Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Camera equipment and HD filming for newbie  (Read 16551 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 26, 2012, 03:14:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The video of Morgan about the athlete girl would have been BBC and TVE approved IMO.

There were some similar stuff in the Olympic run up, I think mine was more visual, photographic. 'cinematic', often the TeeVee really fall over trying to do arty, but are very good at reality and the like and the big multicam stuff (that I guess the BMC is a POS for)

Approval? - its only 28mbs - so no,

Im not too happy with the colour at all, too desat, work continues with my Sony Profile !

And of course story and edit .. Im learning

I hope I could do better now.
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #101 on: August 26, 2012, 03:25:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem is that most of the knowledge and experience from working professionally in TV and film is simply not applicable to the sorts of no budget, one man band productions that the "dslr generation" are experimenting in.

To answer your previous query; There are already many established routes into the industries, mainly now via University and College courses. These provide more than enough entrants to the industries who already have a lot of the important basic skills and knowledge.


This thread proves that everyone is different and in a world of white papers, specs, pixel peepers, a thousand PDF's,  it all comes down to everyone and I mean everyone has a different opinion and requirement.

If you want to stick your hand in a blender (I usually use this line quoting a different part of my anatomy) try getting previews, corrections and final delivery to 10 countries, 4 ad agencies, 2 editorial houses and 3 clients all on the same project.

Ask a question and you'll get 15 different answers.

_____________________________________________________

Though Primarily a still photographer, I've been shooting motion with stills for about 7 or 8 years because 1. I like doing it.    2.  I believed there would be a change in the market where projects would be combined    3.  It's profitable.

Actually when I started with motion imagery I felt there was a hole in the market.  There seemed to be two types of productions.  Video that looked like pull focus for 12 miles news coverage that was shot with a crew of 15, to film production that was beautiful but shot with a crew of 50 to 100 people with prices and the glacier speed to match.

There didn't seem to be anything in between and the segment  we slotted into has and continues to be a good source of billing for our business.

The thing I noticed about all digital capture was motion or stills, most of the professional innovation moved at a glacier pace.  It was either 3 ccd video cameras  at prices from $3,000 to $100,000 or 35mm film cameras which gave selective focus and thick, rich footage but were always a rental option that required more crew.

The 5D and RED changed this equation and now you can do a "film look" with less crew and a lot less wattage, which relates to a lot less expense.

Personally I have always owned my equipment, or at least 99.9% of it, including cameras and lights and a dozen computers.  The reason is it allows us to really know our equipment and we can test and shoot personal work when we like without worrying about the $4,000 a day minimum rentals and if budgets get tight we can move the numbers around to make it fit within a project. 

For motion I've owned most of the cameras mentioned on this thread (and a few more) and the 5d's, panasonics, even the Sony fs100's work fine under slower, very controlled conditions, but IMO nothing works better or is more robust than the REDs, especially the RED 1's as the file really has more latitude than any digital video or still file I've shot and allows for an amazing amount of style and correction in post production.   If I was a video only guy, I'd buy the Sony high def ENG's but when we've outsourced to operators that prefer these cameras I have always thought they looked like news video, not film and maybe it's my still photography roots but I want it to look like film, not video.

I also like the RED's for the ability to switch lens mounts from PL to Nikon.  It changes the character of the camera and how I can shoot it.   I know that RED has a very polarizing effect on the industry.  A lot o film guys hate it as they're very resistant to change, the video guys hate it because it doesn't come as a one package shoulder mount system with a zoom rocker. 

Now the economy has squeezed everything tighter and I find the quality of almost any project, motion or stills is always related to the budget, unless your willing to adapt and have crew that really can multi task.   IMO, gone are the days where one guy is only capable of doing one function and one alone.

We just finished a project shooting real people and professional talent  in testimonial and style with added voice over and effects.  The first segment of this project was in Southeast Asia two countries, large budget.  We had a crew of about 25 people.

The second segment of the project was budgeted at almost 1/2 included 4 countries and obviously something had to be trimmed so I made the decision to add more imagery for each video and decided to always keep the camera moving and use most of the dialog in voice over form.

This took more effort and time in post production, but saved hundreds of thousands in on set production and I hate to admit it but made for a much more compelling final product.   

____________________________________________________

So my point in this rambling thread (sorry for the length) is if your starting out, first decided what you want to be, because you are what you shoot.  Then decide what equipment and style of business operation will get you there.  If you want to be a camera operator that never touches anything but a Sony then learn it and go for it, but be careful because the commercial world expects much more for every dollar invested and the person that can only do one thing usually finds they are asked to do less and less.

My second point is, don't waste money trying to make cheap cameras do professional production.  Nobody has time for HDMI cables that pop out, or audio inputs that pop and crack.  Unlike stills fixing things in motion imagery is very, very expensive.

My third point is be prepared to deliver more than any client can require.  Sure you can shoot almost any project with a rental ENG if your skilled, but what do you do when the client requests stills from the footage?  Does that happen . . . yes and it happens more and more.

My fourth point is if you think buying a $3,000 dslr is going to be the end of it remember that's just the down payment on moving to motion.  You'll find with most dslrs, to get them to almost professional levels you spend three times one accessories than you will on the camera body.

My fifth point is, think like a producer and the client.  Think about what they require, what they might require in the future and what it takes to guarantee that you will deliver with no drama.

My last point is forget the past because the old ways suck.  OK, I'll admit experience is golden and means more than any asset you posses, but don't get caught up in ever saying "back in the day we always . . .".  That world is gone will continue to change and unless you find a way to keep running, you'll get passed by.


Oh yea, Number 6.  There are no rules.


http://www.spotsinthebox.com/magic/



IMO

BC

P.S.   Buy a go pro and stick it in every shot.   It's goofy, very non professional but can offer some cut away footage that's invaluable. 

Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #102 on: August 26, 2012, 03:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Go Pro

James try the NEX 5n (new one next week probably with ipone control)
Unlike a Gopro there is no fisheye, you can use ND, keep the shutter at 50 bla bla
16 2.8 lens costs $5
Also NEX mount so add your .. whatever if you want

Ive also seen a load of GoPro on TeeVee .. shows times are changing

My first broadcast gig I was hired as 'GoPro' operator - that stopped me in my tracks..

GoPro Operator.. http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/scooter-gopro
NEx 5n - on modded steadicam.. https://vimeo.com/47720852
And a small build of the 5n.. http://www.halfinchrails.com/blog-of-the-halfinchrails-world/reporting-rig

S
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 03:39:17 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #103 on: August 26, 2012, 03:44:51 PM »
ReplyReply

But basicaly you're saying (or that's what I understand) that there is only one way to become part of this industry and it's going to school-university.
No, but it remains the most reliable way to make a career in the industry.
Quote
Or maybe, could it be also because the tech is evolving at such speed that it allows to do the same, faster and with less budgets and crewthan 10 years ago.
Not really.
Quote
Have you ever seem those photo graduated students on set? They know nothing when they come out of school.
See my reply to Sam. That's not the case in the UK. The better colleges are turning out graduates that have an appreciation of how the real world works and can be useful from day 1 on set in junior roles.
Quote
In fact, the pros like you are generally going 3D as the high-end has evolved also and the gravity center of the technicity and elite is now in 3D and big broadcast events.
Again that's not really the case. Yes, there is some parts of the industry that are pushing towards 3D, but the general feeling is that it's just a fashion that will quietly disappear within ten years. Even some of the really big industry players will admit it off the record.

Quote
There is IMO absolutly no problem in what you say, and I understand your points. But honestly, there are not very encouraging.
Giving false expectations to people is dishonest.
Quote
"That sentence alone demonstrates that whoever is trying to sell this box hasn't a clue about the requirements of the market."
Ok, fine. But...what do we do with this? A novice would immediatly ask "what are those requirements then ?"
The business of covering live sport on TV is just so far away from the scope of this forum it really isn't worth pursuing.
That Blackmagic think their product is even remotely capable of competing with the likes of the Sony HDC-1500 or LDK4000 in that highly specialised area demonstrates they have no clue at all about the requirements.
Quote
But rules have to be broken, and new path have to be explored.
It's actually rather insulting to imply that those in the industry don't explore new technologies and push boundaries. We do it all the time, some experiments work and get adopted, some don't and are left alone.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #104 on: August 26, 2012, 03:52:46 PM »
ReplyReply


