You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Canon GL2 experiments (Images contained within)

Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006, 8:50pm

Post 1 of 35

visualchaos

Force: 480 | Joined: 4th Feb 2006 | Posts: 339

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

In a attempt to better my understanding on how the Canon GL2 works, I have done some tests outside consisting of correctly adjusting the exposure in my shots so that I don't get to dark of a shot or to bright of a shot and stuff. Here is my first image:

The following settings was used for these shots:

Exposure set to manual
S1/3000
F1.8
0 dB

The house is too bright in the top pic but as I panned away from it the surrounding area exposure looks pretty good.





In the second round of testing, the settings was set to the following:

S1/3000
F2.2
0 dB

The house looks somewhat ok and the surrounding area still looks good





In the third round of testing, the settings was set to the following:

S1/3000
F2.8
0 dB




The house looks great but when I pan away from it to shoot the surrounding location, its a bit darker. So right now I'm a little flustered. When I mess with the other settings the house looks like that of the 1st pic and I'm trying to avoid that and make this whole thing evenly exposed correctly.
Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006, 9:41pm

Post 2 of 35

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

turn on your zebra lines. This will help you expose correctly.

But remember, the GL2/XM2 is a prosumer (semipro) camera. REAL cameras have a proper dial for exposure control and as you pan across a shot a trained camera operator would adjust the expose accordingly (usually all worked out before hand and practiced).
The GL2/XM2 only has a crappy step changer and you will see the exposure changing (unless you are very good).

Not a lot you can do about it I'm afraid.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 4:59am

Post 3 of 35

visualchaos

Force: 480 | Joined: 4th Feb 2006 | Posts: 339

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

NoClue wrote:

turn on your zebra lines. This will help you expose correctly.

But remember, the GL2/XM2 is a prosumer (semipro) camera. REAL cameras have a proper dial for exposure control and as you pan across a shot a trained camera operator would adjust the expose accordingly (usually all worked out before hand and practiced).
The GL2/XM2 only has a crappy step changer and you will see the exposure changing (unless you are very good).

Not a lot you can do about it I'm afraid.
Oh ok. Basically I'm getting the correct exposures in the last 2 tests. So if I was shooting a short film, I would have to take extra care in planning my shots so that I won't run into problems of over or under exposure. So thats cool. I was thinking that miaybe I was not doing something right but its all good. At least I wrote down the settings and stuff.

I have the zebra lines setting turned on but I am getting things figured out.

One more thing that I would like to ask regarding interior scenes. Say I was shooting a scene in my living room. It would have to convey an evening atmosphere where its a little dark and stuff. I set up some lights to light the room properly and I shoot my scene. Then take it into a software and manually grade it to give it the look of it being evening time and stuff right? Rather than waiting until its almost dark outside and set up a lamp in the living room to try and convey the evening time lighting in a house, correct?
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 5:50am

Post 4 of 35

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

It would obviously look more realistic to shoot it at night time. Would there be any windows in the scene? If you take the time to light the scene at night correctly, that is a better option, IMO.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 5:52am

Post 5 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

S1/3000?!?!?!?!??!? Well there's your first problem!

I don't think you should ever have to up the shutter that fast. The highest I'd ever go would be maybe S1/350.

Turn on your ND filter, man! Gah! (It's the little button on the left side next to the manual focus button. ND is 'neutral density', and you should try to ALWAYS use it when you're outdoors. Always.)

The remedy to this is simple. Properly expose your darker areas, leaving the brighter ones in the pan still slightly overexposed. Then, in post, keyframe a brightness corrector to gradually lower the brightness in the shot as the pan goes by. This should even everything out.

I was reading in DV magazine about how when they filmed the VH1 TV show "Breaking Bonaduce" (with DVX-100a's for A-roll and a few GL2's for B-roll) they overexposed every shot, then lowered brightness in post. This ultimately yielded a higher quality picture, because the original contrast showed every minute little detail due to the high brightness on everything.

