Seasons (HD) ...a new HPX500 short on vimeo

[Brian Ladue]

I've posted a new short film in Vimeo, All shot on the HPX500. Most shots were shot in 720 24pN, and some were shot in 1080 24p. No color correction, edited in CS3.

Just random shots that I've filmed through out the year of 2008, so i thought I'd throw something together, and maybe use it as a demo....

Seasons (HD) - Ladue Films on Vimeo

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

I've posted a new short film in Vimeo, All shot on the HPX500. Most shots were shot in 720 24pN, and some were shot in 1080 24p. No color correction, edited in CS3.

Just random shots that I've filmed through out the year of 2008, so i thought I'd throw something together, and maybe use it as a demo....

Seasons (HD) - Ladue Films on Vimeo

Hi Brian:

Beautiful footage and nice shot compositions.

Just a few suggestions, it does not look like you were using a circular polarizer. Your skies, clouds and blues would really pop with a polarizer. So would all of that beautiful foliage. Also, overall, the footage has a very sort of low contrast look with slightly milky blacks, were these mostly shot in Cinelike-D?

I love your work, I would just like to see the colors and contrast pop a bit more. But then again this is video on the web so who knows what it looks like on your HD monitor? Maybe it's just the compression?

Thanks for sharing it, makes me want to go up there and check it out.

Dan

[Brian Ladue]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for the constructive criticism.. This is exactly what I'm looking for. Any suggestions on a good polarizer? brand?

I've shot all the footage using a scene file recipe that someone posted in the long SD lens sticky thread.... and have been using the same recipe since... i think some of the first shots that you see are with stock settings... the footage was all shot using "Cine like V", and it does look a bit better uncompressed but i appreciate any feedback as to how i can get the nicest landscape shots. I have a contract to get some stock footage of an area near where i live, and it looks like i'll be shooting mostly in the winter now... do you or anyone else have a suggested scene file recipe that would give me beautiful images of nature and scenics? I've been looking for a new recipe that would give me more lush colors, and a more contrasty look.... thanks again, very much appreciated.

Brian.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

Hi Dan,

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for the constructive criticism.. This is exactly what I'm looking for. Any suggestions on a good polarizer? brand?

I've shot all the footage using a scene file recipe that someone posted in the long SD lens sticky thread.... and have been using the same recipe since... i think some of the first shots that you see are with stock settings... the footage was all shot using "Cine like V", and it does look a bit better uncompressed but i appreciate any feedback as to how i can get the nicest landscape shots. I have a contract to get some stock footage of an area near where i live, and it looks like i'll be shooting mostly in the winter now... do you or anyone else have a suggested scene file recipe that would give me beautiful images of nature and scenics? I've been looking for a new recipe that would give me more lush colors, and a more contrasty look.... thanks again, very much appreciated.

Brian.

Hi Brian:

I would take this one step at a time. If you are shooting landscape for stock, I would definitely shoot 1080 for everything, stock buyers generally don't like the 720 moniker, guess they have been brainwashed that 1080i is "better" than 720p, thanks Sony propaganda machine! If you have time, I would repeat your shots, shooting them once in progressive, then in interlaced, that way you could offer a choice of looks and feels, sets you apart from your competition better IMHO if you can offer either look.

I would advise that you obtain a matte box (do you have one?) with a French Flag and sides. Something like the Red Rock Micro is a killer value for the money. I would then advise a landscape filter kit as follows

1. Circular Pola (can be 4x4)
2. ND Grads in .03, .06 an .09, possibly add a 1.2 also if you are shooting a lot of snowscapes (you would happier with a rectangular grad, it gives you more room to move your gradient edge than a 4x4. Something like a 4x5.65 or something along those lines, depending on our diameter of your lens
3. Full set of NDs (.03, .06, 09. 1.2) if you feel that the internal filters on your camera possibly degrade the images (a lot of DPs feel that the internal NDs on the HVX do, not sure about your camera).
4. If you are not a post guy or if your stock buyer requests non digitally manipulated shots, I would consider a set of tobacco, coral grads and possibly some other colored grads to enhance the colors you are trying to get.

All of the name brands are good. I have mostly Formatt and some Tiffens, the Schneider and B+W with the Schott glass are considered to be the best. The Formatts I have are made with Schott glass. These filters are expensive. Get a matte box, then just start with the pola. The pola usually loses at least a stop or two so it acts as an ND of sorts. Then as soon as you can afford it, get the ND grads. I personally cannot shoot landscapes without ND grads, they are so much fun and let you paint the exposure in your frame in interesting ways. I shot landscapes in Scotland last year and I was so glad that I had my ND grads with me. The matte box will also let you combine three or four filters at a time, which is a good thing for what you shoot.

I would always try the optical route versus tweaking a lot with your scene files right off if you are shooting for stock. The reason being, if your buyer wants straight, non-manipulated-in-post files, i would not advise dropping your pedestal way down or doing any of the other tricks with super enhancing details or other scene file tricks that can give cool looks. I am surprised that your shots are Cinelike-V, usually Cinelike-V has a contrasty, more vivid look and Cinelike-D is much more subdued, which is how the colors and contrast in your shots struck me. Guess it's hard to tell with web video.

