<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Neumann :

“A light meter and the knowledge of how to use it can be quite useful, but a meter is not a necessity for video work because the camera itself is a sophisticated light meter; the video signal is a precise conversion of the level of light”

Now I believe he has a couple of books under his belt well not literally all the same he wrote them and well I have to side with the Rev on this one and Frank does have a point on this one. Seriously I have not used a meter at all with a DVC200 or DSR500 matter of fact when we did have a lighting guy on a shoot he used his meter for all the takes when we went to the NLE we saw it was to hot. The meter did not have it. -->>>

Let's try to make this meter question, which seems being difficult to swallow, a little more clear.

If you follow my mails, you may see that I talked of a combination of meter, monitor, waveform, viewfinder and experience.
Perhaps we could say that besides experience, you should have at least two of the others. If you do not have the experience, you should perhaps rely on three of the others.

What we are talking about here are images that have continuity and results that are reliable. One of the reasons incident light meters are used in film is because you need to have a continuity in image quality (skin tone, background, etc.) from one scene to the other when you edit them.

You can use a reflected light meter to control that too, if you know what you are doing. If you have a waveform monitor or a quality TV monitor you should use them. A monitor is a real must for quality work.

The video signal being "a precise conversion of the level of light" doesn't necessarily mean much if you don't have a continuity. To measure that conversion precisely you need or a meter or a waveform monitor. Besides a precision, well adjusted video monitor to see what you are doing.

Then you have to translate that into practical ways to implement it. You have to build up your lighting, starting perhaps from a base light and then put your key accordingly.

Perhaps the problem you had with that lighting guy and his "hot" images were that he didn't use a monitor as he should. Whatever the other tool you use, a monitor is a must for precision work. A miused tool can't be blamed for a job not well done.

The context I am talking all this about is that to do quality work you should use reliable references. You should know those references and have some control over them.

In any case it is not my intention to curb anyone who is willing to get his video camera and go shoot. By all means go do it. But in order to do things better you should know what you are doing.



Carlos

Carlos,

Bottom line do you go for the take?

Tom

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Neumann : Carlos,

Bottom line do you go for the take? -->>>

When things are right I always do, as long as I double checked as I said. Never missed a take, never wasted any time.



Carlos

I more or less did the same when my buddy asked me to research the pro's and con's with the GL1 and PD100A years ago. Though I asked more questions and did more reading than giving film lectures. :-)

The bottom line was I had to take the advice with a grain of salt which p*ssed me off somewhat. Some of this grain of salt advice entailed shots like, "Don't you know better?" "Why are you helping this guy?" "Go for the GL1 because it gives you the film look."

So you can see how anyone asking can get frustrated, especially if that someone comes from a film background like Carlos. I believe he's attempting to decide between the cheaper PV-DV953 or GS100 and the DVX100. His goal his to capture NTSC miniDV and have the final edited footage transfered to film, via interlaced NTSC to film method, similar with how the Vancouver lab does it.

Carlos is in PAL land (Brazil), so they use NTSC cams. But the biggest problem for Carlos is that he has no where to turn to see or try these cams, so he's all over the place trying to dig up information, and any way he can. It's his money, afterall, and he doesn't want to end up with a cam that won't cut it. Actually, I did the same thing before going with the MX300/0---because I could go NOWHERE locally to go and have a look at this cam!

Thanks, Frank. In a way you are quite right about the frustration. But let's try to state some records straight because this discussion seemed to go all over the place, including other threads where people asked who I was when my name was mentioned.

A thing what really p*ssed me off is that even if I don't know the particulars of the DV953/GS100 I tried to help other people here to understand things under a more organic point of view.

Instead of asking more questions to see how things could be improved and get better results, things turned into a pointless discussion of what words really meant.

Video is a very limited media, quality speaking. When I started making 1", 3/4" and Betacam video about 18 years ago, coming from film, the limitations were even worst. We tried to work around them, hiding the defects and trying to improve the quality.

Don't think things have improved a long way since then, because they have not. Video is still a very, very limited element.

Particularly in these "very very very limited" units we have to use, like the DV953. The only thing they have in their favor, a very important one, is that more and more people may have access to shooting a movie. What they will do with that is what I was trying to talk about.

Since my 16mm days, through 3/4", Betacam video and now DV I have been trying to devise ways to get better quality in spite of the limitations. And for that you have to follow certain formulas. That I was trying to convey.

It's quite likely that people reading this particular Forum is not interested in such concepts, and prefer to do things their own way.

The hub hub is what this all became when I tried to help when apparently nobody was asking.

So be it.


Carlos

Carlos, feel free to post whatever you think is important or what you want to share with us. It's not just a few members reading this but also many visitors who drop in 24 hours a day from all corners of the globe. If someone disagrees with you, don't sweat it. I've learned to just accept posts as they come, as long as no one comes in with personal attacks. And we have people posting from all levels of knowledge, which makes things interesting.

Carlos,

What I said was in no way a slam I wanted to know was in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny "What's Up Doc?"

As to a camera are you ready to buy or are you playing the field.

As to your answer that Video is limited I would have to disagree as the sky is the limit as to the software you could use, the machines that can do the heavy duty work, and the cameras with their features man this is what I have been waiting for. Film is good, film is great, and film looks the best. BUT it also costs more money and the cost of DV wins in the long run.

I think you should by a Panasonic PV-DV953 because it is a really good camcorder and does not cost much at B+H in New York. It is real strong and has many settings but I am sure there are more professional camcorders you can buy that are bigger and costs much more money like Tom's DVC200 black professional Panasonic. $8000.00 is is a lot of money. I am talking to you Carlos so what do you think?

I agree, Fred, but consider what Carlos intends to do with a miniDV cam. He's hesitant and attempting to choose the best one because he's not sure if he will get 35mm motion film results he expects from a miniDV cam (such as the PV-DV953). That's why I steered him towards reading that article by John Jackman.

For a MiniDV how about the GL1 PAL as it has a better film look? :-)

I know PAL is Europe TV system. Is it true PAL has better film look? Are PAL professional Panasonic camcorders better because of better Europe film look? Is PAL better for filming more movies like Carlos wants to do in Brazil?

I believe this link will explain it better and do note the equipment they used....

http://www.dv.com/features/features_...ristiansen0503

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : feel free to post whatever you think is important or what you want to share with us. It's not just a few members reading this but also many visitors who drop in 24 hours a day from all corners of the globe. If someone disagrees with you, don't sweat it. I've learned to just accept posts as they come, as long as no one comes in with personal attacks. And we have people posting from all levels of knowledge, which makes things interesting. -->>>

Of course it's not problem with people disagreeing with me. The only catch is that they at least understand what they are diagreeing with.

Personal attacks I usually disregard too, and I don't think I ever attacked back on any Forum. If possible I try to go deeper in my ideas to help get them through.

This time I got impatient because I didn't seem to get anywhere. The whole focus on my quest, which was seeing how far I could get with a DV953 went blurry with issues that should have taken a more constructive direction, instead of becoming a chasing tail exercise.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Neumann :
What I said was in no way a slam I wanted to know was in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny "What's Up Doc?"-->>>

I'm quite a fan of BB, but I seemed to miss the joke. Sorry.

<<<-- As to a camera are you ready to buy or are you playing the field.-->>>

Not too sure yet. If I do not get a way to see an actual DV953 test on a DV tape, I may go for a DVC80 first. If the DVC30 was released soon I'd go for it, but I wonder if it won't have the smear problems the PDX10 has on its 1/4" CCDs.

<<<-- As to your answer that Video is limited I would have to disagree as the sky is the limit as to the software you could use, the machines that can do the heavy duty work, and the cameras with their features man this is what I have been waiting for. Film is good, film is great, and film looks the best. BUT it also costs more money and the cost of DV wins in the long run. -->>>

A lower cost is the biggest problem for more people doing their thing. That is the real revolution and I am totally for it.

