DVL-Digest 522 - Postings: Index "Timecode", apparently shot on advantage of the beachtek box Means and ends PAL, NTSC and HDTV - (2) "Timecode", apparently shot on - Adam Wilt > The only "disappointment" if you can call it that, > or more appropriately, the tell-tale, was the lack > of dynamic range of video. In all the limo scenes > (top left screen) and even in many of the outdoor > scenes or the indoor scenes where you could see > outside a window, the whites were washed out with > extremely little detail... > Perhaps Adam Wilt can comment on if he noticed the same > things on the HD version. Well, yes. Why would the HD version be any different? To be fair, though, film wouldn't have been much better. A little, yes; noticeable for those in the know, yes; but not a huge difference. Timecode was shot entirely in existing light since with the cams rolling continuous takes rigging instruments and gelling just the right windows simply weren't practical. Film would have held a bit more density in the skies, but not with any real increase in detail. Had Figgis used HDW-F900s instead of DSR-D130s, that difference in dynamic rendition would have been overcome. Of course, the F900 didn't exist in the century when Timecode was shot... ;-) I was actually surprised the lighting and exposure were as good as they were. > it says in CG in the lower right screen that the movie > was shot in late 1999 with only 4 cuts. 4 cuts, or 4 takes? Cheers, AJW advantage of the beachtek box - Adam Wilt > Can somebody tell me whethere there is any advantage in using the > beachtex adapter box to convert the mini mic input into xlr or can one > use a conversion cable too... The Beachtek or Studio1 gives you two nice on-camera XLR sockets with gain controls, switchable mic/line levels, and automatic strain relief for the fragile miniplug. You can (and I do) use adapter cables instead. However, you need to deal with strain relief yourself, and you need to recable for mic vs. line and mono vs. stereo setups (and you'll need a collection of cables with different attenuations, connectors, and the like, and a small kit of Radio Shack adapter plugs). Cables are thus a bit less convenient to use and can be a rat's nest when dealing with more than one imput source, but OTOH you don't have an additional box hanging off the bottom of the camera. It's more of a personal choice. Cheers, AJW Means and ends - Adam Wilt enough" or "if you didn't edit using the XXXX NLE, then you're not really serious" or other such goofsterism. Bollocks! > I gotta say I loved May Thomas' line about having the means of production > without having anything to worthwhile to say - says a lot about > (unfortunately) too many! Sturgeaon's Law applies. If anything, Sturgeon's Law is too optimistic for video and film! Cheers, AJW PAL, NTSC and HDTV - Adam Wilt > Will PAL and NTSC be both superceded by HDTV. HD will be added to the pallette of production and distribution formats. Our SDTV formats may eventually fade away. But it'll take a while. >Is HDTV a global standard and when will it be mainstream? There is one common image format that's a standard: 1920x1080, 16:9, at 60i, 50i, 30p, 25p and 24p. Colorimetry for this format is also standardized. The 1280x720/60p format being used by ABC has been offered to the ITU as a worldwide standard, but as far as I know the ITU hasn't made it one. In digital TV transmission, most of the world appears to be going with a variant of the COFDM standard used in European DVB. The USA, always being different, has standardized on a different technology, 8VSB. Bear in mind the DTV transport (COFDM, 8VBS) is independent of the production format (SDTV or HDTV in its various formats). Cheers, Adam Wilt PAL, NTSC and HDTV - "Perry" Charles Pope posted: >Even D2 (composite digital tape, used heavily until about eight years ago for broadcast TV and LD masters) has streaking, noise and other composite artifacts that are not seen on a really good live broadcast. Why does it take digital *and* component structure to get a decent storage format?< Composite video is effectively a compressed analog system. It is quite demanding to record and the composite signal is not well placed for post production. (The reason why it is difficult to record is beyond a simple posting. Interestingly, SECAM is easier to record, but even worse than PAL/NTSC for post production.) Component recording allows for digital compression which is what has really made high quality possible at an affordable price. Digital recording allows for much more effective drop out compensation, and is immune to mechanical timing errors that plague analog recording. 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 |
|
|
