Forum index / General Chat / What Stunt Groups Are Shooting In Hd?

What Stunt Groups Are Shooting In Hd?

78 posts · page 2 of 3

post #31
08 September 2008, 10:55 UTC#31
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 12:33 PM) [snapback]508697[/snapback]

Unless the camera has a built in HDV to SDV conversion when capturing as it makes the quality so much noticably better.


It's not SDV just SD.

Also dont capture it as SD, capture in HDV and down convert in the edit (unless your editing program can work with both HDV and DV on the same timeline like in FCP). Pretty much anything you export it as will down convert it to an SD quality format anyway so it's stupid to capture the footage in SD.



QUOTE(ILL-FILMZ @ Sep 8 2008, 12:38 PM) [snapback]508699[/snapback]

QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 11:33 AM) [snapback]508697[/snapback]

Unless the camera has a built in HDV to SDV conversion when capturing as it makes the quality so much noticably better.


it does? fuck. pm me how to do that if you can with sony vegas.


You dont have to worry Webby.

When you export any of your vids as dvd files to burn it will burn them as SD quality files anyway, as the likely hood is you will be burning onto a normal dvd.
post #32
08 September 2008, 10:56 UTC#32
I wasn't aware people still did shoot in 4:3. :P

Yeah I guess its good for making sure there are no dropouts or anything but a decent version of Premiere will sort that out too.

<3 Sony.
post #33
08 September 2008, 11:08 UTC#33
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 01:56 PM) [snapback]508716[/snapback]

I wasn't aware people still did shoot in 4:3. :P

Yeah I guess its good for making sure there are no dropouts or anything but a decent version of Premiere will sort that out too.

<3 Sony.


Was that a reply to what I said? cos I dont get it/
post #34
08 September 2008, 11:13 UTC#34
Evil Werble.

QUOTE(DEX @ Sep 8 2008, 12:55 PM) [snapback]508714[/snapback]

QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 12:33 PM) [snapback]508697[/snapback]

Unless the camera has a built in HDV to SDV conversion when capturing as it makes the quality so much noticably better.


It's not SDV just SD.

Also dont capture it as SD, capture in HDV and down convert in the edit (unless your editing program can work with both HDV and DV on the same timeline like in FCP). Pretty much anything you export it as will down convert it to an SD quality format anyway so it's stupid to capture the footage in SD.


My camera down converts the footage as it captures was what I was saying.
post #35
08 September 2008, 11:19 UTC#35
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 12:56 PM) [snapback]508716[/snapback]

I wasn't aware people still did shoot in 4:3. :P


all my old footage is shot in 4:3, the footage from the rest of my filming buddys is filmed in 4:3 so would be silly to shoot new stuff in 16:9 if its to be mixed in with old footage.

QUOTE
You dont have to worry Webby.

When you export any of your vids as dvd files to burn it will burn them as SD quality files anyway, as the likely hood is you will be burning onto a normal dvd.


yeah ill be burning them as SDV onto SDV DVDs but to render the best quality I dont have the room to capture HDV footage and store it all on my externals. plus I dont think vegas lets you mix SDV and HDV on the same timeline.

if filming in HDV and capturing in SDV gives me the best quality I can get in SDV then im happy useing this method.

later in the week once I have my new PC I'll give it a test run from capture down convert and then manual down convert and see if I can tell any differents.

all this camera who har now days I remember when mini dv was the greatest thing ever
post #36
08 September 2008, 11:31 UTC#36
What computer stuff did you get in the end man?
post #37
08 September 2008, 11:31 UTC#37
First relevant conversation of the year haha.
post #38
08 September 2008, 11:31 UTC#38
Webby please stop saying SDV! :biggrin:
post #39
08 September 2008, 11:36 UTC#39
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 01:31 PM) [snapback]508725[/snapback]

What computer stuff did you get in the end man?


nothing you recomended.........

ppfff like I would need help from someone down south.....













