Jump to content

Bioskop.Inc

Members
  • Posts

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bioskop.Inc

  1. Cheers Axel, Tried both ways & there's no real difference in the quality between the native files & the "optimised media" - just smoother playback with the later. So glad i don't have to transcode footage anymore & love the fact that it backs up files if you want. I was so hesitant in getting FCPX because of all the fuss that was made, but it really is great for DSLR footage - really starting to think that the whole Premiere thing was a huge big scam! Yes there are some bugs, but not that i've really encountered them to any degree where i'm cursing the day i bought FCPX & they seem to be fixing them - just hope they do another update so that i can use Neat Video.
  2. @Axel. Is it better to use "Optimized Media" in FCPX & why? As stated above, the 5DtoRGB transcoded files introduced banding when brought into FCPX - i always thought this was the best way to transcode footage, but it obviously isn't anymore. Do you have any explanation why this banding appears when i edit with these ProRes files & not the native H264?
  3. Apparently, you can edit with the native AVCHD files in FCPX, but you really need to test this out for yourself to see what the results are. If you can edit natively with FCPX, then do so. I've done lots of tests between transcoding with 5DtoRGB & using the native H264 files, & using the native files are so much better quality. Some people still insist that you should transcode, but I have found you get banding issues if you do this - just did another test today to make sure & the differences in quality between the native files & the transcoded ones was huge (the 5DtoRGB ProresHQ files had banding all over & fell apart). On the import settings i uncheck everything apart from making a copy (backs things up for you) & when you're creating a new project (if all the footage is the same), just leave the box checked that says it will automatically set the timeline to correspond to the first clip.
  4. anyone tried these as they came recommended, but just not sure if its a good way to go?   http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/litepanels_lp-micro-pro-905-2022
  5. Think there's a specific one just for the 60D or at least something similar.
  6. Yeah adobeRGB does seem to be slightly different (less saturated & flatter).   Looking at the reflection in the mug & looking through the bottle, it also seems to give the impression of producing slightly more detail.   But with the skin tones it appears to smooth out the blemishes, thus making it more uniform - but whether the detail comes back when you cc in post...?     I could be wrong, but could using adobeRGB produce better detail in the shadows & less in the highlights?   gotta try this....
  7. I bought the Helios 40-2 for the swirly bokeh when used wide open - can be stunningly beautiful & weird!   The Jupiter 37a because of its lack of contrast.   But others have been for flares:  vimeo.com/mkcine   And others, like Meyer Optik, for colour.   I've completely abandoned the idea of getting a set of lenses that match - my new ethos is a different lens for a particular situation/shot/effect that i want to get.  But, i suppose i've always taken more photos than video, so there's always been a slight bias in my lens choice. Also, because i'm using a Canon, there are a ton of picture profiles out there that try to emulate different film stocks, which give you so many more choices for looks as well.
  8. With focusing on the Kowa it'll take a while to get used to getting into perfect focus, but once you get the nac it becomes second nature. Oh, the Kowa really is pristinely sharp so don't be fooled if it looks soft (also zoom in x5 helps) & sometimes the readings on both lenses don't match 100%, so be willing to tweek.
  9. @ Bruno.   This is what Shane Hulbut said in relation to setting up a 5Dmk2 for video (not the same camera, but still informative):  "Now we go down to Color Space.  You have two color spaces.  You have sRGB or you have Adobe RGB.  I’ve found that Adobe RGB gives you the best skin tones out of this camera."   Thought it was interesting that he recommended using Adobe RGB & not sRGB.   The whole set up is explained here: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/07/hdslr-educational-series-for-cinema-episode-1-know-your-camera/
  10. Found this link the other day & it totally revolutionised the way i went about colour grading in FCPX! http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pro-x-color-grading-table-of-contents   This was also useful (explained a bit about histograms/waveforms as well): http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/01/7-tips-for-hd-color-correction-and-dslr-color-correction/   And the LAPUG is an amazing resource: http://www.lafcpug.org/   And this is all things FCPX: http://www.fcp.co/?view=featured   Also found these free plug-ins for FCPX by Alex4D (i'd used his old ones for FCP6/7): http://alex4d.wordpress.com/fcpx/   The first link is great to route around in, lots of stuff there. As far as white balance is concerned, go Manual & try using a grey card or just go with what looks natural/neutral to you.
