Tagged: film Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • s 7:27 PM on 130217 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , film,   

    CS6 Premiere Crop on Export 

    http://whoismatt.com/cinemascopetutorial/

    When exporting for streaming or viewing on a computer such a YouTube, Vimeo, etc. you will want to click the “eye” on the “croplines” track and make it invisible.  Then you will go to File>Export Media and create a custom render setting using h.264 at 1920×817.  This will just result in a squished video if you do not set the export to crop the video file as well.

    Under the “source” tab in the top, left click the crop button and change it to “Top: 132, Bottom: 131″ – leave the Left and Right at 0.  This will crop your video in the same way as using the croplines did but will result in it being an exact fit.  For some reason if you leave the croplines on your videos on vimeo, it will have extremely small black bars visible on the top and bottom if you do not do this.  Theoretically you could just do this and not bother with using the “croplines” PSD file as a track in your editing but then you would miss out on it as a guideline to help you figure out what is visible in your shots.

    DVD and Blu-Ray: For DVD and Blu-Ray, export as you would normally with the croplines visible.  Whatever resolution you export at, the croplines will be visible and work to create a 2:35:1 aspect ratio for your footage.  Note: In some cases when burning DVDs, specifically with Adobe Encore, I have run into an issue where the footage would overflow the edges of the croplines, creating a weird effect where the viewer could tell that the croplines were just a layer in the footage.  To fix this, when I am editing and planning on rendering specifically to DVD, I select the “croplines” track in Premiere Pro after importing it into the sequence, and select “motion>scale” and change the scale from “100.0″ to “101.0.”  This prevents this footage overflow effect where it is visible at the edges of the croplines.

    online-export-156x300

     
  • s 10:08 AM on 130216 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: analogue, digital, film,   

    Journal | Visual Supply Co 

     

    Journal | Visual Supply Co.

     
    • s 10:36 AM on 130216 Permalink | Reply

      a very simple idea scans of film grains that digitally combine with images to give a more analogue look and feel. it’s everything our digital age seems to long for. they just do it in a hip and sleek way.

      how to make old faded grainy things hip and now?

  • s 10:34 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , film   

    film is not necessarily about WHAT you see – but it’s almost more an exercise in what you DON’T or CAN’T see. The best Directors and DPs show you only what is relevant to the story and never introduce a random shot or character if they can at all avoid it. I’ve always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or shots that detract from it.
     
  • s 10:02 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , film, , reference,   

    Reference Gear List – Wedding Video Shoot 

    GEAR:
    (3) Canon 5D Mark IIs
    (1) Canon 7D
    (1) GoPro Hero HD with waterproof housing
    GlideCam HD 2000
    5′ Kessler CineSlider with Oracle Motion Controller
    Igus Slider
    DIY Zipline
    Trees
    10′ Cobra Crane
    7″ Marshall Monitor
    Zacuto Z-Finder

    LENSES:
    35mm f/1.4L
    50mm f/1.2L
    85mm f/1.2L
    100mm Macro f/2.8L IS
    135mm f/2L
    16-35mm f/2.8L
    24-105mm f/4L IS
    70-200mm f/2.8L IS

     
  • s 9:49 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , film, ,   

    Anamorphic format is a term that can be used either for: the cinematography technique of capturing a widescreen picture on standard 35 mm film, or other visual recording media, with a non-widescreen native aspect ratio; or a photographic projection format in which the original image requires an optical anamorphic lens to recreate the original aspect ratio. It should not be confused with anamorphic widescreen, which is a very different electronically based video encoding concept that uses similar principles to the anamorphic format but different means. The word “anamorphic” and its derivatives stem from the Greek words meaning formed again, due to reshaping the image onto the film or recording media.