I don't think you can do too much in post to help the capturing limitations cameras have. If you don't get during the shot it's lost forever. Gamma response becomes the defining factor. So the issue of film being much superior for shooting, not editing, still prevails. But that doesn't really matter.

Low budget productions have to be shot in video. Particularly interviews for documentaries. First the XL1, then the PD150 and now the DVX100 have been the protagonists of that revolution.

My quest has been to find out if we could take that even farther with a camera that was so low budget that would allow a lot more people doing projects that could be accepted, either by broadcast channels or for film blow-up. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more.

The other things I talked about during these discussions were general video questions, which in the DV953 become more critical, like low light response.

Low light response is not a question related to ... low light response. It's a gamma question really. If the camera can not resolve dark areas, how much is the low knee compromised even in normal light situations?

When I talked about a light meter entering this matter, was just as a matter of reference. A way for a DV953 owner to research on their own cameras, something that would help understand better how things worked in video. We can find a different reference that is not so disturbing.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Fred Garhart : I think you should by a Panasonic PV-DV953 because it is a really good camcorder and does not cost much at B+H in New York. It is real strong and has many settings but I am sure there are more professional camcorders you can buy that are bigger and costs much more money like Tom's DVC200 black professional Panasonic. $8000.00 is is a lot of money. I am talking to you Carlos so what do you think? -->>>

In fact, if I went for a 1/6" CCD camera I'd go for a GS100. That model would let me investigate its "wide" options and see if it could be applied to improve the image quality.

The DVC200 has just one appeal for me: its 1/2" CCDs. For the rest the Sony DSR250 is much better and also much cheaper.

But recently the Panasonyc DVX100 is blowing everything out of the water with its internal settings. Now we have to wait and see if Canon comes forward with a better product. They do not seem too in a hurry.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : I agree, Fred, but consider what Carlos intends to do with a miniDV cam. He's hesitant and attempting to choose the best one because he's not sure if he will get 35mm motion film results he expects from a miniDV cam (such as the PV-DV953). That's why I steered him towards reading that article by John Jackman. -->>>

I am not hesitant towards mini-DV, but towards the DV953/GS100 to see if they can make it.

Of course I was familiar with Jackman's article, but it doesn't really answers my questions.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Neumann : For a MiniDV how about the GL1 PAL as it has a better film look? :-) -->>>

You mean GL2 I think. A PAL GL2 (XL2 I think it is) might be an option.

The problem is that I had a very bad first experience with a GL1 camera, probably because of dirty heads or improper DV tape, which left insecure with Canons and DV too.

Whether go for NTSC and PAL right away has other repercussions on my business here, which are not really questions to discuss here. If you want to hear about them, then e-mail me.


Carlos

Hi Carlos,

<< Whether go for NTSC and PAL right away has other repercussions on my business here, which are not really questions to discuss here. If you want to hear about them, then e-mail me. >>

Actually, this subject would be appropriate here and I'd like to learn more about your experiences. We have a different forum called "Taking Care of Business" where business matters are discussed. I appreciate your background and experience, and I think we would all benefit from hearing about some of the things you've been through in the business. Many thanks,

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Hi Carlos,

<< Whether go for NTSC and PAL right away has other repercussions on my business here, which are not really questions to discuss here. If you want to hear about them, then e-mail me. >>

Actually, this subject would be appropriate here and I'd like to learn more about your experiences. We have a different forum called "Taking Care of Business" where business matters are discussed. I appreciate your background and experience, and I think we would all benefit from hearing about some of the things you've been through in the business. Many thanks, -->>>

Of course if would be absolutely appropiate to discuss that matter on another section. And I would be willing to discuss it.

Can you move just these last two mails and start there for that subject?


Carlos

If you wish, Carlos, start a new thread on the other forum, and I'll copy or move your last 2 posts to there.