Shooting Style

Dear Forum,
Do those TV reality shows have a predefined shot list when recording, are the shots or compositions pre-planned or its just a case where they have several cameras and then take the best shot in post later? Just want to know since i've been increasing my studies on compositions and cinematography.

I would think that most are "scripted," at least to some extent (probably much more so, than the producers would like for the audience to think), and since the "competitions" are set up, the director can sort of guess where interesting stuff will happen, and set cameras there.
Rod (Able123) would probably be a good person to comment, as I think that he has been a grip on some "reality" shows.
I doubt that they just video everything, from multiple angles, and then edit the cinema verite footage, as they would have 100's of hours to go through. It would be like Rod's Elephant Hunt video - walk though brush, stop and listen, walk through brush, stop and look around, walk through brush, stop and scratch, walk through brush, etc., etc., etc. Or perhaps Andy Warhol's Sleep.
Just my thoughts,
Hunt

Similar Messages

  • 3d shooter

    Hi
    I'm relatively new to java 3d and have the mamoth task of creating a basic 3d shooter in java 3d. Can any one help me with ideas or places where i can find easy to understand open source for a 3d shooter style game.

    There is a 3d shooter applet at http://www.brackeen.com/home/scared/ . There also used to be one at http://hem.passagen.se/carebear/fraggame.htm . That doesn't work anymore, but maybe you could find an email address there somewhere to contact someone who knows. It used to be a nice applet.
    None of those are open source, as far as I know, but they give you a hint of what performance is to be expected.

  • Issues and suggestions

    There are some features missing from EOS 60D while the one worked ia my old 450D.
    The first one is for all Canon cameras, the other really a downgrade from my EOS 450D.
    a) Set Shooting style to M, set ISO to Auto ISO, set aperture to e.g. f8 and Shutter speed to e.g. 1/200. THERE'S NO WAY to over/under expose (setting EV to - or +), only bracketing is possible. Nikon cameras can do this! Can this be done via a firmware upgrade?
    b) There's an LCD diplay on top of the camera that lights on when pressing the light button next to it. When taking long exposures in Bulb mode you can't make out what the LCD panel says unless you light it with other means (if you don't want to move the camera at all). In EOS 450D the meter was showing in the rear screen. Can this also be done for 60D?
    Now picture these as requested features:
    c) Set a minimum shutter speed (e.g. 1/60 sec), fixed or Auto ISO selectable, fixed aperture e.g. f8 (like in AV mode) or automatic selectable. Numbers should blink if correct exposure cannot be achieved with the settings. Shutter speed can be variable from e.g. 1/60 and faster.  This is more useful than another custom mode.
    d) In addition: set a maximum aperture number (actually a narrower aperture) e.g. f11, fixed or Auto ISO selectable, fixed shutter speed or automatic selectable. Numbers should blink if correct exposure cannot be achieved with the settings. Aperture value can be variable from e.g. f11 and lower.
    e) If you can do the above easily, then can you try and let the user set an upper and lower value for Aperture Value and Shutter speed in which the user can operate the camera (used for best quality images).
    These features are very useful when shooting quality images and you know lens and light limits.
    f) Digital Photo Professional should be updated with better sharpening algorithms. This is really a joke!! Even Nikon has a top RAW decoder for thei cameras! Come one, you are losing customers over such issues!!

    i couldn't agree more with the above
    as a programmer i can say that all those settings mentioned can be easily create in a firmware upgrade.
    Nikon cameras offer a ton of features like the above
    Magic Latern hack also offers many things
    why canon policies are limited to such features? is it really difficult to create a proper bulb indicator or a minimum speed setting?
    the digital photo professional is really weak. The sharpening methods and the exposure/highlight/shadows settings are far behind the competition such as lightroom.
    I don't understand why...
    I gotta admit, if i were a new customer i wouldn't choose canon. Nikon offers much more features in software both cameras and computer editing software even if it costs more.. Canon doesn't seem to provide something similar and makes cameras less attractive to new photographers.

  • Working with Super-8

    Hey everyone,
    Just wondering if anyone has experience working with Super-8 in Final Cut? I'm looking to get a camera and the only thing thats putting me off is that it seems a quite expensive process to digitise 8mm for use with FCP.
    Does anyone else work in this medium? and if so, how have you found the digitisation process?
    Alternatively, does anyone know if there is a way to create this effect using filters etc or any software???
    Any advice, general chat would be really appreciated
    Cheers
    Matty

    Also :
    Shooting on film as opposed to video and using effects is superior in many aspects. A few are, film exhibits no color compression, it is true progressive, on higher end super 8 cameras you can up your framerate to 72fps (which only VERY expensive digital cameras can do), produces a random grain pattern image that sees light like your eye sees light. There is NO substitute for film. Period.
    It's debated on whether or not super 8 is worth scanning at 1080P. I say it is, as do many experts, because though the silver halide grain pattern is slightly lower than HD quality, you must consider the pattern from frame to frame. At 24fps, the random grain pattern produces stunningly crisp images that are on par with 16mm these days. Film technology has come a LONG way since the 70s. You be the judge. Go look at film scanned in HD. I can see the difference.
    There are a TON of ways to telecine (scan) footage. You can use an old projector and point your video camera at it (lame cause it flickers). You can use a MovieStuff telecine (which works great for reversal film), or you can send it to a good place to transfer. Some places use a true HD scanner... and these can cost a LOT. 500 bucks/hour of telecine. OR, some places oversample in SD and give you a resulting HD scan. This is 1/2 the price and is about 95% of true HD quality. Not a bad ratio and saves a lot of cash.
    Do some homework, join some communities, and do your own thing. Opinions are like ********. See what works best for you, but you'll spend some cash learning. I sure did.. but I prefer to shoot film. You'll see the difference in your product... your shooting style and your storyboarding. It's a cleaner way to work since you have to keep things tight! Film aint cheap... but the end product is mesmerizing.

  • A bit more pondering...

    Here's a reply from a previous post of mine that has now been locked.
    "Well it does (and not so well). You can export files to any output color space meaning any CMYK profile you have installed on your Mac. Not different from Photoshop expect you have NO control over rendering intent, you don’t have half the necessary soft proof options, the sharpening isn’t very useful and you end up with a file sized at 72ppi. IOW, Aperture tries to do some prepress work (it involves itself with CMYK) but does it in a crippled way compared to Photoshop. So unless I’m misunderstanding your definition of “prepress”, Aperture is making the attempt but not in a very robust way.
    If that were not the case, they would only allow rendering and encoding into a few RGB working spaces like Adobe Camera RAW (something based on the above comments they probably should have done)."
    OK... here's my rant...
    Leave the prepress work to Illustrator, InDesign or Quark. Have you ever delivered a Photoshop file to a professional print shop and have the technician/craftsman scream at you. I'm sure all those print pros just loved it when all the advertising agencies, magazines, graphic design firms fired or laid off their prepress/production artists and dumped all that work on to us photographers!
    I can just hear those ad execs saying... "Hey look, photographers use Photoshop, let's make them do all the work! We'll save money by laying off whole departments of people, and hey... ya' know, those photographers won't charge us for the extra work we're gonna make them do! Yippee... free money!"
    The print shop pros just shook their heads, broke out the bottles of whiskey and cringed every time we walked into their doors and begged them to give us an education on how to set up digital files for offset printing.
    End of rant...
    What Aperture should do and does, is offer us a way to print our images and by far (this is a big assumption I'm making) most of us print to ink-jet or some sort of direct digital print made at a professional photolab. These prints are made from RGB files, not CMYK files.
    As far as the 72ppi export, who cares what your ppi is. As long as you don't change the pixel dimension, you can make the ppi anything you want. Why did Apple choose 72ppi, who knows, only they do and it doesn't matter.
    Ranting about to begin again....
    My whole point is that Photoshop is the real crippled application here. And I hope that Aperture doesn't become one also. Why does Adobe give me kerning in Photoshop? Huh... really why do I need kerning in Photoshop? Why does Photoshop allow me to choose how to set up a block of text in a paragraph and allow me to center it, justify it right or left. Why do I need to have a pen tool to allow me to make paths and cut out a portion of the image and paste it into/onto another image? A slice tool? An extract tool, swatches... oh yeah... gotta love those! All those prepress/production tools... man I tell you, they really help me run my business of taking pictures and moving them out the door to make room for the next client coming tomorrow morning. Boy and how!
    Some time ago, in about 1993 or 1994 when Photoshop was a 3.0, a little company put out a nifty little Photoshop plugin called... Collage? (I think that was the name, if I'm wrong, will someone please correct me) This plugin allowed Photoshop to have layers and you could in a very real sense create excellent composites in a very easy manner. The first person who told me about this was a graphic designer, not a photographer, and he was unbelievably excited about this! Adobe soon released Photoshop 3.5 with built in layers and the entire commercial art industry went bananas! Everyone loved it, still loves it and I do too!
    So Adobe started building Photoshop to play nice with art directors and graphic designers. And it still plays nice with photographers too. But don't you just wish that Adobe could've made Photoshop just for us photographers. You can't blame them, they gave us what the market asked for. And to be honest... the digital photography revolution didn't really start until just a few years ago. How could they have know this 10, 12 or ahhh... 3 years ago when we were all still shooting film.
    So... again I believe that Aperture is one of the first attempts at creating a complete digital photography workflow solution and I believe that Apple has truly done their homework, paid attention to the way most of us work and given us a product that truly shines.
    PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800 GT, 600GB RAID

    Robert,
    I think Aperture is pretty incredible for wedding work! It's not perfect but it's the best I've used for my workflow and my camera/shooting style are apparently well suited to its RAW processing.
    Sam

  • Save develop settings as default import

    Jim Hess wrote in a post the other day
    'In my case, I chose to adjust one of my images that closely represents my "normal" shooting style. I adjusted everything until that image looked the way I wanted it to look. Then I saved those settings as my default settings.'
    I tried to do this save this morning instead of using the develop preset within the import session
    I went up into the Develop menu and clicked on 'Set Default Settings'. An ominous message arrives including the ISO used, camera # type....hmmmm.....I think I have been here before.....and  previously I backed out and went with import presets.
    Is this "Set Default Settings' menu choice the procedure for imbedding the basic adjustments desired at import? I have the preferences set to include 'make default specific to the Camera Iso setting' so does the preference setting override the 'make this the default' when I'm on a specific image which happens to have an ISO 400?
    Rose

    Save the adjustment to an Image Adjustment Preset.  You can then apply the Preset (even on import, if you want).
    Note that for RAW files, you can also alter the settings in the RAW Fine Tuning Brick, and save them as a default that is always applied to files from your camera.
    Do you have a hardware-calibrated monitor?  If you are making exposure decisions based on sight, it is important that you are correcting to a standard (calibration calibrates your monitor to a standard) and not wasting your time correcting for out-of-standard devices.

  • Camera Profiles with a Nikon D5200

    As from my other threads today, I'm just learning Lightroom and trying to figure things out. 
    I am shooting with a D5200 and am able to import the raw (NEF) files into Lightroom just fine.  I'm thinking that my "Camera Profile" is not being applied to the files correctly because they look really different compared to the JPEG's that are shot.  I've tried to go into the "Developer" section and change the "Camera Profile" around from something other than Adobe Standard, but the colors still don't look right.
    How do I know which Camera Profile is being applied to the raw photos if the only thing that Lightroom shows is a generic "Adobe Standard", "Camera Standard", Vivid, etc.
    Thanks!

    Just to be clear, Lightroom does NOT choose ANY profile for raw images from ANY camera. YOU have to choose the profile that you want. Lightroom cannot/does not read that information from the file. Lightroom does NOT use the camera model number as criteria for which profile to use. YOU make that choice. If you find that you use one profile more than others, YOU can change your default settings for your camera to use that profile as a starting point. The profiles provided by Adobe are designed to emulate the camera settings. But they are not intended to be something to use for ultimate results. They are a starting point from which you make other adjustments to get the results you are looking for.
    When shooting raw/JPEG the JPEG images may look warmer because they are affected by the in-camera processing. If you find that you consistently need to make your images warmer, make that adjustment along with other adjustments that you want to be standard or automatic, and then make them part of your default settings by saving new default settings.
    The default settings which you determine should provide you with a generally acceptable starting point for most of your images. However, you should expect to make individual adjustments as required to get the results you are looking for.
    After reading my response I realize I need to make one clarification. Lightroom DOES look at the camera make and model and then allows you to choose from the profiles that were created for that camera. However Lightroom does not choose a profile by itself. While it's true that Adobe Standard is the profile that seems to be the "default" profile, that can be changed to match your shooting style.
    If you decide to set camera defaults, you can make those settings camera serial number-specific, or ISO-specific if that is what you feel you need. So far, I haven't found it necessary to go that far. However, I have created my own set of defaults which includes camera profile, white balance, sharpening and noise reduction settings that I find optimal for my camera.

  • Camera calibration 'V4' profiles Nikon D700

    Hello, I have a question about the camera calibration panel. I'm using a Nikon D700. In the profile list of the camera calibration panel I'm seeing for example 'Camera Standard' but also 'Camera Standard V4'. I'm confused about which one to use the best. Because if the 'Camera Standard V4' is a newer version, why is the 'Camera Standard' profile also still there?

    Any profile that is listed is there to be used. It's up to your personal taste and your shooting style to determine which profile is "best". I don't have that camera and I don't have different versions of profiles. It would be reasonable to assume that a version 4 would be improved. That sometimes happens with new cameras. But the only way to determine which is going to be the best for your images is to try them both and decide. There is no right or wrong profile to use. The right profile to use is the one that gives you the best results.

  • I want to add smooth transitions without freeze frames?

    I usually edit wedding videos with various short clips.  I want to be able to add default transitions to all of the clips at once.  When I do add transitions to all most clips have freeze frames. I've heard about handles, and having enough frames for the transitions but my clips are already as
    short as they need to be.  I do not want to have to crop each clip.  I want to have transitions run between clips not at the start of the 2nd clip.  I've used pinnacle before and the transitions are always in between clips.  So i am wondering if there is an easier way to set up transitions. 

    I would also suggest  change your shooting style if you intend to use transitions or have flexibiltiy for your edits.
    They are full clips. As shot. I only shoot what I need and I can't afford to crop from what I already have.
    In my opinion its impossible to shoot exactly the duration required  with the exception of animation / stop motion...  and be able to pace and structure an edit.
    Especially a Wedding video which is basically a documentary on the wing!

  • 3 seconds of lost at the start of each stages

    i shoot a short film, and i pause and record my video between stages.
    when i load my video to final cut pro, the firt 3seconds of each stages is not there. what can i do ?

    Use a baseband capture device like a Matrox MXO2 or similar ... just take the digital or analog video output from the camera (HDMI, Component or whatever) and capture from that.
    And do as Jim says ... right now the real problem is your shooting style.

  • Digital camera help Nikon L100?

    Hi all,
    I am looking for a digital camera that takes really fast pictures.  I have come across this but not sure if it will do what I want.  I am willing to spend what it takes to have a camera that can keep up with my Grandson's fast actions and smiles. My Olympus C-740 Ultrazoom is just not doing the trick, I am missing out on some nice shots.  Thanks in advance,
    ~Joan 

    It sounds like your complaint is shutter lag?  Or is it power-on time?
    I would suggest looking at reviews at places like dpreview.com for cameras that have low shutter lag.
    Unfortunately, most point-and-shoot style cameras suffer from very bad shutter lag.  Even the best in the category can't compete with even a low-end Digital SLR (DSLR) type camera in this regard.  The problem with DSLRs is that while they're a lot better for action photography (low shutter lag, fast turn-on), they're very large.  A DSLR will simply not fit into your pocket, ever.  (Except for maybe a Pentax K-M with a DA40 pancake lens and a VERY large pocket such as that found on cargo pants.)
    *disclaimer* I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Best Buy, Geek Squad, nor of any of their affiliate, parent, or subsidiary companies.

  • Panasonic HC-X900M HD Camcorder

    I am looking to purchase a new camcorder and have decided on the Panasonic HC-X900M. In the final cut pro x documentation it says the camera is compatible. But it seems like all of the file types it records in are not compatible with final cut pro x but have to be converted - something I have no interest in.
    Does anyone currently use the Panasonic Camera or the Canon HF ÚG10 will work natively with final cut pro x. So I can just go the the import window and import footage right from the camera?
    Thank you.

    Which brand you choose is down to the colour and do you like how the controls work. Actually do a hands on test drive of your short list of cams. Most of the flagship models are excellent as the competion is tight.
    I use a Panasonic 750 (similar model but older than 900) and it's a sweet piece of gear, actually amazing considering the size and picture quality.
    The top end models have features that require reading and understanding the manual.
    This will make your shooting improve well above the "point and shoot" style. I must say that the point and shoot method using this camera is light years ahead of stuff in use just a few years back, it's nearly goof proof.
    The only criticism I have, and it's personal, is the camera is a bit small for my hand.
    I use an add on attachment that holds an external shotgun mike and the camera that makes it a much better option for me.
    This gadget can be mounted on a tripod as well. My issue solved.
    Al

  • Hot deployment in Weblogic10.3

    Hi,
    Can anyone let me know whether the Hot Deployment process is possible in Weblogic-10.3? We have copied the deployment folder directly to the following location (without creating a WAR) C:\bea\user_projects\domains\my_domains\autodeploy folder? Unable to trace the solution to this through google. Thanks in advance..
    Regards,
    Shiva
    Edited by: 855259 on Apr 28, 2011 12:25 AM

    Nicola Ciancaglini wrote:
    Ok, I've read and searched a lot about the hot pixels issue in Aperture 3 in this and other forums. So I am now convinced Aperture does not deal with hot pixels very well or as well as other applications.
    I don't know where the alleged "hot pixels" information comes from. I do not believe that this is some kind of documented issue. One or two alleged observations by random folks does not define a real issue.
    Although there are other forums that discuss Aperture this forum is a major one. If the regulars here have not been seeing hot pixels it is very unlikely to be the real issue that you imply.
    I would not say that you have not seen hot pixels but I will say that to the extent that you have it is almost assuredly a rare single-user issue: an anomaly on an individual app, an individual camera, individual lens, or in an individual OS implementation.
    To troubleshoot test another Aperture setup somewhere, like at a store.
    Note too that what are described as "hot pixels" might actually be one of the forms of noise, which is a whole discussion of its own. Noise usually comes from overextending a given camera's low light capabilities. Aperture does have available noise reduction methods as do many other apps. +Noise Ninja+ is perhaps the best and is available as an Aperture plug-in for those with particularly noisy cameras or shooting styles.
    -Allen

  • Suggestion: "Previous" to copy only a subset of adjustments

    The "Previous" button is a fantastic time-saver. Part of what makes it so is that it copies intelligently from the previous image -- i.e., parametric adjustments are copied, but local adjustments (like spot healing) are not.
    I've always wished that Crop would be among the settings not copied from the previous image -- but this could be argued either way, depending on one's individual shooting style.
    In LR3, with the addition of Lens Corrections, I find the need to control what gets copied using Previous is now more pressing. The current behavior of Previous includes Lens Correction settings -- and for a shoot produced using several camera bodies with differing lenses, this behavior is counter-productive.
    The workaround is to use the Metadata filter to select all images for a given lens, and work on them sequentially. As workarounds go, it's not too bad, but certainly not optimal.
    So, in a future release, I'd really like to have the ability to select which parameters get included in the action of the Previous button.

    Jonathon,
    Yes, that's the function I wish to have -- but the Previous button accomplishes this function so much quicker and easier than manual copy & paste.
    I'm hoping to see a feature introduced by which the dialog box which results from ctrl-shift-C can be applied to the Previous button in a sticky fashion.

  • Vixia M40 or R52 or R62 for shooting yourself writing in the style of Vi Hart?

    I want to write in pencil on a piece of lined looseleaf paper (i.e., school paper) with a camcorder overhead filming me write.  I want it to be crystal clear and readable, what I'm writing.
    Vi Hart posts similar videos on YouTube although she uses a sharpie.  She said that she uses a Vixia M40.  Since they're discontinued is an R52 or R62 sufficient for the same task?  Do either of these models supersede the M40?
    Thank you.
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    I don't know what the replacement for the Vixia M40 is but the R62 and R52 have smaller image sensors than the M40.  However to find a Canon camcorder the the same size image sensor as the M40 will cost about $450 more (Canon Vixia HF G20).  I did see one (M40) that claims to be new and in the box on Amazon for about the price (with shipping) as the R62 and R52.  The larger image size will be better in low-light situations.  However, if you have adequate lighting then either the R62 or R52 should work.  From what I could find the specs for those are nearly identical.  You can look at the specs and see which one is best for you.  I saw one of the videos you are talking about and noticed how the scene is well lit.

Maybe you are looking for