|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Producing good quality video in a labWe are in a university department, and want to produce some good video of rats performing a task - good enough for the media. We are planning on using a mini-dv camera (that's the format they want). There are a number of concerns: * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want to buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent globes that give good light for video? * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for other software, hopefully free? * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should we use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>* I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. Fluoro's>artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want >to buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging >around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a >combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can >probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent >globes that give good light for video? will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" light. >* We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC. Software does this, but the results are usually not that great. Canopus>Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe >Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for >other software, hopefully free? Procoder is probably the best choice for you, or if you shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards Converter might do the trick as well. >* The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons some>we use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the >tv networks now prefer progressive? tv-station here have decided to record progressive recently, and it looks abysmal. cheers -martin- -- Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels <m**@sneeuw.nl>
said: Show quote > On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He > wrote: > >>* I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is >>only artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, >>we don't want to buy lights. What would the best lights be to >>use that we have hanging around. Are incandescent lights okay? >>What about fluros? Perhaps a combination of both? I think the >>lab is lit with fluros, but we can probably supplement this with >>globes. Are there particular incandescent globes that give good >>light for video? > > Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. > Fluoro's will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, > buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" light. hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is necessary. >>* We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format camera, >>NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently >>have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any >>recommendations for other software, hopefully free? > > Software does this, but the results are usually not that great. > Canopus Procoder is probably the best choice for you, or if you > shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards Converter might do > the trick as well. unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at UCLA. >>* The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Agreed.>>Should we use interlaced given that the footage might be >>broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? > > Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons > some tv-station here have decided to record progressive > recently, and it looks abysmal. Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production resources there on campus. He should consult with those departments. -- Larry Jandro Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals Scottsdale, Arizona, USA [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply] Larry J. wrote:
Show quote > Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels <m**@sneeuw.nl> It will be more like 1-foot square.> said: > >> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> >> wrote: >> >>> * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is >>> only artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, >>> we don't want to buy lights. What would the best lights be to >>> use that we have hanging around. Are incandescent lights okay? >>> What about fluros? Perhaps a combination of both? I think the >>> lab is lit with fluros, but we can probably supplement this with >>> globes. Are there particular incandescent globes that give good >>> light for video? >> Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. >> Fluoro's will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, >> buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" light. > > Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He > hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square > maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is > necessary. > Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was thinking >>> * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to >>> NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently >>> have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any >>> recommendations for other software, hopefully free? >> Software does this, but the results are usually not that great. >> Canopus Procoder is probably the best choice for you, or if you >> shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards Converter might do >> the trick as well. > > I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format camera, > unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at UCLA. that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we can also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do this all of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? Show quote > Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to contact >>> * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. >>> Should we use interlaced given that the footage might be >>> broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? >> Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons >> some tv-station here have decided to record progressive >> recently, and it looks abysmal. > > Agreed. > > Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production > resources there on campus. He should consult with those > departments. > them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla website and didn't come up with anything obvious. We do want to do this quickly, rather than contacting someone, waiting for them to get back to us, having to book the equipment a week in advance, paying a lot of money in rental, etc. Waiving the right to remain silent, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> said:
