Home Your Ad Here

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > Making The Film > Filmmaking Misc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2007, 12:01 PM   #31
knightly
Basic Member
 
knightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 8,176
I won't argue with that
knightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 06-01-2007, 01:47 PM   #32
VPTurner
Premiere Member
 
VPTurner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 1,214
knightly,

Okay, I think I understand. If I pull a 4:3 image into a 16:9 sesson, I will need to zoom in on the image and cut the top and bottom portions off (I'd probably leave out the overscan in the horizontal axis to get a little vertical resolution back). If I pull a 4:3 image that is optically sqeezed, I merely stretch it to the 16:9 size; I don't have to zoom in on it, thus maintaining the vertical resolution. I just read elsewhere what what you're talking about. The XL1 series cameras merely stretch the image vertically to give it the anamorphic effect, so it's cutting off image resolution anyway. I was thinking that it was maintaining vertical resolution and squeezing it as though I had an optical anamorphic lens. Perhaps this is why the the host of the "Guide" was saying that using the squeezed method wasn't the best way to do it. He should have clarified the vertical stretch, but I believe his project was subsidized by Canon so he wasn't going to air dirty laundry. Dang, I need an XL2 now. I wish I had the money for the XLH1.
VPTurner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 02:34 PM   #33
knightly
Basic Member
 
knightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 8,176
Depending on your distribution method, you may want to consider letterboxed output as well. DeathBed got uploaded to alot of the video sites, and a couple of them didn't do that 16x9 at all. They squished it back to squeezed anamorphic looking footage (like an old 70's movie credit roll as seen on TV during the 80's). So consider your destination when planning how to shoot and post your project.
knightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 11:09 PM   #34
VPTurner
Premiere Member
 
VPTurner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightly View Post
Depending on your distribution method, you may want to consider letterboxed output as well. DeathBed got uploaded to alot of the video sites, and a couple of them didn't do that 16x9 at all. They squished it back to squeezed anamorphic looking footage (like an old 70's movie credit roll as seen on TV during the 80's). So consider your destination when planning how to shoot and post your project.
I knew I had seen some contradictory info, which is why 60i stuck solidly to mind:

http://www.jkor.com/peter/tipstricks.html

I definitely don't use the "Movie Mode > Frame" setting on the Canon XL-1. It will halve your resolution, and introduce jerkiness, or a strobbing effect, with motion! This will be extra especially noticeable when "blown up" to film, I would imagine. Although this option is said to give a more "film look", don't be deceived. It is really a facility designed for still-image capture, and it is not a true progressive scan as the literature (or other people) might suggest.

What I understand is happening with the XL-1 in this mode, is that the camera captures one field (i.e. half the 480 lines = 240 lines in the NTSC system), and then fills in the missing half "electronically". So it fills in the missing interlaced lines to produce a sort of fake "progressive" scan, but at the expense of half your available resolution. When going to film, you need all the resolution you can possibly get hold of ........ so this is not such a smart idea. Not to mention the problems with the jerkiness or strobbing effect in this mode. However, this mode works great when (1) you use "freeze frame" during video playback (i.e. the result is better than in "interlaced" scanning mode) ....... and (2) when capturing a still frame for use in a computer etc. I'm told it also looks O.K. if you stay on tape (and some people tell me they prefer the "look" of the video in this mode ...... several people have told me this, in fact). And I know of one production in Seattle shooting in frame mode, that intends blowing up to film.


Too much information = too much confusion. Sometimes I hate the Internet.

He does confirm that we should stay away from 16:9 digital anamorphic, though.
VPTurner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2007, 12:29 AM   #35
knightly
Basic Member
 
knightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 8,176
Everything I've read has pointed to 30% res loss in frame mode vs. interlaced...I just hate the motion of interlaced footage, so I'd be de-interlacing anyway which would get me 50% loss...lesser of 2 evils. As for the motion. The strobing is motion blur taken at intervals of 1/60th of a second (equivalent of a 180 degree shutter at 30fps in the film world) There is a missing 1/60th of a second there which accounts for the shuddering.

This points to an improper use of the camera while in progressive mode. Pans need to be eiter really slow or really fast. In the ASC Manual (American Society of Cinematographers), there are panning speed charts to keep the shuddering away. In film, the same thing exists as it's shot 24p with a 180 shutter (normally) giving 1/48th of a second shutter speed...with the same 1/2 of every second gone in 24 distinct slices. I've read all of the information you're finding and weighed it against my own testing and personal preferences. Shoot some footage 60i, shoot some 30p...see which you like better. Pan with it at varying speeds, test, learn, repeat...

I started out convinced that I could learn everything I needed to know through the internet, until I started shooting a feature...then I realized that hands on experience is the only teacher in this biz. Tapes are cheap, keep a tape for shooting tests in your camera at all times...use it constantly. When you hear some claim, test it...see how the claim holds up...be skeptical. I could be filling your head full of fluff just 'cause I like talking, don't trust me either...test it for yourself! Take charge of your learning. Know that camera like the back of your hand before you start shooting that feature.
knightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2007, 05:35 PM   #36
DallasDKnight
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
nevermind

Last edited by DallasDKnight; 06-08-2007 at 06:03 PM. Reason: nevermind
DallasDKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 10:02 PM   #37
DallasDKnight
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
First Scene, First Movie

Well this is the first scene, of the first movie I ever made. So take it kind of easy, if it is complete crap.

We filmed this, obviously I need to secure my camera to the wheelchair more if I re-shoot this scene. I used three flouresents for all of it - yes I know you can see them reflecting some places, I might leave it in...we need to get moving.

If you have any tips or pointers to help out the new guy, about anything you see that I could fix let me know.

By the way I uploaded this just in the lowest resolution it would let me, and it has no audio. It was more an experiment to see all my equipment worked, and I could edit it, upload it e.t.c. I will upload it in high quality for the final cut, and the editting will be different.

Anyways any constructive critisim is welcome.

http://dyinglove.com/Movie.wmv

-Dallas
DallasDKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk