"nappy" <joseft_nospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:kx%fb.9582$Fd5.9361@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message

> news:blo00e$f1q$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...

 

> > > > "Dynamic Video"  wrote ...

> > > > > I want to use the xl1 as the main camera, but the pictures

> > > > > don't match, I'm white blancing on a warm card and all

> > > > > in the same light but the xl1 still looks warmer and richer

> > > > > then the gl1s any suggestion or should I just wait till post

> > > > > and fix it there?

 

> > > "David Ruether"  wrote ...

> > > > Do it in post - it is both easier and better (after doing the best

> > > > you can on-site...). For a multi-camera Premiere edit example

> > > > with several different model cameras, see:

> > > > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm

> > > > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera2.htm.

 

> > "Richard Crowley"  wrote ...

> > > Or experiment with different white-balance cards?

> > > "I'm balancing with a warm card...it still looks warmer."

> > > See the problem here?

> > >

> > > It is possible that you are working on a long-form project

> > > and/or lack real-time video manipulation, or have  slow

> > > computer in which case doing it in post will take days of

> > > rendering. Evaluate your options and apply common sense.

 

> > Even when rendering all of a 2-hour video on a 450MHz PC,

> > including not only color balancing, but gamma, brightness

> > and contrast adjustments, rendering Mini-DV would likely

> > take less than 1/2 day (possibly a LOT less...). A faster

> > machine would of course cut this time further, as would not

> > needing to render all of the footage (as when one camera is

> > "correct", and the footage from the others is modified to

> > match it). Also, there is no need to modify all of the raw

> > footage before the rest of the edit is finished (so only the

> > footage used needs to be modified...).

 

> yeah... and everyone has a half day to spare.... Much smarter not to pay any

> attention to details while you are shooting and try to fix it in post...

 

Uh, you overlooked (as usual...;-) this line in my earliest post,

"after doing the best you can on-site", which, for your benefit,

means "adjust the cameras for best match - but you will probably

benefit from doing further adjustments in post" - and my whole

post just above yours here. Not *really* difficult - really!...;-)

.

> I suspect David has never really gone through complete post on anything.

 

More nonsense from "nappy"...;-) You suspect wrong - I have

completed many 2-hour+ videos, and over 50 frame-grabs from

one of them appear here (though, as usual, you will probably not

bother to look before spouting more nonsense...):

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wedding-video2.html and 3 and 4.

Can you show us the results of your work? Or will you continue

this silly "dump on David" posting? Was it something I did?

Like declare your "fav" camcorder not the best buy in its class?

I suspect nappy doesn't know how to image-match different

camcorder models - which can be better and more accurately

done in post since there are more image controls available

there. And, in a long edit, one more half-day for a good matching

of the cameras is nothing (and there *are* other things one

can do while waiting...;-), but nothing in the OP's post mentions

the speed of the computer in use - it's render speed may be a

total non-issue, for all we know...

 --

  David Ruether

  d_ruether@hotmail.com

  http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com