Very nice. I always used sliders on OTS dialog scenes to dolly in but I never thought about this kind of application. Plus it added some nice subtle movement to the shots which wasnt jarring at all. It makes a lot of sense and I will definitely try it. Thanks for sharing.
That is correct. My camera, an NX1 records video to h.265 or HEVC and your calculations are generally in that ball park. This being said, it's still a distribution codec, and my guess in the case of this particular Phantom update probably in 8bit.
What the above means in practical terms is that you should get a better image than with h.264, with little gain in file size, if any, which is generally a good thing. As long as you don't push the grade too far. You will also need a hefty computer to decode in real-time the files in any NLE that can accept the format, which is limited. Thankfully the two most popular one do.
The codec shows a lot of potential, but in the shadow of something like Prores, and now Prores RAW, it gets far less development or attention. In fact, even though its made gains recently, it was a major problem when my camera was first released in 2014. No one supported it then.
I have to question why these manufactures continue to only offer distribution codecs fully knowing most of their product consumers are working professionals who would much prefer recording to aquisition formats. My guess is it comes down to liscencing fees. Seems Apple doesn't play nice with everyone.
Soft lighting is not just about making things look "prettier", it's also about getting better rolloff between darker and lighter tones, especially if you dont have a camera with 15 stops of DR. It's also a good way to add ambient dimensionality without looking like diliberate lighting.
This can be seen in the world of 3D rendering. If you've ever seen the difference between regular light sources, and global or ambient occulsion you will understand exactly what I'm trying to articulate. Ambient occulsion produces bounced light and there for brings up shadows, which is very similar to soft lighting, and longer gradient-diffused shadows. I would post examples if I could.
In my view, lighting is everything in cinema.
Or you could stick a 4k Hero in there and skip further hassles of kitting a DSLR/DSLM in those spaces. Also don't have to worry about focal plane.
No offense towards Andy, I actually have been a subscriber to his channel for years, but he never really makes a compelling arguement for handheld as opposed to stabilized, other than convenience. Then he goes on to totally contradict the title of this video by suggesting warp stablizer in post. Huh?
Convenience is the arch nemesis of cinematic. This technique may be great when you're in a run and gun situation but that's more about logistics than "making your films better".
Despite the handheld trend, I believe it should be used sparingly. It can create a great functional asethtic for the right narrative but it's being used way too much and in ways that contradict the narrative.
Filmmakers are getting lazy and relying on convenience way, way too much. There's something to be said for having patience and intention and the older gen cinematographers (I'm not one of them) knew how to stage a scene to great effect.
The shots/video in this example gave me a tense, stressful feeling when the narrative was supposed to be about the magic of a young brewing romance. Contradicting messages imho.
There is no reason in my mind why this scene was better served by the handheld technique as opposed to stablizing the camera. In fact, I would argue the scene/narrative called for more smooth and steady movement, and by the use of warp stabilizer apparently Andy unknowingly agrees.
Sorry Andy. I mean no harm.