Alvin Pingol

My deepest condolences. An invaluable member of the filmmaking community, you will be missed dearly, John.

Plus, if you screw up, you can call it an artistic decision. ;)

My trusty GY-DV300 has it, I believe the XL2 does, as well... I was under the impression the DVX had -3dB gain as well, perhaps the 100B model does? :huh:

At 24P and 1/48th shutter, the sensitivity should fall somewhere between 320 and 400ASA. For every +6dB of gain you add, you will gain one additional stop of exposure, i.e. 320 becomes 640ASA, and so forth. Of course, you get to a point where video noise becomes so prevalent it's no longer worth it. I prefer -3dB, light permitting, which is a half stop loss but a cleaner overall image (not that 0dB is that noisy anyway).

Use the iris and ND filters over shutterspeed to dial down exposure. Because videocameras have no mechanical shutter, speeds like 1/10000 may record one ten-thousandths of a second's worth of exposure, but the light from the arc will still be hitting the CCD for the remaining 9999/10000th seconds [every second] and potentially cause damage.

>>DV-AVI (NTSC) ...I'm thinking this is the correct one Use this. After importing, your footage should be DVSD compressed, 720x480 at 29.98fps, which is exactly what came out of the camera (hence, no loss in quality). >>I'm wondering which format is best for getting the best quality onto dvd Stick with DV compression throughout if you don't want to go uncompressed; if you're only cutting clips (i.e. no effects), the footage should not go through any recompression, which not only saves you from additional picture degredation, but also significantly speeds up render/export times. If there is a setting called "always recompress," or something similar, you'll want to make sure you disable it. >>and what format should I be compressing it to when I burn the dvd. DVD-compliant MPEG2, but this is only the beginning. Any competent DVD authoring software should take care of the rest, although there are several advanced settings you might want to tweak for best results. >>Also if you pick one format like ex. DV-AVI can you transfer that to a lower quality Yes >>and vice versa? Technically yes, but you won't be gaining anything. In fact, you're losing (in both hard disk space and image quality, as the already degraded image will go through another pass of compression). >>Is there any free video editing programs that you guys know of http://www.avid.com/freedv/index.asp While I haven't used this myself, it surely looks, and most likely performs, better than Windows Movie Maker. Hope this helps.

FireWire's peak data transfer rate is 400Mbit/sec (although actually achieving this can prove rather difficult due to a multitude of factors). This image shows the average data rate between my external HDD via 1394. About 29Mbyte/sec, essentially, ~232Mbit/sec. 100Mbit/sec should not be a problem.

I purchased a good-sized fog machine (can't remember the wattage or CFM, as I don't currently have access to it) for $30 USD on eBay. The fog juice was $16/gallon, plus $2 shipping. The juice doesn't go quick; although I'll admit I haven't used the machine much, I expect the remainder of the gallon to last for several more months. For best results, point the fog into the rear of a large floor fan. This will give you the most even spread in the least amount of time and effort.

If the portable DVD player has auxiliary video ins (S-Video in your case), then obviously, yes.

A few threads, such as this one, are coming up horizontally 'squished,' leaving much dead space on the right side. EDIT: Using Avant Browser (v. 10.1 build 26) at 1280x800.

I beg to differ! http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/feature...el_id=MDL101411

I enjoy Google. Click on this link and swap QUERY for whatever you please. The only drawback is that recent posts will not turn up, as Google's crawler takes some time to index things (just how long I'm not sure). Good luck!

It also allows for an image with slightly less noise, as the anologue signal will not be amplified as much. Of course, I'm sure the SDX does not suffer from much noise at all at 0dB anyway...

Re: Poor Man's Copyright, --US Copyright Office

>>First of all when you "down convert" Are you converting the video from 1080i >>to 720 or are you just cropping off the edges of the frame? Downconverting refers to the resizing of an entire frame. It can be done by simply discarding excess pixels, which looks bad unless the conversion factor is 50% or 25% the original size for obvious reasons, or by using interpolation to smooth things out if not doing a half or quarter (or eighth, etc.) reduction. Whenever I downconvert something, I usually throw a fine unsharp mask over the image since I don't have to worry too much about video noise being sharpened anymore, plus it helps recover some details lost due to interpolation and the lower resolution in general. >>Once converted are you able to up-convert it without recapturing footage? No. [technically yes, but all you will be doing is interpolating back up to the higher resolution, which is pointless if your source material is true high-def] >>And does the down conversion still look better than something like the pd170 >>for example? I cannot say for sure since I have not done this, but I would imagine it should, since your HD source footage has a *lot* more information to begin with, than the native SD PD-170 footage.

