Micah Ellars

I can understand your use of M2 if you're using sets with any sort of depth because you want to keep the same feel as the rest of the movie. HOWEVER.... the entire purpose of doing sets on green screen is to do the sets that surround the actor so that you don't have to use a screen at all, you just do set extensions. If you're going to have some set pieces - if they're not interacting with the actors or blocking the actors from the screen - thus alleviating the need of the screen.

 

I can't speak to the focus issues though as I've never used the M2 or the like.

 

I CAN reiterate.... 1080...... not 720p. You get TWICE the datarate at 1080 on that camera. You can say "but we only want it at 720p" - then I say, well, your composite will then be that much cleaner. Shrinking always looks better than growing. You don't want to enlarge a greenscreen composite.

 

my 3 cents.

Thanks for your 3 cents. The reason for half sets is artistic, they are a must. There are model landscapes that must be shot with a correlating lens for match angle of view and DOF of subjects. Blue/green lighting will be optimal.

As said before, I know I can do it with Varicam + Pro 35, can I with HVX + m2? There is a substantial difference in pro35 and mini35 from P+S Technik and allegedly the m2 is sharper than the mini35. Perhaps the question could be answered simply based on the quality of the m2 gg. If any m2 users have input about the clarity of image and overall sharpness please share.

I have a couple questions about your question....

 

The title of your thread says bluescreen, why have you chosen blue over green? Or is that just a misnomer?

 

Secondly, my experience with greenscreen work is rather limited and I primarily have been on the post side of things when working with it BUT, why do you feel it necessary to shoot such a wide angle shot? Most of what you are shooting will be empty green spaces that will first be cropped with a matte before pulling the key.

 

The stock lens on the HVX is completely capable of getting a full shot of the subject, why do you need the extra space in the shot? The composition of the subject can be put together by the compositor.

Blue/Green I basically mean chroma.

I will be shooting elaborate half sets in which the background is keyed in. This is for artistic purposes. The original plan was to go Varicam+Pro35 (which I know works). Or pruchase the HVX + m2 for a longer production time and lower cost.

Thank you for your commentary. I would never dream of having anyone out of focus for chroma work. It seams that you feel that it may be possible then? And yes I would definatly shoot at least 720p. This set up would be ment for an alternative to varicam + pro35.

Think extablishing shots and all subjects in focus on half sets.

My questions I guess is this simple.

Given that you have subjects in focus with the HVX+m2(12mm lens @ f5), is the m2 going to create significant softness or any aberations which will impede upon pulling a good key? The reason, for the adaptor is the wide angle of view through the 12mm lens.

I guess anyone who has used the adaptor for any shos with great depth of field would know if they noticed faliure to acheive sharp focus, color fringing etc...

My reasoning without having tested the exact setup you are calling for is this...the camera samples at 4:2:2 as oppossed to the HDV default 4:2:0. Which means you will get a decent representation of the hue blue just from the camera itself. The next major determining factor for a good key is your lighting. The lens and the M2 adapter seem almost secondary to the ability to pull an acceptable key. That and "acceptable" is a subjective term.

 

I would feel confident in the ability to pull an acceptable key with that set up knowing that the camera records an honest blue channel, I have confidence in my lighting ability, and I have done so with worse lens setups.

Thanks for the further explanation Mr. Wizikowski. I have pulled good keys on mini DV before that, aside from the lower end NLE compression used on them (premier), they looked very good. I guess my major concern is the plethera of warnings about using the adaptors for keys.

My version of acceptable is seamless. Optimal or Perfect would be a better term.

If you happen to conduct a test with that setup or any similar please let me know.

If anyone else has input please share.

In short, yea, I think it would work just fine for pulling keys.

 

As for testing it...not yet.

In short, Thanks. I wish you would elaborate on why you think it might work.

I spoke with a post house about this and they felt confident that THEY could pull acceptable keys, but they insisted that the shoot be supervised by them or whoever would be doing the post work. I am wondering if it is something that could be done in AE/Keylight without having to hand paint the mattes. That would suit an HVX production budget much better.

Anyone else feel this is do-able?

Does anyone feel that the HVX with the m2 adaptor in any setup could be used to pull optimal keys?

I have seen great keys with the varicam and pro35. Why not the m2? The m2 does not seam as soft as the P+S mini 35 (to my eyes). I know that there seams to be a slight promist effect created from the ground glass. What if the 35mm lens on the HVX m2 combo DOF was very deep? Say a 18mm set to F5? The interest would be in acheiving a much wider angle of view in the HVX than possible with the digital lens available, also maintaining a rectilinear image. If anyone thinks it is possible or wouldn't mind trying with their own set up please let me know.

