Here's some stills from my XH-A1 on my latest project. Only thing that was tweaked in post was levels -- I crunched the blacks a bit in Vegas' Pro 32-bit color mode. Gamma and colors are as they were in camera. Cropped from 16:9 to 2.35:1 (scope aspect ratio).

Looks great, post some footage!

Why would you want to make your movie wider than a widescreen tv??

I think they look a bit too saturated, which screams 'video'.
Shots on itself are pretty nice.

Thanks!

As far as the saturation, I figure overshoot the saturation, and tone it down if I need to. But, because it's a comic book type deal, I kind of want the oversaturation, as well. Gives it that "comic-y" feel.

As far as "being wider than widescreen", I like to cut my short films as if they first go to the theater, just because I like it. :) Plus, it hides some reflections in this case.

Oh, and when it's finished (this week or next), I'll post it to be certain.

I think they look a bit too saturated, which screams 'video'.
And what's wrong with video? Star Wars 3 was video too.

Shots on itself are pretty nice.
And that is all that matters. Art is all about creating beautiful things.

Art is all about creating beautiful things.

Or intentionally ugly things. Depends on the artist. :D

C

Or intentionally ugly things. Depends on the artist.
Art is by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art) "(1) beautiful, (2) appealing, or (3)of more than ordinary significance." You're 33% right, I guess.

The point is that those who think ugly things are art see them as things of beauty. David Lynch is a good case in point.

There's a reason why the cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" holds up so well.



Lecture over. We hope you have enjoyed this presentation. Remember kids, drink Ovaltine.

The point is that those who think ugly things are art see them as things of beauty.
My brain has just exploded. Thanks a million!

i disagree that comment about how too much saturation looks like video. film has evolved over the years to give better colors and more saturated colors, more contrast and detail, etc... if anything makes video look like video, its the fact that it IS video. one of the biggest differences between the two other than frame speed is that with film, each negative is exposed slightly different than the next, which is why the image quality appears the way it does. video is too perfect in the sense that if you have a static shot with no motion, each frame will be exactly like the one before it, cause it's digital replication. (source: my film/video class material).

Just an update, due to NTSC lame-o standards, I did have to lower the saturation by about 30% in order to keep the colors from blowing out on DVD.

Still, even though on the computer the reduced colors don't look as cool, on a standard CRT television, the colors still blow my mind. It turned out really well, and I will post a non-NTSC friendly version here soon.

Here's some stills from my XH-A1 on my latest project. Only thing that was tweaked in post was levels -- I crunched the blacks a bit in Vegas' Pro 32-bit color mode. Gamma and colors are as they were in camera. Cropped from 16:9 to 2.35:1 (scope aspect ratio).

Really nice grabs... can you tell us the custom preset settings for this project?

Thanks
Alex

ha u have my name =)