| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
mbueno
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:15 am
|
 |
|
| billyarnie wrote: | | Forgive me for my impatience, but the con ended Sunday & Tuesday morning we still don't have a Day 3 report and/or wrapup. |
I would've copied the whole message since this addresses the rest of it too, but I wanted to keep this to a quick reply.
The short version of this answer is that we got plenty of the kind of footage you mentioned you wanted to see from the "man-on-the-street" perspective, as well as a metric crapton of other footage...including surplus footage that we were never formally asked to shoot, so no doubt the delay is a result of that.
Hope this helps answer your question! 
-Mario
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 05 Jan 2002
Posts: 7912
Location: Anime News Network Technodrome
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:05 pm
|
|
|
| theBear wrote: | |
Are you suggesting there's something wrong with someone feeling strongly enough about a subject to join a forum and contribute to the discussion? I offered my credentials since they seem so vital to your acceptance of posts. |
Again, I think you're overreacting and also taking offense where there isn't any to be taken, but I will clarify my statements.
Of course we welcome all comments from everyone, regardless of their experience or whatever. That's not what the issue was; I didn't mean to infer or imply that you need a Ph.D in whatever the topic is in order to comment.
My point was, simply, that I felt his very extensive and very critical comments were coming across as excessively nitpicky and a little condescending, so I asked him what his experience was in video production. A little out of line? Perhaps, so I apologize for that, and Okina and I have settled the matter over PM.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
xembryox
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:24 pm
|
|
|
nice, and little by little you'll improve your presentations and the fluency on the show.
keep it up! 
seems like a lot of people here is getting impacient, c'mon! give 'em a chance to polish all the details.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:07 pm
|
|
|
| jsevakis wrote: |
| Quote: | | The set looked good, but one glaring problem though. What's with the set monitor with no vision on it? Should have had at least the ANN logo on it. Was that a technical problem? also it needed to have its cables dress out of shot better as well. Gaffer Tape!
Can't sort it? Remove it. |
Yeah. that was the original intent, but the screen was too bright for the rest of the environment, and it was too bright to be usable. Oh well. Best laid plans...
 |
Yes I did notice that you didn't use any extra lighting, just the ambient light in the area, which is fine but a couple of red heads ( lamps, not girls) on either side would have helped highlight the presenters and your set a bit better, but it worked fine anyway. As for the vision in the monitor, did you have a different graphic for that monitor? Because your opening title graphics were dark enough that they could have been great in that light. Put on a disc and played out of a simple DVD player on repeat would have given it that little bit extra. Also a slice of 1/4, or 1/2 ND gel across the screen would have reduced the brightness if you couldn't reduce it by adjusting the brightness and contrast controls. you can get it by the roll from "Leefilters.com". Another way is to get a device we call a "colour corrector", or Legalizer". It's a box you plumb into the signal in the middle of source and destination and then you can adjust the individual RGB, hue, contrast, brightness and sharpness of any visual display. I believe your Radio Shack/Tandy use to sell them for cheap analogue domestic use, which we have a couple in a few of our studios and they work a treat for fudging the colour temp of a monitor to make it look correct on camera. There are digital SDI versions too, but for more money.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