Thanks,

Here is a link to a bank commercial. Seamed to have pulled acceptable keys. I have seen several uses with keying the HVX and some have been successful. The ones with blue screen have been the worst I have seen. That could just be due to chance, or perhaps as David Mullen has mentioned before, the blue channel is noisier. What I have noticed is that as long as your not trying to key smoke/fog, flowing liquids, strawberry blonde whispy hair, etc. it seams completely acceptable for keying. I have actually pulled good keys before from well lit and placed subjects with mini DV(although very limiting). So I am sure the HVX will provide more blue/green freedom for shots and subjects.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=61098

It always RECORDS at 60P but it shoots (captures) at the frame rate you select -- the extra frames are added after capture to add up to 60 for recording. So capture rate does affect exposure time per frame.

So does that mean that there would be a correlating amount of light gain when undercranking? A stop and a half gain @ 12p?

Thanks David. I appreciate you clearing that up for me.

If it looks correctly exposed on the monitor, and the monitor is set-up properly, then it's exposed correctly. You'll find just as with a film camera, changing the speed from 24 fps to 60 fps loses about a stop and a half, just as changing the shutter speed from 1/50th to 1/100th would lose you a stop of exposure. But you'd see the chance in brightness in the viewfinder / monitor once you changed the frame rate.

With the Varicam I thought it recorded 60p all the time and simply flagged the frames you need based on what speed you had set. If that is the case, then how does the varicam suffer additional light loss from overcranking? I may be way off here, but perhaps someone could explain how it works exactly. Thanks,

Micah

Thanks for sharing the trailers,

It was interesting how you handled the high key hollywood comedy style.

When do we eat - looked like it was anamorphic??? Maybe my viewing screen was just poor. It would be nice to hear what lens it was if it was anamorphic, becuase I didn't think they were alvailable for HD. At least I don't know of any.

Hi,

 

I don't really understand what you're asking. It's a video camera, give or take menu options they're all doing more or less the same thing. I find the idea of having a technician just to look after a video camera preposterous.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil,

I was just wandering if there were any other major differences, I only asked to see if anyone had any input. Is it really proposterous to suggest that during production a camera tech be available?

The debate between these two cameras continues,

It would be ineteresting to hear what is thought of the difference between them other than the ammount of pixels they can throw up on the screen. I have come to understand the the HDcam is much more technically involved and tends to be more difficult to pick up on than the Vericam. I wander how much of an issue this is? Maybe someone here has more information about this difference? Because for someone who has never used either one I would be most interested in knowing technical issues that could emerge due to inexperience with either camera.

I was told from someones first hand experience that the Vericam was much more user friendly and that they felt they did not need a technician around to trouble shoot.

So any opinions on this? Or does someone else see their operation as too similar to change ones preference?

I would just like to know if anyone believes that good keys can be taking from vericam footage? Has anyone seen any good keys from the f900 or 950? I am stuck right now between using the sony and the vericam. I have some green screen footage to shoot as well, but I also need to record in slow motion. Obviously the vericam is better for higher speed shooting, but the sony has better resolution. Does anyone believe it can be done, are there any tricks to help mask "almost perfect keys" anyone would like to share?

I would start by reading all the posts here relevent to the Varicam.

 

Then go to the Varicam Cow and you'll have more than enough to read.  I can't provide the specific comparison you're looking for but I believe I've read about it.

 

From what I hear and read the Varicam overcrank is the next best thing to film.  Shooting with it next week and looking very forward to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks redbaron. If you don't mind I would love to hear how the shoot goes next week for you? Let me know what you think about the camera. Also if you get a chance to put some bedia online I would love to see this camera in 60p performance.

Hi all,

I posted some questions about this camera in the video only forum by accident.

Sorry for the repetition.

If anyones has shot or has any detailed information about the Panasonic HD27F I would be most interested in hearing about it. I am considering shooting this camera in place of s16mm, because it supposedly can handle 60P very niceley (according to panasonic). Does anyone know if this camera handles 60P without much image slurring (a common problem with digital cameras in slow motion). It anyone knows if this camera is fast enough to actually record sharp stable images in slow motion it would be most helpful.

Also any footage other than that available at the panasonic website would be nice to see as well.

Thanks

Thanks again Laurent,

It would be great to get David Mullen's advice or anyone else with experience filming miniatures. This seems to be an extremely techincal topic.

Anyone else have any input or experienced POV's?

Thanks again,

Micah

I often notice that practical lights in the frame often look too bright with models.

 

It would be a pity not having enough depth of field for this.

 

Mind that a contrast look and the use of smoke + BPM is a bit contradictionary... I guess you 'll be using very very soft smoke...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So basically your telling me not to go with the high contrast look if I go smoke or filter?

I am really hoping that the lights seem bright enough, I know what you mean about the fact that they could be too bright. Depth of feild is something to be desired, but I also don't want the lights to not appear to look like little model lights I need them to bleed over and be slightly blurry (or overexposed looking). I suppose I could wash the set with a very soft light as well as using the model lights, then there would be significantly less contrast. I want to add smoke for two reasons:

1) The scene itself is supposed to appear to be smoggy.