    HistoryThe process of anamorphosing optics was developed by Henri Chrétien during World War I to provide a wide angle viewer for military tanks. The optical process was called Hypergonar by Chrétien and was capable of showing a field of view of 180 degrees. After the war, the technology was first used in a cinematic context in the short film Pour Construire un Feu (To Build a Fire) in 1927 by Claude Autant-Lara.[1]
    In the 1920s, phonograph and motion picture pioneer Leon F. Douglass also created special effects and anamorphic widescreen motion picture cameras. However, how this relates to the earlier French invention, and later development, is unclear.[2]
    Anamorphic widescreen was not used again for cinematography until 1952 when Twentieth Century-Fox bought the rights to the technique to create its CinemaScope widescreen technique.[1] CinemaScope was one of many widescreen formats developed in the 1950s to compete with the popularity of television and bring audiences back to the cinemas. The Robe, which premiered in 1953, was the first feature film released that was filmed with an anamorphic lens.
    [edit]DevelopmentThe development of anamorphic widescreen arose due to a desire for wider aspect ratios. The modern anamorphic widescreen format has an aspect ratio of 2.40:1, meaning the picture width is 2.40 times its height, (technically it is 2.39:1, but it is known professionally as 2.40:1 or “two-four-oh”). Academy format 35 mm film (standard non-anamorphic full frame with sound tracks in the image area) has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, which is not as wide (or, conversely, is taller). In non-anamorphic spherical (flat) widescreen imaging, the picture is recorded on film so that its full width fits within the film frame, and substantial film frame area is wasted on portions that will be matted out by the time of projection, either on the print or in the projector, in order to create a widescreen image in the theater (Figure 1).
    To make full use of the available film, an anamorphic lens is used during recording. Up to the early 1960s, three major methods of anamorphosing the image were used: counter-rotated prisms (e.g., Ultra Panavision), curved mirrors in combination with the principle of Total Internal Reflection(e.g., Technirama), and cylindrical lenses (lenses curved, and hence squeezing the scene being photographed, in only one direction, as per a cylinder, e.g., the original CinemaScope system based on Henri Chrétien’s design). Whatever the method used, the anamorphic lens leaves the image on film looking as if it had been stretched vertically. This deliberate geometric distortion is then reversed upon projection, resulting in a wider aspect ratio on-screen than that of the frame as recorded on film.
    An anamorphic lens consists of a regular spherical lens, plus an anamorphic attachment (or integrated lens element) that does the anamorphosing. The anamorphic element operates at infinite focal length (so that it has little or no effect on the focus of the prime camera lens onto which it is mounted), but still nevertheless anamorphoses the optical field. When you use an anamorphic attachment, you use a spherical lens of a different focal length than you would for 1.85:1 (one sufficient to produce an image the full height of the frame and twice the width), and then the anamorphic attachment squeezes 2x horizontally. Specialized reverse anamorphic attachments existed that were relatively rarely used on projection and camera lenses to expand the image in the vertical space (e.g., the early Technirama system mentioned above), so that (in the case of the common two-times anamorphic lens) a frame twice as high as it might have been filled the available film area. Since a larger film area needed to be used to record the same picture, quality was increased.
    The distortion introduced in the picture must be corrected when the film is played back, so another lens is used during projection that either expands the picture back to its correct proportions or (as in the case of the now defunct Technirama system) squeezes the image vertically to restore normal geometry. It should be noted that the picture is not manipulated in any way in the complementary dimension to the one anamorphosed (horizontally squeezed or vertically stretched).
    It may seem that it would be easier to simply use a wider film for recording movies; however, 35 mm film was already in widespread use, and it was more economically feasible for film producers and exhibitors to simply attach a special lens to the camera or projector, rather than investing in a new film format, along with the attendant cameras, projectors, editing equipment and so forth.
    Cinerama was an earlier attempt to solve the problem of high-quality widescreen imaging, but anamorphic widescreen eventually proved to be more practicable. Cinerama preceded anamorphic films, but consisted of three projected images side-by-side on the same screen: the images never blended together perfectly at the edges, and it required three projectors; a 6-perf-high frame, which required four times as much film; and three cameras (eventually just one camera with three lenses and three streaming reels of film and the attendant machinery, which presentedsynchronization problems). Nonetheless, the format was popular enough with audiences to spur studios to the wide screen developments of the early 1950s. A few films were distributed in Cinerama format and shown in special theaters. Anamorphic widescreen was attractive to studios because of its similar high aspect ratio (Cinerama was 2.59), without the disadvantages of Cinerama’s added complexities and costs.
    The common anamorphic widescreen film format in use today is commonly called Scope or 2.35:1 (the latter being a misnomer born of old habit; see “2.35, 2.39 or 2.40?” below). Filmed inPanavision is a phrase contractually required for films shot using Panavision’s anamorphic lenses. All of these phrases mean the same thing: the final print uses a 2:1 anamorphic projector lens that expands the image by exactly twice the amount horizontally as vertically. This format is essentially the same as at the time of CinemaScope, except for minor technical developments.
    There are artifacts that can occur when using an anamorphic camera lens that do not occur when using an ordinary spherical lens. One is a kind of lens flare that has a long horizontal line usually with a blue tint and is most often visible when there is a bright light, such as from car headlights, in the frame with an otherwise dark scene. This artifact is not always considered to be a problem. It has come to be associated with a certain cinematic look and is in fact sometimes emulated using a special effect filter in scenes that were not shot using an anamorphic lens. Another common aspect of anamorphic lenses is that light reflections in the lens will be elliptical rather than round, as they are in spherical cinematography. Additionally, wide angle anamorphic lenses of less than 40 mm focal length produce a cylindrical perspective, which some directors and cinematographers, particularly Wes Anderson, use as a stylistic trademark.
    Another characteristic of anamorphic camera lenses is that out-of-focus elements tend to be blurred more vertically. An out-of-focus point of light in the background will appear as a vertical oval rather than a circle. When the camera shifts focus, there is often a noticeable effect where elements appear to stretch vertically when going out of focus. However, the commonly cited claim that anamorphic lenses produce a shallower depth of field is not entirely true. Because of the cylindrical element in the lens, anamorphic lenses take in a horizontal angle of view twice as wide as a spherical lens of the same focal length. Because of this, cinematographers will often use a 50 mm anamorphic lens when they would otherwise use a 25 mm spherical lens, a 70 mm rather than a 35 mm, and so on.
    A third characteristic, particularly of simple anamorphic add-on attachments to prime lenses, is “anamorphic mumps”. For reasons of practical optics, the anamorphic squeeze is not uniform across the image field in any system, cylindrical, prismatic or mirror-based. This variation results in some areas of the film image appearing more stretched than others. In the case of an actor’s face in the center of the screen their faces look somewhat like they had the mumps, hence the name for the phenomenon. Conversely, at the edges of the screen actors in full length view can become skinny-looking. In medium shots, if they walk across the screen from one side to the other, they increase in apparent girth. Early Cinemascope presentations in particular (usingChrétien’s off-the-shelf lenses) suffered from it. The solution was to link the anamorphic squeeze of the add-on adapter to the focus position of the prime lens, so that as focus changed the anamorphic ratio changed along with it, resulting in a normal-looking geometry in the area of interest on-screen. In early prismatic systems such as Panavision’s Ultra-Panavision system, the angle of counter-rotation between prisms was linked by a mechanical system to the focus ring of the prime lens. In later cylindrical lens systems, the change in aspect ratio required between focus positions was achieved by combining two sets of anamorphic optics in one: a robust “squeeze” system coupled with a slight expansion sub-system. The expansion sub-system was counter-rotated in relation to the main squeeze system, all in mechanical interlinkage with the focus mechanism of the prime lens. The combination of squeeze and expansion changed the anamorphic ratio to the extent required to minimize the effect of anamorphic mumps in the area of interest in the frame. Though these techniques were regarded as a fix for the anamorphic mumps, they were a compromise. Cinematographers still needed to be careful with their framing of the scene so that effects of the change in aspect ratio were not readily apparent. The first company to produce an anti-mumps system was Panavision in the late 1950s.
    While the anamorphic scope widescreen format is still in use as a camera format, it has been losing popularity in favor of flat formats, mainly Super 35 mm film. (In Super 35, the film is shot flat and can then be matted and optically printed as an anamorphic release print.) There can be several reasons for this:
    An anamorphic lens can create artifacts or distortions as described above.An anamorphic lens is more expensive than a spherical lens.Because the anamorphic-scope camera format does not preserve any of the image above and below the scope frame, it may not transfer as well to narrower aspect ratios, such as 4:3 or16:9 for full screen television.Film grain is less of a concern because of the availability of higher-quality film stocks and digital intermediates, although the anamorphic format will always yield higher definition than the non-anamorphic format.

    The aperture of the lens (theentrance pupil), as seen from the front, appears as an oval.

    Anamorphic scope as a printed film format, however, is well established as a standard for widescreen projection. Regardless of the camera formats used in filming, the distributed prints of a film with a 2.39:1 theatrical aspect ratio will always be in anamorphic widescreen format. This is not likely to soon change because movie theaters around the world don’t need to invest in special equipment to project this format; all that is required is an anamorphic projection lens, which has long been considered standard equipment.
    Other widescreen film formats (commonly 1.85:1 and 1.66:1) are simply cropped in vertical size to produce the widescreen effect, a technique known as masking or matting. This can occur either during filming, where the framing is masked in the gate, or in the lab, which can optically create a matte onto the prints. Either method produces a frame similar to that in Figure 1, and is known as a hard matte. Many film prints today have no matte, though the film is framed for the intended aspect ratio; this approach is called full-frame filming, since most spherical 4-perf cameras retain the silent gate. In these, the film captures additional information that is masked out during projection using an aperture mask in the projector gate, and is known as soft matte. This approach allows filmmakers the freedom to include the additional picture in an open matte 4:3 transfer of the film and avoid pan and scan, by protecting the frame for 4:3.
    [edit]2.35, 2.39 or 2.40?One common misconception about the anamorphic format concerns the actual width number of the aspect ratio, as 2.35, 2.39 or 2.4. Since the anamorphic lenses in virtually all 35 mm anamorphic systems provide a 2:1 squeeze, one would logically conclude that a 1.375:1 full academy gate would lead to a 2.75:1 aspect ratio when used with anamorphic lenses. Due to differences in the camera gate aperture and projection aperture mask sizes for anamorphic films, however, the image dimensions used for anamorphic film vary from flat (spherical) counterparts. To complicate matters, the SMPTE standards for the format have varied over time; to further complicate things, pre-1957 prints took up the optical soundtrack space of the print (instead having magnetic sound on the sides), which made for a 2.55:1 ratio.
    The initial SMPTE definition for anamorphic projection with an optical sound track down the side (PH22.106-1957), issued in December 1957, standardized the projector aperture at 0.839 × 0.715 inch (21.3 × 18.2 mm) (aspect ratio 1.17:1). The aspect ratio for this aperture, after a 2x unsqueeze, is 2.3468…:1 which rounded to the commonly used value 2.35:1. A new definition was issued in October 1970 (PH22.106-1971) which specified a slightly smaller vertical dimension of 0.700 in. for the projector aperture to help make splices less noticeable to film viewers. Four-perf anamorphic prints use more of the negative’s available frame area than any other modern format which leaves little room for splices; as a consequence, a bright line would flash onscreen when a splice was projected and theater projectionists had been narrowing the vertical aperture to hide these flashes even before issuance of PH22.106-1971. This new projector aperture size, 0.838 × 0.700 inch (21.3 × 17.8 mm), aspect ratio 1.1971…:1, made for an un-squeezed ratio of 2.39:1 (and commonly referred to by the rounded value 2.40:1 or 2.4:1). The most recent revision, from August 1993 (SMPTE 195-1993), slightly altered the dimensions so as to standardize a common projection aperture width (0.825-inch, or 21.0 mm) for all formats, anamorphic (2.39:1) and flat (1.85:1). The projection aperture height was also reduced by 0.01″ in this modern specification to 0.825 × 0.690 inch (21.0 × 17.5 mm), aspect ratio 1.1956…:1 (and commonly rounded to 1.20:1), to retain the un-squeezed ratio of 2.39:1.[3] The camera’s aperture remained the same (2.35:1 or 2.55:1 if before 1958), only the height of the “negative assembly” splices changed and, consequently, the height of the frame changed.