Would you say a lens performs its best somewhere around two stops from wide open?

I've also found that at times, DCC will give false colors to the highlights, which can look really odd. I now leave it off for the majority of my shoots. EDIT: I was referring to my SD camera; didn't notice the HD thread but it's still video nonetheless...

Any travel docu's shot in 35?

The whole latitude/dynamic range thing was thoroughly discussed a little while ago, and I believe it concluded as so: Latitude refers to how many stops one can either overexpose or underexpose the image such as that it can be recovered to "correct" and still look acceptable. E.g., a certain color neg stock might have a latitude of around 5 stops (3 stops under, 2 stops over), a certain video camera 3 stops (2 under, 1 over), etc. Dynamic range, on the other hand, refers to how faithfully the contrast range within the frame is reproduced. It is true that a high contrast image has less dynamic range, as the highlights will become white, and the shadows black, "faster" than a low con image, where one would be able to discern details in both highlights and shadows.

Hi Lukeo, Keep in mind this is a Cinematography forum, so do not be surprised if many of your questions go unanswered or recieve tardy response; I recommend you check out the forums at studentfilmmakers.com, DV.com, or similar generalized movie production forums if you can't find the answer you're looking for here. In the meantime... Since your camera only has a 1/8" mic input, it wouldn't surprise me if it also had a built in compressor/limiter/autogain combo, which will irreversibly modify the audio signal (though sometimes it can help!). If you plan on using two mics, the previously posted XLR adapter (http://www.studio1productions.com/xlr-bp.htm) will work as your mixer, and it should also be able to send output from each mic to its own channel so you can modify them independently in post.

A definite step up from the PDX10 grabs! :-p Are you sure your aperture was f/2.8 for both the interlaced and progressive frames? It really looks like you're getting a bit shallower DOF on the progressive frame (easy to see when looking at the spiral phone cord). I like the look of the "film" setting, though it is not an extreme difference between that and the standard setting. It seems you are gaining a little in the highlights, as seen on the hotspots on the telephone, which is good. I love Altoids, too...

I agree that there is resampling happening somewhere in the chain, but am still puzzled about the aliasing. While the frame width is smaller than it's supposed to be (which is most likely the capture device rescaling for square PAR), the frame height is correct, and that's what really matters - What's even more confusing to me is that the 60i frame does not suffer from the aliasing, so it can't be the most obvious (and most common) problem of capture software automatially deinterlacing anything it can get its hands on. Perhaps it's the PDX10 not properly interpreting 3:2 pulldown?

>>Actually that's backwards. This is what I get for posting at 1:11 AM. Thanks for the correction!

>>Certain stadium lights cause a timing problem or strobing if I do not shoot at >>30, 60, 120 fps. (are there other compatible frame rates?) It is shutter speed you should be concerned about, but if you are sticking with 180 degrees then framerate is obviously a consideration. Use the "twice-the-frequency" rule: Any shutterspeed (disregard the numerator) that evenly divides into *twice* the frequency of the source should work. >>What kind of lights are these that cause this problem? Mainly discharge lamps, like HID Mercury Vapor or whatever gas cocktail they're using now (I believe stadiums use a certain type of HID lamp that allows for greater color rendition, but I'm not sure what exactly it is. Metal Halide maybe?). >>is there a way for me to determine or recognize this kind of lighting system >>when I walk into a new stadium with which I am not familiar? The way I check for non-flicker-free sources is by quickly shifting my eyes left to right, such as that the light source quickly pans accross my vision (it helps to momentary close your eyes immediately after doing so). If you see breaks in the streak of light, it is not flicker-free. [i hope I'm not the only one that does this... hah. You can practice on your CRT display at home].

Another, longer thread worth checking out...