hal9000

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Oner with two sequences #211521
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I don't know of any techniques in post that you can do in Adobe except maybe converting the shot (after you've made the edit) to slow motion in After Effects and it may fill in any jump with extra frames, smoothing it out after you cut just those extra frames back into the regular footage. Even when done by professionals in the old days (I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched), similar techniques always yielded a jump in the cut and depending on how big that jump is will determine how much your shot will be lengthened (the bigger the jump, the more frames you'll need to smooth it out, a result you may not care for). Have you thought about doing the effect practically in post. Have the actor dress in black, including a hood, with a slit for the mouth so the smoke to come out. Shoot against a black background and have the light hit just the smoke (as bright as you can get and adjust the exposure or you can adjust the contrast in post so nothing but the smoke shows). You can then add it to the shot using the Additive Desolve. You can adjust the percentage to get the right exposure (keeping it the same for the beginning and end) and you will probably have to adjust the position so it comes out of his mouth, which is easy. I haven't tried this myself but I don't see why it wouldn't work. Hope one of them works for you. Good luck.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Creating ghost effect #211396
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I'm not familiar with your editor, hopefully my advice can be done with it. Without seeing the footage, I can only assume that you're using the transparency equally with both footages so of course they're both going to get ghost effects. You have to somehow separate the two. Using your existing footage, you have to add the transparency "ghost" shot with the original "person" shot by separating the two footages with some type of transition – either a wipe (where the wipe has been locked down so that it doesn't cross the screen and stays stationary) or a matte. This way, one half (or whatever portion you need) of the person shot will be shown with the other half of the ghost shot. If you have the ghost passing in front of the person then you'll have to go another route. Shot your ghost in front of a black screen and then do the transparency for the two shots. If you want the ghost to go behind the person then you'll probably have to shot the person in front of a green screen wherever the effect takes place. I hope that explains things clearly enough and solves your problem.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Achieving the bokeh look with my Canon G30 #211199
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    A shallow depth of field is hard to achieve with the smaller sensors on camcorders which is why you see tuturials for DSLRs with their large sensors. Outside of the techniques that you have tried, which you don't seem to be satisfied with, about the only way to get your background out of focus is to force the depth of field away from it. Start out with your apeture opened up all the way and zoom in as much as you feel comfortable with if you don't like it at maximum. If you have manual focus, turn the ring until the focus is as close to the camera as possible (let's say the depth of field is from the cameral lens to five feet). If your subject is at six feet, adjust the focus until it starts to get into focus (let's say it's from six inches to six feet), everything behind the subject will be out of focus. Keeping the background as far away from your subject will only help. If you only have autofocus then focus on something close to the camera first and try to lock that down (turn it off?) and place your subject at the outermost area of the depth of field. I hope this was of some help.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Audio Sync Issue #210763
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    If you're recording on a separate device and it records digitally, then you shoudn't have any problems syncing up the audio. Once you sync up the audio (you will have to sync it up initially because the video and audio files may have started at different times which is why they use slates, or clapboards, in film) it will stay in sync for the remainder of the shot. If you're recording in analog and it gets out of sync after a period, then you'll have to sync each individual shot and cut away before it gets out of sync again. The only other problem you might be having, though remote, is if your camera is recording at one speed (e.g. 24fps) and your editor is playing it at another (30fps). Hope this was of some help.

     

    Will

    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I can't spot anything that looks.like it was done in post (except the occasional appearance of those green lines) unless you've spotted something that I missed. There are several lens flares which occur naturally when shotting towards the sun or other light source. The rainbow effect of those flares are probably due to the type of lens used (plastic rather than glass is my guess). The orange tint in the early shots are due to the time of day they shot them. When the sun is near the horizon it gives off warmer colors and they didn't adjust the color temperature setting (set for daylight). Hope that was of some help.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Zoom effect #210761
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I don't see any "zoom effects." Every shot looks like it's done with a fixed focal length (which may vary from shot to shot but remains fixed within the shot) and any "zooms" are done with camera movements. If you're talking about how the image, especially the background, seems to rotate around the camera in a exaggerated manner (closer at the sides and further away in the center) as the camera pans, that's due to a short focal length (very wide angle). The 35mm equivalent might be around 20mm or less. I've never worked with such short lengths so I couldn't tell you for sure. Those shorter focal lengths tend to exaggerate distance which will give you that effect. Don't get too close to objects, especially people, it tends to distort them.

