DVL-Digest 521 - Postings: Index 16:9 and other thoughts (camera resolution) edit dv vs. final cut pro Frame Movie Tips (was: Clarify Means and ends PAL, NTSC and HDTV 16:9 and other thoughts (camera resolution) - Perry Mitchell Elliot Roper posted: >Perhaps one question can help me understand something. When the camcorder >manufacturer states that brand x model y gets 510 lines of resolution, is >this SCAN lines, or lines running from top to bottom? > It's lines on a test card. They are alternately black and white. They are vertical. It is the number of lines the system can resolve in a width equal to the height of the display.< In my occasional theme of 'Damn lies and camera resolution', the operative word is "resolve". A consumer camera manufacturer will claim a number if you can see ANY sign of a response; a broadcast camera manufacturer will claim a number if there is say 5% of the low frequency response. Both these numbers may well be with the camera set to a non standard mode, and may even involve accessing a 'test point' at an early stage in the process chain. A knowledgable broadcast customer (like the BBC) will demand a response at the output of the camera, with it set to a normal working condition. They will demand to see a level of resolution based upon the FIRST frequency where the response drops below a level of say -3dB, or certainly a lot higher than the 'extinction' level usually quoted. It is partly a question of semantics. If the manufacturer claimed 'Guaranteed no response above 510 lines' then it would be nearer the truth! It is a question of viewpoint, I notice food often claims to be say '90% fat free' which sounds much better than 'contains 10% fat'! Perry Mitchell Video Facilities http://www.perrybits.co.uk/ edit dv vs. final cut pro - Adam Wilt > So, thoughts on EditDV in comparison to FCP? I have both, and use both. They're entirely different in character and concept. Both are suitable for long-form work, and each has rabid adherents. My own take is that EditDV requires more manual control (it doesn't automate as many repetitive actions as FCP) but it's so blazingly fast once you grok the keyboard shortcuts that you can fling a show together faster than you can imagine. It's more of an "old style" production editor (IMHO) where the emphasis is on making things fast, fast, fast -- but if you don't spend the time needed to learn the unique but logical keymappings, you'll never realize the benefits of the program. There's a surprising amount of power buried in there, too; it's not as limited as many people think. FCP is optimized differently, more a "computer-aided" editor instead of a "computer-based" editor. By that I mean that Randy & Co. have looked at streamlining workflow through automating or combining tasks instead of just making them blindingly fast to do by hand. FCP is more feature-rich, and there's stuff I can do in it (like complex compositing) faster than I can do in EditDV, but overall, FCP's dependence on the mouse or trackpad breaks my concentration (there are too many things I need to do frequently for which there are no keyboard shortcuts). But that's a very broad and incomplete (and inherently unfair) comparison. You really need to look at both, and see which one "thinks the way you think". Choice of an editor is a very personal thing; test-drive before you buy. Cheers, Adam Wilt Frame Movie Tips (was: Clarify - Adam Wilt > Other than slowing down any camera moves, what tips can you give us ol' > video guys that will make Frame Movie look better? There are three kinds of motion in a shot: 1) None, or almost none. 2) Juddery, stroby, unwatchable stuff: too slow to blur, too fast to not judder. 3) Stuff moving so fast it blurs. #s 1 & 3 are fine, it's the intermediate #2 that's the problem. Thus (to oversimplify) you want your subject or your focal point in a scene to either be stationary within the frame, or moving fast enough to blur out. This means (to oversimplify) lockdowns, *very* gentle pans/tilts/zooms, or motion only when tracking a point of interest, like a running man who is rendered stationary in the frame by the shot's following of him. In general, the motivation for a camera move must be in the frame (a moving subject). Otherwise, you'll notice the judder, because you'll have nothing else to look at. Pans/zooms/tilts used in video to get from one shot to another, engendered by the live, real-time nature of broadcast in the pre-tape era, simply aren't used in film work. They work in video only because of the fast temporal rate and the "360 degree shutter" of video which reduces strobing noticeably (note that you can also get stroby, hard-to-watch video in interlaced mode by using a fast shutter speed, even if it's not *as* noticeable). There are tables in the American Cinematographer Manual that list "forbidden" or problematic pan rates based on shutter angle (exposure time, and just as importantly the percentage of the frame time actually used for exposure), lens angle, and the like -- but the real trick is to be motion-aware, plan your shots to accommodate temporal issues, and *watch*. If it doesn't look good, it *won't* look good. In most FMM shots (and in film work) where motion is present, you can usually detect parts of the frame that look horrible. What a good cinematographer does, however, is provide a focal point in the scene that's so engaging (and stationary enough in the frame) that you don't look at the strobing stuff. Practice. It's the only way to learn. > How do you shoot sports with a film camera? a) Wide shots where all in-shot motion is relatively slow (think 50 yard line back-of-the-stands cameras, locked down on a shot encompassing the entire field). b) Close-ups following the action, often with the background blurred not only by fast motion but by shallow focus. Cheers, Adam Wilt Means and ends - Adam Wilt > As far as audience perception is concerned, I believe if your story's good > enough and the performances are engaging enough, any audience will forgive > the format. Bingo. Thank you! > I would have shot OLS on sellotape to get the story told. I tried that once, but the tape kept on sticking to the heads... > After all, what's the point of possessing the means of production if > you've got nothing to say - or sell? Oh, please! Getting people geezed up to buy gear, whether or not they have a story to tell with it, is the foundation of our great economy! ;-) Cheers, Adam Wilt PAL, NTSC and HDTV - "Perry" The time has come to clamp down a little! We all use the term PAL and NTSC in a very loose way to indicate the two video standards based upon 525/60 or 625/50 (lines/fields). In reality PAL and NTSC are composite video formats as used by broadcasters, and often for sending video between devices. It is NOT recorded by any current consumer tape format, or most professional tape formats either come to that. In terms of future broadcast standards, many of us would be very happy to see component video of DV or DVD (MPEG2) quality as an interim measure before some future move to HDTV. It will be very interesting to see what the development of consumer broadband does to effect the adoption of better formats. Perry Mitchell Video Facilities http://www.perrybits.co.uk/ (diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-) [up] |
 slashCAM  News HD Camcorder database One-on-One Cam comparison About our tests About us |
|
|
