|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 19th, 2005, 01:07 PM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 853
|
Why have "CLOSE" as an option for Iris?
Messing around here with my camcorder. I see the aperture can be "CLOSED". Will someone please explain why on earth I would want it in "CLOSE"? Everything goes totally black. I pointed it at the sun...still black.
What is this used for? Please let me know so I can sound like a professional when someone else asks me. *smile* - ShannonRawls.com
__________________
Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition. Last edited by Shannon Rawls; December 20th, 2005 at 01:00 AM. |
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 01:08 PM
|
#2 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,195
|
Maybe so you could tape some black screen for a timecode?
Don't know sure, only reason I can think of on this moment. You could do that with the lens cap too, I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 02:55 PM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 77
|
Probably to protect the ccd in situations were you may not have the lens cap... True black needs to have a sync pulse of 0.3 volts so I doubt it would be for putting black on the tape, although it could be used for it... not really a rule you have to go by inless your going to give a TV station the tape.
I'll look through my notes from college back in 2002 later on as I am sure I asked the same question. You already sound like a pro Shannon ;-) |
|
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 03:09 PM
|
#4 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Do-it-yourself fade outs.
|
|
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 04:27 PM
|
#5 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
|
I perfer the do it yourself star-wipes...
I'm not positive because we didn't get into it yesterday, but on the 900 there is something called "black balance" I don't know if the canon has it our not but it's used to give the camera an internal reference to what absolute black is. So maybe that's the reason?
__________________
I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome... |
|
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 10:09 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 263
|
Quote:
It protects the image block from burn ins... in case you lost the all important lens cap.
__________________
AM |
|
|
|
|
|
December 19th, 2005, 11:05 PM
|
#7 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 77
|
Thought so :-)
Probably started back in the days of tube cameras |
|
|
|
|
December 20th, 2005, 12:47 AM
|
#8 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV., Los Angeles, CA,
Posts: 220
|
like chris said it's for in camera fade outs/fade ins, there is a considerably more beautiful look to fade outs/ins done with the aperture becaue as it fades, thqt last moment before it closes everythin is getting deeper and deeper depth of field, of course it's even better to do your fade ins/outs with the lighting there's a lot of that in The Aviator and citizen kane
__________________
Jon Bickford, Trepany Films San Pedro, CA Trephine001@aol.com |
|
|
|
|
December 20th, 2005, 06:24 PM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 263
|
Hello,
JMHO You may use it like that for certain, but its functional utility is to protect the CCDs. I am not sure, but I believe I ran across it in the manual during one of my read-throughs. I always keep a lens cap on the lens when the camera isn't running to protect the CCDs and the lens at the same time. Personally I can't imagine locking my footage into a particular effect. I would never use a fade in-camera, it totally limits your editing options.
__________________
AM |
|
|
|
|
December 20th, 2005, 06:57 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
Not to mention it would be very hard to make the fade a constant speed from start all the way to finish I think Chris was joking... |
|
|
|
|
|
December 20th, 2005, 07:38 PM
|
#11 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 263
|
Me Too, or at least he had Joke Overtones :-)
__________________
AM |
|
|
|
|
December 21st, 2005, 05:20 PM
|
#12 |
|
Regular Crew
|
The problem with the Canon XL-H1's iris is that it is incremental. Meaning you can't do any smooth exposure adjustments or fades. It is really a shame they haven't implemented a smooth iris on this camera.
__________________
SMCproductions.com |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2005, 10:42 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Basel area, Switzerland
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2005, 11:37 AM
|
#14 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 853
|
Quote:
- ShannonRawls.com
__________________
Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition. |
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2005, 11:44 AM
|
#15 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Basel area, Switzerland
Posts: 285
|
Well, the XL-1s does change the iris 'smoothly', too, but with distinct increments. There's no way to *really* smoothly/slowly adjust the iris w/o the viewer noticing. In post, it's pretty much a cut (or luminance tweaking) whenever the iris was changed in the footage. Suxx big time! Can you confirm or deny whether this is clearly the case? You have an XL-1s around, Shannon, correct? If so, could you compare the behavior of the two cams? That'd be great!
Thanx a bunch - and don't let Santa ruin those nice red candles in your fireplace! ;) Cheers, Ron |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