You don't want to ship off files to your stock buyers and then have them get rejected or have to be heavily manipulated in post to even meet legal/QC. A large portion of buyers for footage like yours will be for broadcast. You want to give them a nicely shot and fairly neutrally processed image, not an image that requires a ton of post work to make legal.

Just my .02

Dan

[Brian Ladue]

Dan, Thanks for the reply, this gives me a really good start... I do have some time to get the stock to the client.... a time frame of now till March 31, so i do have a bit of elbow room. I will definitely look into the filters, and matte box... any idea of costs? well i guess i can do the ground work of pricing things out... thanks again.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

Dan, Thanks for the reply, this gives me a really good start... I do have some time to get the stock to the client.... a time frame of now till March 31, so i do have a bit of elbow room. I will definitely look into the filters, and matte box... any idea of costs? well i guess i can do the ground work of pricing things out... thanks again.

Hi Brian:

Not sure about which size MB your lens will require. If the Red Rock will fit, it runs in the $600.00 to $800.00 range and is pretty decent. Filters? About $200.00 to $300.00 ea. depending on brand and type. See? That's why I said begin with the Pola, then you can build up your collection of ND grads, then the NDs (if you are not happy with your built-in NDs), then lastly the color grads.

This altogether will be a sizable investment but like a good tripod, your filter and MB can last through your next 3-4 cameras. Expensive but an excellent investment in your image making arsenal. Any good DP needs a good filter set.

Dan

[Brian Ladue]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Hi Brian:

Not sure about which size MB your lens will require. If the Red Rock will fit, it runs in the $600.00 to $800.00 range and is pretty decent. Filters? About $200.00 to $300.00 ea. depending on brand and type. See? That's why I said begin with the Pola, then you can build up your collection of ND grads, then the NDs (if you are not happy with your built-in NDs), then lastly the color grads.

This altogether will be a sizable investment but like a good tripod, your filter and MB can last through your next 3-4 cameras. Expensive but an excellent investment in your image making arsenal. Any good DP needs a good filter set.

Dan

Dan, would i need support also for the MB? The lens that i use is a Fujinon A16X9BRM SD lens...

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Brian Ladue

Dan, would i need support also for the MB? The lens that i use is a Fujinon A16X9BRM SD lens...

There are both clip-on matteboxes and rod mount. On smaller cameras, you have to use rods and a mount but on a larger camera, it is somewhat optional because the larger lens can handle some weight on it usually. Clip on is cheaper, lighter. Rods and a base are more "pro" but also larger and bulkier.

I think on your level of camera it kind of come down to preference. Is your lens internal focus or does the front lens element rotate upon focusing? That would be another factor.

The Red Rock MB is a rails only mount but there are plenty of clip on ones available.

Dan

[Douglas Villalba]

I agree with most of what has been said before, but I would add something.

I notice that you said that you are using an SD lens and did a search on the web.

You are using a great camera, but unless you match it with a great lens it won't matter what you put in front of it.

Two thing come into play that results is soft and low contrast images.

1. f stop wide open or closed all the way.
2. telephoto aberration (colors don't lay on the same film plane)

They both affected your sharpness and the milky look issue.

Your shots are awesome. Just borrow an HD lens to compare.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

I agree with most of what has been said before, but I would add something.

I notice that you said that you are using an SD lens and did a search on the web.

You are using a great camera, but unless you match it with a great lens it won't matter what you put in front of it.

Two thing come into play that results is soft and low contrast images.

1. f stop wide open or closed all the way.
2. telephoto aberration (colors don't lay on the same film plane)

They both affected your sharpness and the milky look issue.

Your shots are awesome. Just borrow an HD lens to compare.

Good point you made. For CU stuff, the 500 with an SD lens is going to behave just like a 200 or the 170 and look great. But for huge vista landscape stuff, having a better lens that is optimized for HD would give you a superior result.

Unfortunately the really good HD lenses are about $20 to $30k but I am told that even the $6k to $8k ones with the CAC function are surprisingly good. Rent one and compare.

Dan

[Brian Ladue]

Hey guys, thanks again for the input... I usually try to get fstops between f5 - f7 when I'm shooting, one thing worth mentioning though as alot of the shots on my short are actually wide shots..... I am finding it very difficult to determine if I'm in sharp focus on the wide shots... The medium and close shots are easy... Just something that may be contributing to percieved softness!? On another note I will post the scene file that I was using and maybe you could help to see if the settings may also be playing a big part in the image quality...

[Brian Ladue]

Ok, here's the scene file I've been using:

Detail: -2
V detail: +4
Coring: +4
Master ped: -5
Gamma: cine v
Matrix: cinelike

All other settings not listed are 0


Thoughts?

[Brian Ladue]

Double post...