  11. For FCPX you just simply import the footage, put into the timeline & then select/highlight it.   Open the Inspector window & you should automatically be on the Video setting (as opposed to Info). You'll see the Transform box - open it. Then expand the Scale section & that will reveal x & y axis. If you are using a x2 anamorphic you just simply change the y axis to 50% (this is the squash method & your footage will be 1920x540).   Stretch method (so your footage will be 3840x1080) see this tutorial (you'll need Motion): http://library.creativecow.net/articles/payton_t/FCPX_Custom-Resolution-Timelines/video-tutorial   For other anamorphics (squash method) with a different aspect ratio, you can simply do the Math (eg. x1.5 anamorphic - you divide 100% by 1.5, which gives you 66.67%).   Camera stuff - this all depends on the camera (Canon try different Picture Profiles & Magic Lantern / GH2 try different hacks). But basically once you've attached the Anamorphic to the taking lens (& aligned it - just shine it towards a bright light & make sure the flares are horizontal) you're ready to go.   Hope that helps...
  12. If you had a recorder like a Zoom you could attach it to a boom pole. Oh & have all the on-camera mics going & then get the subject to clap loudly, so you can sync everything up (sorry if that sounds obvious).   Or just rent some wireless mics or a normal mic with boom.
  13. I use Fotodiox adaptors & some lenses hit infinity perfectly & some get soft. I've found the Russian lenses to be the ones that hit infinity just before what it says on the lens & the Jap lenses (Takumar/Tomioka) work just fine. Also, the Fotodiox adaptors can behave differently depending on the batch as well, but they do tend to be a little better than others (& they are good about taking stuff back).   Finding the perfect adaptor is like looking for the Holy Grail, unless they are custom made for each lens or make of lens - its a pain, but that's what you get for trying to fit a lens on a mount system that it wasn't originally made to fit on.   Might be good if people post recommendations for adaptors that are as close to perfect as you can get. 
  14. I'm so tempted to buy a 5D2 (£1150+ Mosaic Filter £250), as you said every time i see 5D2 footage it looks nice - new stuff, not so much. Prices should come down more, but i suspect that as stocks dwindle they'll keep them the same. Maybe 7D2 or 70D might provide something?
  15. Yes, he can be difficult to get a hold of, but he's a jobbing cameraman, so be patient as he might be away.
  16. I love a good test! Actually i'm testing my brains out at the moment just to get the last shots for a short, which has been in the works for nearly a year now - time, money & re-adapting the original idea. I joined this forum because people seemed nice & friendly, handling out advice/tips that were really helpful. It doesn't matter whether you are a professional or an amateur, as you can & should be learning things all the time, regardless of where the information has come from.   I love learning stuff, which is probably why I did a doctorate in film & then taught. But after a while i just wanted to put all that learning & theory to the test - no matter how unsuccessful.   HOWEVER: In recent months, the "Trolling" has really hit a peak. This seems to be a trend on a lot of forums & is just getting worse & worse. If you've got nothing nice or constructive to say, keep it zipped - you just come off looking like a real wanker!   There's a good saying: "No one can ever presume himself to be so erudite that he can do without a dictionary."   And forums like this have been my dictionary! So, thanks for all the tips, advice, help & especially those TESTS!
  17. Great, totally forgot about Neat Video - think i came across it when i was lacking in funds. I have found some free plug-ins for FCPX & there is a new "Unsharpen Mask" which i've been trying out.   I'm really tempted to get a new camera, but at the moment i need my 60D for photography & all the alternatives just don't match it. I was really tempted with the cheap RED One - hopefully something decent will be released this year, but i think that's just wishful thinking! 
  18. Cheers, that's reassuring as i've tried to sharpen footage in post, but you can't go too far as it looks shit. So far i've only been turning down the in-camera sharpness for close ups & slowly adding it depending on the shot (2 is my normal setting & i use 3 for distance shots). I'm also using CINEMA PS & now LIGHTFORM PS, which allow you to do more in post - well worth a try if you're using Canon cameras. 
