Benji Wade

Thanks for all the input guys, I'm gonna try the $10 plugin from that UK site just 'cause it sounds like it'll do the trick and inexpensively.

FYI, I found this plugin from RevisionFX, which will probably work really well, but it's a bit on the spendy side.

http://www.revisionfx.com/rfil.htm

So yeah, my XL1 has a hot/dead pixel that is really annoying and can only be repaired for a chunk of change, like $900.

I know it's incredibly easy for obvious reasons to load up photoshop and correct an issue with stills, but I can't seem to find any information or ideas about how to correct the problem with video. Like, shouldn't there be a plugin around for grabbing the offending pixel and just filling it in with the color of the surrounding pixels? I naively assumed that somebody would have created an After Effects plug-in for that sort of thing, but if it exists then so far it has eluded me.

Thanks for any ideas/suggestions.

At this point, variable lens or not, I think the HVX200 is the way to go. I think solid state memory is going to be very efficient, personally, even though it's very expensive.

The clips I've seen of the XLH1 are amazing though.

That link is no longer relevant. If you'd like to see this film and like music by Sigur Ros or Christian Fennesz, give it a look and listen!

Thanks!

DOWNLOAD

We humans don't always choose the most practical option, we do however, like the pretty stuff.

chris

I suppose...personally, I'm interested in great storytelling. I'd rather watch Festen a million times than watch Man On Fire even once.

Ultimately, I think audiences will forgive video, they'll forgive practical or natural light, but they never forgive bad acting and stupid stories.

Wait for the Panasonic HVX200...it's going to really hurt the JVC GY-HD100U market.

1080p, solid state memory.

Yeah, but you've got to admit that HD cameras can still give a far more accurate picture of Iraq.

:lol:

At the risk of infuriating purists, I do believe the same thing was said about digital versus film in the still photography world a few years ago. Go to a major exhibition and good luck finding anything but Digital SLR.

Can I borrow some money while you're at it?

Oh, and how much you want for the XL2? :P

Send me a Private Message, I'm interested.

I like what Dimitrios said. Find out as soon as possible what your locations will be like so you can determine what stocks to order. The light, its quality, its intensity, its temperature, all determine the best possible stocks and the speed of the film you choose will also determine your depth of field to a large degree (just as filters will).

I also like what Mark said. At this stage of the game, if you're two months from production, you might want to find an experienced AC or gaffer to help you along the way or you might end up in a nightmare within days.

Here's a music video from a UK hip-hop band called Virus Syndicate. I believe this was all done in post:

http://www.planet-mu.com/virus_syndicate-s...own_mov.torrent

That video was retimed with Twixtor 4.5, and I think it was done with XL2 footage.

If you shoot with relatively high speed film, I don't see why AfterEffects wouldn't produce a decent result?

Well edited, well shot for the most part.

The set up was incredibly long and the payoff was not only predictable, but a little on the *yawn* side of the spectrum.

You could reduce the setup by eliminating the shower scene entirely. The working out shot was a great intro of the character, but you could have skipped right to the making dinner and shortened the dinner preparations. After all, the real point of the idea is his "confession". The confession itself runs a bit long and comes off a bit wooden. It also gives the audience plenty of time to figure out what's going to happen. Of course, the fact that the dummy's hair is clearly synthetic doesn't help.

Anyhow, for a project that you just wanted to "learn" with, good job.

Yeah, if you move the camera an inch or two every hour or so, it will look like crap. All the sudden the camera will simply leap in the frame. Not good.

So yeah, without a *smooth* consistent motion control device, I wouldn't attempt it. Ron Fricke accomplished it with proper equipment...otherwise known as a budget. :D

If the Rodrigo Prieto posting on this thread has any relation to the Rodrigo Prieto I'm familiar with, then yes, he probably has both the budget and excess talent/experience to pull this off. This is for Babel, I assume?

Then again, maybe Rodrigo Prieto is to Mexico like James Smith to Americans. :lol:

Does your camera have a mic adaptor? The classic mic is the Shure SM58. Inexpensive, durable, good quality.

Well, I have a point and click digital still camera.

Its focal length range is 7.8mm to 23.4mm - how do I make sense of that focal length compared to an Arri SR1 or SR2, which is what I will eventually be shooting with?

Thanks!

http://www.kishoptics.com/pdf.html

That thing looks pretty sweet.

Where did you buy yours, Mike?

my experience is that the heavier the camera is, the steadier the image is going to be.

Well, I think that's pretty obvious and Rodrigo already mentioned the A-Minima.

You can also de-interlace your footage, but only after you've followed the advice of everybody else here.

www.joesfilters.com

Demo his field blending filter, it works really well and will cut down the robotic movement you're accustomed to with DV interlaced footage.

I'm of the belief that story is far more important than medium, so when the time comes, if your film sucks, don't blame the camera. That's just a copout. Learn good technique now, then when you can afford a DVX100A or 16mm, everything you do will pop. B)

I just watched Crossing, for shooting that with such a cheap camera, it looks great. I liked the shots.

It's a large file but I'd love feedback if anybody's game. Highs, lows, in-betweens.

Thanks in advance.

DOWNLOAD

I like it, some great shots. Particular that shot of the young woman at the diner with the flare out behind her, I thought that was beautiful.

Ratatat! Great album! Although it is an odd fit for your a lot of your photography...

I think it should depend on who the actor is...if it's Pitt, keep it nice and shaky, we're all tired of looking at him. If it's Gael, then make it smooth smooth...our neo-Ernesto's got a nice face.

:lol:

Hi,

 

Its not that difficult!

Take a piece of black cardboard. Cut a hole the size of the film frame your using. S35mm/35mm/S16/S8 (all formats work)

 

Hold the frame 20mm from your eye and you will see the coverage of a 20mm lens. 50mm away is a 50mm lens and 100mm equals a 100mm lens!

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

That's exactly what I'm going to do. :lol: