Jay Rodriguez
Coffee Member
ok phil u scared me into stopping
thanks barry green
- Thread starter Thomas J. O'Hara
- Start date
sorry man, didn't mean to do that...
Jay Rodriguez
Coffee Member
i hear ya brother... I'm in the same boat.
Hey Mr. Green -
I got the book and DVD,
In the depth of field tutorial, the DVD says one "way" to do this is by green screening the background. I was wondering why the green screen has VERY VISIBLE lining around the subject matter and overall looks terrible. Why would you include that in the DVD?
I got the book and DVD,
In the depth of field tutorial, the DVD says one "way" to do this is by green screening the background. I was wondering why the green screen has VERY VISIBLE lining around the subject matter and overall looks terrible. Why would you include that in the DVD?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Because that's pretty much what greenscreening in DV looks like.
In the DVD and in the book I tried to answer as many questions as I could, including anticipating those questions that haven't been asked yet. And I knew people would be asking.
So I put together a very simple greenscreen shot. You can see what I had to work with and how I set it up. And the results that I got are about what one can expect, under those circumstances. It doesn't look great, no. It's kinda awful. And greenscreened shallow-DOF will never look very good. Perhaps it could have looked a *little* better, but I'd dare say not significantly better -- at least not without extensive work, work that you'd be probably quite unlikely to do in the field. So what I have on there is probably pretty representative of what most users would get if they tried that technique.
The DVD is not meant to be a sales tool for the DVX, or to only show it in its "best light." It's meant to show what is, and what isn't. In the anamorphic segment, some people just can't see any difference between squeeze and anamorphic. And that's great -- that lets them make the decision that the cost and expense for the anamorphic aren't for them. It's not meant to say "you are a fool if you don't use the anamorphic", it's meant to show what the anamorphic does, and if you like it, great, and if you don't feel it's worth the expense, that's great too.
In another segment I demonstrate 16mm vs. film. Some people have said "that just goes to show just how much better real film looks." Okay, that's fine -- that helps you make up your mind that you prefer film and wouldn't be happy with the stock DVX's "look". Others have said that (after color correction) it's indistinguishable from film. That's fine too -- that lets them feel confident that they're saving a ton of money and not giving up anything that they'd miss. That segment was never intended to "sell" the DVX as a replacement for film, it was designed to show what film looks like, and what the DVX looks like, and let them make up their minds from there.
So it is with the greenscreen/shallow-DOF look. People are going to try it. They're going to get the idea and they're going to try it in the field. I just wanted to show what it looks like. Whether someone finds it acceptable is up to them. I personally don't find it acceptable, I think it looks fake as all get-out. But it's up to each shooter to decide whether they think it's a viable technique.
In the DVD and in the book I tried to answer as many questions as I could, including anticipating those questions that haven't been asked yet. And I knew people would be asking.
So I put together a very simple greenscreen shot. You can see what I had to work with and how I set it up. And the results that I got are about what one can expect, under those circumstances. It doesn't look great, no. It's kinda awful. And greenscreened shallow-DOF will never look very good. Perhaps it could have looked a *little* better, but I'd dare say not significantly better -- at least not without extensive work, work that you'd be probably quite unlikely to do in the field. So what I have on there is probably pretty representative of what most users would get if they tried that technique.
The DVD is not meant to be a sales tool for the DVX, or to only show it in its "best light." It's meant to show what is, and what isn't. In the anamorphic segment, some people just can't see any difference between squeeze and anamorphic. And that's great -- that lets them make the decision that the cost and expense for the anamorphic aren't for them. It's not meant to say "you are a fool if you don't use the anamorphic", it's meant to show what the anamorphic does, and if you like it, great, and if you don't feel it's worth the expense, that's great too.
In another segment I demonstrate 16mm vs. film. Some people have said "that just goes to show just how much better real film looks." Okay, that's fine -- that helps you make up your mind that you prefer film and wouldn't be happy with the stock DVX's "look". Others have said that (after color correction) it's indistinguishable from film. That's fine too -- that lets them feel confident that they're saving a ton of money and not giving up anything that they'd miss. That segment was never intended to "sell" the DVX as a replacement for film, it was designed to show what film looks like, and what the DVX looks like, and let them make up their minds from there.
So it is with the greenscreen/shallow-DOF look. People are going to try it. They're going to get the idea and they're going to try it in the field. I just wanted to show what it looks like. Whether someone finds it acceptable is up to them. I personally don't find it acceptable, I think it looks fake as all get-out. But it's up to each shooter to decide whether they think it's a viable technique.