PDX-10: Any Screen Captures or Short Films online?

Ronald Lee · May 20th, 2004, 10:24 PM

HI Michael.

Ahh, the tone.....that was from the magic of...color timing. We shot with the settings close to what we wanted in camera, but didn't make final decisions until post, so we left ourselves a lot of leeway with the tone in case we changed our minds.

The film was edited on a Canopus Rex edit and the film look we got was from trial and error, desaturating the video, etc.... it took a lot of tries.

Had we had known about magic bullet then, we may have tried it.... I still haven't seen any non-web video with MB yet, but from what I read, it sounds good.

We also have a full light kit so lighting was professional....but really, I think we could have gotten Home Depot lights and would have gotten something similar, with the white balance....

And yes, shot in 16:9.

Robert Kirkpatrick · May 21st, 2004, 12:59 PM

Thank you to everyone who posted their footage. I really appreciate it, and I'm starting to like the PDX-10 more.

Boyd: I did see your site before -- it was one of the reasons I'm seriously considering the PDX-10 -- but apparently I didn't explore enough. Those nature and skyline shots were amazing. How did you avoid the notorious smear for some of those sunsets?

Ronald: Thanks for the link to your film. So far, you're the only person I've seen that's working on narrative using the PDX-10. I really like the footage, especially one instance in the Director's Trailer -- specifically, the shot of the two actresses and the boom mike hovering overhead. That desaturated look is what I'm looking for. Quick question: some of the night, street scenes came off with a slight orange-yellow tint. Was that intentional?

Steve: Really nice footage. Even compressed, I get a strong idea of what this camera is capable of. It does close-ups very well, and I've learned to do that with my films mostly (the same way they concentrate on close-ups in Pieces of April). The sound was amazing. Is that from the mono shotgun mic that comes with the camera? Because if so, that was impressive. I didn't hear any hiss, and the wind noise (which is unavoidable mostly) was rare.

Thanks again, everyone.

Steve Roffler · May 21st, 2004, 05:55 PM

Robert,

Yes, I used the mono shotgun mic as well as the built-in mic. The uncompressed video does look much much better. It will be nice when bandwidth is not such a limitation.

Harvey Shiner · October 14th, 2004, 02:36 AM

Steve Roffler - Lovely film, nicely shot and nicely edited, plus super subjects !!! - What i'd like to know is when i watched it in WmediaPlayer it showed format as being 3:2 - Did you shoot it in 16:9 ?

We've had a 950 around a year now (and being totally satisfied with it for the output we need) bought 2 PDX10's yesterday for a forthcoming project.

Never edited 16:9 before so any help/tips will be greatly appreciated (running Premiere 6.5 for editing)

Ronald Lee · October 14th, 2004, 12:40 PM

HI Harvey!

Congrats on the two PDX10's! What is the project you are working on?

Now I found there are supposed to be three ways with Premiere 6.5 to get 16:9 to show up as letterboxed in 4:3. But for me, two of the three did not work. They were setting the project to be 16:9. And setting the clips aspect ration to be 16:9 or 4:3 (neither did the job).

What I suggest is that you edit your project the way it is and when you are happy with what you have, then you go into the filters and choose 'transform' and set the height to 75%. That will render your movie into the proper aspect ration, with letterboxing at the top and bottom for 4:3.

You actually can set the project to be 16:9 first and so you can visually edit everything in 16:9 and then switch back the project settings to 4:3 for the transform, but I never found the anamorphic squeeze to be bad enough to distract my editing.

That is just my experience.

Harvey Shiner · October 15th, 2004, 03:02 AM

Thanks Ronald, will be trying what you've advised this afternoon. Have 3 projects about to get started . 1 A documentary about a week in the life of a Czech based erotic photographer 2. A documentary about 3 totally differnet eccentric ex-pats (British) now living in France in varied circumstances and the third, which is the one that pays the rent, is our normal line of shooting erotic series for cable TV and and internet

Steve Roffler · October 21st, 2004, 05:56 AM

Harvey,

The sample movies were shot and edited in 16:9. They show up as widescreen on a DVD player or if you use PowereDVD to view on your computer.

Editing in 16:9 is a snap in Vegas.

Steve

Patrick Jenkins · November 8th, 2004, 10:25 AM

IIRC, Open Water was shot with a PDX-10 and a PD150 (?) (I'm not 100% sure). If anyone has the last issue (summer) of Filmmaker Magazine there's a retrospective of the film + the cameras in it.

May 21st, 2004, 05:55 PM	#18
Steve Roffler Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 100	Robert, Yes, I used the mono shotgun mic as well as the built-in mic. The uncompressed video does look much much better. It will be nice when bandwidth is not such a limitation. __________________ Steve pdx10, EOS10D

October 21st, 2004, 05:56 AM	#22
Steve Roffler Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 100	Harvey, The sample movies were shot and edited in 16:9. They show up as widescreen on a DVD player or if you use PowereDVD to view on your computer. Editing in 16:9 is a snap in Vegas. Steve __________________ Steve pdx10, EOS10D

May 20th, 2004, 10:24 PM	#16
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	HI Michael. Ahh, the tone.....that was from the magic of...color timing. We shot with the settings close to what we wanted in camera, but didn't make final decisions until post, so we left ourselves a lot of leeway with the tone in case we changed our minds. The film was edited on a Canopus Rex edit and the film look we got was from trial and error, desaturating the video, etc.... it took a lot of tries. Had we had known about magic bullet then, we may have tried it.... I still haven't seen any non-web video with MB yet, but from what I read, it sounds good. We also have a full light kit so lighting was professional....but really, I think we could have gotten Home Depot lights and would have gotten something similar, with the white balance.... And yes, shot in 16:9.

May 21st, 2004, 12:59 PM	#17
Robert Kirkpatrick Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 199	Thank you to everyone who posted their footage. I really appreciate it, and I'm starting to like the PDX-10 more. Boyd: I did see your site before -- it was one of the reasons I'm seriously considering the PDX-10 -- but apparently I didn't explore enough. Those nature and skyline shots were amazing. How did you avoid the notorious smear for some of those sunsets? Ronald: Thanks for the link to your film. So far, you're the only person I've seen that's working on narrative using the PDX-10. I really like the footage, especially one instance in the Director's Trailer -- specifically, the shot of the two actresses and the boom mike hovering overhead. That desaturated look is what I'm looking for. Quick question: some of the night, street scenes came off with a slight orange-yellow tint. Was that intentional? Steve: Really nice footage. Even compressed, I get a strong idea of what this camera is capable of. It does close-ups very well, and I've learned to do that with my films mostly (the same way they concentrate on close-ups in Pieces of April). The sound was amazing. Is that from the mono shotgun mic that comes with the camera? Because if so, that was impressive. I didn't hear any hiss, and the wind noise (which is unavoidable mostly) was rare. Thanks again, everyone.

October 14th, 2004, 02:36 AM	#19
Harvey Shiner New Boot Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 13	Steve Roffler - Lovely film, nicely shot and nicely edited, plus super subjects !!! - What i'd like to know is when i watched it in WmediaPlayer it showed format as being 3:2 - Did you shoot it in 16:9 ? We've had a 950 around a year now (and being totally satisfied with it for the output we need) bought 2 PDX10's yesterday for a forthcoming project. Never edited 16:9 before so any help/tips will be greatly appreciated (running Premiere 6.5 for editing)

October 14th, 2004, 12:40 PM	#20
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	HI Harvey! Congrats on the two PDX10's! What is the project you are working on? Now I found there are supposed to be three ways with Premiere 6.5 to get 16:9 to show up as letterboxed in 4:3. But for me, two of the three did not work. They were setting the project to be 16:9. And setting the clips aspect ration to be 16:9 or 4:3 (neither did the job). What I suggest is that you edit your project the way it is and when you are happy with what you have, then you go into the filters and choose 'transform' and set the height to 75%. That will render your movie into the proper aspect ration, with letterboxing at the top and bottom for 4:3. You actually can set the project to be 16:9 first and so you can visually edit everything in 16:9 and then switch back the project settings to 4:3 for the transform, but I never found the anamorphic squeeze to be bad enough to distract my editing. That is just my experience.

October 15th, 2004, 03:02 AM	#21
Harvey Shiner New Boot Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 13	Thanks Ronald, will be trying what you've advised this afternoon. Have 3 projects about to get started . 1 A documentary about a week in the life of a Czech based erotic photographer 2. A documentary about 3 totally differnet eccentric ex-pats (British) now living in France in varied circumstances and the third, which is the one that pays the rent, is our normal line of shooting erotic series for cable TV and and internet

November 8th, 2004, 10:25 AM	#23
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	IIRC, Open Water was shot with a PDX-10 and a PD150 (?) (I'm not 100% sure). If anyone has the last issue (summer) of Filmmaker Magazine there's a retrospective of the film + the cameras in it.