|
|
Posted by Mark on 02/04/06 20:56
Larry J. wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels <mot@sneeuw.nl>
> said:
>
>> 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.
>
> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He
> hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square
> maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is
> necessary.
It will be more like 1-foot square.
>
>>> * 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.
>
> I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format camera,
> unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at UCLA.
Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was thinking
that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we can also just
give it to the TV station to convert. They must do this all of the time
when they get overseas footage to show??
>
>>> * 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production
> resources there on campus. He should consult with those
> departments.
>
Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to contact
them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla website and
didn't come up with anything obvious. We do want to do this quickly,
rather than contacting someone, waiting for them to get back to us,
having to book the equipment a week in advance, paying a lot of money in
rental, etc.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|