    Anamorphic prints are still often called ‘Scope or 2.35 by projectionists, cinematographers, and others working in the field, if only by force of habit. 2.39 is in fact what they generally are referring to (unless discussing films using the process between 1958 and 1970), which is itself usually incorrectly rounded up to 2.40 (instead of the correct 2.4). With the exception of certain specialist and archivist areas, generally 2.35, 2.39, and 2.40 mean the same to professionals, whether they themselves are even aware of the changes or not.
    [edit]Lens makers and corporate trademarksSee also: List of anamorphic format trade names
    There are numerous companies that are known for manufacturing anamorphic lenses. The following are the well known in the film industry:
    [edit]OriginationPanavision is the most common source of anamorphic lenses, with lens series ranging from 20mm to a 2,000mm anamorphic telescope. The C-Series, which is the oldest lens series, are small and lightweight, which makes them very popular for steadicams. Some cinematographers prefer them to newer lenses because they are lower in contrast. The E-Series, of Nikon glass, are sharper than the C-Series and are better color-matched. They are also faster, but the minimum focus-distance of the shorter focal lengths is not as good. The E135mm, and especially the E180mm, are great close-up lenses with the best minimum focus of any long Panavision anamorphic lenses. The Super (High) Speed lenses (1976), also by Nikon, are the fastest anamorphic lenses available, with T-stops between 1.4 and 1.8; there is even one T1.1 50mm, but, like all anamorphic lenses, they need to be stopped-down for good performance because they are quite softly focussed when wide open. The Primo and Close-Focus Primo Series (1989) are based on the spherical Primos and are the sharpest Panavision anamorphic lenses available. They are completely color-matched, but also very heavy: about 5–7 kilograms. The G-Series (2007), Panavision’s latest anamorphic lens series, performance and size comparable with E-Series, in lightweight and compact similar to C-Series.Vantage Film, designers and manufacturers of Hawk lenses. The entire Hawk lens system consists of 50 different prime lenses and 5 zoom lenses, all of them specifically developed and optically computed by Vantage Film. Hawk lenses have their anamorphic element in the middle of the lens (not up front like Panavision), which makes them more flare-resistant. This design choice also means that if they do flare, one does not get the typical horizontal flares. The C-Series, which were developed in the mid-1990s, are relatively small and lightweight. The V-Series (2001) and V-Plus Series (2006) are an improvement over the C-Series as far as sharpness, contrast, barrel-distortion and close-focus are concerned. This increased optical performance means a higher weight, however (each lens is around 4-5 kilograms). There are 14 lenses in this series which goes from 25mm to 250mm. The V-Series also have the best minimum focus of any anamorphic lens series available and as such can rival spherical lenses. Vantage also offers a series of lightweight lenses called V-Lite. They are 5 very small anamorphic lenses (about the size of a Cooke S4 spherical lens), which are ideal for handheld and steadicam while also giving an optical performance comparable to the V-Series and V-Plus lenses. In 2008 Vantage introduced the Hawk V-Lite 16, a set of new lenses for 16 mm anamorphic production, as well as the Hawk V-Lite 1.3x lenses, which make it possible to use nearly the entire image area of 3-perf 35mm film or the sensor area of a 16:9 digital camera and at the same time provide the popular 2.39:1 release format.Joe Dunton Camera (JDC): Manufacturer and rental house based in Britain and North Carolina, which adapts spherical lenses to anamorphic by adding a cylindrical element. Its most popular lenses are adapted Cooke S2/S3, but they have also adapted Zeiss Super Speeds and Standards, as well as Canon lenses. JDC was purchased by Panavision in 2007.[1]Elite Optics, manufactured by JSC Optica-Elite Company in Russia and sold in the United States by Slow Motion Inc.Technovision, a French manufacturer that, like JDC, has adapted spherical Cooke and Zeiss lenses to anamorphic. Technovision was purchased by Panavision in 2004.Isco Optics, a German company that developed the Arriscope line for Arri in 1989.

