>
>
I am talking to a Director about an upcoming HD Feature project.
He has proposed that he wants to shoot with TWO F900's.
This is a very tightly budgeted project…(is there any
other kind?). There will be no engineer.
I am feeling like two camera's is more work and will actually
slow things down. Every time we decide on a look, some of
which we'll want to create 'in-camera', I will have to work
with each camera individually. I also feel that a WF/VS will
be an absolute necessity in order to match the cameras, whereas
I'm more comfortable with one camera if I can't have them.
Am I correct in feeling that I can't simply create a look
in ONE F900 and then transfer the data to the 2nd one and
it will match perfectly? Am I making a bigger deal out of
this than it really is?
Thanks bunches.
Roderick Stevens
www.restevens.com
12on/12off
>...TWO F900's... very tightly
budgeted project... There will be no >engineer.
Roderick is right in that if you're looking to create various
looks in-camera, and you are sans true DIT or Engineer, then
it will be trouble to match the 2nd camera on-set without
sacrificing your time blocking, lighting, rehearsing dolly
moves, and generally working with the director. Sometimes
it can be trouble just matching cameras to begin with if you
cannot dedicate the time (and it'll always take you longer
than a talented/dedicated Engineer).
I think the only realistic way to approach this is to build
3-5 looks ahead of time (hopefully with an Engineer) and then
write those to separate A & B MS (which are specific to
that A & B camera's base look). And then hope you don't
have to trade out a body.
I like using 2 cameras when I'm on a tough schedule - I recently
did a feature with 2 F900's, no Engineer or DIT even during
prep. Lots of help from Panavision Woodland Hills and Nolan
Murdock (thanks!). Not enough time allowed to prep/test, so
I built a couple of scene files to start, then tweaked and
added as I went along. Our B-Camera/Steadicam Operator was
Eric Fletcher, and he and I suffered our way through the DIT
responsibilities, but we sure would've preferred someone dedicated
to that. Eric's really great with that stuff - we're both
comfy with the menus - but it just takes time to chase your
tail through the menus (and remote) to tweak the color/contrast/gamma
to match or manufacture a specific look.
And the thing that still bugs me about "engineering"
24p HD : Detail. For pure perfection you need to dial it in
separately for each shot (depending on its focal length, subject
matter, lighting, contrast, etc.) but that's not always possible.
Honestly I find this aspect very difficult to control thoroughly
and consistently. Meaning, for it to look truly consistent,
you need to mess with the detail/enhancement - often times
turning it way down on CU's. One time on a beach the sand
turned hyper-real when we tightened the lens, and everyone
will tell you that you can adjust Aperture Correction in post,
but its actually not that easy to sharpen/soften things in
post. Maybe by next year, but not yet and not industry-wide.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Mark Doering-Powell
LA based DP
Mark Doering-Powell wrote:
>For pure perfection you need
to dial it in separately for each shot >(depending on its focal
length, subject matter, lighting, contrast, etc.) but >that's
not always possible.
Which is one reason why these cameras are a real pain. Properly
these things shouldn't have to be dealt with on-set, but could
be dealt with in post, as film is in telecine.
Jeff Kreines
>Which is one reason why these
cameras are a real pain. Properly these >things shouldn't have
to be dealt with on-set, but could be dealt with in >post,
as film is in…
Saddle up the horses Mildred were going into town.
Rod, Email me I'll give you the simple technique that will
make it work for you.
Sean Fairburn
>...feel that a WF/VS will be
an absolute necessity in order to match the >cameras, whereas
I'm more comfortable with one camera if I can't have >them.
I have found that at least a WF and VEC ARE A NECESSITY AND
I WOULD NOT TRUST ANY EYE ASPECT OR PRESET without BEING ABLE
TO MATCH AND Check EE as well as Playback... ALSO the cost
of a VIDEO ENG person seems to be a much needed cost and in
the long run much cheaper then Matching the cameras and taking
care of actual electronic inconsistencies on set before capture
then FIX IT IN POST.....
I have done a few Commercial and Music HD productions and
ABC set up and I have found the ENG is a PART of the TEAM
and a needed or useful and well worth the cost in time savings
and camera matching as well as video inconsistencies due to
LOCATION and Variable TEMPS CONDENSATION etc...
Thank you,
*)o(* BLS Barry Shankman
co-director
www.blsvideo.com
B. Sean Fairburn wrote :
>Rod, Email me I'll give you
the simple technique that will make it work >for you.
Ah, c'mon Sean, share a little.
Surely a simple technique (or even hints) for f900 multicamera
creating and matching various in-camera looks without Engineer
could be posted here and not only for Rod's benefit. No ?
Wonder why the secrecy ?
Mark Doering-Powell
Roderick wrote:
>I am feeling like two camera's is more work and will actually
slow things >down.
- Yes, it is more work. That is you get more work shot for
the same time spent setting up. Yes, it will slow you down
without extra crew. There should also be an engineer, if you
plan on doing anything other than simple shooting with more
than one camera. A HD waveform/vectorscope will be ideal to
keep things matched. Right next to your waveform monitor,
get a couple 9" HD monitors to display the menu text
with some RM-B150 remotes for controlling the two camera set-ups
quicker, without having to squint through the little eyepieces
all the time. You should also have a couple of matched BVM
D24 or D20's to evaluate everything in your dark tent.
>Am I correct in feeling that
I can't simply create a look in ONE F900 and >then transfer
the data to the 2nd one and it will match perfectly?
- Perfectly? No. But, if you keep the cameras matched with
every major setup change, you will come close. Make sure your
camera angles work together in line for coverage. If an "A"
and "B" camera setup just won't work, utilize the
set up time for both cameras anyway, and then shoot "A"
to be immediately followed by "B" after your tweak
or just to remove "A" out of the shot quickly. Do
not expect the "60 minute" style shooting to make
your life easier for lighting or camera matching. Plan your
shots and set-ups well, be decisive with set maps and thumbnail
sketches with the other operator.
Don't compromise too much for the second camera, know when
it will slow you down.
Good Luck,
Eric Adkins
DP, Los Angeles
>Which is one reason why these
cameras are a real pain. Properly these >things shouldn't have
to be dealt with on-set, but could be dealt with in >post,
as film is in telecine.
Only when the post production community can get by the need
for a videotape cassette, and implement data from the acquisition
point through the entire post production work flow process.
Reminds me of the scene in Star Wars where Luke Skywalker
and Obie Wan arrive in Tattooine in their land speeder, are
surrounded by the Empire army, and Obie Wan uses the "Power"
of telepathy on the Empire soldiers as he "suggests"
to them that "they" (he and Luke) are OK, "let
them pass". Only in this case it is the "Empire"
using the power to telepathically (?) implant the message
to let videotape "pass". S-Two has a terrific removable
disk solution for Viper 4:4:4 Uncompressed, Unprocessed acquisition
(gee, just like film except for the data acquisition). With
that it IS dealt with entirely in post, as film is. Yes the
cost is an issue temporarily, temporarily. But since this
is a community of artists and we always insist on the providers
to fix such things.........
Now for the nay Sayers.........any bets on how many postings
will say it's impossible? 40, 50, 100?
GEORGE C. PALMER
HDPIX, INC.
HD and Digital Imaging Services
www.hdpix.com
==========================================
(Sean Fairburn has very kindly assisted by supplying the
information that was eluded to during the course of this discussion.
. .many thanks for the help and expertise)
Copyright © CML. All rights reserved.