Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RichardSwearinger last won the day on June 24

RichardSwearinger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks. That's very helpful because a C300 II and a 4:4:4-capable recorder is high on my list of candidates.
  2. Do I need to start saving up to buy equipment so I can shoot in 4:4:4 color? Will it make my footage even more fantastic and nuanced? Or are current compression and processing so good that it doesn't make much of a difference anymore? I have zero experience with anything higher than 4:2:2 but I notice that at the high end 4:4:4 12-bit color is always touted as an important step up. The cameras that feature it, like the high-end Sonys, have bitrates of 800mbps so maybe it's not a feature that fits into a typical client workflow, but is it useful for personal or very high end work?
  3. I get quite a few jobs off of www.storyhunter.com but I can only speak as a shooter, I find it pretty seamless, communication is good, and they pay very promptly and that's always nice. If you need someone to shoot in the midwest, this is some of my work.
  4. Richard Basrhart in “He Walked By Night.” That soft light comment is on target. To me the difference seems to be that in film noir, even though the scenes tended toward dark, the cinematographers included the full tonal range of the film in most shots. It’s harder to get that crisp look with LEDs bouncing off muslin. And yes, of course it’s all circular.
  5. This is a theory so come at me if you want, but I always thought "cinematic" lighting was a byproduct of budgets and time constratints. In a movie, everything is rented, props, furniture, and of course lighting equipment. Setting lights also takes money, and time—the more lights you use the more time, more cables, more generators, and more crew the show requires. In response to time and budget pressure, the industry has developed the technique of only lighting what is important to the story. The result is scenes usually have two or three pools of light—rest of the set has to make do with the base exposure which is the standard one or two stops down. The flipside is sitcom TV lighting with its wide banks of lights and reflectors that throw the same light level on everything. That's also a response to budget and time, because once a soundstage is lit, it's lit.
  6. Sorry, I misspoke. I meant 3-chip cameras in general not 3mos or 3ccd. I meant all of them. I’m wondering whether 3-chip cameras provide more image quality per dollar spent than single-chip cameras, especially in the price range of the cameras you named.
  7. I know this will sound insane to most people but there's something I like about the look of video from 3-chip cameras—to me it just looks more solid. And watching clips of older broadcast shows, the picture quality seems to hold its own against footage from single-chip cameras. I'm also interested because it looks like used 3-chip cameras are getting cheaper. My question: For documentary and narrative work can 3-CCD cameras provide better balance between cost and image quality than single-chippers? Assuming I can work around the too-deep depth of field problem do 3-chip cameras offer any real advantages anymore? In particular I'm thinking about ability to withstand abuse in the broadcast chain and YouTube compression, picture quality on viewer's cheap monitors and television sets, and issues like bleed between adjacent colors, artifacting, and overall color deliciousness.
  8. I'm the typical/non-typical sort of news shooter; I was a food editor and writer for about 20 years; first at newspapers then at Better Homes and Gardens magazine. For the last seven years I've been shooting freelance, both video and stills. I still write and if you need something written I can do it better than just about everyone. My showreel www.richardswearinger.com
  • Create New...