|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 11th, 2004, 09:02 AM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Metken : Can you guys work with David Newman of CineForm on this issue. It is beyond my head. -->>>
I'm not sure. First I need to get my head around just capturing the data and filtering it properly. We'll see about other possibilities down the road. No promises yet ... :-) |
|
|
|
June 11th, 2004, 10:10 AM
|
#17 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 73
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 11th, 2004, 10:26 AM
|
#18 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,810
|
So I can't figure out if you guys agreed on the RAW issue or not??
Knowing that the existing high-end HD systems (Viper, Dalsa) record an unprocessed signal and require on-set color correction modules (Director's Friend, which should be DP's Friend, really!) to view the image on a monitor, it would be good to emulate this. In the film world, the "color balance" is set by initially selecting a film stock as Rob pointed out, then adding filters as needed (85, 81EF etc), then possibly adding other filters to create a "look" (tobacco, corals etc); then gelling the lights as needed, particularly in a controlled environment. The final reference is shooting a grey scale or card under a specific color of light, very much like doing a white balance on video, the only difference being that instead of it instantly "taking" as it does on video, that footage is used by the timer and/or colorist as a reference to set the "white balance" via Hazeltine (timer) or DaVinci (colorist). And the same is done with HD, otherwise you are starting from scratch for every correction.
__________________
Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com |
|
|
|
|
June 11th, 2004, 10:30 AM
|
#19 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Metken : David Newman's answer -->>>
Kewl, definitely need to keep that in mind. Thanks! The source code for VirtualDub is GPL'd so it shouldn't be hard (at some point) to support any 8-bit (and hopefully 10-bit) codec that someone has installed on their system. |
|
|
|
|
June 11th, 2004, 10:31 AM
|
#20 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wilmington NC
Posts: 1,414
|
point taken
|
|
|
|
|
June 11th, 2004, 11:19 AM
|
#21 |
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 73
|
Guys,
I'm real stupid when it comes to computers. I need some help. I'm sure that there are many members like that here. I know that I will be aable to take that $6.5K Red Lake camera, add lenses, add a viewfinder and plug it into $8K Boxx computer with a monitor, Aspect HD, and with some 25 hrs of storage, and later on use the Boxx also for editing. If I had the budget, which I don't, I could also plug it into $30K Boxx RT with Prospect HD also with some 25 hrs of storage. It would not be convenient but it would work. Can you please give me a system breakdown and approximate pricing on the components of the system you're creating. How will it compare to the Boxx system? What extra features will it include and which will be missing? I may sound stupid but there may be other members who may be dumber than I when it comes to computers and we would like to be enlightened. Thanks, Mike |
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2004, 02:19 PM
|
#22 |
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denton, texas, usa
Posts: 416
|
Say guys, I copied this from another thread:
Not sure if this will help or not but I found a codec for free that supports 16 bit per channel as well as an alpha channel making a 64 bit video codec. It works on mac and pc with just quicktime 5. Best of all it is free. They even have a lossless codec that can get 6:1 compression with no loss but that codec is $99.00. I know it isn't 12 bit per channel but it might be an easier way for people to manage files opposed to a series of stills. Besides right now the tiff files will need to be 16 bit anyways. http://www.digitalanarchy.com/micro/micro_none16.html |
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2004, 02:22 PM
|
#23 |
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denton, texas, usa
Posts: 416
|
Hey Mike,
Here's something to remember. If I were you, don't buy the Red Lake yet. Silicon Graphics and Summix are comming out with great stuff in the next few months. Go to the "low cost HD . . . viper?" thread. There you will see the fire's really getting hot now. Companies that have been following these threads are beginning to put their cards on the table. They're going to have complete camera/acquisition systems available. Enjoy!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2004, 06:50 PM
|
#24 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wilmington NC
Posts: 1,414
|
mike what "other board" have you seen people building home-made HD cameras?
|
|
|
|
|
June 20th, 2004, 11:32 AM
|
#25 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
I think there are some custom hardware, in some cameras for white balance. It would be good to use something like this to calculate white balance on the fly for the frame, writting the reccomended balance per frame to a parrallel file for post production filtering (less than a Kbyte per frame).
<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : You don't want or need white balance, all that does is mess with your image BEFORE post...bad idea.... you need to record RAW just like any professional photographer knows about his digital still camera.. never mess with your image BEFORE post UNLESS you want to stay with what you shoot as-is onset with some bad lighting on your preview screen...this is a new world, in this world you need RAW as far into the process as you can drag it -->>> |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