     
  • s 9:39 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , film, , technique,   

    Shooting Timelapse 

    http://philipbloom.net/2012/08/10/rawpart2/

    HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
    By Preston Kanak

    Shooting a time-lapse is not a science. There is no perfect formula to ensure you are successful every time. However, there are a few things that will improve your chances of nailing your shot. In this video I will be covering the different types of equipment I USE TO SHOOT A TIME-LAPSE.

    Triggering your Camera

    The first thing you need to do is to find a way to trigger your camera, and there are a few different options. Now depending on the camera you are using, you may have an intervalometer built in. However, WHEN I SHOOT A TIME-LAPSE, I USE ONE OF FOUR OPTIONS.

    The first is the Canon Intervalometer which is the most pricey of the bunch. It works great; however, this is my second Canon intervalometer and the cable frayed on both. The next solution is the no-name intervalometer. The one in the video was purchased from Amazon and does everything that the Canon intervalometer does, BUT the cable can be removed or replaced if necessary. There are many options on either Amazon, B&H or eBay for whichever camera you may be using.
    The third solution I use is a battery grip with an intervalometer built in. I purchased it in a kit with 2 batteries, a remote and cable release for under $100 on eBay. It is another cheap solution; however, sometimes when using the grip you loose control of the aperture dial and you need to remove the grip and re-install it to regain access to the aperture dial. Just something to keep in mind.
    The last solution I use most often is the Kessler Camera Control Module. This unit, in conjunction with the Oracleis by far the most versatile of the group when shooting motion controlled time-lapses. It allows you to accomplish more things than the standard intervalometer, such as shoot-move-shoot. I will touch on this more when I go more in depth about shooting motion controlled time-lapses.

    Powering Your Camera

    Now once you have a device that will trigger your camera, you need to worry about powering your camera. For this, I have a few different options in front of me.
    When shooting shorter time-lapses, I use both Canon batteries as well as the no name flavour. The no name flavour works great and is a fraction of the price. However, it is key that you find the ones that will charge on your Canon chargers, as there are some solutions that will require a proprietary charger. In my experiences however, the Canon batteries seem to hold the charge longer.
    If I am doing longer time-lapses, I use one of three options. The first is a battery grip. In front of me are two different options. The first is the Canon battery grip and the second one is the no name flavour. They do virtually the same thing; however, the Canon grip is much more reliable than the no name one. This solution lasts for approximately 6 hrs for me — depending on how old your batteries are and whether you are using the canon batteries or the no-name ones.
    The second solution is the Kessler batteries. Using the cable suited to your camera in conjunction with one of these batteries, you can do extended time-lapses — multiple day time-lapses if you want. There are three different options for batteries. You have the Bescor 12v (7.2 Ah) battery, the Bescor 12v (12Ah) battery pack and the new Kessler ION BATTERY SYSTEM (lithium iron phosphate battery) as well.
    Kessler ION Battery System- Ultra-light weight.
    – Most powerful and longest lasting battery on the market for the weight.
    – Provides up to 4 times the life of other conventional battery systems.
    – Can handle 2000+ charge cycles.
    – There is no charge “memory effect.”
    – Built in smart battery charger with charge meter so you can easily top off the battery.
    – Weather proof padded case with built-in device storage and rain guard for when the
    weather gets rough.
    The last solution I use for powering my camera is the Canon wall mount adapter (ACK-E6 AC ADAPTER). If I have access to AC and am wanting to do multiple day time-lapses, this is my go-to solution.
    Other AccessoriesThere are a few other essential elements that I have in my kit as well when I am shooting. I will cover each item more extensively when we setup the time-lapses. The first things you will want in your kit are filters, and there are many solutions on the market. Obviously the more you spend, the better they will be. When I shoot time-lapses, I use Polarizer filters, Vari-ND filters & grad filters.