It's great you're testing out your GL2 a bit (my testing stage was with my friend's during the first parts of SC, long before I got mine, so I was relatively ready for it), just be warned I'll be yelling at you about this again if you don't use your ND filter. biggrin

As for the day-for-night: don't do it. I've yet to see anyone successfully accomplish this (save professional productions, like Castaway). Wait until it's relatively dark, then place a directional light outside (outdoors) of a window that's in the room you're filming. Turn the light on, making sure it casts shadows on the window's pane. Basically, if you get ambient light from through the window, as well as harsh shadows reminiscient of moonlight, it'll be WAAAAAAY more convincing than any day-for-night you could ever do.

Oh, and have you gotten to white balance testing yet? Like setting it against a blue card to get warm footage or a red card to get cold footage?
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 9:23am

Post 6 of 35

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Properly expose your darker areas, leaving the brighter ones in the pan still slightly overexposed
I'm not sure about that one. In my experience, over-exposing is always a bad idea. Once footage is over-exposed, that's it. You can't do anything with it. Darkening it isn't going to help, it'll just look odd and murky, rather than properly dark. It'll still have a total lack of detail in the blown-out areas, which will look really strange when darkened.

Dark footage can quite easily be brightened up (within reason, obviously), but over-exposed stuff is kinda stuck.

ben3308 wrote:

As for the day-for-night: don't do it. I've yet to see anyone successfully accomplish this (save professional productions, like Castaway).
I've seen D-f-N used well many times, both in professional films and low budget stuff. Sure, it doens't always look 100% like real night-time, but that's kinda the point, and it tends to give you much more control and is much easier to do when you're on a miniscule budget.

Also, many times real night footage looks much, much worse than D-f-N. Many cinematographers use so much light to film at night that they might as well have shot it during the day. The amount of magical lights hidden just out of shot are often absurd. D-f-N, when done well, can avoid the "loads of spotlights" syndrome.

If you shoot carefully and plan shots, then D-f-N can be very successful. Even without that it can still work well - it's mostly a subliminal thing anyway. You don't need much for an audience to buy it.

Oh, and have you gotten to white balance testing yet? Like setting it against a blue card to get warm footage or a red card to get cold footage?
This also sounds like rather crazy advice. Sure, it can work, but then you're stuck with effectively 'broken' footage. If you change your mind during editing, then you're screwed. Far better to shoot proper, good quality footage with the correct balances etc, then tint it in post towards reds or blues. That way you retain maximum control for the maximum amount of time.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 9:28am

Post 7 of 35

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Over-exposing or dedicating to any medieval white balance quackery is indeed a bad idea, far better to leave the latter to post.

Perhap's for this exact situation using the auto-exposure would provide the better results although sometimes it's too noticeable. Some Camera's allow you to set auto-exposure brackets which would be ideal for your shot, however I don't think the gl2/xm2 has this feature.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 10:09am

Post 8 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

By "overexposure" I'm only talking about maybe a stop and a half higher than you normally would set it. Something some people might consider normal exposure. Not anything extreme like adding dB or upping five stops. I've done this before, and it looked great. This time I actually know what I'm talking about. biggrin Commonly, if your footage looks just a tad blown out, the detail is still there, it's just not obvious to the human eye. Usually, lowering the brightness a bit will help the fine details to present themselves. Considering your white balance is set correctly, you should retain true color, even after brightening the shot.

From my experience with the GL2's output footage, your end result will have less grain/abberation from tweaking in post if you choose to slightly overexpose and, in post, add a -.05 darken rather than slightly underexpose, adding an, oh, let's say +.07 brighten. In this case, the brighten will bring out the grain in the image whereas the darken actually brings the black point of the footage to a truer tone.

And the comment on white balance wasn't something I was advising doing for your actual shots, it just helps you learn how the white balance settings work which will help you down the road when you're stuck trying to set true white balance, which is what you should always do.

As for Hybrid's advice about going auto just for this one shot: I wouldn't. It's almost ALWAYS obvious when autoexposure is used, and it's a hallmark of amateur cinematography.

Tarn wrote:

If you shoot carefully and plan shots, then D-f-N can be very successful. Even without that it can still work well - it's mostly a subliminal thing anyway. You don't need much for an audience to buy it.
Forgive me for disagreeing here, but I've yet to see believable day-for-night from any amateur miniDV shooter. A prime example is Get Lost. While I loved most of the movie (and the high contrast in the flashbacks!) I had no idea that the darker scenes were attempts at day-for-night. I'm not trying to say they were poorly done by any means, rather, there simply wasn't enough time taken to establish the shots as nighttime and to clean up the grading and filters a bit more.

