Jay Gladwell

While looking for a good sturdy cart, I came across this fine example of a cart with multiple personality! I saw carts for the same price that weren't nearly as nicely built or as versatile. www.rocknrollercart.com/index.htm Jay

Yes, David, I'm well aware of what film historians have said, but on average the frame rate was 18fps. To get that "look" 18fps works just fine. Jay

Allen, I think it looks nice with one exception--it's too soft for my eyes. I don't think I could watch a very long movie shot this way--maybe a quick scene here and there. My eyes kept trying to bring the images into focus. Aside from that, I think it looks really nice--lighting and composition. The second image, the profile, the subject seems to be slightly high in the frame for my taste--very subjective on my part. I think his head is more interesting, visually, than his shoulder. I would have tightened the shot or tilted up slightly. Jay

For what it's worth, most silent movies were shot at 18fps. That's why they look the way they do, being projected at 24fps. Jay

If you're going to shoot short narrative films, then low light levels have little or nothing to do with it, unless you want your film to look like a "home movie." The trick to getting the best image is to light it properly, just like the "big boys" in Hollywood do. It's a matter of control, and when you're totally at the mercy of available light, you have little or no control. On the other hand, if you're shooting mostly wedding videos in available light, then you may want to take the camera's light sensitivity into consideration. Bottom line? I'd go with the XL2. It offers far more options than any other camera out there in its class. More options = more control = better quality images. Jay

Add another vote for the Porta-Brace CTC-2 case. Jay

I'd be curious to see what you're doing to get a grainy image from overlighting! If you're overlighting, you're heading in the opposite direction. You're trying to open the aperture to get less depth of field, not close it down. Too, you need to have the lens zoomed out as far as you can, based on your space constraints. Trying to do this inside is difficult at best, unless you're shooting in very large rooms. What exactly is it you're trying to shoot, and where--interior or exterior? Jay

Paul, ever since I heard the definition of "expert" I've been suspect of that word... Breaking the word down into two it's basic parts: ex = a has been; spirt = a drip under pressure. ;) There are two schools of thought on what you bring up, both of which are valid. Some will say if you can do it in-camera, then do it, it saves time in post. Others will say, get a pristine image that can manipulated in post, because once you've done it in camera, there's no changing it. So it boils down to personal preference. On the other side of this coin, I can say I've seen some "post filter effects" that simply didn't live up to the image a "real" filter can produce, although they're getting better. If you don't want to invest in a case full of filters for your camera, then go the post route. Time is no real issue (most of us are just too impatient). Do the renders at night while your're sleeping, assuming you do sleep. I'm sure others here will have additional advice/opinions. Jay

Sounds like you're on the right track. With an item such as that I would try getting a still with a digital camera (not video) using the highest resolution. That would allow you to pan, tilt, zoom, whatever, with a fair degree of latitude. Jay

That depended on who was doing it, didn't Stephen? I didn't say it couldn't be done. All I said (implied) was it is NOW easier to do it using a scanned images. And just for the record, I came into video/computers from 30 years of working in film, so I do have some experience and know a little of what I'm talking about. Jay

Why all the SHOUTING, Paul? Jay

No digital artifacts if scanned at high res and saved as lossless file. Depending on the size of the photo, shooting/panning/tilting can prove to be difficult at best. Jay

With the XL series, you can also close the aperture in addition to leaving the lens cap on the lens. Some lens caps will leak light. Jay

I agree with Drew. You could use your NLE to covert the XL1s footage to 24p. Jay

Scan them, by all means! Better image, better control, better storage. Save as a lossless file (png for example), not jpg. Any Epson intermediate-priced scanner will work just fine. Jay

Proper lighting of both the green screen and the subject will play the single biggest role in getting good keying. Light both seperately. Light the screen evenly. Make sure the subject does not have any bounced light from the green screen falling on it--the more distance between the subject and the screen the better. Having good rim lighting on the subject can help resolve this in tight situations. Jay

If you're going with the XL2 and you're shooting run-and-gun stuff, I'd opt for the 20x lens that comes standard with the camera. If you're shooting narrative stuff, then the 16x manual would be your best bet. Jay

Here's a good resource. I'd suggest anyone thinking of lifting anything from a web site take some time and do some reading: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_...view/index.html Jay

Not altogether accurate, Josh. If he were doing a "review" of the site that would fine--that would fall under "fair use." As a former college teacher, I can tell you that schools have very strict policies about such things. It can get you tossed out of school! To go to any site and grab something from it to use in an unrelated project is NOT fair use. It being "stock footage" has nothing to do with it, either. When people have footage like that, they usually, more often than not, have to pay a preimum price for it to a stock footage house. Have you ever done the research necessary and bought stock footage from an archieve, paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for it? Image going through that process and have someone steal that footage and use it in their project. How would that make you feel? To simply lift any footage, images, and/or text from a web site without permission is wrong--it's stealing. Jay

Although I can't answer your specific question regarding Premiere, I can tell you that you can't access that file for the very reason you want it--it isn't yours to download. Some people consider it theft! Jay

No, not with the XL2 it doesn't. Read this: www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php Jay

Agreed! I was just talking about this with a friend of mine yesterday. If you take the time to look around, you'll see all of the different camera support systems there are out there (one company alone had four different types). It ridiculous! The vast majority of them are gimmicks, in my opinion, and the fig rig is just one more. Most of us DV camera owners need to seriously take a look at our addiction. There people who can help. Call 1-800-555-GEAR and become a member of GSA, Gear Sluts Anonymous. ;) Jay

Why not play around with it? Shoot a test with several different settings (keep good notes) and find out for yourself. Instead of asking questions, go out and DO! Jay

What you're asking is too vague and too broad a question. No two shooting situations are exactly alike. The best way to gather your equipment is from shoot to shoot. You don't want to waste your money going out and buying something you'll never use. Jay

Yes, it's too good to be true! Royal is one of the scam outfits. Stay as far away from them as you can! They will try to sell you another $2000 worth of junk. When you say no thanks, after to 100th time, they'll send you an e-mail that the camera is not in stock. Remember, you get what you pay for. Jay