Rethinking my entire process.....

Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Here are some stills from before. I'm not done, the lighting needs some work and the post work was just an experiemnt, but I'm starting to hone in on what I want. By the way, another problem I'm having (I'm just loaded with the buggers) although I probably have to post this elsewhere.  In my editor and in After Effects the image is displayed properly anamorphic using rectangular pixels, but when I export anything (including these images) it's like it's using square pixels, the dimensions are off...

Here is a screen grab of what the image looks like in my editor:

still_3b.gif


But that's not what I'm getting when I export.  When I do that I get what you see below:

still_1.gif


still_2.gif


still_3.gif



This is starting to become work....  ;)

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

WOO HOO!!! I'v been edumacated. I'm not really shooting 720x480, I'm shooting 960x480. Quicktime doesn't seem to understand this on its own, but I now know how to work with it!

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

DOH!!!! I wish people would make up their minds....

THANKS!

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Hi MattC

Nothing at all was meant by the term 'Pasty'; indeed I did mean it leaned towards a more de-saturated look than the out of the camera DVX almost over-saturated look. (I think the XL2 is a rockin camera and a wonderful choice! :) )

These grabs look great although what I am seeing on my monitor is:

It is somewhat dark. As if there is (was) light missing on the man. In fact, if the mans face had the same amount of light (exposure level) as his hands it would be perfect I think. Everything else looks very nice; crushed blacks, warm glows.

I personally love the crushed balcks, but these do seem a bit "BLACK BLACK" and beyond crushed. Is this possibly due to the Monitor Calibration? Does the XL2 have a 'Set Up' (Master Pedestal) level? Are you shooting 0 IRE or 7.5 IRE?

Are you relying onthe camera to tell you the exposure (I tend to and then adjust ZEBRAS as needed.) or are you underexposing on purpose?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I think a big part of it is the calibration issue. When I view these on my girlfriends PC they are darker than here on my Mac. On my 25 year old tv they are also quite dark. So the challenge now will be to adjust the lighting so that the contrasts are how I want them (face/hands for example), kill the lighting gear in the reflection (still not sure how to do that and get the look I want) and then figure out how to expose this properly.

I was not relying on the camera simply using zebra bars and stopping down until I had a look that I liked in the viewfinder. Problem is the viewfinder isn't that accurate apparently. I don't know if I'm shooting 0 or 7.5 and don't think my camera can tell me. I have adjusted the Master Pedestal down a couple of notches though. I guess I'm trying to figure out how to expose this properly yet still achieve a "dimly lit candlelit dinner" look. Perhaps I should start a new thread in lighting?

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

lol.. let me try to quickly explain where the number comes from.. DV is always 720x480 ..always. .. when its 4:3 DV it displays the horizontal width of the pixels at a .9 pixel aspect .. meaning it displays them at .9 percent of their square pixel width. ..when its 16:9 it displays them at 1.2 pixel aspect or 1.2 times their square pixel width..

...soooooo simply take 720 and multiply it by 1.2 ad you get.. viola! 864 square pixels wide any other number is incorrect. and no .. its not true 16:9 its not supposed to be so nobody give me that 853 stuff. thats an incorrect pixel aspect. (the whole 853x480 square pixel 16:9 DV thing came about because someone wanted it to be mathematically correct 16:9 ratio so they changed the number of horizontal square pixels to 853 ignoring the math behind the 1.2 pixel aspect to accomodate the vertical pixel count of 480.. when in fact its actually the 480 number of vertical pixels that is at fault for making the math weird.)
720x1.2 will always be 864 4:3 DV isnt true 4:3 either but nobody ever complains about that and tries to correct the wrong number. just becuase nobody realizes it .. they only realize it when they want 16:9 and actually start looking at the math..

but 4:3 DV is 720x480 at a .9 pixel aspect. so lets take 720 and mulitply it by .9 to get the square pixel aspect ..we get 648. so 648 x480 .. is it true 4:3 ?.. no its not 640 x 480 is.. and 648x486 is

people get messed up because DV drops 6 pixels off the vertical count to accomodate the DV compression. so instead of full D1 4:3 res at 740x486 its only 740x480. but if you do the math at D1 res you find that in square pixel terms 4:3 D1 is 648x486 which is mathematical correct 4:3 .. and in square pixel terms 16:9 D1 is 864x486 which is mathematical 16:9. the ONLY diffence for DV is still just dropping the 6 vertical pixels.. there is no change to the horizontal pixel aspect ratio, so the horizontal square pixel dimesnions are the same as well. so its just a 6 pixel shorter image from mathematically correct 4:3 or 16:9.. hope this all makes sense for ya. ;)
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

You raise a good point about the MAC/PC. Isn't a MAC more NTSC than a PC? Meaning a MAC is truer than a PC on what you would see on an NTSC monitor? OR am I talking out my ass here? :-/
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Neil,

Well yes it does, and I just changed the images again because someone else said 853.33 based on the math....  (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39742) Oh, my head hurts.  Ok, one last change, it's going back to 864 and staying there.  BTW, how does this effect exporting for DVD?