Show quote > Larry J. wrote: That's tiny, but could still be difficult to light and shoot if >> Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels >> <m**@sneeuw.nl> said: >> >>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there >>>> is only artificial light available. Since this will be a >>>> one-off, we don't want to buy lights. What would the best >>>> lights be to use that we have hanging around. Are >>>> incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a >>>> combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but >>>> we can probably supplement this with globes. Are there >>>> particular incandescent globes that give good light for >>>> video? >>> Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. >>> Fluoro's will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, >>> buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" >>> light. >> >> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He >> hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot >> square maze, or a much larger area. A description of the >> conditions is necessary. > > It will be more like 1-foot square. it's something like a maze with high walls. Not knowing, I'd suggest some simple soft light, from the top to eliminate wall shadows as much as possible. If it's like some mazes I've seen with clear lucite walls, then you could get a lot of reflections. Soft light will help here, too. Show quote >> Many TV stations have no cheap, easy method of converting PAL to >>>> * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting >>>> to NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do >>>> currently have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good >>>> results? Any recommendations for other software, hopefully >>>> free? >>> Software does this, but the results are usually not that >>> great. Canopus Procoder is probably the best choice for you, >>> or if you shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards >>> Converter might do the trick as well. >> >> I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format >> camera, unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at >> UCLA. > > Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was > thinking that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we > can also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do > this all of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? NTSC, and if they have to go through that process, won't bother with it. They get a lot of promotional stuff. Show quote >>>> * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive As Martin suggested, maybe the TV/Film Department students could >>>> scan. Should we use interlaced given that the footage might >>>> be broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? >>> Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons >>> some tv-station here have decided to record progressive >>> recently, and it looks abysmal. >> >> Agreed. >> >> Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production >> resources there on campus. He should consult with those >> departments. >> > > Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to > contact them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla > website and didn't come up with anything obvious. We do want to > do this quickly, rather than contacting someone, waiting for > them to get back to us, having to book the equipment a week in > advance, paying a lot of money in rental, etc. take it as a quickie project. It might cost you nothing. You're there, and it's much easier for you to check this out than for the rest of us. Otherwise, you'll just do it yourself, and the results will be the best you can manage with limited knowledge and time. Either way, I'd suggest shooting it in the format that the MAJORITY of your reciipient TV stations will want, be that PAL or NTSC, and provide the alternative format yourself. Don't expect them to do it. -- Larry Jandro Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals Scottsdale, Arizona, USA [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply] On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:36:35 GMT, "Larry J."
<usen***@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote: >> It will be more like 1-foot square. You can use a polarizer to cut down the reflections on the glass.> >That's tiny, but could still be difficult to light and shoot if >it's something like a maze with high walls. > >Not knowing, I'd suggest some simple soft light, from the top to >eliminate wall shadows as much as possible. If it's like some >mazes I've seen with clear lucite walls, then you could get a lot >of reflections. Soft light will help here, too. >Many TV stations have no cheap, easy method of converting PAL to True. You have to check with the technical program delivery-specs of the>NTSC, and if they have to go through that process, won't bother >with it. They get a lot of promotional stuff. station(s) you want to sell it too, and you'll probably find out that you have to deliver it in PAL or NTSC (depending on locale), and that they won't do the conversion (unless they are really, really, really, very, very, very interested in your material). >Either way, I'd suggest shooting it in the format that the MAJORITY Good advice!>of your reciipient TV stations will want, be that PAL or NTSC, and >provide the alternative format yourself. Don't expect them to do >it. cheers -martin- -- Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:36:35 GMT, "Larry J."