    in reply to: What effect is this, and how to do it? #209330
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    Looks like it was done with two cameras shooting simutaneously. At first glance it looks like it could have been shot with a 3D camera and they edited rapidly back and forth between the left and right images but the camera angles between the two are too dramatic at times (plus the rotation of the two cameras is often off from each other but that could have been done in post to make the effect more dramatic). Like when shooting 3D, frame each camera on your subject (the singer or the girl walking in this case) so that the background does the shifting and not the subject otherwise it will prove annoying after a while. Some adjusting will no doubt have to done in post. Syncing up the shots, editing them and then editing the effect will be time consuming. Good luck.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Steadyvid Opteka Stabilizer – GoPro Hero 3 #209328
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    Since I'm not familiar with this camera stabilizer, I did a little research and found some videos on YouTube. One by Tom Antos covers stabilizers in general and has a couple of models like yours and he shows you how to balance them. It's titled "Learn to use any steadicam – Part 2."  A couple of videos from MrJMMedia entitled "How to Balance the Opteka SteadyVid Pro Stabilizer in Under 20 Min!!!" and "Dynamic Balance with the Opteka SteadyVid Pro" obviously cover the Pro version, which is slightly different, but he gives a more thorough explanation of how to balance it and it may prove helpful in general. You might want to check them out. Hope they solve your problem.

     

    Will

    in reply to: How do I finde a tripod? #209291
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    If it's a consumer camcorder it should have a standard mount. Any consumer tripod will fit (camera or camcorder). The only time I've seen a different size is with professional equipment. They tend to be heavier and need a larger mount to handle the weight.

     

    Will

    in reply to: special effects questions #209290
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I have seen this done but it doesn't involve lenses or filters. You just have to light your actor fairly brightly and make sure a minimum amount of light falls anywhere else. I once did a photo shoot where I experimented with the lighting, using barn doors to keep the light off the background. I could see the background fine, there was still some light falling on it, but the film didn't pick it up and it came out almost black. The technique involves using a black background and having any actors you don't want seen to be completely covered in black (something not shiny). Anything black will come out underexposed and will blend into the background, just don't cross in front of the actor you want to film and you'll be fine. This technique does have it's limitations so green screen might be a better way to go. Hope that helps.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Zoom Ranges #209158
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    In the old days of film, lenses (and zooms) were easy to figure out since you only had two sizes of film to deal with (not including consumer super 8). 16mm film was half the size of 35mm film (frame size, not film size) so the focal length equivalent was exactly half. A 25mm lens was equal to a 50mm lens. (In case you didn't know, focal length refers to the distance the lens elements are from the film/sensor. Higher numbers, or "longer", are more telephoto while lower numbers, or "shorter", are wider angle. 50mm, for 35mm film, is considered "normal" or what your eye sees.) With camcorders, especially consumer ones, there is a wide range of sizes, from 1/4.x to 1/2.x, so you can't judge by focal length alone or zoom numbers. It's best to go by the 35mm equivalent if they give it. Panasonic is 28mm21X (40 is digital zoom which is another story) and Canon is 30.4 10X. So, yes the panasonic is twice as powerful. I think I'll stop here for now, hope that helps.

     

    Will

    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I'm not sure about Premiere CS3 but in older versions you can insert a clip without the sound. There are buttons near the monitor of the clip in question, when activated, you can insert just the audio or the video. In the case of audio a red X will cross out the icon of a speaker. If CS3 still has this feature graphically (I'm sure it has it, I just don't know what form it will take) just click on the icon and the X should go away and you should be able to insert the complete clip. Hope this helped.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Sony Vegas pro problem #208402
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    (Had to continue on another post, sorry) I can't tell you what the results look like, the client never pursued the problem when I explained to him what it was and what solutions were available. Maybe computer programs have improved since I last tried this. I hope this answers your inquiry. Good luck.

     

    Will

    in reply to: Sony Vegas pro problem #208401
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    I'm not sure what lines you're referring to but the only ones that I saw were due to the interlaced frames. If you're not familiar with interlacing, it's when a camera snaps a frame, it records the odd numbered scan lines (horizontal row of pixels) first then it will record the even numbered ones. When projected back the two images are merged into one and if any movement occured in between those frames then you may end up with a ghost image. In the case of the horses you'll see a fairly solid image of them with lines (every other scan line) to either side which is where the horsde was in each half of the frame. With thin objects, such a light post in the background, you'll see two separate images. There are editors which can solve this problem (I don't know if Vegas is one of them) and I believe the feature is called delacing. I'll have to check my editor for the name, I'm not close to my computer at the moment. I used it once when a client complained about the problem and results looked good on the editors monitor but I never scrutinized it full frame. Since the editor takes one interlaced frame (every other scan line) then fills in the rest with what it thinks should be there, I was afraid that the image might suffer from the "guessing."

    in reply to: Just shot a wedding, now they want the rights… #208274
    Avatarhal9000
    Participant

    According to copyright laws, if it's a "work for hire" (i.e. they came to you for a job, hired you, and paid you) then you don't own the rights, the person who hired you does. Period. Unless you have some sort of agreement that was reached before you were hired (perferably in writing), you are out of luck. Sorry.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 38 total)

Best Products

The best digital storage for video editors — 2021

As digital video resolutions increase, our need for storage increases as well. If you’re ready to step up to a new storage solution, you’re in the right place.
homicide-bootstrap