D-f-N is a nice idea, but I can almost guarantee you it'll never look how you want it to. Properly lighting a room is a much more substantial idea, and it'll probably look better in the long run. Plus, with D-f-N, you're sort of stuck doing a 'guess and check' with framing of bright things such as windows and the sky, as well as the extensive, grueling post-work. Lighting beforehand might be better.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 10:42am

Post 9 of 35

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

...So by overexposure you mean the correct exposure? And surely the human eye has little to do with things as over-exposure is highlighted with the zebra lines? That is of course unless you normally under-expose your footage.

On this one I'm willing to buckle to your advice, as I've little experience with this camera model. Definitely worth a try to see what happens.

ben3308 wrote:

As for Hybrid's advice about going auto just for this one shot: I wouldn't. It's almost ALWAYS obvious when autoexposure is used, and it's a hallmark of amateur cinematography.
In most cases I agree, hence my comment "too noticeable" as well as mentioning the brackets which massively restrict the changes your camera can adjust the exposure and thus making it less noticeable/un-noticeable.

Also, what I said about D-f-N was solely about movies from FXHomers: we've yet to see an FXHomer do D-f-N well, or correctly, for that matter (save the test shot on VLab's page). D-f-N is a nice idea, but I can almost guarantee you it'll never look how you want it to. Properly lighting a room is a much more substantial idea, and it'll probably look better in the long run.
Have you seen Ashman's between the lines stuff? I think some examples are actually on the product pages (digital selection I think). smile Pretty groovy stuff if you ask me.

Though, to some extent I agree too. DFN is very difficult to pull off correctly.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 10:48am

Post 10 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

...So by overexposure you mean the correct exposure? And surely the human eye has little to do with things as over-exposure is highlighted with the zebra lines?
What I meant is different people have different ideas as to what is "correct" exposure; it can usually be between one or two f-stops, three even. For example, some might consider a small patch of zebra lines on the edge of the face proper exposure, whereas others would argue that no lines be present.

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Have you seen Ashman's between the lines stuff? I think some examples are actually on the product pages (digital selection I think). Pretty groovy stuff if you ask me.
I concur, see below.

I wrote:

we've yet to see an FXHomer do D-f-N well, or correctly, for that matter (save the test shot on VLab's page).
Oh, and one final thing...

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

On this one I'm willing to buckle to your advice, as I've little experience with this camera model.
.......then what captured scientist starred in a movie shot on the XM2? Surely the guys who made it let the actor use the camera every now and then!
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 11:02am

Post 11 of 35

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ben3308 wrote:


.......then what captured scientist starred in a movie shot on the XM2? Surely the guys who made it let the actor use the camera every now and then!
Oh of course, I kept a videoblog and everything. razz

And the clip on the fxhome page isn't a test at all. More a preview clip of Ashman's unreleased epic 'Between the Lines'. smile

Salvate in anticipating of it's glory.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 3:34pm

Post 12 of 35

visualchaos

Force: 480 | Joined: 4th Feb 2006 | Posts: 339

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Wow thanks for the wealth of info. Anyways since right now its cloudy outside I decided to shoot a test indoors. This is my poor attempt at conveying night shooting:

Here is the original shot with the following settings:

S1/30
F1.6



Then I took it into After Effects and made it like this:



I shut off all of the lights in the room and was just using the outside light to simulate the moonlight. I think what I should have done was adjusted the F stops a tad more to brighten the footage up and then darken it a little in post because right now the shot looks a little grainy even when the dB was set at zero. But in my opinion, its not that bad. I did have the lamp on, which is behind the laptop but it was generating too much light and it was over exposed. I tried adjusting the exposure but it made everything else really dark so I just turned the damn thing off lol. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 9:15pm

Post 13 of 35

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Never use gain. Unless you want grain, and lots of it.

luckily, my Vx2100 gets stellar lowlight performance..


But Yeah, I would also diffuse that light more as well, with a bouncer board (NOT in post. post diffusion looks like crap).