That Blackmagic think their product is even remotely capable of competing with the likes of the Sony HDC-1500 or LDK4000

Surely they think it can be a good goalmouth cam or suchlike, personally I doubt it for the lack of wide, and I guess such (currently used) cameras are more remotely controllable and appropriate for live

I dont think they would see it as competition to the linked cameras!

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #105 on: August 26, 2012, 04:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Paul,
At least, thanks for answering more than 2 lines and developped more, it's clearer and makes it much more interesting-usable.

Again your points are perfectly honest and valid IMO.

ps: when I was talking about breaking rules, I wasn't thinking about the elite not experimenting, I was thinking about creating motion imagery without belong to the industry and create alternative distribution ways.

Ps2: the guys I was refering on a previous post who cover live events here work on LDK4000

-----

James,

Thanks for sharing this long post, always inspiring and interesting. I never get tired to watch this race movie but this time I had it muted in one computer while on another I was playing the Smashing Pumpkins super loud. Hey, it worked well too with the Pumpkins. It rocks.

------

Ps: the Hero gopro, I see it more and more used in teevee prods.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 04:20:53 PM by fredjeang » Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #106 on: August 26, 2012, 04:28:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, there is some parts of the industry that are pushing towards 3D, but the general feeling is that it's just a fashion that will quietly disappear within ten years. Even some of the really big industry players will admit it off the record.

Perhaps worthy of a separate thread + I don't have any relevant experience in the motion industry, but I would like to add this:

For some odd reason producing miniature HD LCD panels has been prohibitive. (technologically and financially). However, we are now reaching a point in time were personal video glasses will become a viable reality. I believe that personal video glasses may finally give a reasonable 3D viewing experience, which may trigger a higher or at least continued demand for 3D. There are some additional factors which I believe to be critical: 1-When viewing 3D thru personal video glasses, the effects should not be exaggerated like they are now, and 2-there are filmic techniques available in 2D, which are not available (or to a lesser extend) in 3D from the viewer's point of view. DOF would be an example.

Again, I have no relevant experience in the motion industry, so have nothing to add to this thread, but I thought this might be of interest.

Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 27, 2012, 12:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I initially dismissed the Black Magic camera for numerous reasons, not least media management. It's 12-bit uncompressed RAW will be a beast for many productions, & storage alone will cost many times more than the camera.

But for many hybrid photographers it might be a powerful tool. & I'm sure lots of Indie filmmakers will embrace it.

I doubt it will ever live up to the hype of being a "Baby" Alexa, or RED, but I can see it used to supplement those in the right circumstances. Or even replacing those for some MultiCam gigs on a tight budget.

What really excites me is the option for 10-bit ProRes 422. I can imagine shooting most of a production in ProRes, & switching to RAW only when needed.

The BMCC is due in the next couple of weeks so we'll get more footage, & user feedback, soon enough.



« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:57:52 PM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #108 on: August 27, 2012, 03:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

However, we are now reaching a point in time were personal video glasses will become a viable reality. I believe that personal video glasses may finally give a reasonable 3D viewing experience,
Given the most frequently cited reason for low take up 3D is the reluctance of the public to use glasses to view TV, I think you might not be quite right about this.
Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 29, 2012, 03:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Given the most frequently cited reason for low take up 3D is the reluctance of the public to use glasses to view TV, I think you might not be quite right about this.

I'm not talking about glasses to watch tv/movie-screen for which I can totally understand that sentiment. I was referring to glasses with built-in video panels. Perhaps they can not even be called glasses in some cases, although one of the latent applications is augmented reality so I suppose a variation with semi-transparent capabilities is going to be the more widely adopted type.

Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #110 on: August 29, 2012, 04:15:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I was referring to glasses with built-in video panels.
Call 'em what you like, they're still glasses to the masses.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad