Forum Replies Created
Sure … Wirecast (a live streaming software product from telestream.net) is designed to ingest a remote camera via skype or even a separate streaming video from another server in near real time. YOu may have some momentary delay … based on the various protocols.
I think one way to avoid that would be to just use a separate computer/screen with the person who 'skyped' in and shoot them 'on screen' on a 32 or 40" computer monitor sitting next to the person.
I think the only way you can create it so that the difference between video originating in point A and point B is to combine that at point C (something I wouldn't do opting instead for giving preference and quality to the studio shot.)
For an example check this video at twit.tv at 1:17 – twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/487 … it shows four guests and the host with the guests each on separate TVs that sit there as individuals. The setup obviously switches to the 'individual' feeds when the people are on camera and the 'group shot' is relatively rare. I haven't reviewed this whole item but they do transpose two individuals as well as screen shots of programs/web sites. All this is done via live streaming live as well.
It is certainly doable and skype is one of the tools but not the only tool used to do this.
This may sound strange but if I were limited to a $150.00 budget, I'd consider this kind of package.
There some manual aspects to it; especially with focus and exposure, but you might be ahead of the game.
First, I'd find someone with an old 35mm camera setup. You know wide angle lens, 2x extender, 28-80 zoom, … 50mm f1.4 lens, 135mm f2.8 lens . I found just one setup for $40.00 based on the classic Canon AE-1 complete with motor drive plus 80-200 lens, a second 28mm, and even another 28-80 zoom.
Adapters for micro 4/3rds for those lenses run about $12 on ebay, maybe a little less. So now I'm at $80.00 with some nice FAST glass.
Now you can pickup a Panasonic GF3 … for anywhere from $50-90 on ebay. I even saw one that included the 14/42mm kit lens that sold for $79 plus about $13 for shipping … that went that low because the seller didn't include a 2 gb SD card (it did include battery, etc.)
Now such a set up will require you learn about exposures (including ISO as well as having to manually adjust fstops) and that kind of experiece will increase your knowledge and abilities.
you'll also be shooting at 1080 and using a much larger sensor than you'd normally have with any consumer camcorder.
The shortcoming in audio, though, is actually an advantage. Why advantage? You'll need to use a digital recorder (probably your smart phone) for recording dialog/speaking and use a basic editor to sync and output your video.
the shortcoming in video is that with the longer, heavier lenses from a legacy 35mm, you're going to have to use a tripod or construct a body-pod or shoulder rig of some sort to gain the steadiness (even if you get the kit lens with image stabilization) But with the legacy lenses, there is no stabilization.
The other shortcoming is that if you're not interested in the imagining aspects, learning the technical aspects … you just want to caputure stuff on a camcorder and you're after the ego trip of being on camera to exclusion of trying to learn the craft … well, choose another route 🙂
I just went to look at the pricing of these on ebay and I didn't see any good deals 'today' … actually I some some allegedly new bodies selling for over $300.00 … but know that I've bought three of these myself ranging from $65 each (two at once) to $85 (about a year ago). All came with batteries and chargers and I suspect it more about waiting for a good deal to appear. (there was one with a dent with an opening bid of $50 but most bodies were opening a bit higher, which temps me to to list mine now for some short term profit. (Heck, I just spied a Lumix G3 which while not a GH3, is a actually a better camera than the gf3 for an $80 opening bid.)
The point I'm making is that you can probably get to building a system that can grow with you (read some reviews on here about the Lumix GH 4)
Here's another little tip: Remember those clapper things used in the movies (They're called slates) … They provide both an audio mark (the sharp sound) and video mark which, when you use a editing program (sony movie studio/adobe premier elements come to mind), will be quite visible both on your camera track and the audio track.
One of the better keys is that by using something like the zoom mic, you can place it (or even hide it) on the set or on the person (Or even mic each person).
Frankly, while there is the task of synching the audio, ususally a product like the zoom will give you much better sound than an onboard mic setting will.
Oh, and if you don't have a slate 🙂 with which to do the clapper, often a flash or even a single clap will take a minute or two off your task of synching. It is also good to make sure, especially on longer videos, that you maintain your sync.
You need a post a video of the camera operating as you do the movement.
As far as applications, there are some out there already that basically control a pan and tilt tripod head that are designed for sports activities. They use a transmitter of some sort and sell in the $300 range if memory serves called the soloshot. It has taken off in some of the active sports realms but by definition are incapable of doing the close work your demo provided. (You've got to be something like 20-30 ft. away for the dongle-tracking system they employ to work.)
