In almost every situation, moving the camera is preferable to the cheat we're talking about here. That said, in our particular case, the film has a certain style that allows for a more "liberal" visual treatment. THAT said, we almost never use the punch-in right next to the wide; there's almost some cut-away or B-roll in-between. That THAT said, sometimes we DO punch in (or out) in consecutive cuts, but these cases are almost always jump cuts - cuts to different moments in the person's interview, so there's a kind of weird, staccato thing that's happening. As with everything, it;s often about context.
David Dodson
davaldod@gmail.com
> On Apr 12, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Greg Huson <Greg@SecretHQ.com> wrote:
>
> Just wondering, David, how did you feel about cutting from the wide to the close? Did that work for you?
>
> I have not had any complaints about the optics - though I understand that in theory - but only about the visual feel of that particular cut itself. Even close to wide doesn't bother me as much as wide to close, when it's a punch-in from the same camera.
>
> gh
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Greg Huson
> Chief
> Secret Headquarters, Inc
> Production / Post Production
> Culver City, CA
> 323 677 2092
> www.SecretHQ.com
> www.DigitalServiceStation.com
>
>
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:30 PM, David Dodson davaldod@gmail.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't want to dispute anyone's personal experience, but in the doc we just did, again, we shot 5K Epic, mastering to 2K. We ARE using it as a "second camera", and in our conform we are finding that 200% punch-ins, effectively giving us close-ups, are pristine, beautiful, and undistinguishable in resolution compared to the wides.
>>
>> I concede and stipulate all technical realities, optics, pixels, etc., but the eye don't lie.
>>
>> DD
>>
>>
>> David Dodson
>> davaldod@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Brian Williams bwilliams@d2creative.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm so happy to hear someone express this. Some clients don't get it; it's not a 'free" second camera. Yeah, it helps to re-frame a little on each CU
>>> Thx,
>>> Brian Williams
>>> D2 Creative
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Greg Huson Greg@SecretHQ.com [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Reply-To: "Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>, Greg Huson <Greg@SecretHQ.com>
>>> Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:53 PM
>>> To: "Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>, Lou Wirth <loutv@mindspring.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] 4k to simulate 2 cam int
>>>
>>>
>>> We use this technique sometimes, but it's not quite the same as two-camera. The cut-in still looks like a jump, because the lensing and angle are identical. You don't get that almost sub-conscious change of perspective that comes from the longer lens on the close-up, plus the slight change of angle.
>>>
>>> If you're not inter-cutting, then, great, but I still prefer the longer lens in the CU. actually, we've taken to shooting 4K on the wide shot and then get 3 sizes!, or at least some reframing. Also, we use it for hand-held hosted interviews/conversations- we'll shoot the interviewer on an over-the-shoulder-ish 4K 2-shot and the interviewee on a single or slightly dirty single. Then punch in on the host as needed- just don't cut from the 2x to the host cu.
>>>
>>> Our workflow technique is typically backup camera original to spinning media and LTO, then HD dailies (dnx36) from Resolve with viscode on the edge of the frame- including the file names from the camera which include the original frame size. That way, you know how much you can reframe the shot.
>>>
>>> During grade, match back to camera original, and the resize comes through aaf (or xml.)
>>>
>>> We tried making close and wide dailies from the same camera master but found that the 'guesstimated' reframe was never quite right- more distracting than the blow-up in offline approval. Not worth assistant time to make double dailies.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>> GH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Posted by: David Dodson <davaldod@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (19) |
No comments:
Post a Comment