Thomas Tamura

Those reflections on the wall are specular highlights. A post solution may be to generate a luma-matte then slip the wall behind it to eliminate the problem area. Painting it out wasn't a bad idea, but i can see why you're not happy with it. If you use Apple's Shake, or similar node based compositor, there ought to be a 'clamp' or 'compress' operator that you can use to isolate only the pixels above a certain value. A good old Luma-key ought to do the same thing. Ounce you have your holes cut it is just a matter of putting something behind that will match the wall -- or you may be able to use the wall its self. Basically the this is caused when you reach a complementary angle to light source. In your clip it's worse in the middle, and as you mover more perpendicular to the building the effect is decreased. To avoid on location, careful where you put your lights, use flags, maybe dulling spray. Those are just suggestions, I'm sure someone on here will have better solutions than I.

Thanks, all the data I've been able to collect basically says the same thing -- 5 seconds to cross. The tables in the ACS manual are very specific and I was hoping someone could point me to the formula used to calculate the data. Not to mention it's a home work assignment for one of my classes, and I've had a heck of a time finding any information that actually alludes to how those numbers were reached -- let alone an actual equation. Don't suppose you have a link to those elaborate tables?

Is there a mathematical formula to calculate maximum panning speed? My ASC manual has some charts that outline the max. degrees per second recommended for panning a 35mm, but I was wondering if there is a formula to determine the max pan speed for other formats, focal lengths, shutter angles, and frame rates? Thanks,

I'm in the market for a new, and more comprehensive, deal memo. Can any one point me in the direction of a download. I'm sure I'll make revisions to it, but I'm being lazy and I don't really want to start typing it from scratch. I'm not really in a position to hire a lawyer to draft one. I'm working with this company that has burned through some camera ops and editors, and I want better contract language. I'll happily except an e-mail with attachment or in-line text. I guess you could say I'm shopping around. Thanks for the help, Thomas

Thanks for the replies. Tim, as you said it can be stressful. It certainly is a relief to know that you guys agree with my position. And, Chris, in hind sigh, I should have sent them packing right away (well they wouldn't have to pack cause it was all my gear). Lesson learned. Thanks for the support and candid answers. Cheers

Dear Cinematography Community, I was wondering if some freelancers can give me their perspective on a situation? I did a shoot for a party as a favor. It was shot with my equipment at one of my relatives' homes. There were no agreements signed, including a location agreement. In fact I shot it on short ends of tapes from other clients' projects. I told them I would dump the footage to an external drive as soon as they provided one. I was not contacted by them for a 6 weeks. I told them to drop off a drive and there would be a weeks turn around time. They told me that was too long, and they would capture the tapes themselves. As I mentioned they were short ends and I refused to release the tapes. At this point talks broke down. Then I get this message from them saying they're filing a law-suit or some legal action. My position here is that I was an "at will" employee and when I felt I wasn't being treated appropriately I "quit". Am I wrong?

the recorder part of the camera doesn't care what the camera part is feeding to it. it's just a sequence of frames either way. no frames added, none dropped, no change in the gop. this is so obvious i'm sorry i didn't realize it was a question. /matt Thanks for the help.

Yes -- assuming 180 degree shutter -- that's great that you know so much about film cameras, but you haven't answered my question. I didn't start this thread for a intro to FILM lesson. Clearly the camera is duplicating frames to approximate what a longer exposure time would be -- so what is it doing when the shutter speed is increased -- compression wise; how does it affect the long-GOP. It's obviously not throwing out frames? It's not writing more data either now is it? so what is it doing to the structure of the MPEG-2 files? Thanks for trying, but I don't think you know

Matt, thanks for the reply, and I see what you're saying. In film cameras frame rate and shutter speed are one and the same. As you know 24 FPS is 1/48 of a sec shutter speed. When you lower the shutter speed (and create longer exposure time) you get a similar result to a film camera shooting at a slower shuttter speed, but not when you go faster speed. I was hoping some one could provide some insight into the more technical aspect of the compression. I guess I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.

I've done several test shots at different shutter speeds with the Z1 and I am seeing some increased resolution, but is it all in my mind? What exactly does this function do, because it's not changing the frame rate (which shutter speed should be linked to), and it's still giving me footage at 30 FPS. With the GOP MPEG compression I don't see how it could be writing more key frames either. Any one care to discuss this with me. I've used it a couple of times more for controlling exposure then doing in camera FX.

Nice work. I enjoyed the images and the editing. Was this shot using digital or photochemical? I would love to see it uncompressed.

There you go -- try this one. I haven't read it, but I've been meaning to -- let me know if it's any good. http://www.amazon.com/Purple-Someones-Gonn...g/dp/0240806883

Standard Def. has some advantages over HDV. for one it handles motion better due to HDV's GOP structured compression. But all things considered I much prefer HDV. For one thing it handles color better then DV, and when it's down converting in camera you get better color in SD then an SD camera produces based on the fact that there's more color information in the intake. Also, it is HD. The world is going HD - this is a fact - and it's coming soon, won't it be nice to send you shorts off with the best resolution possible. The added lines of resolution would help if you wanted to print to film. The cannon does offer the ability to change lens, but they offer an HD model too. You should go HDV if you can. It looks better.

my friend is a wedding photographer and she has a lens attachment that produdces the effect you're describing. I don't recall the name of it, and I havn't been able to get a hold of her. It's out there -- and it has a name. Keep looking.

It was done in Citizen Kane in the scene with the glass in the foreground -- I'd be more specific but it's been a while since i've seen it. Any way it's done with a mask over the back ground, then a mask over the exposed section to get the whole frame in sharp focus. the edge of the matte will be soft depending on the iris setting and due to the close proximity to the film plane. How's that for creative.

photo floods have more life then that -- self contained pars are good too, available at hardware stores and such. When they die they're dead, but they hold there color temp till then. I keep a few around with some clip sockets to use for catch lights and to replace practicals that need to light things on set.

My personal camera is a sony Z1 -- I use a matte box, behind it a screw on UV filter. I do a fare amount of action and Visual effects, so it protects my glass. I've done some pretty strange things in the matte box to get the look I want and control depth of field (such as using two sheets of 2 stop ND to shoot wide open on a sunny day). Some times you just don't have the filters on set (but you have the gels -- not recommended) In any case the matte box will largely prevent reflection and glare on the surface of the filter. Generally they provide more shade then a standard lens shade.

Just my opinion, but z1 all the way. Okay, it has a fixed lens, but can you afford to rent lens? or buy them? you can add attachments on to the sony for much cheaper that look good if you need more telephoto or wide. All broadcasting is going HD eventually -- DVD are starting to offer HD DVD's, HD tv's are getting cheaper -- compressor is encoding Hd for DVD -- the world is going that way, you want to go with 'em. I just shot a music video with a DoP that insisted on making me B cam so he could get his own operator for his DVX-100A -- He was a horrible DoP - refused to shoot tests. I'm cutting it for the client -- I'm going to have to de-saturate my footage to meet his shitty color space. I shot in DVCAM too -- it's down converting an HD signal so even the NTSC looks better. It handles color amazingly well -- don't let 'em tell you it's not true HD, cause it is. It's a great camera. I've shot on the XL1, ounce, I'd go HDV -- maybe the cannon HDV? I'm sure that's a nice camera and you can change the lens -- if you've got the cash! Hope that helped.

Are you sure you're not born to be a writer? just kidding -- where to start: 1) Eternal Sunshine scene was done by building connecting sets. You'll notice as he walks toward the door they kill banks of light behind him when he walks in to the "home" set the book store has fallen out of exposure. 2) The flower vase idea will work -- cross dissolve to achieve the desired fade out -- some advice on that one use a remote control -- DO NOT TOUCH THE CAMERA -- if it moves the slightest amount it won't match. 3) as for doing it in motion -- can do -- got a motion control head? Just kidding again, but again, go for a tracking shot of some kind. You'll want to lock the camera off on the dolly (and tracks) this way the path will be the same for both takes. practice it -- or better yet have your dolly grip practice it (with the operator riding - for weight). A little variance in speed ought to be corrected in post with time re-mapping. If you pan while tracking you risk that the pans won't match. Basically you want have the same angle, height, speed (and character position - more marks) for it to cut. I do a limited amount of visual FX, mostly force perceptive. The cutting on the wipe works as described above -- great example of this is in the a library scene in Shawshank Redemption. Later this month I'm shooting an exploding Zombie head (cast) that will cut into the scenes shot on location -- good times!!

You can set the color channels in After Effects -- put a color channel filter on the footage then set each channel to the same color. Red, green, or blue all yield different results, but red usually works the best. It really depends how much of each color is in the clip. You'll get much better results then de-saturating.

Unfortunately adding more glass won't solve any problems, since it will always pass the light through the original cheap servo lens. There is no real way to get better image out of the Z1. I hadn't thought of reducing depth of field, but I was thinking of adding to the telephoto end of the lens -- there no problem I'm attempting to solve. And I considered using a 35 adapter, but I've seen cheap screw on to bayonet adapters too. just wondering how they work? other then gaining a little telephoto I was hoping to gain a mechanical focus collar! I wish they put real focus collars on the mid level cameras, but what can you do?

has any one tried mounting a still photography, variable focal length lens on their Z1? I realize that the still photography lenses are not as quality built as cinema lens, and I'm sure in HD this is more apparent, but I was wondering if any one has experimented despite? I was thinking of trying. I'm working on a DYS follow focus and was thinking of mounting adding some more glass on the end or my camera, just to experiment. have any or you been down this road?

The night scenes in Collateral seem to "gritty" by art direction -- in other words there's a lot of grey in the scene color wise through said method. You'll notice the bright colors introduced are very saturated. I would recommend shooting some test using a picture profile -- setting the saturation high, black stretch off, and playing with the other setting to get the look you want -- Collateral is very "lit" with warm fill in the back ground, a low budget may not be able to reproduce this in EXT., but INT. you may be have a shot. The "gritty"ness is through saturating the scene with the color shades or gray not through under-exposing. I think with the right planning and some tests you ought to be able to get a similar look -- if I'm not mistaken it was photographed HD

Was your field monitor an NTSC monitor accepting a down converted signal? That may be the problem, or the monitor was not calibrated properly? HDV is 4_2_0 GOP compression, NTSC is 4_1_1 so going between the two may affect the color space. Interesting -- I'll have to look at some of my own down converted footage, although I have not experienced a problem like this in the past.

A little off topic, a little on, I recently photographed a music video in SD using the cineframe30 -- I shot some tests and liked the motion rendering much better then the cine25. viewing the captured image I did feel it was a bit softer then what I was seeing on set. I'm assuming it's the in-camera SD processing, and since it's down converting an HD image I would assume that down converting during capture would render the same results. I am very happy with the shoot - if the editor had the capability to down convert I would have preferred to shoot HD, but a job's a job. I would assume the cineframe30 is interlaced, but not sure?