It is relatively simple to crop an image to remove a watermark if it is on the perifery of the image. I know, for instance that Sony Movie Studio can do the crop simply. If you downloaded the video at 1080p and crop it 720p, your actually are not losing much quality.
Frankly, accomplishing cropping shouldn't lead you to change your estimate of the IQ of the infringer.
Peter John Ross:
I didn't mean to be an asshole 🙂 and I don't think apologies are at all necessary. It just struck me as a bit contrived.
I do think that your work here does point to the subtle possibilities of how product placement not only would work but raises the awareness.
Let me also say that I normally wouldn't be as contentious on such a minor thing as this … but …
When I viewed your video and I saw the reaction of the bartender in questioning the type and style of beer, for some odd reason I flashed on the Comte the whatever remarking on the size of Cyrano's nose … I can only blame my reaction (and inspiration to reply) on Rostand's classic reply.
Yes, imagine that the little birds are so appreciative as they perch upon it.
It was fun and accept my apologies as well 🙂
I understand that the actor asking for a beer without the branding or some other discussion may not be realistic but who cares. The business of getting beers is the point. Presumably it advances the movie plot and sets the stage for what happens at hotel-motel time … and even if it isn't a porn movie, what happened between the imbibing couple is more interesting than the exchange with the bartender.
Consider also the bartender who just serves the beer with no dialog is paid at a lower scale than if he utters a word and becomes an actor 🙂
I don't know … when I was 18 in Belgium working as an intern I found the phrase, "Une bier sil vous plait!" majic and given I was at that time pretty unsophisticated in my tastes; the barkeepers typically would just pull a draught from the most popular tap.
I dropped my money and took my beer and I don't recall ever considering spitting it out 🙂
Of course that 1969, long before the raft of craft beers and even micro-breweries came into being.
At that time in Belgium, if you went to a local bar, you expected Stella Artois and if you went to an English Bar, you expected to be served Guiness.
As I got more sophisticated the terminology did change. In an American beer joint, the "let me have a beer" has morphed into "Bud light here" or in a place that serves imported: Give me a Stella or Dos Equis …
I think the absurdity of the barkeep pestering the folks who are obviously more interested in each other what kind of beer – the generic order actually being a statement of attitude – suggests the brand most often sold in the house which would default to the most popular beer on tap.
You should also know that the generic 'beer' is sometimes a matter of caution … ordering the wrong brand of beer can, in some honky-tonks, be fighting words 🙂
Finally, I think this proliferation of brands of beer, styles of beer and all that jazz … like brands are that damned important … leaves me preferring the generic – you say trite – line: Give me a beer and another for the lady …
When that line is presented instead of say, A Stella please …, it tells me that the movie company didn't get paid for product placement which somehow reflects on the honesty of the production 🙂
wavcastcomJune 19, 2014 at 9:38 AM in reply to: If I primarily plan to produce online content is 4k worth it? #210665
Ed's comments above are right on.
The only reason that I might consider going to 4K sooner would be because of a particular way that I sometimes shoot using multiple cameras which obviously are static and set up to cover a field of view instead of a subject.
What shooting in 4K would allow you in that circumstance is the ability for a lossless crop to 1080 … I.e. the ability to zoom into the 4k frame and by a zoom factor of four with the results being based on a full native 1080 frame.
I'm aware of this because I record things like speeches and the like where there is a podium and stage and action may take place anywhere on the stage. Because these tend to be long events – 10-30 minutes, I use at least two static cameras (and a third for B-roll). If I frame a shot that is too tightly cropped on the lecturn, I risk losing important action if the speaker abandons the spot even by a foot or two. Also, some speakers talk to the left of the podium while others favor the right. So when framing the shots, I actually go a bit wider in 1080p than I want and then routinely crop the shot to the ideal in post.
4K capture would obviously result in a better, more detailed final cut at 1080 if you're cropping your original in post.
wavcastcomJune 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM in reply to: All music at soundimage.org is now free for commercial use #210658
I'm coming up on a 48 Hour Film Project in Atlanta in about two weeks and thought I'd wander over to your site for a heads up and wow! … I liked the music … it seems great for video in that it doesn't demand center stage yet still is strong enough to impart feeling. It feels right to me … moreso than other stock music.
Right now is the worst time to think about the legalities of your agreement with your current video production company. This should have been an element of your understanding from the get go … particularly whether the video content you have is licensed from the video company or is considered work for hire. I'll assume that your company engaged these folks under a work for hire contract … i.e. that you and your company own all rights to the material you paid to have done. This is common but not universal.
