Once upon a time in Mexico

[Joe Ryan]

concerning the "special features" section of the dvd ( 10 min. flick school, inside troublemaker studios, 10 min. cook school ), anyone have any idea which camera is being used? it's obvious in "cook school", that it must be very small, minidv, jvc- hd? the footage looks great, very low light, great color. it's great that he shares so much, nice seeing his setup, but all i really want to know is which camera he's holding (using).

any ideas or help would be appreciated

ps do you think there's been any post done to it for color ( i don't think post could help with such low light. am i wrong?)

[John Britt]

I don't know what cam he used, but it is possible to correct for lowlight in post -- much like Photoshop can bring out details in photographs that appear to be lost in darkness, programs like After Effects, et al, have options like "Levels" that will halp correct lowlight issues in video footage.

Unlike film, the dark areas of digital images still hold a good bit of information -- which is why (if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils) it's better to underexpose than overexpose digital videos/photos.

If I had Rodriguez's incredible setup (jeez, my house doesn't even have a garage!), I would tweak every bit of video that I shot -- from birthday parties to DVD featurettes, and add a killer soundtrack to all of it, too! :D

That DVD is worth the price just for the bonus features alone. Great stuff.

(sorry I can't help w/ the camera!)

[Rob Belics]

Unlike film? Normally exposed film starts out with a wider range than video. Then, on top of that, you can pull even more detail out of the highlights and dark areas.

[Matthew Groff]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Unlike film? Normally exposed film starts out with a wider range than video. Then, on top of that, you can pull even more detail out of the highlights and dark areas. -->>>

Amen to that.



mg

[John Britt]

From my experience in the darkroom (albeit limited), digital images seem to have more info than expected in the darkest areas -- an underexposed digital images seems easier to save than an underexposed film image. Perhaps this is simply that I have more powerful tools at my disposal when editing digital images.

At a recent lecture I attended, though, cinematographer Bill Wages seemed to say the same thing (that digital images held more info in their dark areas, but less in the overexposed areas, than film). John Jackman sort-of touched on the point of my comment when he wrote, "Much more than film, overexposure on video is a no-no. When in doubt, underexpose" in http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=16010

Regardless, my aside about "unlike film" has little to do with the original question. My point was that one can fix some lowlight issues in post, as per Joe's question.

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

"Much more than film, overexposure on video is a no-no. When in doubt, underexpose."

This is true; while underexposed digital images may be dominated by noise, overexposure results in large numbers of pixel valued at the upper limit of intensity (255, 255, 255 for standard dynamic range images)--information that cannot be recovered. Contrast this with an underexposed image which, when brightened, will be grainy but may still reveal some signal amidst the muck.

[Joe Ryan]

so, no idea on the camera. someone doesn't know someone, that know's someone, that has worked either with rodriquez or on the dvd.

still hoping

[Matthew Groff]

This is merely conjecture, but maybe he's using one of the two CineAltas he reportedly owns.



mg

[Joe Ryan]

so, a little out of my price range then, lol.

thanks matt