2) The smoke would help add the atmosphere between the forground and the background, making the models look like their hundreds of feet away instead of a couple feet away(due to the illusion of a humid atmostphere, the smoke)

I don't have to use a filter I am just going over my options and ideas. Perhaps the smoke will be enough to get the look I want.

If anyone knows an effective way of acheiving any of this please let me know?

Is it possible for me to acheive a good depth of field and still make the model lights work?

Thanks,

I understand that you need small light sources for models. I am working in 1:48 scale and I am planning on lighting the models with ... the models. The specific set I am working on now is an industrial loading bay in the future. There will be many working lights in this industrial setting and the vehicles that land in this bay will be visible by their own lights. I am going for a high contrast look in lighting

(think film noir). This I believe will also help mask the size of the models as well as give me the desired aesthetics. Since I am planning on all the scale model lights being dominant as light sources I think shooting wide open and using a faster film stock would be a good idea. Another problem with the lighting is that I am mist likely going to have to shoot 48fps. Shooting this fast will take more light and I am just hoping that the small halogen and LED lights will be bright enough. Another problem is that I am wanting to shoot s16mm and I realize that it is a good idea to slightly over expose s16mm a half stop or so. I will defenatly be smoking the set and I am still considering using the pro mist filter unless anyone else knows a better way to ensure that my lights are soft looking so their true form (miniature bulbs and LED's) is not revealed. In this specific scense the scale models are largely subdominant and in the background.

I will do some experiments shooting wide open. I am still unsure of what lens to use on this production. The teaser I am working on will most likely be shot on a k3 and I am probably going to either purchase or rent a decent lens for it. Also if the teaser goes well I will be able to rent a nicer camera package and improve the quality of the film, but if I can pull it off on the K3 first it would be great.

If anyone else has any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it,

Also I will defenatly send some stills for everyone to see when it has been shot.

Thanks,

Micah

Thanks Wendell,

I appreciate your reply you have been most helful. I was already planning on smoking the models to soften them and add the atmosphere assumed with objects of that size. I will check the manuel on lighting and frame rate. Do you not feel that this could be pulled off with a K3? If not please let me know.

I am shooting scale model sets that are to be keyed in as well as moving model vehicles inside those sets. If you could give me more details on how to blur lights in telecine I would appreciate it. I have also considered compositing a blur over the lights although I would prefere not to. Can you blur moving lights as well in Telecine? Thanks again,

Because you'll have far more control in telecine gauging and adding the amount of diffusion you will need to add to the gate[if any at all ] than you would if you shoot with a promist or similar filter on the lens of the K-3 [which isn't the best glass in the world].

 

BTW, I could be wrong, but I don't believe the aperture on the K-3 closes down to more than f22, which isn't really the best part of the lens to be shooting since you're  you'll likely have to deal problems like barrel distortion, pin cushioning, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think that I would be better of blurring the lights in post? Also I am not going to be using the stock lens it sucks. The thing that worries me most is that the lower your go past f22 the lights become less and less dominant although you get greater depth. Can just the lights from the models themselves be bright enough to show up much lower than f22? What is the reccomended aperture for this type of work? If you could please explain to me how I can get the overexposed look in telecine or anthing else please fill me in.

Thanks everyone for your time, keep the comments rolling please,

Micah

Yes, I also think converting it to S16 would be a better option. You nearly have the 1.85 ratio and you get a lot of extra image area and thus better picture quality.

 

You don't have to spend the full 250 dollar if you just want your gate widened. I had mine done for free by a friend who works at a hardware store and I'm sure you could work out a nice deal with your local store. Just make shure it's done accurately.

 

René.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the advice, was your s16 modification done preices enough that you can zoom while filming without distortion? I was actually planning on upgrading to s16mm and aquiring an anamorphic lens if possible. Then I would get increased qaulity as well as aspect ratio. Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Krasnagorst 3 uses daylight loads of 100'

 

check http://www.k3camera.com

 

i haven't used the camera yet (it arrives on wednesday!) but i have high hopes.

 

as long as i can figure out how to load it. it's been 10 years since film school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Radar71, do you also have a TCS sync motor for your k3?

Also I would love to see some stills from the Music Video shoot when its done,

Thanks,

Micah

Hi everyone,

I am currently looking for a nice anamorphic lens for my k3. Does anyone know a good place to find one? Or does anyone have one? I realize that, most likely there wont be any made for the k3, so I will have to get creative and build a rig to mount the lens. But, what lens in particular should I go for? Does any one anamorhpic lens stand out for anyone? Right now I don't care as much if its 16X9 or 2.5:1. All advice on this topic is greatly appreciated, and I would like to thank everyone in advance.

Thanks,

Micah

Are you finishing to print or telecine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am finishing on Telecine. Why do you ask Windell???

Oh and Thanks FStop for the advice, I think I am going to try to get a Pro Mist filter.