<usen***@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote: Show quote >Waiving the right to remain silent, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> said: If you plan to go Flourescent I suggest a daylight balance circular> >> Larry J. wrote: >>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels >>> <m**@sneeuw.nl> said: >>> >>>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there >>>>> is only artificial light available. Since this will be a >>>>> one-off, we don't want to buy lights. What would the best >>>>> lights be to use that we have hanging around. Are >>>>> incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a >>>>> combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but >>>>> we can probably supplement this with globes. Are there >>>>> particular incandescent globes that give good light for >>>>> video? >>>> Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. >>>> Fluoro's will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, >>>> buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" >>>> light. >>> >>> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He >>> hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot >>> square maze, or a much larger area. A description of the >>> conditions is necessary. >> >> It will be more like 1-foot square. > >That's tiny, but could still be difficult to light and shoot if >it's something like a maze with high walls. > >Not knowing, I'd suggest some simple soft light, from the top to >eliminate wall shadows as much as possible. If it's like some >mazes I've seen with clear lucite walls, then you could get a lot >of reflections. Soft light will help here, too. > tube directly above the foot square area. you can pick them up locally your local department store, hardware store, or lighting center. I have a circular tube flourescent fixture that I retubed with a daylight balance tube picked up at my local Wal-Mart for about 7 bucks and it works great for flat copy work and the likes. Show quote >>> >>>>> * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting >>>>> to NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do >>>>> currently have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good >>>>> results? Any recommendations for other software, hopefully >>>>> free? >>>> Software does this, but the results are usually not that >>>> great. Canopus Procoder is probably the best choice for you, >>>> or if you shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards >>>> Converter might do the trick as well. >>> >>> I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format >>> camera, unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at >>> UCLA. >> >> Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was >> thinking that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we >> can also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do >> this all of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? > >Many TV stations have no cheap, easy method of converting PAL to >NTSC, and if they have to go through that process, won't bother >with it. They get a lot of promotional stuff. > >>>>> * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive >>>>> scan. Should we use interlaced given that the footage might >>>>> be broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? >>>> Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons >>>> some tv-station here have decided to record progressive >>>> recently, and it looks abysmal. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production >>> resources there on campus. He should consult with those >>> departments. >>> >> >> Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to >> contact them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla >> website and didn't come up with anything obvious. We do want to >> do this quickly, rather than contacting someone, waiting for >> them to get back to us, having to book the equipment a week in >> advance, paying a lot of money in rental, etc. > >As Martin suggested, maybe the TV/Film Department students could >take it as a quickie project. It might cost you nothing. You're >there, and it's much easier for you to check this out than for the >rest of us. > >Otherwise, you'll just do it yourself, and the results will be the >best you can manage with limited knowledge and time. > >Either way, I'd suggest shooting it in the format that the MAJORITY >of your reciipient TV stations will want, be that PAL or NTSC, and >provide the alternative format yourself. Don't expect them to do >it. "Mark" [apparently at UCLA] wrote...
>> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He A couple of Chimeras (or even a couple of fluorescent>> hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square >> maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is >> necessary. > > It will be more like 1-foot square. "shop lights") with electronic balasts. Frequently seen at home-improvement warehouse stores for $10-15) > Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was Shooting PAL in NTSC land (or NTSC in the PAL territories)> thinking that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we can > also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do this all > of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? is a *HORRIBLE* idea. Even the most expensive standards conversion makes significant and visible reduction of quality to your video. It is one thing if it cannot be avoided, but to intentionally shoot in a "foreign" format and rely on standards conversion is just NUTS (or DAFT if you prefer). If you are really on a UCLA campus somewhere, there must be hundreds of excelent-quality NTSC cameras within a few miles radius of you. Not to mention the resources of your own institution. Have you actually contacted any of your own internal resources? If this is "for the media" are your own media relations or PR or whatever people involved? They almost certainly have contacts and resources for bringing in a crew with decent lighting and camera if it is for public consumption. >> Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production Google took only a few milliseconds to find the Contact>> resources there on campus. He should consult with those departments. > > Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to contact > them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla website and > didn't come up with anything obvious. page for your School of Theater, Film and TV .... http://www.tft.ucla.edu/contact.cfm If they don't do stuff like that, you might find someone who could at least identify somebody with a decent NTSC camcorder and lend you a couple of softlights, etc. Or they could at least point you towards the right people on campus. Richard Crowley wrote:
