The Artist and hi/Her Tool

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I actually have a little bit of dread for the day I have everything at my disposal and on the biggest set of my life. In the back of my head I might be thinking we need to cover this entire city street with silk but I'm not sure if I would be absolutely confident in such a big decision.

 

Or it would be the other way around and I specify 200 sky pans to light a cyc and they tell me I should've used 500!

 

As far as arrogance on set, it's just a quality that people are born with. I mean look at Robert Rodriquez that guy is one step away from setting up the craft services table, cooking the food and serving himself! Then he'll probably yell into a bull horn "Robert we need you on set."

 

Also I'm a person who doesn't particularly like backlight. I once lit a scene in a bedroom where a guy wakes up, sits up, then turns on a bedside lamp. I shot a flooded out 1k through CTB and a silk through the window to hit the background wall (basic moolight) and shillouette the guy as he sat up and reached for the lamp. When he flicks the lamp on (out of frame) I just switched on a warmed up 2 bank Kino with opal. Then I said I was ready and like 10 minutes later the director wanted to know why I wasn't putting up a backlight and fill, I guess they didn't hear me. They must've thought I was a real lazy dude for just sitting in that chair while they were waiting on me! I explained that the principle was wearing a white T-shirt and about 3 stops over the BG. A backlight IMO would be useless he said ok and no one ever complained about that scene. I don't know what I'll do if I run into one of those hard asses I read about in magazines that keep insisting on backlight or kickers at all times because that's "how it's done." Or they think you don't know what you're doing because you don't set a particular light.

 

I could understand doing it if we agreed to do it all the time but even then in this scene, what would have motivated the backlight? I guess this could be put down to a bit of miscommunication but sometimes I think directors would really rather be working with Mr. X and wonder why you don't light like him.

 

I'm not a film school graduate but I did take all the film classes at a JC with a pretty decent program. I learned photography at an early age then took classes in HS and JC. I'm not trying to be arrogant but I've past every photography and film class I've ever taken with an A and been the top person, always. It's not even because I worked hard it's because I LOVE it. (And humbly, I thank the Creator for allowing me to do it because if not I would probably be strung out on drugs or something). I would seriously spend 10 plus hours in a darkroom every weekday printing what I shot that weekend. Other people in classes would sometimes get pissed at me for getting good grades and I would tell them that their photography isn't that bad it's just that they didn't mind their photographic P's and Q's and let a tree grow out of someones head in the composition or something.

 

There also seems to be a "feel" to good photography, I know when my work is good (to my standards) and I know when it's not working. It's like I'm playing in a band and my instrument is way out of tune. I have to acknowledge it isn't working and do something about it NOW.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

For someone who has insisted on working with 35mm even though 16mm would have been lighter and more moble, plus been sync-sound and quiet, I'm not sure if you should be the one arguing for speed and efficiency over picture quality that a larger format offers

Never did I say that one should sacrifice image quality for the sake of mobility, just where in my post(s) are you reading this?

 

All I said is that camera size influences style, and perhaps I should have underlined that this is of particular importance to low/no budget filmmakers like myself.

 

I also never made any argument for shooting a James Bond pic in a French New Wave style, don't know where you're reading that either...

 

I'm not embarassed to admit that I haven't shot a lot with 35mm cameras. But it's a fact that until the BL came out, everyone used a BNC/R for sync shooting (or an Arri in a 120S blimp), and unless you're as big as the current governor of California, that no doubt influenced the way films were made. I don't see how it couldn't have.

 

I am also not making an argument for looping, although what concerns performance looping actually opens more options sometimes - in my experience. To me there's hardly anything that appears more wasteful than when extra film is burned because of "bad sound". Besides, the entire Russian film industry has continually operated this way, a vast majority of their films are shot MOS (and looped in seven to ten days in most cases). The original performances are all captured in audio and used as a reference in dubbing.

 

It's nice when you can afford to have a portable Aaton or Moviecam whenever you want it, but that's not entirely realistic. It's nice to have a crew that watches after your six figure priced gear but that doesn't always happen.

 

The Arri II is a terrific camera, and one of the best innovations ever. It certainly has its limitations, as do all cameras, but it's a durable little mother which is quite ubiquitous and doesn't have the price tag that most other cameras have.

Perhaps this is the photographer me talking who is used to owning their own equipment and being able to walk out at a given moment of inspiration and shoot, but that's the way I like to work. People who invest into their own XL-1's have the same privilege - orientable finder included at a nice price of under 4K. Nobody has the power to do that with a lightweight sync Aaton, which lists at over 65,000 dollars used. For that money I can shoot an entire 35mm feature.

 

In warfare the most durable and popular rifle has been the AK-47, which is cheaper to make than the M-16, and is nearly as accurate and is considerably more durable. I know because I've shot both extensively. The same philosophy applies to cameras, in my view. Simple, inexpensive, but reliable.

 

- G.

[Mitch Gross]

The same philosophy applies to cameras, in my view. Simple, inexpensive, but reliable.

And limited.

 

C'mon George, you have to admit that it would be nice to have a sync speed motor on your camera. You can get an old CP crystal motor that is a simple stalk shape just like your variable speed. Takes about 5 minutes to swap them should you need to. And I know you saw a BL-1 sitting on the shelf at TCS. That camera is pretty small and is far more comfortable to handhold than the 2c. Plus it has the orientable eyepiece, can run up to 100 fps if you want, uses a proper registration pin for image steadiness and runs sync and silently. The 2c might look smaller because the mag is on top instead of behind the camera body, but they're really about the same size. And that's $10,000 worth of camera, not $65,000. You can justify your 2c all you want if it makes you feel better about your purchase, but reality is reality and having the 2c doesn't make you a better filmmaker than if you had a BL-1. You actually have far fewer options as a filmmaker, not more.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

You can justify your 2c all you want if it makes you feel better about your purchase, but reality is reality and having the 2c doesn't make you a better filmmaker than if you had a BL-1. You actually have far fewer options as a filmmaker, not more.

I never said anything about being a "better" filmmaker, it seems more than one person is misunderstanding me here. All I said was that a bigger camera affects style. If you have the personel and time, camera size/mass makes less of a difference.

 

One of the reasons I like the Arri II is because it reminds me of the Nizo S40 that I started shooting film with. But I'll admit that my favorite camera to handhold was my Bolex (that over under grip is the best).

 

I once held a BL on my shoulders, back in filmschool when we took a trip to a rental house. Sure I'd love to have one, but it's not one of those "gotta have" things as far as I'm concerned. The difference between an Arri BL and a II isn't as drastic I think as that between an Eyemo and a Panaflex (or even an Eyemo and a II, which was drastic enough for me to scrape together the money to buy a II). Yes, I've had situations where a larger orientable finder would have helped. But for five or ten thousand dollars, I'll gladly look through the finder sideways or upside down (which I have done) and do my best to judge the composition.

 

Also, if I recall Mitch, you told me that the BL's mag has more moving parts than the entire Arri II with mag included. That means more things can go wrong. Not something I'd like to have happen to me, nor could afford to deal with at this stage of the game.

 

If someone else is paying for it, I certainly will opt for the best they can reasonably afford, and if the thing breaks down the rental house/insurance is going to answer for it anyway. For most working DP's this is the situation, and that's fine. I never said anywhere that you should be shooting your 35mm projects on a II.

 

But so many features, some of them using pretty daring visual techniques, were shot using the Arri II. A Hard Day's Night is one of them. No need for orientable finders, video taps, 100 fps, or anything like that. A significant portion of the film was post dubbed, might I add.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're ignoring the elephant in the corner of the room -- the Arri BL is a sync-sound camera and the Arri 2C is not. The orientable viewfinder is gravy compared to that distinction.

 

As for the notion that it's too dangerous to use the Arri-BL because something may go wrong with the mag, are you suggesting that more times footage is destroyed with an Arri BL than with an Arri 2C? And you mean you've never had a problem with the footage shot with your Arri 2C?

 

I can't imagine shooting a feature on a MOS camera simply because I was afraid of the mag design of the Arri BL! I really think you're starting to reach at straws here, George. You're not saying that you would have shot your entire feature on your Arri 2C even if you had been given an Arri BL for free?

 

I think I've shot about ten or so features on Arri BL3's and 4's and can't recall ever losing footage due to the mag design. Reliability is probably the best thing those cameras have going for them. They are hardly examples of over-engineering either.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

You're ignoring the elephant in the corner of the room -- the Arri BL is a sync-sound camera and the Arri 2C is not

If we're talking about shooting a sync sound film, which I'm not, then that would certainly apply.

 

David, with all due respect to your experience and helpfulness, you have been putting words into my mouth in this thread and it's a bit annoying to have to defend myself from things I never argued in favor of. I mean, what's next, are you going to suggest that I think that the Arri IIc should be the only camera ever used for feature film production, and that shooting sync is for idiots? Come on now...

 

Nobody's grasping at straws here at all.

 

If I got a BL for free, versus having to pay for a IIc, I would obviously use the BL. If both were the same price (and in the same condition) I'd probably opt for the BL in case I had to do a sync project in the future, or use some accessory that wasn't available for the IIc. But this situation is unlikely to ever happen.

 

Your experience with BL's is probably, I'm assuming, from cameras that are well maintained by rental houses. I seriously doubt that the 8 thousand dollar BL's Mitch was talking about are in the same shape as the ones you regularly shoot with (and they're certainly older). It's also certainly true, given equal workmanship and parts quality, anything with a more complicated mechanism is usually more likely prone to fail.

 

It's fine with me if you like to work a certain way, I'm certainly not saying that what I am doing should be forced on other people, or that whoever deviates from what I'm doing is being foolish, etc. All I'm saying is that it is a doable option. Please feel free to refer back to my previous posts and show me where I'm saying otherwise...

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry George but you tend to make statements that have implications and I'm replying to your implications, not the statements.

 

You suggest that the more moving parts in the Arri BL mag make it too risky for someone like you ("not something I can afford to deal with"). The implication is that you're taking a risk by shooting with an Arri BL instead of an Arri 2C. Now that's not what you said -- but it's what you implied.

 

You wrote:

"I frankly hate sync sound, because of that we have these hugeass blimped cameras."

 

So exactly how much larger are modern 35mm sync-sound cameras compared to modern 35mm MOS cameras if both have the same sized mag on them? A Moviecam Compact with a 400' mag is "hugeass" compared to a Arri 435 with a 400' mag? And which is easier to handhold?

 

You wrote (about James Bond movies being shot on BNCR's):

"I can't help but think that there were moments that such a big camera slowed down certain shots, made directors cut or modify their shot lists, encouraged putting on a longer lens to do a CU instead of moving in, etc. "

 

The implication here is that the direction of these old movies was therefore compromised by these big cameras and that the final results would have been better had they followed the French New Wave technique of mobile lightweight MOS cameras, which you make a comparison to. And another implication is that they would have been better off worrying less about getting original sound, since you don't seem to hold that ability of the BNCR in very high esteem.

 

No, you didn't write that -- you implied that.

 

So I don't know what to do if you keep making these statements about filmmaking techniques that are making certain implications if I can't comment on these implications!

 

If my interpretation of your comments are completely off the wall, I'm sorry. But I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air here. Unless you're saying there's no subtext to anything you write.... ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

George, one thing I really should explain and apologize for is my method of discourse.