    Polarizer filters are used to reduce reflections on some surfaces as well as to bring out the sky. Vari-ND filters are used to control up to 8-stops (depending on filter) as well as to blur motion when shooting during the day. Grad filters are used to darken an overly bright part of the scene.
    I recommend spending a bit more on your filters. If you are putting glass in front of your lens, it should also be high quality.
    You will also want to make sure you keep your lenses and sensors clean. I don’t know how many time-lapses I have ruined from not having a clean sensor or lens. Take ten minutes after each shoot to make sure your gear is clean. It will help with the longevity of your gear. I use sensor cleaners, lens wipes, lens clothes and a puffer to keep things clean. I will show you in a later video how I clean my camera after a shoot.
    As for media, I have had great success from the Transcend cards. The price point is great and I have yet to have any issues with buffering time from these cards — or loosing data from corrupt files.
    Another piece of gear I have in my kit is my phone. On my phone there are a few different apps I use to help with time-lapses. The first is the Kessler App which has many great tools built in — including a time-lapse calculator. I will be covering these apps in a later video.

    iPHONE APPS- Kessler App
    – Sun Seeker
    – Star Walk
    – Google Earth
    – Weather
    – Maps
    – DSLR Remote
    – Sunrise & Sunset
    If there are any apps that you find helpful when shooting time-lapses, please add to the comment section below.

    Supporting your Camera
    Static Time-LapsesThe first type of time-lapses we are going to look at is the static time-lapse, and there are a few variables to consider when selecting your gear. You will want to consider the type of shot you want to accomplish as well as the environment you are shooting in (including the surface you are shooting on, if you are hiking long distances or if it is windy).
    There are three types of tripods I choose between. If I am hiking long distances I will choose both the gorilla podand a small carbon fibre tripod (Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 3-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod Legs). The brand doesn’t matter for tripods; however, I have included the model number of each item. The Gorrilla-pod is great because of its size; however, it is limited on the types of shots you can accomplish as well as weight capacity. The small tripod is a great solution; however, either if it is windy or if you are shooting on a surface such as sand, it may be difficult to keep the camera stable. One thing you can do is attach a weight to the centre column to bring the centre of gravity lower. I will talk more about this when we setup a static time-lapse.
    The most versatile option of the bunch when you aren’t hiking long distances is a heavy duty carbon fiber tripod (Manfrotto 536 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod). This tripod is great because it is relatively light and its reach is outstanding. At its lowest height, you can get the camera about a foot off the ground and with the same setup, you can get your camera about 8ft in the air.
    Now, if you are just getting into shooting time-lapses and are either unsure what to purchase or your budget doesn’t allow for the products I am using, just keep in mind the basic elements of each section. Light tripod for longer hikes — heavy duty tripod for other applications. Basically any type of tripod will work. However, if you are going to spend any money on gear, don’t skimp on a tripod or other support gear, as support gear always outlasts your camera if you take care of it.
    When you are shooting either Astro Time-Lapses, Day-To-Night Time-Lapses, Bulb Ramping, Boat-Lapses or Walk-Lapses, you want to make sure you are using a heavy duty tripod in all scenarios. It is extremely important to have a solid base when setting up any of the shots. I will include a more extensive breakdown of rigging in each of the sections when I set the shots up.
    Motion Controlled Time-LapsesThe last section I want to look at in this video are the different motion-controlled setups. I will be focusing exclusively on Kessler gear for this section.