Show quote > "Mark" [apparently at UCLA] wrote... Yes, I agree that using a PAL camera isn't a good idea. However, it >>> Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He >>> hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square >>> maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is >>> necessary. >> >> It will be more like 1-foot square. > > A couple of Chimeras (or even a couple of fluorescent > "shop lights") with electronic balasts. Frequently seen > at home-improvement warehouse stores for $10-15) > >> Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was >> thinking that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we can >> also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do this all >> of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? > > Shooting PAL in NTSC land (or NTSC in the PAL territories) > is a *HORRIBLE* idea. Even the most expensive standards > conversion makes significant and visible reduction of > quality to your video. It is one thing if it cannot be avoided, > but to intentionally shoot in a "foreign" format and rely on > standards conversion is just NUTS (or DAFT if you prefer). > might be the only camera we can get on such short notice. It's also true that I am familiar with the camera, so I can just go in and shoot. Getting another camera and learning how to work it will involve a lot more time that I don't really have to spend. I'll investigate the possibility of getting one of the film students to come in with their camera and do it, but this might take too long to organize. If we did use a PAL camera, I presume the problem is the different frame rates. Colour and resolution is relatively easy to convert? Hence, possibly a good alternative is to just convert the footage to NTSC resolution but retain the frames as is. This will mean the footage will play back at a different rate, but I would think this would really only be a problem if the footage also used sound, and in particular human speech? Show quote > If you are really on a UCLA campus somewhere, there > must be hundreds of excelent-quality NTSC cameras within > a few miles radius of you. Not to mention the resources of > your own institution. > > Have you actually contacted any of your own internal resources? > If this is "for the media" are your own media relations or PR > or whatever people involved? They almost certainly have > contacts and resources for bringing in a crew with decent > lighting and camera if it is for public consumption. > >>> Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production >>> resources there on campus. He should consult with those departments. >> >> Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to contact >> them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla website and >> didn't come up with anything obvious. > > Google took only a few milliseconds to find the Contact > page for your School of Theater, Film and TV .... > > http://www.tft.ucla.edu/contact.cfm > > If they don't do stuff like that, you might find someone > who could at least identify somebody with a decent > NTSC camcorder and lend you a couple of softlights, > etc. Or they could at least point you towards the right > people on campus. "Mark" wrote ...
> Yes, I agree that using a PAL camera isn't a good idea. Are you at some far-flung outpost somewhere?> However, it might be the only camera we can get on > such short notice. If you are in LA county you could likely just yell out the window and find someone with a decent NTSC camcorder. If this really is for "the media" the school PR people won't appreciate your putting out lousy video identified as coming from UCLA. On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:57:51 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Yes, I agree that using a PAL camera isn't a good idea. However, it Many (most?) of the people you work with will own a DV camera.>might be the only camera we can get on such short notice. It's also true >that I am familiar with the camera, so I can just go in and shoot. >Getting another camera and learning how to work it will involve a lot >more time that I don't really have to spend. If you're not the sort of person who can quickly suss out a new camera, you're not the person to be shooting this job. Larry J. wrote:
Show quote > Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels <m**@sneeuw.nl> It will be more like 1-foot square.> said: > >> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:56:53 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> >> wrote: >> >>> * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is >>> only artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, >>> we don't want to buy lights. What would the best lights be to >>> use that we have hanging around. Are incandescent lights okay? >>> What about fluros? Perhaps a combination of both? I think the >>> lab is lit with fluros, but we can probably supplement this with >>> globes. Are there particular incandescent globes that give good >>> light for video? >> Your best bet would be to create a nice big soft light source. >> Fluoro's will do for that. If you want to improve on the look, >> buy a couple with a high CRI, as they have "purer white" light. > > Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He > hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square > maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is > necessary. > Yes, I'm at UCLA, but I brought my camera from Australia. I was thinking >>> * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to >>> NTSC. Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently >>> have Adobe Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any >>> recommendations for other software, hopefully free? >> Software does this, but the results are usually not that great. >> Canopus Procoder is probably the best choice for you, or if you >> shoot mini-DV/DVCAM, FireStore DV Standards Converter might do >> the trick as well. > > I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format camera, > unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at UCLA. that the PAL - NTSC shouldn't be such a big deal as we can also just give it to the TV station to convert. They must do this all of the time when they get overseas footage to show?? Show quote > Yes, I've been thinking that too. However, I don't know how to contact >>> * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. >>> Should we use interlaced given that the footage might be >>> broadcast? Or do the tv networks now prefer progressive? >> Go interlaced. Progressive will look jerky. For some reasons >> some tv-station here have decided to record progressive >> recently, and it looks abysmal. > > Agreed. > > Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production > resources there on campus. He should consult with those > departments. > them or where they are. I did a quick search of the ucla website and didn't come up with anything obvious. We do want to do this quickly, rather than contacting someone, waiting for them to get back to us, having to book the equipment a week in advance, paying a lot of money in rental, etc. On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:29:55 GMT, "Larry J."