John,
That's what I've been told, but I don't really know for sure.  I have to say though, this monitor (23" HD) is better than any tv I've personally seen.  I appreciate all this help.  We have a really great idea for a short and not a lot of time to shoot it in.  So, I'm going to keep a webpage or two open for it (although I can't display the whole short) so that you folks can offer criticism as I go.  I think I can password the site so that you would have access to everything though...  Ok, new post going up in lighting, rendezvous there!
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

..when your in the video world DV is always 720x480. from camera into nle to DVD or back to tape. again the only thing that changes is the pixels aspect ratio display for the horizontal width of the pixels, its only when your working with converting to or from square pixels that you would ever use any number other than 720x480. and when you do .. it should be 648x480 for 4:3 or 864x480 for 16:9. if your making an image for useage in video its best to just make it 720 by 480 but the problem with that is how do you draw a circle on it if its going to anamorphic video.. your perfcet circle at 720 by 480 in your image will be a wide oval when you make it anamorphic. thats why you use 864 by 480 so your circle stays a circle. and 648x 480 so that it stays the same for 4:3 too,, even though it wouldnt be too noticeable its still off a little. so if you use the rght numbers it will look right. or you can use the photoshop CS which lets you specify pixel aspect ratio for documents. so you can make a 720 x480 picture with a 1.2 pixel aspect and it will look 16:9 when your working with it. and you just plainly draw a circle. IMHO thats the best option. no conversion of pixels to bring into the video world.

and tell that dvinfo guy saying 853 to read my post. lets clear up the rampant confusion.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Matt,

Are you lighting by meter or eye?

It makes a big difference, especially if you're shooting with that insanely bad onboard LCD. That Sony monitor you have coming will help alot, so don't fret!

I really don't think you should iris down to compensate for an overlit set. Scrims on fixtures, nets on stands and ND at the lens is the way to control your exposure - not the iris.

e
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

No, I've never used a meter, so by eye. So how do you know which Iris setting then? Last time I kept my iris all the way open and did what you said. Well it was a combination really, I used a built in ND and then if it was still a little hot I'd step down a half step or so. But I keep reading here about folks using higher stops so I thought I would try this, I can see my experiment failed. Ok, no problemo, I'll try again!
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Matt you might think about having Walter look at the lighting you have here in the shots posted. His WEB site has some very nice lighting examples & tips.

Your shots posted: I think the table is way too hot (unless that's part of your storytelling) I'd scrim down the lights on the table and add a kicker to the guys head for a sliver of rim lighting. This would pop him out more and reduce the table activity prominence.

I may be way off course here but it's something i saw & noticed, so i thought I'd run it by you and see if this might help you find what you're after.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Thanks 10s, I'm tearing down the lighting set up now and will reshoot the test footage, hopefully with better results. That's what this is all for after all, to expermeint, learn and get it right for the actual shoot. Please don't be afraid to critique what I do, that's why I post!

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

For the record, I never said to leave your iris all the way open.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Matt, Cool shots. AS john said, the man's face is a little dark, but cool nonetheless.

What is the problem you are having with your TV? IS the image too dark? Are you loosing detail in the dark areas as the background and the man's face?

I think your problem might be that your image has a lot of information under 10% luma. And that is too close to the black limit of NTSC. Your TV might not be able to reproduce such low signals.

Conceptually I think you missed a little bit of the chiaroescuro philosophy, in that you don't have to get your image so dark, but only have dark areas. To shoot a night scene, you don't have to underexpose your shot, but instead, to add dark areas, toghether with normaly lit ones. So even though you are trying to make a dark scene, where there should be info, the signal has to be clear. That is why the man's face could be clearer, because that would not ruin the ilusion of a night scene.

But off course you can underexpose. In the computer screen it looks great, I like the effect of the underexposure in this shot, the balance of the image's light and dark, but for the TV, you might have been a little off.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I know you didn't say to open the iris up completely, I'm just telling you how I did it last time. I'm redoing the test footage today and I'll then post. I guess I didn't realize that by stopping the iris down to 4.4 I would be underexposing. I mean what's the difference between underexposing and having a dark image Taubkin?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Question for you all - if it is better to shoot it straight and then apply the look (Color correct) in post, then what is the benifit of using a DVX other then frame rate? (I'm in the process of getting new cameras, I currently have XL1s' - and want to go for the DVX) If your shooting everything straight, then why should I bother with new cameras? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to get magic bullet? Thanks for your input.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I'll tell ya, the more I play with this package from Digital Film Tools, the less I would consider getting a look in camera. This stuff is simply amazing. Don't look at the stills in this thread to judge, bad lighting and other issues there. But I've been working with this on some good footage and if shot flat, the number of looks available to you are immense. Why limit yourself if you don't have to? I bought the XL2 for its 249 capability and its 16:9 capability. I also like its other features, but I would, I think at least so far, achieve any "look" in post....

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top