Forgive my simplistic break down of the comparison but if the codec is better on the EX and it can be fitted with the same lens and the sensor is the same size, I'm not sure of this but I thought I read it somewhere, other than a potentially smaller form factor what would be a few reasons for the Canon over EX. Obviously if you already own one there is an incentive to use it. Does the Canon handle low light better than the EX?
Thanks for the workflow advice. I think a main reason for going out to tape is to have something to archive the material and deliver it to the network. Me thinks it also masks the use of DSLRs which some networks take a dim view of, or only allow a small percentage of material to come from a DSLR.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "oliverpetersvidy" <oliverpeters@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> There are tons of reasons to use the Canons over the EX. However, yes, the EX will look much better on a large screen, because the Canons use line-skipping. Also grading is tougher than with the EX. They should use the ProLost "neutral" settings for best results.
>
> To prep for post, they seem to be going through a lot of work. My Avid workflow has been this:
>
> 1. Cinema Tools to conform the speed of the 60fps footage to 23.98 (23.976).
> 2. MPEG Streamclip to batch convert to Avid DNxHD QT movs.
> 3. QtChange to add reel number and TC.
> 4. Fast import into Media Composer 23.976 project.
>
> - Oliver
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (5) |
No comments:
Post a Comment