I like to use a clamp light clamped onto a white foamboard, aimed at the board with a 75w bulb, then aim the board at the actor.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 9:32pm

Post 14 of 35

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I've seen D-f-N used well many times, both in professional films and low budget stuff. Sure, it doens't always look 100% like real night-time, but that's kinda the point, and it tends to give you much more control and is much easier to do when you're on a miniscule budget.

Also, many times real night footage looks much, much worse than D-f-N. Many cinematographers use so much light to film at night that they might as well have shot it during the day. The amount of magical lights hidden just out of shot are often absurd. D-f-N, when done well, can avoid the "loads of spotlights" syndrome.

If you shoot carefully and plan shots, then D-f-N can be very successful. Even without that it can still work well - it's mostly a subliminal thing anyway. You don't need much for an audience to buy it.
I thought that of Lost 2nd season. The shot where Michael and Sawyer are on the raft at night... there was so much light flooding into the scene, that I it looked unnatural.

I thought that shot would have been better to make it D-f-N (even though that would be inconsistent with the last episode of season one, but my point still stands).

ben3308 wrote:

A prime example is Get Lost. While I loved most of the movie (and the high contrast in the flashbacks!) I had no idea that the darker scenes were attempts at day-for-night.
I thought the torches in that scene gave it away that it was night fall?
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 11:04pm

Post 15 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yes, but the latter shots were less indicative. I assumed perhaps they just lost some continuity during filming due to the sun going down.
Posted: Mon, 18th Sep 2006, 11:10pm

Post 16 of 35

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

One other thing to keep in mind with those first images is that a 1/3000 shutter speed is going to give a very video look to the footage. Depending on the look you are going for, you might be better off with a smaller aperture and a shutter speed in the range of 1/50 or 1/60 of a second.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 2:10am

Post 17 of 35

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

One other thing to keep in mind with those first images is that a 1/3000 shutter speed is going to give a very video look to the footage. Depending on the look you are going for, you might be better off with a smaller aperture and a shutter speed in the range of 1/50 or 1/60 of a second.
And by dropping the shutterspeed, allowing more light in, which also lets you use your neutral density filters. (Although you may have to open up the iris all the way, which will also allow better depth of field)
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 3:27am

Post 18 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Keep in mind, though, that if you go a little higher on the shutter, like from 150-250, then you get high shutterspeed, which looks really cool for action sequences or scenes of extreme movement. Then, if you're outside you can use the ND filter and keep the iris open at a fairly high f-stop. Even if the motion looks a tad video-y, it'll be better and look better for action and/or frenetic movement. Plus, you can always just convert to 24p later if you've got Vegas., and that'll smooth out the whole "video look".
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 3:59am

Post 19 of 35

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, for some specific looks, a higher shutter speed is what you want, but in general a shutter will make your footage look smootherand more film-like. But no de-interlacing or 24p conversion software can compensate for a shutter moving too fast. The result of a fast shutter is no motion blur, and that can't be added by converting to 24p.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 4:04am

Post 20 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Motion blur can easily be added as a render setting in Vegas, or even Virtual Dub. Easy fix, man.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 8:59am

Post 21 of 35

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

Motion blur can easily be added as a render setting in Vegas, or even Virtual Dub. Easy fix, man.
I'd like to see an example of this, as I rather doubt your claim.

Yes, but the latter shots were less indicative. I assumed perhaps they just lost some continuity during filming due to the sun going down.
Latter shots as in after the hatch explosion? That's meant to take place at a different time, as we wanted to get a different mood into that sequence and keep a nice variety of tones.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 10:39am

Post 22 of 35

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Motion blur can easily be added as a render setting in Vegas, or even Virtual Dub. Easy fix, man.
The motion Blur in vegas is more like Resampling, and it doesn't look real good. not sure about virtual dub though
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 11:14am

Post 23 of 35

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm with the guys that say expose right for the house and correct the darker background later unless the overexposed look is what you want to convey a certain feel. Any pro photographer will tell you overexposing will burn out detail that can't be recovered by darkening where as underexposed areas will contain detail that can be brought out by brightening in post. In this case some post correction is going to be needed as the GL2 (XM2 as I have in the UK) isn't a cam you can easily change exposure on during a pan but it works just like ay other when it comes to exposure overall.

