedroom studio competition.

But this is cool if you're confident in what you can do.

Personally I would recommend checking out the spec and seeing what it actually does before committing to a hasty judgement.

I'm not a wacko faddist. More a hard-assed top-end corporate producer. I didn't make the decision to move to PPro out of principle.

I got it because it was better. And conveniently it was also cheaper.

There ... and now I've let the cat completely out of the bag

[tetraplan]

Premiere inspired by FCP?...
Could be the other way around

We had just installed FCP 3 at work when PPro was announced.
First thing that struck me was all the FCP-alike stuff: floating toolbox (well, not new for Adobe apps, but definitely new for Premiere), nested sequen^H^H^H^H^Htimelines, real-time color-correction, floating monitor-windows, compositing-options, &c.
Well, not bashing PPro, I haven't worked with it yet, but nice to have that kind of functionality in Premiere for once.
Still doesn't export OMF, though, I believe.

Groet, Erik