M Joel W

Me? I've worked with bolexes plenty and have shot a bit with SR2s. I don't know how that factors into a discussion of digital cameras, though. I didn't even mention film. If we're talking about movies that are shooting on dSLRs film probably isn't an option, budget-wise.

These videos are ridiculous. Instead of propagating the ridiculous (but at least kind of egalitarian) myth that a dSLR will make you a "filmmaker" they propagate the yet more poisonous one that yet more expensive cameras will...because they're more expensive. Straight from the school of "buy a red; be a DP." Studio pictures, with budgets in the millions of dollars, rent more expensive cameras? Who'd ever guess it? If you have the money, of course rent a better camera. First hire better talent, sound, production design, and lighting, which are far more significant factors. Anyone who's intimidated by dSLRs to the point of ignoring their remarkable image quality for the money is uncomfortable enough with his own craft that he has to look to the expensive cameras he's using for validation.

Overcast or sunny? If overcast, there may not be much you can do. Shiny board, maybe. If it's sunny, you can follow the talent with white board (shiny board wobbles too visibly when reflecting direct lihgt, imo, but might work in some cases) and if the ground isn't in frame, cover it with a white bedsheet, which will bounce a lot of light into the talent's face without looking fake. Polarizers are okay...generally they darken the part of the sky that's already darkest so I am not sure I'd use one with a steadicam or wide angle move. At least not always. What are you shooting on? Money can definitely buy highlight detail...

Why do you prefer to have highlight tone priority off? It provides an extra stop of highlight detail for no penalty. I think the appeal of the technicolor style is for those who are grading in log and need similar flexibility for their b-camera. I don't know if it offers an advantage to "geurilla" shooters. Certainly I wouldn't use it without metering, whereas I do feel comfortable using the neutral mode without a meter since the LCDs on Canon's dSLRs correlate decently well with the final image. But with a low contrast picture style...it's too hard to judge exposure and ratios without a meter.

Honestly, I think shooting film is harder, but I am very inexperienced at it. I talked with Phil Abraham (DP of the Sopranos) and he strongly felt the opposite; he found he could get away with more aggressive contrast ratios on film and he could basically light by eye since he knew the stocks he used so well, but he struggled to replicate the look on digital. Whatever you grow up with is easier, I guess, so if you're used to film I imagine a dSLR will present some challenges. dSLRs also have bad dynamic range and poor recording codecs so there's less flexibility in post and the look is a bit harsher. I still find them WAY easier to use than film, but that's due to a lack of experience on my part. And honestly, my results with dSLRs are middling at best. But after a few months' practice I think they're easy to shoot with, so don't sweat it if they seem weird at first. In terms of interface, dSLRs are a bit of a pain and a lot of people with more experience in film find them overwhelmingly complicated because whereas with a film camera it's like set your f-stop, point, and shoot, with a dSLR there are a thousand menu options and the viewfinder is nowhere near as useful as a good optical finder. The real technical challenge is finding the proper recording settings and mentally correlating the LCD's image with what you want to get on your computer. When I started shooting with my t2i I often overexposed by about half a stop and I used ultraflat until I realized that this makes it much harder to expose correctly since the image on the LCD is so muddy and then the poor tonality hurts skin tones, too. I've since switched to the neutral setting (with highlight tone priority, using contrast filters and fill light instead of picture looks to deal with harsh contrast), and I get much better results. If you're not experienced with the camera or are getting bad exposures run some tests to get see what ISO setting on your meter gives the best results and then keep metering all your shots until you're comfortable going by the LCD. I found I was overexposing a bit when I just plugged in whatever I metered, so I rated 2/3 stop faster and got okay exposures and detail to about two and a half or three stops above 18% gray, which is decent for digital, imo. In terms of lighting, you've got maybe two stops above and two stops below, way less than with color negative film. So either dress your talent in more neutral tones or you'll have to be more conservative with your ratios. But dSLRs are much easier to light for than older video cameras, imo, which had like a stop above 18% gray before blowing out. In terms of camera moves, skew is a killer. Use IS lenses and short focal lengths and whatever methods of stabilization you have available. Aliasing isn't that big an issue if you avoid fine patterns and throw the camera just slightly out of focus when you can't avoid them (finding how much out of focus you need to go takes practice). Past that, good digital cinematography and good film cinematography have a lot in common. dSLRs are nowhere near as elegant as film and the image isn't as good, but you can get amazing results for the money; they're really unprecedented and democratizing in that regard. It's all a matter of practice! Sometimes that means forgetting old habits, but still 95% of what makes a good image is common between film and digital. The rest is just practice. Shoot a ton under different lighting conditions with different camera settings and see what works for you and what doesn't. I'm not saying my advice above is the best way to go, it's just what worked for me.