SDV
post #40
08 September 2008, 11:37 UTC#40
SD
post #41
08 September 2008, 11:40 UTC#41
QUOTE(ILL-FILMZ @ Sep 8 2008, 01:36 PM) [snapback]508732[/snapback]

QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 01:31 PM) [snapback]508725[/snapback]

What computer stuff did you get in the end man?


nothing you recomended.........

ppfff like I would need help from someone down south.....


So everything yeah? :laugh:

Just conform all your 4:3 footage to 16:9.

Well eassy in Premiere.
post #42
08 September 2008, 11:50 UTC#42
tomsn
post #43
08 September 2008, 11:53 UTC#43
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 01:40 PM) [snapback]508735[/snapback]

QUOTE(ILL-FILMZ @ Sep 8 2008, 01:36 PM) [snapback]508732[/snapback]

QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 01:31 PM) [snapback]508725[/snapback]

What computer stuff did you get in the end man?


nothing you recomended.........

ppfff like I would need help from someone down south.....


So everything yeah? :laugh:

Just conform all your 4:3 footage to 16:9.

Well eassy in Premiere.


yeah everything and a black with red LEDs tower.

I like 4:3 :cool:
post #44
08 September 2008, 21:00 UTC#44
yep
post #45
08 September 2008, 22:28 UTC#45
Who remembers SDV?
post #46
08 September 2008, 22:38 UTC#46
HD isnt homegrown
post #47
08 September 2008, 23:10 UTC#47
16mm film transfers is homegrown.
post #48
08 September 2008, 23:16 UTC#48
hi-8
post #49
08 September 2008, 23:17 UTC#49
QUOTE(cIRca @ Sep 8 2008, 07:10 PM) [snapback]508841[/snapback]

16mm film transfers is homegrown.


fuck 16mm film, its gay. I rather be workin on high def stuff, but nooooooo
post #50
08 September 2008, 23:21 UTC#50
Hd is just too good
what about the grainyness and low budget filming?
professional stunts are lame, mine as well go join the circus
post #51
09 September 2008, 00:38 UTC#51
But seeing the stuff in the better definition just brings so much more to the table by way of amateur production value. After seeing the footage off of Burgerz and Keith's HD cams, I just can't like my little Sony Handycam anymore... Lol. It's sad, but it's true.
post #52
09 September 2008, 00:50 UTC#52

right, but, if your up'ing videos on youtube, and only youtube, might make sence, then agian, I duno, hd is just too fancy
post #53
09 September 2008, 00:53 UTC#53
hd is good for if you get exposure plus if u want to burn a dvd and such. even low quality hd is way better looking
post #54
09 September 2008, 01:00 UTC#54
QUOTE(Sla-Vin @ Sep 8 2008, 08:53 PM) [snapback]508864[/snapback]

hd is good for if you get exposure plus if u want to burn a dvd and such. even low quality hd is way better looking
true that lots o people see our stuff glad they see vivid colours in 16:9 wide format instead of our old 4:3 plane looking video.


QUOTE(RyanH @ Sep 8 2008, 08:50 PM) [snapback]508862[/snapback]

right, but, if your up'ing videos on youtube, and only youtube, might make sence, then agian, I duno, hd is just too fancy
Says Ryanx1000 :tongue:
post #55
09 September 2008, 01:13 UTC#55
It definitely sets you apart from everyone else on the net with a camera.
post #56
09 September 2008, 01:40 UTC#56
:huh:
post #57
09 September 2008, 01:46 UTC#57
Having HD Imre. I mean, some people have them but definitely not the majority. Therefore, it sets you apart a bit.

EDIT: I wasn't replying to your post. I was saying that as a response to Slavin's. My bad.
post #58
09 September 2008, 03:18 UTC#58
It may set you apart for the time being, but probably won't in a few years.
post #59
09 September 2008, 04:20 UTC#59
of course not but for the time being ya.

just export as an SD .AVI and it still looks better then videos shot in SD. but then when u do want the high def copy u can have it.
post #60
09 September 2008, 05:23 UTC#60
QUOTE(Mr. Brown @ Sep 9 2008, 12:18 AM) [snapback]508883[/snapback]

It may set you apart for the time being, but probably won't in a few years.

True that, so might as well get as much mileage out of it now as we can.