If the content you have is considered work for hire; you can pretty much fire 'em and keep and maintain the content they've produced for you and allow others to use that content without further compensation.
If not, then you have a judgment to make … how important is the future use of the creative these folks have created over time? I'll use a company that makes fishing lures as an example and put it in the context of an annual catalog using still photography. If the company wanted to fire the guy who had done their photo work they likely lose the cost of the four-color separations of the company's head quarters but if the company is just making catalog sheets only of the new products for the next year (adding to the old catalog) then the plan would call for new photos of the factory, etc. over a two-year period. You'd have that extra cost for the next catalog but if the new catalog is 90 percent new content … who cares they have all that old stuff. If on the other hand, the 'new' catalog is 90 percent old content you need to negotiate now and fire later.
Notably in video there are other concerns with commercial work including details such as actor releases, location releases, etc. that are a necessity in today's litigious world. If your company has been requiring and keeping these documents for the content created on your behalf, you're ahead of the game. If the video production company was keeping that information, well hope they don't have a fire because you're vulnerable if they do; especially you don't have a comprehensive contract for services with the video production company.
Still, generally speaking, these folks are eithier servicing your business effectively … or they are not. If they are not, you could consider firing them.
But before you do, please consider that failed communications in business dealings are often due to misunderstandings by both parties. Said differently, ask your self if possibily your management of the relationship is the cause of the decline in the quality of work you're receiving. Remember, feelings of distrust are contageous.
Still, if you do decide to fire them, at least make sure you have an agreeable understanding, preferably in writing, that addresses these issues with your new video production company.
I'm going to assume you're talking about a candid camera type setup… the camera is hidden and you have an actor who confronts someone and does something for laughs.
The real trick here is remote sound and synchronizing the sound with the in camera sound/pictures.
Usually a clapper or some other device aids in this but the camera … well any digital camera will work. There are a variety of microphones. Consider the zoom H-1 for this. You can hold it like a regular microphone or even run a concealed lavalier mic to it. It might be worthwhile to have a shotgun microphone on the camera to get as good sound as you can on the camera track.
As far as software, most NLEs would be suitable provided they let you import alternative sound tracks that you can sync to the video. (The NLE is where you do your synch).
You can spend a lot of money for wireless mic system but that means that you camera would have to have an mic-in jack. Consumer and many prosumer cameras only have 1/8-inch jacks when they have them. That poses a real problem if you're running the mic cord any distances as Las Vegas Casino's would like the odds that a wireless system or an unbalanced sound system is going to fail you.
The point is simplier is better and definitely cheaper. … and remember though, always have a backup. (two mics, two cameras) .
Beyond that, it is a matter of creativity.
I'm guessing you're using a firewire to capture to the computer.
Check for either a USB connection on your camera or even better, a SD card that you can remove from the camera and put into your computer. In either case, once you connect your camera to the computer as a 'hard drive' instead of as a camera, you should be able to access the avchd file in its native digital format. Copy it to your hard drive, disconnect the camera and open the file in your video editing software.
It has a wide (170-degree) view and a not-so-wide setting with 110-degree view.
Because it will go to 1080p … and the lens is sharp and OIS good … you can zoom further in post.
Alternately, you could mount an extender of some sort … likely you could adapt one of the 'telephoto' attachments they sell for iphones … but if you're shooting people 30-50 feet away I think you'll be fine using post production zoom .. .of course the newer one (A 500) with 4k 30p video would extend your post zooming capabilities significantly.
Check the panasonic A100 which shoots both wide field (170-degree) and a narrower field (110-degrees) in 1080. The actual lens and sensor is contained in a barrel-like mounting that can literally be 'wrapped' on the front of the barrel. It will also shoot 720p in slow motion.
This model is being replaced by a similar device the A500 (record head, battery in one unit tethered to the camera lens/imaging chip in a 1.5" long by about 3/4" wide barrel capped by its lens) that will do 4k capture and includes a viewable LCD on the record head. (The A100 requires the wifi connection to view your images in real time.).
It comes with hardware for POV (you could put it on your head ajacent to your eye if aiming for instance) video. The item includes wifi – you can control field of view, record resolution, stopping and starting via you smart phone or tablet.
And it has image stabilization … one of the best in the industry and right now you can probably get one new for right at $200 -230. I'm wondering what the a500 will sell for.