nchopp

I've had decent luck with utility lamps off an inverter with some CTB on 'em. Then again, I'm not suer if you're talking about shooting INT or EXT of the car.

I've been trying to figure that one out for quite some time now...

In regards to the truck portion... (I'm going to be speaking about high-end mobile production; D1 college sports and professional sports carried by ESPN or Fox Sports) The individuals serving as the "mobile colorist" are not called "shaders" or "mobile colorists", they're video engineers. They're manually controlling iris, white balance, and pedestal. All the main cameras are connected via CCU cable. ENG\EFP and interview cams are connected via triax or coax. Sony camera bodys and Canon lenses are the standard. The "color matrix" is NOT balanced by the naked eye, but with color bars and vectorscope\waveform monitor. It's referred to as "color balance" in broadcasting. The video tape operator is referred to as an editor, and there are generally 3 or 4 of them. One is running an ALF, which is an NLE command-line based replay system, and the other 2 or 3 are running the actual decks, with controllers for playback commands. Generally it's BetaMPEG for high-end sports production. When there are slowdowns in the game the editors will feed the ALF operator clips for him to digitize, he can acquire footage from any of the cameras (up to 15 or more for large events - usually closer to six or seven for average productions) and sources in the truck. The replay decks are all referred to by color - green, blue, red, etc. Cameras are USUALLY referred to by number, but this depends on the particular Director. I prefer number, but some use letters. Chyron is the graphics system of choice. Pinnacle has a BIT of a presence, but not nearly to the extant of Chyron. Sports broadcasting is very freelance based. The Producer and Director are generally the only two employees actually employeed by the network. All the others are freelance. There is no hail of compliments. But there IS one hell of a rush. D1 hockey (WCHA in particular) has always been my favorite. Sorry, my background was intially in sports broadcasting, so the mistakes in that part of the article kinda bugged me. ;)

Yeah, Desistis are alright by me. Got 4 of those 1ks, 3 of the 2ks, a 750 flood and a bunch of 650s. They get the job done, for indoor work.

If you're stuck trying to make video you've already shot look like film in post, you're already too late. No software in the world is going to bring back the highlights you've blown and shadows you've lost. Dirt, grain, and gate wobble effects are useless, unless you have a reason your film needs to look like something from the 30s. When was the last time you saw a feature film that had a gate scratch? It's not even a band-aid, it's worse than a band-aid. Putting a film effect on top of poorly shot video is like pointing a large, red arrow at it and saying: "Look, I can't afford film OR the time and experience to shoot good video!" Chopp P.S. CineLook is, in my opinion, a very much superior option to FilmFX. It's diffusion filters in particular are phenomonal.

Where can I find an XL1 for $795? That's be great. Chopp P.S. McLuhan's not a philosopher, but a media ecologist.

Because video represents reality. When we see NTSC, 30i video, we think news, television, something real. We already have our mindset - we don't think story-telling. Film represents narrative; the 24 frame motion blur, the contrast ratio. We're ready to suspsend belief a little bit. "The medium is the message." (McLuhan) There's nothing wrong with wanting your video to look MORE like film. If such was the case, I don't think we'd be seeing the ridiculous amount of excitement about the HVX-200, or the great success Panasonic's had with the DVX-100. We're human - we want what we can't really afford - so if we can cheat and get closer, so much the better.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Was at location, didn't have a reflector - grabbed a mirror off the wall. Appropriately, my particular favorite brand of vodka. <grin>

An old Amiga can do a black and white effect in real-time... :-)

Good call on the china ball. A 650 with a softbox would work well too, in a pinch.

Our good friend Mr. Murdoch, is, of course referring to just about everyone here - as that covers all he's offended, attacked, insulted, and\or smeared. Panavision's out to take over the world!!! <runs to toss in Conspiracy Theory, it's been a while>

It's not HDV. It's DVCPRO HD.

A good waterproof case would be a must, too. LOTS of compressed air (the kind used for film camera lenses, not the stuff you buy at Best Buy - check out www.studiodepot.com ) is another necessity. Like mentioned before, a UV filter - or four, 'cause you'll likely end up ruining a few.

A 4gb P2 card will net you about 10 minutes of 720. You'll get about 3 or 4 minutes of 1080. Those are at 24 - if you're overcranking you'll obviously get less time. :-) The 8gb cards are coming out at about the same time as the camera (August, I think), I believe. If I end up going for it, I'll be going for three 8gb P2 cards and a laptop with a Lacie Big disk (1.6tb or so). Just too expensive to buy enough P2 cards for a real shoot, but damn - no more digitizing. :D

MPEG compression = MESS for chromakeying. While I haven't done (or seen) any side by side comparisions, I'd lean towards staying away from HDV for chroma work. The Panasonic HVX-200 is coming out in August. 24p, 1080, records DVCPRO HD onto a P2 card, or DVCPRO 50 at SD.

Crow, What are you keying with? AfterEffects? The edges are kinda nasty. :unsure:

I get so tired of this line "such and such isn't broadcast quality". There IS no broadcast quality standard. I've seen things shot on 35mm that I wouldn't put on local access, and I've seen projects shot on Hi8 that I would be proud to call my own. MiniDV certainly CAN be broadcast quality, and often IS broadcast quality. I've shot plenty of projects that were broadcast to over 150,000 homes on Charter Cable, and video quality was never an issue. I engineered the broadcast system for a D1 hockey telecast, so I know a bit about video engineering. In short, if you control your light, MiniDV can look every bit as good as any other SD format. If I have the choice I'll definitely take something a little higher res\tape length (DigiBeta, DVCPRO 50, etc.), but you don't always. You shoot with what you can, and you take as much care as you can. If you're looking to create a documentary in SD (standard definition) a Sony DVCAM will likely be your best bet. The Sony DSR PD-150\PD-170 is the standard camera for SD documentaries, with good reason. It's well-built, shoots a great picture, is a very small form factor, and has a great audio system. The picture matches up well with Sony's DSR series of DVCAMs, from the 250 on up to the 500 series. I've put a good 200 hours on the PD-150, and I just love the camera for documentary\ENG\EFP work. I'll gladly take it over an XL1 any day. Another option is the JVC GY-DV500. It's a somewhat older (three or four years now) MiniDV camera by JVC - full shoulder-mount ENG form, with detachable lens (think it comes with a Fujinon 14x, could be a Canon though, not sure). It's another really solid SD camera, but it lacks some of the "convenience" features of the 150\170 (auto-focus, etc.) Lastly, I would disagree entirely on the HDV suggestion. Until the cable networks and local access broadcasters get their standard figured out, you're wasting valuable time and money. It's going to be SD for a few years yet, so don't jump on a bandwagon just because of a buzzword - i.e. HD. Just a few thoughts. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail if you want some more specific answers. I've got a shoot tomorrow, Steadicam work starts at 8:00 a.m., so I'd best turn in. *grin*

You still didn't answer his question - which is the most important one. WHAT are you going to be shooting? If you're going to be doing videos for a college campus with an HD system, you'll want to consider the FX1. If you're going to be working on narratives, a short or feature film, you'll want a camera with true 24p - the XL2 and DVX-100A are the standards for that right now. (In the sub $10,000 range, of course) As to the panning - it's part of shooting at 24 frames per second. It's commonly referred to as strobing; and generally happens when you have an operator that's not accustomed to shooting at 24 - i.e. someone who shoots primarily video.

Another problem I've run into is the way Sony renders edge sharpening. It's somewhat unique to Sony processing. A camera like the DVX-100 in particular sharpens in a completely different manner.

It's so tough, getting non-Sony cameras to match up with Sony. I've never had very good luck with it. I'm kinda curious about this too.

Not sure about the clip you're referecing, but do you mean you're looking for low-contrast shots? If so, LOTS of flat lighting. 2ks with soxboxes, etc. Overcast days are great for flat lighting. In post, you'll pull up the blacks, push down the whites (hopefully you were very careful of highlights while shooting) and punch the midtones.

Not bad at all. The night shots really caught my eye - well done. Shooting night is so damn difficult, and you seemed to pull it off pretty well.

Looks PHENOMONAL. I'm extremely impressed. (Which is a rarity)

Greg, My apologies as well. I admire the fact that at 57 you're taking the plunge into a new field - it's certainly an exciting one, and one we never stop learning at. My father is the Director of Pastoral Care at hospital, and my mother an RPh. So I know the medical field well. *grin* Good luck with "last chance" - it's amazing how many other health problems go along with obesity. :-\ When and where were you in Vietnam? I have several friends that did some pretty major duty over there. One in particular, a former Professor, was a highly decorated rescue chopper pilot. I very nearly joined the Corps out of HS, and sometimes still regret not doing so, even if only for the four years. Three weeks from now I'll be done with my undergrad degree, and I'm still seriously considering OCS. We'll see what happens. Best, Chopp P.S. I'm very much a fan of the PD-150\PD-170 - I've got probably a good 200-300 hours on the 150, most of it ENG and sports broadcasting. It's an amazing piece of hardware for the price point. I just feel the NTSC version is not that hot for narrative story-telling. We still associate that damn 30fps with reality - news, sports, etc. Now, a PAL 150, on the other hand, pulls down to 24 so much easier. :)

Greg, I have no need to get into an ego argument with you. I have no problem with still photographers, seeing as I AM one. I do portriature, still life, wedding, and fine art photography. I don't claim to be a professional as that implies it's how you make your living, but I suppose semi-professional would be a fine description. I'm rather new to filmmaking, my background is much more heavily invested in broadcasting, sports in particular. I'm the DP\Steadicam Op for a feature film being produced here in Minnesota, and I've worked on more than my fair share of indie and studio projects in LA. Nicholas Chopp Mobile Entertainer, Photographer, A\V Producer, Director of Photography (doesn't like to pick just one thing)