|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 02/04/06 20:15
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>* I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only
>artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want
>to buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging
>around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a
>combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can
>probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent
>globes that give good light for video?
Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. Fluoro's
will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, buy a couple with a
high CRI, as they have "purer white" light.
>* We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC.
>Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe
>Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for
>other software, hopefully free?
Software does this, but the results are usually not that great. Canopus
Procoder is probably the best choice for you, or if you shoot
mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards Converter might do the trick as well.
>* The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should
>we use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the
>tv networks now prefer progressive?
Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons some
tv-station here have decided to record progressive recently, and it looks
abysmal.
cheers
-martin-
--
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|