There are a lot of tweaks being done to correct the “purple haze” or “green funk” from LED’s but the lights do not have correct colorspace conformity to meet the increasing sensitivity of HD and large sensor formats. The color dimensions are untrue along lines that our color correct system (magenta/green) do no reflect. It is subtle stuff until the light is cold or just not good (Lite Panels are the worst). I’ve talked to Philips and Osram and they are engineering lights for architectural uses that will meet film criteria eventually.

If you are not seeing lighting variations, or haven’t noticed how pink Diva lights are, or haven’t mixed 3 sources in a shot and found each one off in a different direction then none of this matters because you are not shooting something that anyone cares how it looks or you are color blind. PS your meter will not accurately reflect an LED’s color value because it is not a spike green or pink like a fluoro.

These days I’d suggest shooting 16×9 when you can, but you crop the 4:3 of the DVX if you need to to get 16:9. Always shoot PROGRESSIVE and definitely real 30p or 24p (advanced) if you can with the vertical detail set to thin for the sharpest image possible. This way the DVX gives you SD images that scale up to HD better than most SD cameras.

Hope that helps,

David.

…anyways, my camera was lost at film school, thanks to my son. I am looking at the DVX 100. I like mini DV. So, here are the questions, even after I read your article. Our next movie will also go to festivals, hoping for a movie release. this movie is a scary film.

1. I read that standard & advance have their advantages. I still am up in the air.
2. How important is HD for this?
3. 16.9 seems to be important for distributing, no? but then it says 4.3, and a studio can stretch it to 16.9. I’m told stretching is no good.
4. 24p is important also, no?

thank you,

firefighter tim andrew
naugatuck, ct [EMAIL AND PHONE HIDDEN]

please email me, it’s best.

Have you seen Call Graph? The transcribe audio for $0.50 per minute.
http://callgraph.biz/
I haven’t tried them yet but I intend to. I think all podcasts should have transcripts. I don’t know how many times I’ve wanted to look something up that I heard but just don’t have the time to listen to the whole podcast again.

http://www.realnetneutrality.org/

But is the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality the real deal? Or is it a fake?

Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole. Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, “do not… apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

Tell the FCC that if it wants to police the Internet, it first needs to demonstrate that it can protect Internet users and innovators by standing up to powerful industry lobbyists. Sign your name here to demand that the copyright-enforcement loophole be removed.