<usen***@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote: >Good advice, but this all depends on the size of his "set." He Roomsize was just an educated guess, based upon having seen the inside of>hasn't said if it's a rat running around in a little 3-foot square >maze, or a much larger area. A description of the conditions is >necessary. such a place :-) A soft-source is just easiest, because the rats walk/run around, and you don't want to use any fresnels etc, as they produce a lot of heat, which is not so nice to the rats. >I don't know why he would even think of using a PAL format camera, Maybe they see a bigger market of selling hte program in Europe/Australia?>unless he's in a PAL country, which he's not. He's at UCLA. >Addiionally, I might add that UCLA has HUGE video production Indeed, they should be able to provide some good advice, maybe even gear.>resources there on campus. He should consult with those >departments. Why not propose it as a project for the video-production students? cheers -martin- -- Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. In article <ds30u5$1c***@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>, Mark <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote: Show quote > Hi, Hi,> > We are in a university department, and want to produce some good video > of rats performing a task - good enough for the media. > > We are planning on using a mini-dv camera (that's the format they want). > > There are a number of concerns: > > * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only > artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want > to buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging > around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a > combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can > probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent > globes that give good light for video? > > * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC. > Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe > Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for > other software, hopefully free? > > * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should > we use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the > tv networks now prefer progressive? I'm a videographer in a studio and I'd like to produce an experiment with rats that I could publish in a reputable scientific journal. I'm planning on using white rats. There are a number of concerns. I know that there are particular breeds of rats that professional scientists use for experiments. How can I get ahold of some. I don't really want to study up on rats, or on science, or laboratory procedures, I just want to generate a scientific study that will stand up to public and professional scrutiny. I'm thinking that grey rats would be best because I know that solid white or solid black rats would be hard to light. Would grey rats be OK for my scientific study? Also, I'd like to make my maze complicated, but not too complicated. Since I've never made a rat maze before, can you help me understand what kind of maze professionals use and how I can make sure MY maze is professional enough to produce the kind of quality study results that can get my production taken seriously in something like the New England Journal of Medicine? Thanks. ;) William Davis wrote:
Show quote > In article <ds30u5$1c***@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> You can search the internet for the breeders. I don't know if they would > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We are in a university department, and want to produce some good video >> of rats performing a task - good enough for the media. >> >> We are planning on using a mini-dv camera (that's the format they want). >> >> There are a number of concerns: >> >> * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only >> artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want >> to buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging >> around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a >> combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can >> probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent >> globes that give good light for video? >> >> * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC. >> Does software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe >> Premiere. Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for >> other software, hopefully free? >> >> * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should >> we use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the >> tv networks now prefer progressive? > > Hi, > > I'm a videographer in a studio and I'd like to produce an experiment > with rats that I could publish in a reputable scientific journal. > > I'm planning on using white rats. > > There are a number of concerns. > > I know that there are particular breeds of rats that professional > scientists use for experiments. How can I get ahold of some. ship to a private individual though. There are a lot of ethical controls on how rats are treated. I don't > really want to study up on rats, or on science, or laboratory Unfortunately, what you are saying is fundamentally contradictory. You > procedures, I just want to generate a scientific study that will stand > up to public and professional scrutiny. can't produce a scientific study that will stand up to scientific scrutiny without being aware of the issues that scientists will apply to the study. You can only learn this by studying up on rats, science, laboratory procedures and appropriate statistical analyses. To begin with, you should read all of the published scientific papers that use a maze similar to yours. Not only do you need to ensure that your study is indeed new or original, but you need to cite previous studies upon which it builds and the scientific issue it is addressing. > You need to choose a particular breed of rat, the choice of which needs > I'm thinking that grey rats would be best because I know that solid > white or solid black rats would be hard to light. Would grey rats be OK > for my scientific study? > to be able to be justified based on the scientific question you are asking. > Also, I'd like to make my maze complicated, but not too complicated. Again, the first step is to read the literature and find out what has > Since I've never made a rat maze before, can you help me understand what > kind of maze professionals use and how I can make sure MY maze is > professional enough to produce the kind of quality study results that > can get my production taken seriously in something like the New England > Journal of Medicine? already been done. Show quote > > Thanks. > > > ;) "Mark" wrote ...
> Again, the first step is to read the literature and find out Mark, you completely missed the irony of Mr. Davis'> what has already been done. questions. He was turning your own query back around on you and you fell for it. You actually recommended the same thing to him as we are trying to recommend to you...namely, to either take the time to get the proper equipment and methodology, or have somebody do it who already knows what they are doing. (Sorry to spoil the fun for everyone else! :-) On 2/4/2006, Richard Crowley managed to type:
> "Mark" wrote ... That's OK, Richard. I got a good laugh before reading your reply. Then >> Again, the first step is to read the literature and find out what has >> already been done. > > Mark, you completely missed the irony of Mr. Davis' > questions. He was turning your own query back around > on you and you fell for it. You actually recommended > the same thing to him as we are trying to recommend to > you...namely, to either take the time to get the proper > equipment and methodology, or have somebody do it who already knows what they > are doing. > > (Sorry to spoil the fun for everyone else! :-) I wondered how you would handle it when I saw that you had replied. I must admit you answered far better than I would or could have. And more gently - which gets lotsa brownie points from me. Gino -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") Sorry to be late to the party, funny joke about them gray rats.
You can make a suitable temporary softlight by shining work lights thru some white diffusing cloth like tulle or organza., or (if you're careful) plastic shower curtains. Good tip from martin aboutt he polarizing filter: you can get one at a local camera store: take your camcorder to the store to make sure it will fit before you buy it. It sits in a rotating housing and you twist it until the objectionable reflection is minimized. Listen to the pros, and don't shoo this with the PAL camera unless you feel like repeating the whole thing later with a proper NTSC camera. UCLA is home to one of the biggest film making schools in the USA, you can throw a gobo arm in any direction and hit three film makers easy. If you can't find help just outside your door, you are NOT trying. As far as the media, I think you probably have rules about checking in with the university officials first anyway, they are funny about things like that. Their Public information department will already have all the answers about where to send out tapes and in what format the stations want it. Unless it's a bloody murder or soemthing liek the zapruder film, DV mini tapes do not cut it with TV stations. They will want NTSC betacamSP, DVCpro, DVcam, or digital betacam. This means you will have to at some point interface with a media department person to get your master tape converted to the proper distribution format. Why you seem to be fighting this so hard, I don't know. you got good advice, you should follow it. ..........about the rats!!!!!!!!!!!!
- should they be....... - how many? - what size? - male or female?? - it just gets more difficult with each crank of the brain! DOG help us! Show quote "nobody special" <msu1049***@aol.com> wrote in message news:1139113749.664271.248650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Sorry to be late to the party, funny joke about them gray rats. > > You can make a suitable temporary softlight by shining work lights thru > some white diffusing cloth like tulle or organza., or (if you're > careful) plastic shower curtains. Good tip from martin aboutt he > polarizing filter: you can get one at a local camera store: take your > camcorder to the store to make sure it will fit before you buy it. It > sits in a rotating housing and you twist it until the objectionable > reflection is minimized. > > Listen to the pros, and don't shoo this with the PAL camera unless you > feel like repeating the whole thing later with a proper NTSC camera. > UCLA is home to one of the biggest film making schools in the USA, you > can throw a gobo arm in any direction and hit three film makers easy. > If you can't find help just outside your door, you are NOT trying. > > As far as the media, I think you probably have rules about checking in > with the university officials first anyway, they are funny about things > like that. Their Public information department will already have all > the answers about where to send out tapes and in what format the > stations want it. Unless it's a bloody murder or soemthing liek the > zapruder film, DV mini tapes do not cut it with TV stations. They will > want NTSC betacamSP, DVCpro, DVcam, or digital betacam. This means you > will have to at some point interface with a media department person to > get your master tape converted to the proper distribution format. Why > you seem to be fighting this so hard, I don't know. you got good > advice, you should follow it. > nobody special wrote:
> Sorry to be late to the party, funny joke about them gray rats. Thanks for all the advice. We have shot the video. Lighting did turn out > > You can make a suitable temporary softlight by shining work lights thru > some white diffusing cloth like tulle or organza., or (if you're > careful) plastic shower curtains. Good tip from martin aboutt he > polarizing filter: you can get one at a local camera store: take your > camcorder to the store to make sure it will fit before you buy it. It > sits in a rotating housing and you twist it until the objectionable > reflection is minimized. > to be the biggest problem, simply as the rats were used to working with the door closed and dim light, rather less bright light shining on them. We only had a single day to organize, shoot and edit, so we thought the results were as good as could be expected. Show quote > Listen to the pros, and don't shoo this with the PAL camera unless you Don't know where you get the "fighting this so hard" from. Given the > feel like repeating the whole thing later with a proper NTSC camera. > UCLA is home to one of the biggest film making schools in the USA, you > can throw a gobo arm in any direction and hit three film makers easy. > If you can't find help just outside your door, you are NOT trying. > > As far as the media, I think you probably have rules about checking in > with the university officials first anyway, they are funny about things > like that. Their Public information department will already have all > the answers about where to send out tapes and in what format the > stations want it. Unless it's a bloody murder or soemthing liek the > zapruder film, DV mini tapes do not cut it with TV stations. They will > want NTSC betacamSP, DVCpro, DVcam, or digital betacam. This means you > will have to at some point interface with a media department person to > get your master tape converted to the proper distribution format. Why > you seem to be fighting this so hard, I don't know. you got good > advice, you should follow it. > extremely urgent nature, I wanted to know if it would be acceptable to use a PAL camera - given that I already had it, knew it worked well, and could download/edit from it quickly. However, I was concerned about the quality, which is why I originally asked "Does software conversion do [PAL conversion] okay?" and "Does that do [PAL converion] with good results?". Given the negative feedback, I made sure that we did get a NTSC camera. In fact, given the comments regarding tv stations not converting from one to the other, we have in fact submitted both PAL and NTSC versions. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post, but the footage was requested by a journal (you can probably narrow down the possibilities to two). The probability it will be used by the media is around 1%. Even then, we are talking about 5 seconds of footage that will be shown with a voiceover. Hence, it would be silly to spend weeks preparing the footage. Instead, we wanted to spend less than a day on it, but still wanted to make the results as good as possible given the limited time - hence the original post. Don't get the joke about a videographer wanted to do a rat study. If I had put a post up saying "I want to produce a film that people will sit in a cinema for 2 hours to watch and I also want it to be nominated for an academy award. I want to know how to film it so it looks professional but don't want to read up about lighting, camera direction, etc." However, we were simply providing some footage that was asked for by the journal, but wanted to make the result as reasonable as possible given the extermely tight deadline we were given. I don't see what is wrong with admitting ignorance and asking experts for their advice.
Show quote
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post, but the footage was Well, since it was my joke I'll try to clear things up.> requested by a journal (you can probably narrow down the possibilities > to two). The probability it will be used by the media is around 1%. Even > then, we are talking about 5 seconds of footage that will be shown with > a voiceover. Hence, it would be silly to spend weeks preparing the > footage. Instead, we wanted to spend less than a day on it, but still > wanted to make the results as good as possible given the limited time - > hence the original post. > > Don't get the joke about a videographer wanted to do a rat study. If I > had put a post up saying "I want to produce a film that people will sit > in a cinema for 2 hours to watch and I also want it to be nominated for > an academy award. I want to know how to film it so it looks professional > but don't want to read up about lighting, camera direction, etc." > However, we were simply providing some footage that was asked for by the > journal, but wanted to make the result as reasonable as possible given > the extermely tight deadline we were given. I don't see what is wrong > with admitting ignorance and asking experts for their advice. Your query was pretty specific. You specifically wanted to produce footage of a quality commensurate with NETWORK BROADCAST standards. You wanted to do that quickly with a minimal investment in either gear or learning. As it appears you discovered, that's very difficult to achieve. Put simply, it's not the equipment that makes good video - it's the BRAIN of the person using the equipment. (Precisely as it's not the rats nor the maze construction that yields qualified scientific results in quality scientific study... it's the BRAINS of the people running, interpereting, assembling and analyzing the data that is generated thereby.) If you'd begged, borrowed or cajoled someone with video expertise to shoot your study - and the resulting footage was a) visually interesting and b) linked to a study that was intrinsically interesting to a wide audience of lay people - I'd wager that your 1% chance of getting extra press and promotional value from the whole exercise might have improved by orders of magnitude. That's all I was trying to point out. Sorry you missed the irony. But coming to a group where many people make their livings by producing professional video and assuming that by gathering a few quick tips you can simply "do it yourself" - kinda devalues the decades of experience that many of us here have devoted to learning how to do this stuff well. Don't you think? Anyway, best of luck in your study. On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:34:07 -0800, Mark <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post, but the footage was No, you weren't clear enough. You said:>requested by a journal (you can probably narrow down the possibilities >to two). The probability it will be used by the media is around 1%. Even >then, we are talking about 5 seconds of footage that will be shown with >a voiceover. Hence, it would be silly to spend weeks preparing the >footage. Instead, we wanted to spend less than a day on it, but still >wanted to make the results as good as possible given the limited time - >hence the original post. "We are in a university department, and want to produce some good video of rats performing a task - good enough for the media." You asked the wrong question so you got the wrong answer. We're used to this from the general public, and anticipate having to delve under the surface to find the real question. (Or, being Usenet, we revel in answering the literal question and slagging off the questioner:-) But a university scientist should know better. Shame on you!
Show quote
"Mark" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message Hi Mark,news:ds30u5$1ct$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu... > Hi, > > We are in a university department, and want to produce some good video of > rats performing a task - good enough for the media. > > We are planning on using a mini-dv camera (that's the format they want). > > There are a number of concerns: > > * I know that lighting is critical, particularly when there is only > artificial light available. Since this will be a one-off, we don't want to > buy lights. What would the best lights be to use that we have hanging > around. Are incandescent lights okay? What about fluros? Perhaps a > combination of both? I think the lab is lit with fluros, but we can > probably supplement this with globes. Are there particular incandescent > globes that give good light for video? > > * We are thinking of using a PAL camera, and then converting to NTSC. Does > software conversion do this okay? We do currently have Adobe Premiere. > Does that do it with good results? Any recommendations for other software, > hopefully free? > > * The camera can record in both interlaced and progressive scan. Should we > use interlaced given that the footage might be broadcast? Or do the tv > networks now prefer progressive? I work as cameraman/editor for "the media", and here are my suggestions. Good fluorescent lighting is fine, if rather boring. Basically you are OK with that. Don't bother with lights, especially if you are going to be shooting from different angles. Mixed fluorescent/incandescent lighting is generally bad, because of the difference in color temps. Do NOT shoot on PAL--most stations (especially in the US) can only handle NTSC. Any PAL footage they get is generally converted prior to being uplinked or sent. Conversion from PAL to NTSC is much worse than conversion from NTSC to PAL, as motion-interpolated frames have to be created in the conversion, resulting in loss of resolution and jerky moves. Good conversion is very expensive. Software, such as Canopus ProCoder, will convert, but it is pretty basic, and the program is not anywhere near free. There must be thousands of miniDV NTSC cams on campus. Use one. In addition you will have flicker problems using fluorescent lighting in the USA (60 Hz) with PAL (50 Hz). For TV use interlaced, not progressive. HTH, Toby  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics