I'm starting on a show where they shoot 5D for regular motion and 7D for over cranked 60FPS. As I understand it they take the 5D and 7D media and string it out in Avid and output to DVC ProHD for archive/network source material delivery. Then for the over cranked footage they bring that into a 24 frame project, probably 23.98, and promote the motion adapter so they can change the speed to 100%. This creates slo mo after they extend the clip out with the now 100% timewarp. I assume initially the motion adapter sets itself to 250% to keep the clip playing in real time. Does that make sense? I'm editing remotely so I don't have any media to play with on my own. The footage looks pretty darn good and seems to be shot well.
On a related note it is my understanding that the Sony EX cameras, or at least some of the models, offer the same kind of "filmic" 35mm lens compatibility that the Cannon 5Ds and 7Ds do. Would that not make the EX Sony's have the same look of shallow depth of field? As far as sensors and compression schemes I know from experience it's hard to push the 5D footage much because of the codec/compression scheme. Last week I color corrected Red Epic intercut with EX footage and even the DP was pleasantly surprised how well the two different cameras matched. It seems to me the EX has more range for correction in post than the Cannon family. Curious what others experience has been. So if the Sony will use the same lens and has a better codec/compression scheme why do people still push to use the 5Ds? Is this because enough people bought them when they were the new kid on the block and they need to get their money out of them or is there truly
something that makes them a better choice than an EX for most work. Also is it cost effective to not reuse the card media on an EX? I remember there was a way to get an adapter for some of the Sony cameras that would allow for much cheaper cards to be used for all but over cranked material. Is that still true in the EX world? It seems if you can afford to archive the card media from the camera that would make more sense than the Canon lay off to tape to archive approach. Just trying to understand the production choice a little better.
John Moore
Barking Trout Productions
Studio City, CA
bigfish@pacbell.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
No comments:
Post a Comment