  19. That's strange because i had read (info found at the BFI library) that in the rare case of Ben Hur, the MGM Camera 65 had at times been desqueezed to 2.93, which is extremely close to 3.55 (not figures wise, but looks wise).  And the version i saw on TV last year (on ITV4 in the UK) was definitely 2.93 & it looked absolutely stunning!   Don't want an argument, but not everything you read on the web is 100% accurate.     2.76:1 (~11:4): Ultra Panavision 70 (65 mm with 1.25× anamorphic squeeze). Used only on a handful of films between 1962 and 1966, such as theBattle of the Bulge (1965). 2.93:1: MGM Camera 65, an early version of Ultra Panavision used up until 1962 which used a 1.33× anamorphic squeeze instead to produce a wider aspect ratio. Used only on a few early Ultra Panavision films, most notably Ben-Hur (1959) and also for some sequences of How The West was Won with a slight crop to 2.89:1 when converted to three strip Cinerama.
  20. Is this filter really that good & are there any downsides to it? For example, softer image?
  21. Extension tubes are great, but if you have a close focusing lens & some diopters you can obtain similar results or a combination of all 3.
  22. Buy the guide or don't its really your choice, but its not really that expensive & is useful. Ask questions, as most of the time you'll get a response that satisfies you.   If you like the image that an anamorphic will give you, just buy something that you can afford as it can become a money pit.   Don't get obsessed with aspect ratio too much, as films throughout the ages have been shot on & presented in loads of different formats. Just try & find an original version of Ben Hur - its shot/presented in MGM Camera 65 (or Ultra Panavision 70) & is extremely wide. Its very close to the 3.55 look you'll get with a x2 anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor & really shows what you can do with that v.wide aspect ratio - its an eye opener.   Oh, the more you shoot (not tests, as they are for you), the more you'll understand & learn - practice, practice, practice!  Simple stories/framing are the best way at first.   good luck!
  23. One way i've found is to use QT7, which has a function to crop the image without reducing the quality & export it into a new file size. Basically what it does is chop the sides of the clip off to make whatever size you want & then you can de-squeeze the footage to your preferred aspect ratio (so you can go from 1920x1080 to 1290x1080, which when you add a x2 de-squeeze makes 2581x1080 = 2.39). This will entail a few tests & using some masking tape on the sides of your monitor when you are filming so that you don't chop off anything important. The only problem is the apple gamma shift, but you could combat this by grading once the whole thing is edited together & re-sized to your preferred aspect ratio. Open in QT7 Export Options (opens Movie Settings) Size - Dimensions (choose custom & fill in the new size - basically alter 1920 to smaller) Tick Preserve Aspect Ratio box & then in the pull down window choose Crop. Its the only way i've found to crop without losing any resolution & getting a proper de-squeeze for a x2 anamorphic into 2.39 aspect ratio.
  24. I've got the Iscomorphot 8/x2, which i bought for £60 & i've seen them go for £300.  I've also seen the Iscomorphot 16/x2 go for the same sort of prices. The 8mm version is really really sharp (sharper than any Iscorama) & useable at all f stops, but is a fixed focus lens (similar to the Widescreen 2000) & the 16mm version has a focus ring. The fixed focus will probably be sharper, due to no moving parts, but the 16mm will still be very good (look on Vimeo as there is someone who is posting stuff with this 16mm lens).    Anamorphic prices are always difficult to judge - i've seen Kowa for B&H go for £150 & for £500.   So is $150 a good price for 2 of these? Yes, of course! 
  25. How many times have they tried to push 3D on audiences since cinema began, 4 or 5 times? It goes away every single time, with its tail between its legs, until some marketing guy thinks they can make some money out of it again. Its always been a gimmick to get people back into the cinema.   Was recently surprised to find out that 'Dial M for Murder' was originally shot in 3D! Never knew that & am a bit curious, but still don't care enough.   The problem with 3D is that not a single Director or DP knows how to get the best out of it & so it doesn't really add a whole lot to the experience. The Hobbit has been the worst 3D film i've seen so far, at times it looked like someone had carefully placed cardboard cut outs around the set! I much preferred the Blue & Red cardboard glasses - if you're going to look like a dick in the cinema, at least do it in style! 
×
×
  • Create New...