    I have used other solutions, but Kessler gear is by far the best solution I have used. When shooting time-lapses, time is money and it is extremely important to have gear that is consistent.
    Kessler offers a few different solutions depending on your shooting scenario. For either hiking or traveling there are two solutions. The first is the traveler and mini length sliders. These are extremely compact and fit in a suitcase. A new solution that has come out from Kessler is the Shuttle Pod Mini which breaks down into a small kit for travel. If you want to make it longer, simply attach more sections.
    Shuttle Pod Mini

    The Kessler Shuttle Pod Mini is a smaller, easier to transport version of the original Shuttle Pod. It is about half the size and half the weight of its big brother, yet still provides the versatility needed to get the manual or motorized shot you require.
    The Shuttle Pod Mini is designed to break down into a small, easy to manage package. Using the shorter 2’ rail sections, it can even be stowed in a backpack for those long hikes up the mountain.
    If you aren’t looking for a compact solution, there are other options as well. There is the Cineslider that comes in either 3ft or 5ft as well as the full size Shuttle Pod. If you are looking for moves longer than 5ft, you will want to purchase the full-size Shuttle Pod.
    For each of the dollys/sliders above you will need to also motorize them. To view a few different options, check out the Kessler website.

    SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
    There are a few different software solutions I use as well and will be touching on each when I do the post-production section. These programs will include Premiere Pro, LR Timelapse, Lightroom, After Effects, Photoshop, FCP 7, Quicktime 7, GB Deflicker, CHV Time Collection, ProRes vs CineForm, Photomatrix, GBS Timelapse & more.

     
  • s 9:36 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: film,   

    Filming Greenscreen Tips 

    As one who both shoots…and then has to pull greenscreen composites, there is a couple things that I’ve concluded.

    1. When pulling a screen from a color background, the fact that it’s lit over or under doesn’t seem to be the primary issue…the key factor is that it’s different…over or under. The FX Guide TV guys did a test some time ago with green screens on a Viper camera, lighting at various levels relative to the foreground, and the easiest extraction was pulled from a shot where the green background was lit so brightly that it appeared to be incredibly desaturated. It was simply the shade that was the most distinct from the foreground palette.

    2. Daylight lighting seems to help compositing, particularly with skin tones in my experience.

    Blue is very nearly across the vectorscope from human skintone and the color of a typical blue screen wall can be moved even more directly opposing if lit with daylight as opposed to tungsten (and this shift becomes even more important with green, as the angle to green is only about 90 degrees) allowing standard spill suppression in most keying applications to work most efficiently.

    The other factor to consider is that any video camera is noisier when balanced for tungsten than when balanced for daylight as blue needs far more gain applied to balance with most tungsten sources than red needs with most daylight sources.

     
  • s 9:34 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , film,   

    What are all the ways to move a camera through a space?

    Still – Tripod
    Pan tilt – tripod head
    Freeform – hand held / throw the camera
    Slide – slider / dolly
    Up down – slider (zoom)
    Lift – crane jib
    Fast forward – zip line

    How to use a pole system that fixes between 2 walls and provides
    1. Any fixed point between the two along a line
    2. Fluid motion for a fixed amount of length
    (I think manfrotto has some similar extension pole) add hanging wheels and a roller system?

    Glass suction cups that can mount heavy duty camera / lights / zip track

    Thin floor rails that can be used for dolly tracking (train tracks)

     
  • s 9:29 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , crane, film, , howto, jib   

    A COUPLE OF ITEMS WORTH MENTION: You’ll need to buy the weights separately. (I also highly recommend a lillyput monitor w/ mount, a motorized pan head and wired camera remote WITH EXTENSION! We found it also very helpful to utilize a few sand bags on the tripod to keep it a little more steady, especially if you’re shooting with any sort of winds.

     
  • s 9:22 PM on 130215 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: buy, , film,   

    HDMI deck recorder 

    http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/hyperdeckshuttle/

    $400 for uncompressed out of the 5DmkIII
     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel