The good thing about working in motion along with stills is we work so much cleaner. Much less of the "we'll fix it in post syndrome", because even though the motion segments
can be fixed in post, really great (not good but great) motion post work costs somewhere close to bailing out Greece.
It pains me to say it but V5 is excellent for the Phase backs. I say pains, because I loved V3 and really didn't like V4 as it was heavy and about as stable as Mel Gibson.
V5 seems to have changed all of that because we've shot thousands and thousands of frames with few restarts, usually the only glitch is when the phase batteries go down.
This week went from the p30+ to the p21+ in the same session seamlessly and the same settings applied to the files and they were almost indistinguishable.
I think one of the reasons we have so few crashes is one of our capture computers is the last generation fw400 macbookpro, vs the clamshell version which makes
you use an 800 to 400 convertor.
But, back to V5, with just a few minutes of fine tuning, you can get a unique look and it applies to every capture as it comes in so what the client, model, crew sees on the
computer is the look we're after.
It raises the good vibes and cuts out the conversation of don't worry we'll fix it in post.
Though if you really want to work post, you always have that option, but that's why they made photoshop.
JR
P.S. the female Jeans Image will go through post work for some basic cleanup, though what somebody said was banding is
just heavy jpeg compression.
I think this is a very important observation from James Russell about the movie impact.
I'm not sure we measure the full impact of video, at least in commercial photography.
IMO James put here an important factor.
Video forces in a way to "come back to analogic times" in the way of working, lightening quite a lot the photoshop interventions in pp.
But what's coming, and not sure if it will be Red or any other brand (I bet again that Canon will do the homeworks fast), is simply a revolution:
When movies will allow us to extract stills to a exploitable resolution, this will means the end of the traditional camera, at least, I repeat, for commercial works.
And photographers will have to get it in the shooting more than in the post prod, wich also means that a very good artistic knowledge and experience will be required.
Less photoshop. Much cleaner and more demanding skills.
We are also seeing the same things and the Russell's point is exactly our conclusions to.
Video as entered from a discrete door so far, but no doubt it is going to grow. Because while you are filming a movie, the stills will be contained in it, and to a frame/second
unmatchable with current cameras. This will have tremendous consequences in sport, fashion etc...
At that rate, you can't miss the shot, but what can be missed is an average lightening or unplanified and the role of the make-up artist, the stylist etc... will be more important.
The consequences will also be enormous with the progressive death of Flash because interactivity (required by the agency in web projects etc...) will be based on movies.
Something that we noticed also is that some models somewhat "too static" for stills (too much the same attitude) are working perfectly fine in video and vice-versa. The choice of the models will also be
affected by that fact in the sense that those generally unexperienced models will be able to do videos more successfuly.
Checking the making of a session with such a model 5 days ago confirmed again that fact.
The very close future commercial photographer will be someone with a video camera. Sorry if you find this idea crazy, ridiculous or extravagant but that is going to happen, like it or not.
So yes, "for the non retoucher" is something to integrate right now, IMO.
Ps: Frank, your strobes fooled me! I had an HMI that has been lost in France that looked exactly the same