 

If I see what I consider a flaw in someone's logic, I tend to try and point out that flaw by exaggerating it so that it looks ridiculous. For example, the logic behind your argument that the mag of the Arri BL has so many moving parts as to be a risk to someone like you. Feeling that that's really a non-issue (although I'm not saying that there's never mechanical problems with Arri BL mags -- I'm just saying that the odds are not high enough for it to be a primary factor in decision making) I tend to exaggerate your position in an attempt to make the tiny flaw in your logic seem more obvious.

 

But clearly I'm am distorting your statements by doing this and that's a cause of frustration for you, so I'm sorry. I can be excessively sensitive to the pattern behind someone's argument and feel this horrible need to pick apart an argument that I feel is poorly constructed.

 

The sad thing is that I could probably write a post to support your position against my own! I'm well aware of all the good reasons to shoot with a small MOS camera and the weaknesses of modern narrative filmmaking and its over-reliance on dialogue to tell stories rather than on images. I know what you're trying to say, actually. I just have this urge to call you out on some of what you are implying in your statements.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Sorry George but you tend to make statements that have implications and I'm replying to your implications, not the statements

Well, it seems that you are jumping to conclusions a bit too fast, and then commenting on those conclusions as if they were in fact statements of mine.

 

The way I like to work is fast and mobile (by that I don't mean handheld camera all the time). Being that I am in a position where I have to make the most with the least money, and sometimes shoot in a verite environment (just the other day I was stealing crowd shots - most people thought I was "taping" the event), neither expensive cameras, nor sync sound suit this method of work. Neither do heavy cameras, which was the norm for sync shooting and which is still within a budget I could have tried to push for.

 

I grew up when video was starting to enter the marketplace, and while I shot more Super 8 in the beginning than tape, I'm used to having a mobile camera - even if it sits on a tripod for the whole shoot. I haven't used the Moviecam you describe, nor could I afford to. Nor could anyone who shoots a low budget picture on a long schedule like I am.

 

My personal wish? For there to be a way of shooting 35mm quality images on a small camera, that is within prosumer video range pricewise. This is nearly possible to do in 16mm now, especially with cameras like the Aaton Minima (it's 20,000 loaded). But it's not possible to really do that in 35mm. The Arri II is the closest I can get to that.

 

On another subject I've shot sync before and I think that shooting MOS, while having disadvantages, can make sense and can produce more interesting results sometimes as I've discovered. It's a different way of working, and in my opinion its as legitimate of a choice as shooting sync. It's just that in America we're used to shooting sync, that's a given in most projects.

 

To me, post looping dialog has the same motivations as shooting something in a studio versus on location, in other words in a place where you can have more control. There is a technique to looping, of course, which needs to be mastered, and it does take more time (which from a $$$ perspective, esp. when working with expensive talent, can be inefficient). But getting good sound and getting good picture are two separate disciplines, both of which demand good operators and both of which can sometimes be at cross purposes with each other. Combine that with the hectic environment of a shoot, and you have more issues that need to be dealt with. It's great that there has been a succesful marriage of these departments but its not a flawless thing, and it had its reprocussions on things like cameras for quite a long period in movie history (from the 1930's to the 1970's).

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

For example, the logic behind your argument that the mag of the Arri BL has so many moving parts as to be a risk to someone like you.  Feeling that that's really a non-issue (although I'm not saying that there's never mechanical problems with Arri BL mags -- I'm just saying that the odds are not high enough for it to be a primary factor in decision making) I tend to exaggerate your position in an attempt to make the tiny flaw in your logic seem more obvious.

When I went through a 700 dollar repair on my II (which I had purchased a year earlier), which was a result of a bad gate and dead tach, I only imagined how unfortunate it would be if I had a BL and that mag went bad on me somewhere. Just getting the parts would probably be quite an issue (unless it shares the BL3 and 4 parts, which must be quite costly as well).

 

A day before yesterday I was maintaining my II mag and saw how relatively simple the mechanism was (my father was shocked when I told him that this magazine lists for one thousand dollars in most camera houses). I said "thank God, less things to go wrong".

 

When you invest large sums of personal cash into equipment you really do have to factor in things like reliability and maintanance - camera techs are certainly not cheap labor (makes me wonder sometimes if I'm on the correct side of the business!).

 

If I was renting, I'd let the rental house and insurance company worry about the problem - although if I went on some hard to reach distant location, I would certainly put a II on the pick sheet, just as a backup, even if I had a Panavision with me.

 

I think one of the issues here was that we were simply talking about two different production enviroments and situations. Each situation has a more optimal method and tool to do the job. Like I said before, I don't feel it right to apply it to every situation.

 

On another note, I do think that motion picture equipment is ridiculously expensive. I know that it's not stamped out on mass production machines, and each camera these days is personally given a full body massage before leaving the factory, but the fact that stock Eyemos are retailing for $1000, while their 16mm Filmo brothers (practically identical in all respects save for film gauge) usually go for under $200, says a lot about "whatever the market will bear".

[David Mullen ASC]

My camera assistant Theo Pingarelli has an Arri 2C that he put a CE motor base for crystal-sync plus a switchable lens mount for Arri PL or Panavision lenses. The registration is excellent. I used it for a number of shots on my last 35mm feature. I think it's a great camera -- I wish I could afford one!

 

But I think that a crystal-sync motor is a must-have personally. And I'm not sold on the idea of shooting a whole feature on one... unless it was a silent movie.

 

Doing dialogue scenes on a MOS camera may be a financial necessity in your case, but it's hard to see too many pluses that can come from that approach. Even Kubrick regretted shooting his first two features MOS and looping them in post -- he apparently ran way over budget once he got to that stage because he underestimated how much work it was going to be to add all the sound in later.

[Mitch Gross]

George, I don't know how loud your personal 2c is, but generally everyone in the room knows when you're rolling. I know that you're working with a number of non-professional actors, and that you also secretly grab footage at unpermitted locations and at large gatherings. I'm sure that these situations would have been easier dealt with using a camera that ran much quieter than an Arri 2c.

 

I don't mean to be crapping on you either. I know that you're making a feature film with what you can afford to deal with, and frankly that's to be commended compared to all the naysayers or wannabes who sit and fret but do nothing. But a lot of people read these forums and they become a bit of a public record that others refer to, so I feel a little compelled to point out such issues. I know that you're well-aware of the pluses and minuses of your current approach; I just want to make sure that others reading this have a clear perspective.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I'm sure that these situations would have been easier dealt with using a camera that ran much quieter than an Arri 2c.

When I pick up footage of crowds its usually at a pretty loud location. Nobody knew I was filming them the other night as long as they never saw me, it was really terrific in that regard.

 

An advantage of having a loud camera is that people do know when you're rolling, you don't even have to tell them, it sort of automatically puts them into an acting mood. Anyway, that's my experience with it.

 

- G.

[Tony Brown]

An advantage of having a loud camera is that people do know when you're rolling, you don't even have to tell them, it sort of automatically puts them into an acting mood. Anyway, that's my experience with it.

...usually a bad thing in my experience...the best moments are almost always 'stolen' when people are being natural...i.e. not 'acting'

 

;)

[David Mullen ASC]

George, how long have you been shooting this feature? I vaguely recall you talking about it around 9/11 (2001), well over two years ago.

 

Is there a real budget or are you just spending the money as it comes in? What is the final bill going to come to?

 

You were talking about conforming the negative a couple of months ago so I thought it was finished.

[Tenolian Bell]

More from Tenolian's misadventurtes in LA. It's really interesting to see the differnces in attitudes between LA and NY. The stereotypcial differences are there but its more complex than the general sum of the differnces.

 

This is an example of too much gear being a henderance on the production. I'm amazed by this story because this just wouldn't happen in NY.

 

I met a recent graduate of the LA Film school. An aspiring DP he told me for thier thesis film they were able to get an anamorphic package from Panavision. I asked how did he get that, he said the guys at Panavision asked them a lot of questions he didn't really know the answers to. And somehow they said the right thing to get the package. I don't even think PANY carries anamorphic lens', so it may not have even been an option to ask them for any.

 

I asked how did the film turn out. He said it had some of it came out good some of it had problems. My first guess was focus problems? They said yeah they had some real focus problems. Ultimately it sounded like they had Panavision C or E ananorphics, they didn't really know what they were doing. Shooting on anamorphic sounded cool so they talked themselves into a package and the film itself suffered for it.

 

In this case I would agree students should start with very basic kits. If they want to add production value they should be left to figure out how to do it without the latest gear. I think those experiences are very valuable.

 

When I was in film school we built a car mount out of speed rail and used rachet belts and hooks to tie the whole thing down. We took lengths of PVC pipe punched different size holes in it, screwed two garden hoses to both sides, and made rain down the side of a house. I do agree starting like this builds you so you don't become a complete slave to equipment. You have enough confidence in what can be done to use ingenuity, inseatd of counting on the latest probe lens.

 

 

But still even with that, 90% of the time a wheel chair is not a better replacement for a chapman dolly. Having the proper gear does make a difference.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Is there a real budget or are you just spending the money as it comes in? What is the final bill going to come to?

We started a more or less regular pattern of photography at the end of August, 2001. I did two scenes earlier, one in May with my Eyemo, one in July on Hi8.

 

We had a few breaks in the middle for various reasons. We are spending the money as it comes in, and through credit cards. The final tab is still hard to determine as the books are not yet complete. A shade under 30 thousand for photography (camera included) seems about right, plus post (most of which is going to be done by myself on my home setup, save for the music), and then comes matching, and printing picture and sound, and supervised transfers...

 

Right now we have four more weeks of principal photography (by weeks I mean weeknights), and then it's pickups, sfx. I'm sure when the answer print comes round there will also be a few redo's.

 

Here is my actress in my home "studio" looping her lines. Notice the curved hanger with stocking stretched over - that's my way of saving $50 on a pop filter B) I loop the picture in Premiere on the timeline. The condenser mic goes through a tube phantom power preamp and into the Soundblaster Live card.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

So like $10,000 a year? What is your day job to pay for all of this? Or is it someone else's money too? Who did you say was doing your lab and telecine work? What are the transfers to? Beta-SP?

 

So are you cutting all the sound on Premiere? At what point do you deal with the conversion of speed, since you are matching to a video transfer, which is running the picture at 23.976 fps -- or does Premiere removed the 3:2 pulldown and correct the picture speed to 24 fps? (I thought only FCP and Avid Film Composer did that)

 

Or do you just create a sound master at NTSC speed and then do an overall speed correction (23.976 to 24) for the final print master to send to the lab for making the optical negative?

 

Then do you make a low-con print and transfer for home video deliverables?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> or does Premiere removed the 3:2 pulldown and correct the picture speed to 24

> fps? (I thought only FCP and Avid Film Composer did that)

 

There are loads of ways around this on most platforms, most of which are offtopic for this forum to discuss, but.. yes, basically it can be sorted out.

 

Phil "Smug PAL Guy" Rhodes

[Christian Appelt]

Even Kubrick regretted shooting his first two features MOS and looping them in post -- he apparently ran way over budget once he got to that stage because he underestimated how much work it was going to be to add all the sound in later.

 

OK, but that was 50 years ago, even before reel-to-reel sync mag recorders were widely available and when every mix had to be done on multiple mag films. Today, postsynching a small movie is not beyond the reach of low/no budget filmmakers. I have shot my first feature totally MOS. We used an Arri2B for most of the footage, reshooting and additional inserts is being done with a Konvas 2M because more anamorphic lenses are available for that one.

 

Over at the Topica Konvas Forum, there is a good thread about shooting with a Konvas and using modern noise cancellation/reduction software to get the camera noise out. This is certainly NOT for the next Peter Jackson film, but a possible solution for the low budget filmmaker.

 

I never regretted shooting MOS (always recording background atmospheres and the actually spoken dialogue on DAT). In that kind of really low budget work, we would have had very little control over location sound anyway, and with the limited time on many locations, the usual measures to ensure good sound quality were impossible.

So we concentrated on getting the best image and the best performance, and even most nonprofessional actors can give good postsynch dialoge if you do it not like ADR where people feel that they must be on guard all the time.

I ran a video projection of the telecined dailies in a small sound studio and recorded takes wild, bringing them back in sync in editing. It went faster and the artistic quality of dialogue reading was even better than traditional ADR I did with experienced actors.

 

As for the cameras, the Arri is certainly a noisy beast, it sounds more like an electric coffee grinder. The Konvas IMHO produces more of a purring sound, like a good 16mm projector. However, some people never lubricate their cameras and especially the mags, and these contribute enomously to that total camera noise. If I had to shoot MOS again, I'd use the Konvas all the way because of the more "friendly" noise that can be suppressed in most location recordings (unless you want Sergio-Leone-like closeups two inches before the actor's nose...). :rolleyes:

[David Mullen ASC]

I've rarely shot a movie where EVERY scene was set in a loud location with uncontrollable sound levels in the background. You didn't have any scenes of some guy talking in his apartment or something?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

So like $10,000 a year? What is your day job to pay for all of this? Or is it someone else's money too?

 

The money is a combination of my personal savings from past work, my occasional freelance gigs, and contributions from other members of our team, particularly my co-producer. Yes, I live at home with my parents during this interim and I'm not ashamed of that - I'm 27 :)

 

Who did you say was doing your lab and telecine work? What are the transfers to? Beta-SP?

 

Lab Link is doing the negative, Audio Plus Video is currently doing my film to tape. We transfer to mini DV.

 

So are you cutting all the sound on Premiere?

 

Picture and sound. I may do the mix using another program.

 

At what point do you deal with the conversion of speed

 

I am considering transferring the mixed audio to DAT with a direct digital transfer, running the DAT at 29.97 FPS while recording, then playing it back at 30 FPS timecode for the transfer to optical.

 

Then do you make a low-con print and transfer for home video deliverables?

 

I pray we'll raise enough money for a proper interpositive/internegative. The funds are going to be raised from investors for completion.

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Over at the Topica Konvas Forum, there is a good thread about shooting with a Konvas and using modern noise cancellation/reduction software to get the camera noise out. This is certainly NOT for the next Peter Jackson film, but a possible solution for the low budget filmmaker.

I am very skeptical about any noise cancellation technology. That might pass if you tried to blimp the camera somehow and keep a long piece of glass on it, with the mic just above the frameline, and filming in an outdoor environment, but not in most circumstances. I've tried NR on my tracks just for fun, and you can certainly minimize camera chatter but it's always going to be around somewhere, and the dialog will always be colored because of that. Camera noise is a complicated beast, you have to hit several frequencies and finding them is not easy. Then there's also the issue of fluctuating camera speed, which is an issue with variable speed motors. In silent situations 22 fps and 26 fps can pass for 24 fps. When you start matching your "sync" audio to that, that's when everyone knows you're running off speed!

 

The only MOS camera that you could sort of dampen the noise from was the Eyemo's grunty spring motor, who's noise is easier to mask than the spring on a Bolex (with its high pitched wine). But attach a motor on the Eyemo and it sounds like a dentist's drill going off while a Tommy gun is chattering in the midst!

 

I've shot with a Konvas before and man, that thing was louder than my IIc. It sounded like a sewing machine. I don't know if the guy maintained it well.

 

Speaking of the Konvas, I could have easily shot this feature with the Konvas - thusfar I haven't had any need for anything that the Arri II could and the Konvas could not do (save for the 1:85 ground glass that my Arri came with). I was just too scared to buy the Konvas because I didn't know what the hell I'd do if it broke. I also figured that I might be able to buy various accessories later for the Arri more easily. Could have saved two or three thousand bucks and had a sync motor to top it off! But those Konvas mags are a bitch to load I hear. When I get out of the hole for this movie I might just grab a Konvas for fun - cheap way to learn anamorphic.

 

Funny idea - do a webpage called "Cine camera noises", with sound samples. The CP-16's breaking noise has to make it in there - "Aiiigghhtt"!

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I've rarely shot a movie where EVERY scene was set in a loud location with uncontrollable sound levels in the background.

The film I am doing would have entailed major delays if we had been shooting sync, I would say at least three quarters of the time.

 

I remember once we only got a location when a band was rehearsing right next to us. There were other cases where people were walking in and out, where cleaning crews would be working, where bars and restaurants were open for business and playing their music on the speakers, where cars were honking during rush hour (hope they weren't disgruntled teamsters <_< - "Hey guys, we have no truck, just a Volkswagen and Toyota!"), the elevated subway rushing over, etc. All of this is impractical if you need sync - so we'd either have to live with bad sound or get different locations.

 

We also had cases where actors forgot their lines or needed live direction. Sync would have made it much tougher to correct these problems.

 

Then there's the issue of "how about adding a critical line of dialog here". It's impossible to match ADR dialog and sync dialog, it's like trying to match a shot using a different lens.

 

I think a lot of people's experience watching MOS films comes from badly dubbed Kung Fu films, badly dubbed Italian movies (Fellini really didn't care so much about perfect sync, he had Anthony Quinn recite the alphabet or prayers when he played Zampano in La Strada), or worst of all, badly dubbed student films. Richard Lester's films feature some excellent ADR work (Hard Day's Night, Forum, etc), and this is without the benefit of computers.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd be amazed at how often a good sound recordist can get usable dialogue in bad locations though. They have their ways... There have been sync-sound movies shot in semi-documentary styles in real locations. On short schedules and low budgets. The Dogma movies are shot sync-sound, no dubbing allowed. So it's possible.

 

In your case, though, as soon as you had a quiet location, your camera becomes the loudest thing in the room.

 

I can see shooting a lot of a movie MOS if it is essentially a visually-told non-dialogue experience -- i.e. a bare minimum amount of dialogue, like "The Black Stallion", which used a Eclair Cameflex for a lot of the island scenes. But I'm not in the John Boorman camp of "improving the performance" by dubbing (I don't think he even does that as much now). I believe that an actor's voice is part of the moment of performance, just like their expression. You divorce the two by separately having a vocal performance added to a visual performance shot months apart, and you might as well have different people supplying the voices, like a dubbed foreign-language film. It always feels a little unreal. Not that that can't work for some types of films-- maybe it will work for your dark comedy but I can't imagine doing it for an emotional drama where it's hard enough to capture that acting moment ONCE let alone again later in a looping session. A great actor can do it, of course, but I'd feel guilty for making them go through it twice.

 

You have a great capacity for seeing a negative as a positive, though. "The camera's loud.. but that helps the actors know when to perform!" That one made me smile. A new use for loud cameras that no one has ever come up with before.

 

Imagine an Arri advertisement: "Our new Arri-X has ELM -- 'Extra Loud Mode' -- so actors will wake up and know when to start acting. As modern actors become increasingly hard of hearing, the loud slap of a clapperboard is now insufficient to let them know to begin acting -- and even if they hear it, a quiet camera will soon lull them into the illusion that the scene is already over. But thanks to ELM, they never stop being aware that the camera is running!"

 

There's no denying though that the non-dialogue scenes in "A Hard Day's Night" are visually wonderful. That opening for example -- one of the highlights of movie history. But are the dialogue scenes somehow improved for being shot with an Arri-2C and looped later? For the most part, they don't seem particularly visually inventive -- they seem rather simply done. Or were they shot with a Mitchell? I'm thinking of those scenes like the one with George Harrison talking to the marketing department.