As for the shutter speed I'm with bryce. Get it right at the time dont try and correct it in post. As Ben said D-F-N often looks like what it is, faked. Why then would motion blur added in post looks as good as if you set your camera right for the effect you want in the first place ? It won't. Post obviously has it place for correcting little mistakes, adding effects, grading etc but it's no substitute for using the right cam settings and lighting for the scene in the first place. Using post to compensate for not planning your shoot right is just being a little lazy. But that is only my opinion.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 12:24pm

Post 24 of 35

ashman

Force: 4913 | Joined: 10th Sep 2005 | Posts: 904

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I played with the shutter speed settings on the XM2 alot during my shoot. For high stress action I ramped it up to 1/4000. It gives a wonderful unique look. I never had it any less than 1/1000, only in certain circumstances when there wasn't enough light. And always as a rule we never up the dB+ to more than 6. We wanted to keep as much detail as possible. I'm pleased with the results.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 12:57pm

Post 25 of 35

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bizarre. I never had a shutter speed of more than 350 with my XM2.

And never had the gain above +3db, I knew if I couldn't get what i wanted with 3db I'd have to somehow allocate more lighting.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 1:07pm

Post 26 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ashman, why add gain when you could've just lowered the shutterspeed? Once you hit about S1/250, the fast shutter speed effect is consistent. I see what you meant to do for high action, but why EVER up gain when you could lower shutter?

And er-no, does the XM2 start at 3dB? My toggles only let me go:
0dB>6dB>12dB>18dB
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 1:09pm

Post 27 of 35

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Think so, I'll have a check on that later, I might be getting confused with all the other cameras lying about wink


I'm quite positive it does though.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 1:24pm

Post 28 of 35

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

er-no saved you a bit of time . Just checked my XM2, gain is 0dB,6dB,12dB and 18dB. checked both the cam and the manual in case I missed something so unsuprisingly perhaps Ben is right about something XM2/GL2 related lol
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 1:30pm

Post 29 of 35

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Not really, I must be dreaming into my Z1 territory, where you can change the selected gain to increments up to 18db (before you go into HYPERGAIN. heh.

Yeha, so 6db it must have been, unless of course I have the latest model of XM2 and things are different, I'll check later wink
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 2:20pm

Post 30 of 35

ashman

Force: 4913 | Joined: 10th Sep 2005 | Posts: 904

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Ashman, why add gain when you could've just lowered the shutterspeed
Because lowering the shutter speed lost the effect and atmosphere I was trying to create. It was very rare we ever had to add any gain, in fact it was only twice during the whole shoot. And the extra gain we added didn't effect the shots so much that they were noticable to the eye.

To add: I did test the shutter speed on every level in all conditions of light. It was something I didn't take lightly. There is a huge difference having the shutter speed at 1/250 and 1/4000.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 4:48pm

Post 31 of 35

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, I know there's a huge difference between S1/250 and S1/4000. I was just thinking you were saying you upped the gain for EVERY shot, which would be completely ridiculous.
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 7:14pm

Post 32 of 35

ashman

Force: 4913 | Joined: 10th Sep 2005 | Posts: 904

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yes it would. Well done
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 8:20pm

Post 33 of 35

visualchaos

Force: 480 | Joined: 4th Feb 2006 | Posts: 339

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Sollthar did a short film by himself where he was sleepin on a couch and it was night outside and stuff and then he started hearing some noises and stuff. When he shot that, did actually wait until it was night time or did he do the "positioning a directional light outside the window," and grading it in post to simulate an eerie night?
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 10:25pm

Post 34 of 35

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

If memory serves me correctly..... he did that all in the day, adding 'lightning' and night-time grading in post.

smile
Posted: Tue, 19th Sep 2006, 10:38pm

Post 35 of 35

visualchaos

Force: 480 | Joined: 4th Feb 2006 | Posts: 339

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:

If memory serves me correctly..... he did that all in the day, adding 'lightning' and night-time grading in post.

smile
WOW cuz that looked awesome! Thats what I'm trying to do... well not exactly like what he did but around that general area biggrin