>Unfortunately the video projection is reflected light and the performer is >in direct light (not to mention the differences in color temperature >between the video projector and the stage lighting). Our eyes and brains >can adjust for this disparity but the camera does not. The video projection >will not appear to be in "true" color once it is shot, it will appear to >have lost intensity as well. Usually this is accepted in viewing a live >performance with video projection. If your project is for broadcast or >other special needs, you would need to shoot on blue or green screen and >composite. > >jdm > >><<The image is not strong enough on >>account of the side lighting on the body of the dancer in front. That >>is to say that the camera can have the body clear but in doing so >>adjusts on this and then is not sensitive enough for the background. >> >> >>But I imagine that the edge of the dancer is also washed out. The problem is >>certainly partially that the automatic exposition on your camera is >>automatic. And unfortunately only very costly cameras have a true manual > >control. > > > >David > > >John D. Mitchell Arizona State University p. 480.965.2709 f. >480.965.2247 I would agree that this is the only way to get really high level results. However, the danger here is to have a clean artificial result, ie:retro- image too good. Simple to set the retro projector on blue background as it is a standard screen waiting option, and so blue key is a jiffy - I've done it with a television. But a retro projector throws forward a large quantity of light considering the large surface and there would be danger of blue light leaking on the th subjects contours thus causing the fuzzy edges thing. But most important for me would seem to be to have a sense of realness that the subject and background belonging to the same space has. Before doing the creation of "Les Entrailles de Narcisse" this winter (the piece with the 3mx6m rear projection), we did a few days of laboratory and then in NetDays Europe in November 2000, performed an improvised live version (ie: video and music in live impro too). We stuck a fixed triccd consumer Sony in the audience. In fact the result was very convincing. The retro projection was really quite clear as well as the dancer in front. Perfectly usable, good testimony of the event. The difference in the parameters in regards to the captation of the finished version of the show and the tryout are: in final version the screen is dark anthracite vinyl, it is 6mx3m, the projector (1300 lumens) sends first backwards to a huge inclined mylar mirror (270cmx135cm) before being reflected front towards screen, side lighting on two levels and at times from both sides at once / in the tryout the screen is light grey vinyl, it was 4mx3m, the projector was 800 lumens and sent the image directly towards screen without mirror, lighting was very, very faint as only a handful of instruments in a tight space ie: 1 side light, a couple high diagonals, and some fronts, all kept low so not to wash out scree, (there was a white floor as well!). For each to reflect upon the importance of the differences. In the end one succeeded by chance and the other didn't. My conclusion is that it is possible to have a good captation if one works out the balance, and it will be the real thing in the same space. Better for honest representation of stage work, less impressive as an autonomous video work. Bud -- TANDEM asbl/Bud Blumenthal 58 rue de la Lys 1080 Brussels, Belgium tel:32/2/424 35 24 fx: 32/2/425 89 39 http://users.skynet.be/bud-dance/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02