|
|
|
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 11:06 AM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 355
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Ward : I meant to add that knowing the limitations of cameras like the Canon XL1 will keep you from spending extra time on moves and shots that are really beyond the XL1's capabilities. This can be taken care of in your pre-productin planning sessions. I've never had any audio problems with Canon. -->>>
I tried using the XL1 for another project we did last year. I hired a well-known DP to work with it and gave him time to get used to the camera. He did a very good job but at a much slower pace than with a Beta. Lighting - contrast range - was a big problem and we had to do a lot more lighting control and re-staging of scenes to accomodate the shortcomings. The original zoom that came with the XL1 was near useless for zooming. (We'll now be using the new lens.) We used the XL1 for the pilot but continued with the regular Beta setup for the rest of the series. I've never had any problems with the audio on the XL1 either but it does take careful attention. The "vu" meters are not easy to keep a constant eye on. The audio, as with everything else, will be on "manual". Since we'll be using either a boom and/or a few RF mics, the sound mixer will be monitoring the sound. It's happened even with Betas that the cable connecting the mixer to the camera has come lose and the only thing recorded is off the camera mic. With the XL1 the sure-fire way is for the sound mixer to monitor off the camera's mini plug for the headset. |
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 12:56 PM
|
#17 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 355
|
<<<-- Originally posted by ozziealfonso : (We'll now be using the new lens.) >>>
By the way - what's the buzz on the new lenses? I'm looking at the all manual 14X, the improved 16X, and the wide angle. The wide is appealing since some of the scenes we'll be shooting are in close quarters. What's the general opinion on the new slew of optics? I've read the "skinny" but not enough is mentioned about the lenses. |
|
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 05:15 PM
|
#18 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 68
|
Dvcam?
Why don't you archive to DVCAM, which is a more durable format, and less expensive than beta. As for the rest, why not level with your client. They must know something about production if they want you to shoot on DV. Maybe you can persuade them that your way is the better way, even though others may not be convinced.
BTW - We shot with the new 16x lens and had no problems. Can't really say it was that much better than the old standard lens... |
|
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 11:07 PM
|
#19 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
<< I've read the "skinny" but not enough is mentioned about the lenses. >>
What would you like me to add? I'll be happy to expand it. |
|
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 11:21 PM
|
#20 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 355
|
Okay. Okay. I lived in Austin for a while, long enough to recognize hill country sly sarcasm. I'll go back to the web site and see what I glossed over. <g>
|
|
|
|
November 18th, 2001, 11:45 PM
|
#21 |
|
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 2,882
|
<<Posted by Chris Ward: Of course, DV is a capturing format only. You should output to beta, digibeta or DVCAM.>>
There's really that much of a difference from editing with a Mac (Final Cut Pro) then exporting back to VHS or DVD? Is ithe difference clearly visible for TV viewing? Or are you referring to large screen viewing? |
|
|
|
November 19th, 2001, 04:56 PM
|
#22 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 355
|
Preserving resolution and color matching can be tricky. We just finished a project for TV viewing where we had to insert some QT movies. If done properly - and it takes a bit of experimentation - the difference is negligible. But, of course, we released on Beta SP.
Outputting directly to VHS or DVD from Final Cut is a function of Fianl Cut, not the media exported into. I'm not familiar with Final Cut but with AVID we have a nuber of compression ratios. We usually digitize at a high compression ratio (low-res = smaller files) for our rough cuts and then re-gitize as per the EDL at low compression or no compression at all (large files eating up lots of drive space). This yields an output that ready for prime time. I'm not sure I've aswered your question. |
|
|
|
November 19th, 2001, 08:02 PM
|
#23 |
|
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 2,882
|
That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Thanks, Ozzie. |
|
|
|
November 20th, 2001, 08:03 AM
|
#24 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
The Cruise is all DV, shot on a Sony VX1000.
|
|
|
|
November 27th, 2001, 05:24 PM
|
#25 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
movies
need an actress- will trade work for lessons on my new sony pd150-Toni Naples
|
|
November 29th, 2001, 10:38 AM
|
#26 |
|
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 2,882
|
<<Keep your eye out for "Bigger Than Life" my digital feature. It should be out end 2002 early 2003. This one will blow your mind!!>>
Mastermind, Keep us posted on that project. I'm interested in seeing how that develops. |
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
