|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 25th, 2008, 05:09 PM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HI, USA
Posts: 622
|
Hawaiian Slack Key & Surfin'
Archival film look courtesty Vegas 8. The music drives the footage, and I think gives it a good overall feel. I like it, hopefully someone else will too...
Hawaiian Slack Key and Surfing By Bill Thesken On ExposureRoom kauainalutv.com |
November 26th, 2008, 10:48 AM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 99
|
Bill
Nice "Slow Mo" ! I liked your camera moves. Music is a good fit. What camera settings did you use? |
November 26th, 2008, 11:56 AM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HI, USA
Posts: 622
|
Thanks Rob!
Camera settings - Panalook 2, 60i, 210 frame rate, manual white balance, -3db gain. What suprised me was how the vegas film look plug in during edit made the bookend footage really look like old film on the screen. |
November 26th, 2008, 12:37 PM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 99
|
Bill
Thanks for the info. Yes the "Old Film" effect looked really good . |
November 26th, 2008, 04:20 PM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 33
|
Hey I used panalook 2 a couple of weeks ago and the image turned out to be slightly blur in the open shots. Have you experienced the same?
Thanks |
November 26th, 2008, 08:27 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HI, USA
Posts: 622
|
Is that blue or blur? I thought it might be a typo. Anyways, the shots I have turn out crisp and the color is great with that preset. If it's a little cloudy I need to pump up the color with a curve adjustment to bring out the blues. I can't figure out how to transfer what I have to look crystal clear on the web and after about 20 hours of trial and error have just stuck with the wmv file. I'm wondering if FCP renders better than vegas for the web.
|
November 26th, 2008, 09:31 PM | #7 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 99
|
Bill,
what file size did you upload in the ExposureRoom on the HD file? It only looked like 74MB on the 1280 x 544. That seams small for 5 min of film. In HD is looks pixeled. My New York 3:45 min film was 365MB. I use FCS2, works well for me. |
November 28th, 2008, 01:44 AM | #8 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 33
|
Hi,
It's not a typo. I meant "blur" Correct me if I'm wrong but Sharpness in Pana2 is supposed to be at -4 right? Cheers |
November 28th, 2008, 11:48 PM | #9 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 113
|
nice footage. fun to watch such talented young surfers surfing warm waves. Had to wear my full 5/4 suit with hood boots and gloves yesterday and the day before. But hey, at least we've got waves here on the east coast!
One comment I have for the interviews..... I found it a little awkward for the Interviewer to have his arm around whomever he was interviewing.... made the interviewees seem really uncomfortable. Not sure if he knew them well enough to be that close to them, but it detracted from the actual interview for me. good work though I enjoyed watching it. |
December 2nd, 2008, 02:50 PM | #10 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HI, USA
Posts: 622
|
Thank you for the comments. The original file was 495 MB uploaded to Exposureroom, and they compressed way down for the flash format. They do a great job and I hope they continue to support all the videos they carry.
The panalook 2 preset I have shows -2 on the sharpness. I might adjust up a notch for a look. Good comment on the interviewer, they're all buddies, but we may want to space them a little more in the future. |
| ||||||
|
|