This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] 4k to simulate 2 cam int

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Re: [Avid-L2] 4k to simulate 2 cam int

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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>