Sean Lambrecht

I think he'd disagree with you about that. :) http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=498323&postcount=79 And for posterity:

The MacTheRipper > Mpeg Streamclip route that Brad mentioned is really the way to go to minimize the number of format conversions. You can extract individual chapters as well. It's an extremely convoluted process to get the latest MacTheRipper version, more so now since the developer seems to be on some sort of sabbatical. Google for the older 2.6.6 version which didn't require jumping through hoops to get your hands on. Peace, S-

Well, feel free to change the post title. And was my spelling really that bad?:) Peace, S-

Hey! I'm back! Tim just sent me a new password (thanks!) I think what happened was related to me changing my email address two years ago. That worked fine, but my login user name was still my old email address, that never changed. What finally worked today was logging in with the updated email addy as my user name and the new password that Tim sent. So it seems that the forum update kicked up a little dust. You know, it had me wondering what I did... :)

http://www.videography.com/article/78072 "...infused most of the sets with dark, warm colors. The result: the color in the sets and on the lights is often very similar to the skin tones of the African-American cast. "This makes for something of a monochromatic look," says Doering-Powell. "We approach it almost like lighting for black and white in that the contrast comes from the lighting itself rather than from using different colors. [Gaffer/chief lighting technician] Erik Messerschmidt and I try to use light to add separation as much as we can. I don't want the 'studio lit' back/cross/key effect, but we will use more back light and more lighting contrast to make the actors stand out."

I do like the new look. Crisper, yet also somehow softer. And new information that's good to have as well: * Current Package: Sustaining Membership - Lifetime * Until: 06 Sep 2014 I shall mark my calendar and begin making arrangements tomorrow. S-

This might lead you in the right direction with a little digging: http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-527950.html Sean-

Perhaps they've seen some RED footage? And I only partially mean that as a jab. Could it be we're hitting a point of over-saturation by REDs and DSLRs? Maybe people are noticing that every little band's music video looks super snappy but still somehow not so good?

LUT- Look Up Table. I'm just sure I'd mangle an adequate explanation to some degree. Try these: http://www.lightillusion.com/usingluts.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_LUT Peace, S- Edit: David and Adrian seem to be up earlier than me. What they said... :rolleyes:

So I just happened along an interesting post on Deakin's site about Kowas: "...They were the lower budget option for Mitchell cameras... ...Joe Dunton has a set to rent in pl..." And what do ya know, they're also the very last entry in post #1 of the anamorphic f.a.q. right here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=4690 Color me wrong! :rolleyes: I still think the majority of the videos you've seen posted were shot most likely with the projector lenses however.

I'm not sure if Kowa anamorphic lenses were ever made for cameras. I believe they're all projector lenses. The rear thread size is a series 7 on the one I have, no front thread. You need to separately focus both the camera lens and the Kowa lens to the same distance. You'll probably need to zoom in considerably with the camera to get past the vignetting on the Kowa also. Getting the axis aligned correctly on the anamorphic can be tricky. I've used a smooth rubber ball evenly illuminated from all sides as a guide to get the alignment set. Edit- I doubt anybody rents them, probably need to look on Ebay and buy one.

Lots of different rigs, and located in New York: http://www.21stcentury3d.com/press/pr-060117-3dvx3.html Sean-

The one time I purchased a cardboard box at the UPS store it set me back about $11 dollars so it sounds like you got the deal of a lifetime. I think their reasoning behind preferring a box is so they can indiscriminately toss your goods around on any axis. I'd wager a shipping case would be less likely to end up sideways or upside down in transit, and even less likely to explode. That $11 box on the other hand... Sean-

1/4" ;) Have a good shoot!

Something very similar to the SI2K setup would be the DVX100 Andromeda. It bypasses all the compression normally done by the camera and records up to a 1540x984 10bit RAW image directly from the CCDs to a laptop. This article is a little outdated, and the processing of the RAW files is considerably faster on todays computers. http://www.theasc.com/magazine/new_product...07.html#prod118 The 1.5k image size seems like an odd bird, but it blows up to 2k beautifully. And the dynamic range in the RAW files is really impressive. They aren't making these anymore, but I've seen a couple used cameras up for sale in the last week. Sean-

Sold! Thanks Mark!

Good news- I have spoken with the folks at SmallHD and they have generously agreed to transfer the 2 year warranty on this to the new owner. Thanks for looking!

Brand new condition, it's never been out the door on a shoot. All of the original parts and packaging included. I do not have the optional battery, bracket, hood, sleeve, or whatever else was optional. I have to part with this to cover some unexpected Veterinary bills. My cat will thank you for it. $699 plus shipping. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=220477291094 Peace, Sean

Holy crap you must know Jeff Graham. I was just about to forward Nun of That to him when I realized Scorpio released Dunwich. Welcome!

Old O'Connor 50 head and a Birns & Sawyer VGM 200 tripod- the bowl measures about 120mm across. Am I measuring this wrong? I have a Gearnex geared head on order and need to decide on a 100 or 150mm bowl adapter for that. The Gearnex itself is a mitchell mount. If the tripod bowl is some odd non-standard size what are my options for marrying the two? Thanks, Sean

Just pulled out the DVX book and found some interesting numbers from resolution charts. I'm assuming these are from the NTSC model. 350 lines: in-camera squeeze mode 380 lines: letterbox mode 540 lines: anamorphic adapter

Not a HUGE difference... I'd personally go with letterboxed mode, because I do notice a difference when looking closely. The in-camera scaling in anamorphic mode isn't as good as software you could use afterwards to rescale.

The DVX is still going to resolve the same number of lines on a resolution chart whether the top and bottom of the image are blacked out or not. Letterbox mode has the advantage also of allowing more bits being devoted to the 16x9 area of the image. The anamorphic lens when properly used will give the sharpest results. But focus has to be set using both the zoom and f stop to keep the vertical and horizontal planes in equal focus. Get Barry Green's DVX book if you plan to that! Anamorphic mode stretches the the center portion of the image to fill the whole 4:3 frame. This is accomplished with better results by post software than in camera, but a lot of people don't claim to notice a huge difference. It's certainly there however. I'd stick with a mix of the anamorphic lens for wider shots, and letterbox mode where the anamorphic lens starts to struggle. Sorry, no clue how the A1 operates. Peace, Sean

May I add: http://www.filmtools.com/imcobyghiasc.html Image Control book for half the price of David's link! Sorry David :rolleyes: Peace, Sean-

Can I get one of those for... everything? :lol: Peace, S-