SIGN IN
::
SPONSORS
::
ADVERTISING
::
ABOUT US
::
CONTACT US
FORUMS
TUTORIALS
MAGAZINE
STOCKYARD
VIDEOS
PODCASTS
EVENTS
SERVICES
NEWSLETTER
NEWS
BLOGS
FORUMS:
list
list (w/ descriptions)
archive
tags
search
hall of fame
recent posts
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
COW Forums
:
Cinematography
VIEW ALL
•
ADD A NEW POST
•
PRINT
Respond to this post
•
Return to posts index
•
Read entire thread
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by
Rick Amundson
on Sep 10, 2007 at 4:25:38 pm
The reason I went with the DVX is that I have access to several of them. I shot almost the entire film with 2 cameras running at all times. That allowed me to get all the coverage I needed in the short amount of time I had. Also, I'm not a big fan of HDV yet. I shot the film 2 years ago and the options for post with HDV were very limited. I shot a lot in DVCPro, but I didn't have access to the SDX900 when I shot Indelible.
As for the photo, all that is on the camera is a matte box. I made the choice not to use the anamorphic adapter. The reasons were 1)it is hard to get a good focus with the adapter. I did a lot of handheld and action work and it takes a lot of time and care to set the focus. 2)the adapter has certain depth of field requirements for good focus. Using the small lighting package and dark locations (it is a dark drama) I knew I would always be fighting with the adapter. 3)I was using multiple cameras. That meant dealing with all of these issues multiple times per set up. 4)Knowing that I would not do a 35mm blowup (hey, I'm a realist) I decided that the 372 lines of resolution (the amount left over after adding 16X9 bars on top and bottom)would be good enough for DVD and the occasional projection.
In the end, I shot in full frame 4X3 but framing for 16X9 (using tape on the LCD screen) so that I had the freedom to make adjustments up and down in post. I needed it a few times when a light or mic got in the shot. After posting the whole film in FCP I created a nested sequence that I pasted into a new time line set up as a DV/DVCPro anamorphic sequence. Then I expanded the image to 133% in the motion control panel. I will say that I have projected the film in a movie theater with a high end DVD player and a powerful projector and it looked great. You could not tell the film had been blown-up slightly.
Also, I shot everything in 24P Advanced and edited in a 24pA timeline using FCP 5 on a G4 laptop. It was smooth as silk(although I like my MacPro much better).
As for deinterlacing 3 minute interlaced clips or re-shooting them, de-interlace them. It's only 3 minutes at a time and you could effect the footage to help make the lower resolution.
Did I forget anything?
Posts Index
Read Thread
Reply
Like
Current Message Thread:
progressive or bigger CCDs?
by phorland on Sep 7, 2007 at 4:02:11 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Rick Amundson on Sep 7, 2007 at 11:28:14 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by phorland on Sep 8, 2007 at 12:24:25 am
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Rick Amundson on Sep 10, 2007 at 4:25:38 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by phorland on Sep 10, 2007 at 6:58:23 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Ryan Santos on Sep 14, 2007 at 7:55:18 am
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by phorland on Sep 8, 2007 at 12:29:44 am
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Marco Solorio on Sep 8, 2007 at 5:21:51 am
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by phorland on Sep 8, 2007 at 10:57:34 am
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Rick Amundson on Sep 10, 2007 at 8:58:03 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Marco Solorio on Sep 10, 2007 at 9:04:13 pm
Re: progressive or bigger CCDs?
by Phorland on Sep 10, 2007 at 9:18:08 pm
LOGIN TO REPLY
FORUMS
•
TUTORIALS
•
MAGAZINE
•
STOCKYARD
•
VIDEOS
•
PODCASTS
•
EVENTS
•
SERVICES
•
NEWSLETTER
•
NEWS
•
BLOGS
© 2013
CreativeCOW.net
All rights are reserved. -
Privacy Policy
[
Top
]