Filming with XL-1s

Brad Merkle · March 21, 2005

We are filming a feature this summer with a canon XL-1s I plan on doing several tests to get the best quality I can. I want to shoot as simple as possible and a cheap as possible. I will be using the standard lens that come with it but I want to get is as good as I can. I want to get it to look as close to 28 days later without forking out the dough for the mini 35. If anyone has thoughts or suggestions it would help.

Thanks,

March 21, 2005

Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think you can get close to the look of "28 Days Later" without the use of the mini35 adapter. You can certainly still get some fine looking footage from your Canon without it, of course - it'll just be different.

Landon D. Parks · March 21, 2005

I did'nt think 28 days later looked very good at all..... The DVD version was fuzzya and lacked in resolution horribly. The colors and contrast in some scenes where also off.

I'm not sure if they scaned the 35mm negative, and thats what made it so horrible or not? But I have seen plenty of MiniDV shot with the XL1 and even more the XL2 with tons better quality than "28 days later".

Just my opinion...

PS) Did they use the Mini35? I didnt see now shallow DOF in the film.

drew_town · March 21, 2005

No they didn't use the mini35. They used a straight adaptor. I posted some tips on shooting with an XL1s here:

XL1s link at Cinematography.com

Good luck and watch your lighting. It'll make the biggest difference. Be aware of what you're shooting and what you're shooting on.

Edited March 21, 2005 by drew_town

March 21, 2005

A lot of people slate "28 Days Later" for its quality. But I'd love to see them try and replicate the quality of the cinematography.

Ok perhaps in using the XL1s you won't get superb quality, but if you're that good, people won't worry about the resolution.

Personally, I didn't mind the resolution of 28 Days Later. The cinematography made up for it.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Guy Meachin · March 22, 2005

Daniel, are you really a DP at 16? That's quite impressive!

nchopp · March 22, 2005

We are filming a feature this summer with a canon XL-1s I plan on doing several tests to get the best quality I can. I want to shoot as simple as possible and a cheap as possible. I will be using the standard lens that come with it but I want to get is as good as I can. I want to get it to look as close to 28 days later without forking out the dough for the mini 35. If anyone has thoughts or suggestions it would help.

Thanks,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you don't want to fork out the "dough" for the Mini35, there is NO WAY you'll get close to the same image. Sorry, just won't happen. You're going to need a hella sweet light kit, a very experienced DP (that knows both film and DV), and a lot of money to get it graded, etc. in post.

Landon D. Parks · March 22, 2005

Nicholas, they didn't use the Mini35 on 28 days later.

Rik Andino · March 22, 2005

I want to shoot as simple as possible and a cheap as possible...but I want to get it to look as close to 28 days later without forking out the dough

Thanks,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want your film to look like a Multi-million dollar feature

But you're not willing to even pay a fraction of that price?

I want to drive a ferrari but I'm not going to spend more than 50 bucks

Sounds realistic doesn't it?

Here's a life principle you should be aware of: quality cost money.

My suggestion is get a good DP and try to get the best quality you can

But don't expect it to look like somethign that cost 1000X more than yours did

And don't expect to get anything really good if you don't spend some dough

It just ain't gonna happen.

GOOD LUCK

nchopp · March 23, 2005

Nicholas, they didn't use the Mini35 on 28 days later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm well aware that they didn't. I was stating that if he isn't willing to spend the "dough" on something as (relatively) cheap as the Mini35, he's not going to be spending the money on the things that DO matter.

John Pytlak RIP · March 23, 2005

I do have to put in a good word for considering Super-16: :)

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

Landon D. Parks · March 24, 2005

I do have to put in a good word for considering Super-16

Well, it depends on what kind of money you have... If you only plan to keep digital digital, and not do a film-out. Then 16mm will be a considerable amount more than a MiniDV camera..... Even the XL2.

I hear people often saying "Well, film only cost's a little more! So shoot film!" However, thats like someone telling me to go buy a $20,000 car when all I got is $15,000.00! Sure, its only $5,000.00 more, but $5,000.00 I dont have.

Same applies here....

Pros to 16mm: If you want to film-out, it will be cheaper than MiniDV AND you will get the film look you so long for, because, well, it's film.

I deeply respect you John, but I just don't think that this dude has the money to shoot film.

Another pro to MiniDv is that for $12,000 I can buy a nice XL2 w/ Prime Lenses, Tripods, Crane, Dolly, Lighting, Sound Package, clapsticks, everything I would need to make a movie, and then I would own it. So I could make 10 movies for the price of 1. So Try that with film!

Edited March 24, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

Thomas Worth · March 25, 2005

I want to get it to look as close to 28 days later without forking out the dough for the mini 35. If anyone has thoughts or suggestions it would help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want it to look as good as 28 Days Later then you need to shoot with a PAL XL1 in frame mode. That's what the filmmakers did. You'll also need to slow the movie down to 24p and pitch correct the audio. This is a very common practice overseas and works very well.

As Drew stated earlier, the Mini35 was not used. They used the Optex B4 lens adapter with Canon HD prime lenses.

John Pytlak RIP · March 25, 2005

So I could make 10 movies for the price of 1. So Try that with film!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He said he wanted to have the best quality. You can find ways to economize and shoot film, even on a "bare bones" budget. Athough DV originated features have made it to the big screen, film has a better track record of attracting interest from distributors in the low budget arena.

March 25, 2005

I do have to put in a good word for considering Super-16: :)

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Naturally :lol:

Brad, my advice is to use either the XL1s or XL2, and get a Mini35 adapter. As long as you have equipment that meets those specifications, you're sorted. Even the Mini35 adapter isn't necessary to create good looking shots, but it gives you the ability to use shallow focus and make arty images.

However, finding a good DP is even more important.

The cinematography on 28 Days Later was amazing. You should be more concerned with getting a top quality DP, rather than a super-duper camera.

The reason 28 Days later looked so great, wasn't because of the equipment, it was because of the filming crews skill.

March 25, 2005

Hi Brad

I've done many projects with the XL-1. I'm based i Europe so I always shoot 25 fps in Frame Mode. I couldn't imagine doing a project without using the Magic Bullet plug-in for Adobe After Effects in post production. It's great for adjusting color, contrast, black diffusion and moving your video shots towards a film look.

As always when concerned with dv - beware of darkness. You will get a lot of video noise on a XL-1 if you shoot in low light. Be sure to use plenty of light - you can always turn the brightness down in post production.

I think a key issue when shooting on video (though it goes for film as well) is how you light your scenes and how you move the camera. Pay a lot of attention to doing this right.

Check out www.dvinfo.net - there's a lot of usefull info on the XL-1 and XL-2 Watchdog. They also got a very good forum with a lot of topics than could be usefull to you (click on the Community link).

Regards

Kasper