This is SEXY!

I see your point cici. Too much may be too much, but as for grads, I'd prefer non colored ND grads. But you are right about fine tuning CC in post (especially for colored filters). But you can't really fake polarizers or star or ND grads in post.
 
Flintstone said:
But you can't really fake polarizers or star or ND grads in post.
Click to expand...

Of course NOT - I even wouldn't fake a stareffect-filter....

I like ND very much - also for better DOF and polarizer for different color/contrast athmosphere - my thoughts I wrote in this thread are limited on color filters and yet more: on graduated color filters!
 
I plead for making babies in postproduction too! - Doesn't take 9 months for rendering... :cheesy:
 
Well I don't think 12 filters is far fetched at all, I'm closing in on that number myself...

Look at it this way. 1 polarizer, 3 ND filters and 3 ND Grads =7. Throw in your star filter and your at 8 right there. I like some of the diffusion filters that are out there, especially with the XL2 which can render some ubber sharp images, and I *think* this is better done with a filter than in post (but I could be wrong). Throw in three different ones of those (such as a Tiffen F/X1 or a Black ProMist 1/2 and you're at 11.

I'm dying to try an ultracon, again, I don't think the results could be achieved as well in post.

For the 12th filter I like the X-Ray Specs one....
 
I don't know if it'd be referred to as a mock-up or an engineering sample. It was the HVX that Jan brought with her to ResFest LA, I believe.
 
You're right, Matt -- and I forgot completely about the diffusers...

Monochrome or multicolor infrared videographing..... I forgot that one too! - So perhaps the suitcase is now probably too small for all the filters even EXCLUDING color filters and grads...
 
cici said:
I plead for making babies in postproduction too! - Doesn't take 9 months for rendering... :cheesy:
Click to expand...
As I always say: You can't make a baby in 1 month with 9 pregnant women! But I'd sure be fun to try! :evil:
 
Boy, does that set-up look cool! But, I never quite get these guys that buy a sub-$10K camera to save money, then go NUTS on super-expensive accessories. I mean, wouldn't you have been better off buying like an SPX800 and making do without all the $$$ doo-dads?
 
Well, you still "need" all those expensive doo-dads on the SPX800 also (monitor, firestore, filters). AND, the SPX800 has a small drawback compared to the HVX. No HD!
 
I think the idea of NBC is that the relations appear a little odd: low-budget for the camera and high-budget for accessory....

If you are a low-budget cinematographer, then the HVX is perfect and you could get for some extra money an extern monitor, a matte-box and a hundful of filters. But we talk about some 10'000-45'000 dollars for this "extras"... and that is really an strange dimensioned relation...

The main work and picture quality depends on the cam - right? - So shouldn't the cam cost more than the accessories and vice versa? If THIS is the idea of IBC, then I can share it absolutely - nonetheless I see the advantages of HAVING an external monitor and a matte-box and some filters..... But for a "human" price, please!
 
Imagine what we're going to have in 20 years? We're going to be saying, "Remember when the HVX was 10 G's!"
 
cici said:
I think the idea of NBC is that the relations appear a little odd: low-budget for the camera and high-budget for accessory . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I meant. Guess I should've said, like, you could've spent the extra money on getting an "XDCAM-HD" or something (instead of the SPX800).
 
Hmmm! Good point! However, Who says accessories must be cheaper then the camcorder? Take a look at computers; hardware will be significantly cheaper then the software in certain applications. Take for example Maya Unlimited and all the necessary add-ons. The software portion is more expensive then the hardware. Does it have to be different with cameras? Of course it depends on the application!

Anyway, the only big expensive item I see on that picture is the monitor, and probably the Sachtler head. One could always make due with a cheaper ones. What else seems too expensive for this setup?
 
Flintstone said:
1) Who says accessories must be cheaper then the camcorder?

2) One could always make due with a cheaper ones.
Click to expand...

1) NOBODY says that accessories must be cheaper than the camera, BUT it's about the relation: LOWEST costing HD-cinecam with VERY HIGH costing accessories - To use your very own example: it's like buying a very cheap second hand PC and then use software for professional architects with 3-dimensional operations that the PC can't handle. Or it's like sandle-wood for armatures in a second-hand Toyota from the late 80ies.... There is still the extra batteries and the tripod and the P2 cards and so on, so for SURE the accessories will cost more than the camera - but please not THAT more...

It's the clown with too big shoes!

2) That's it! - Wow! You got the point before I could send my own post! :thumbsup:

Do you remember me saying that I'd prefer doing color-corrections and playing with temperatures and grads rather in post? - Today a new thread opened and you won't believe: it just prooves the bad influence a filter can have on the picture (still not talking about ND, softener, polarizer, etc.).

Link:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=37905
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top