Reportedly about half the movie was shot on red and now Malick and Lubezki are using the red exclusively. Funny that kodak would publish an article about the image quality of 65mm film only to have the filmmakers in question turn around and abandon it for an inexpensive digital alternative.

Phil is right, dSLRs block IR. Maybe try one of those minidv cameras with night shot if you really want the IR look without spending a lot of money. I would just rent a 1.2k HMI and honda generator. Maybe $250/day? If you have a tiny space and fast lenses you can buy a lot of 500w EBW photofloods and put them in china lanterns around the scene. If the director's unwilling to spring for that, he will get a "Hammer horror" look no matter how you dress it up. Although maybe you could do some night for night and day for dusk and motivate that according to the story and get away with it. I've never done day for night, but if I were to, I would: Try to shoot when the light is very harsh, like contrasty and with a clear sky, and the sky on the horizon is about 90 degrees from the sun, so....noon-ish? Shoot 3200K white balance but then desaturate considerably in post. Use a good polarizer to darken the sky; the polarizer should be pretty effective since the sky near the horizon will be 90 degrees from the sun. You'll need to frame creatively to get as little sky in frame as possible and to make sure the sky you do get in frame is polarized correctly. Wide shots will be tricky, so I'd use an ND grad if necessary. Sky replacement in post is one solution, too. Use the sun as a key light, filling faces with bounce board as needed. Expose so that the key is one and a half stops under, so maybe 30 IRE on faces? Normally during the day you'd be using the sky as a backlight or side light and so it might be a stop or two, possibly much more, hot...so this would be a drastic amount of underexposure. Stack tons of ND filters to get a stop of f2 or so on the lens. That way you can believe there's not much light out there and you can blur out the background, making the tricky continuity of finding acceptable backgrounds a little easier. Even with that kind of approach you'll probably get ugly results. It's day for night, after all.

He's not a big fan of anamorphic lenses, preferring cropped super35 for the ease of use, speed, and lack of artifacts. I believe...

Thanks, Roberto; I have used the stretched oval bokeh trick before. I'm doing this as a favor for a friend and don't know the his budget. Could be big enough for a real anamorphic kit; could be small enough that I'd need a DIY solution, but I want to be prepared for any situation. I put together a home made solution with 5mm spacing of dyed fishing line. Proud of myself I was able to get results this good, but the effect is much too weak except in ultra-high contrast situations, such as that below. Don't think the director will accept it since it's supposed to be a very extreme effect, but I might use it some day, who knows.

Thanks, it looks like the cheaper ones are just resin or glass scratched in one direction whereas the more expensive ones (that you linked to) embed colored rods in the filter. I tried scratching grooves into glass and coloring them, but the effect didn't work at all. I've had some luck with monofilament behind the lens, but the effect isn't that strong and once you dye it the beams are really weak. I'll try in front of the lens, or see if the director can afford to rent or buy what you posted above.

I'm just wondering what, physically, an "anamorphic streak" filter looks like, so I can build one for a friend. I imagine it's basically a scored piece of glass (horizontally) with the etches dyed blue. But how wide are the etches and how far apart. How many? I'm either going to take a glass blank or resin blank for the cokin p system (depending on how much etching needs to be done), score it, then paint it with nail polish or rit dye. Worth the effort or should I just rent the vantage filter? Thanks.

Have you considered City College Los Angeles or UCLA Extension school? Both are relatively affordable and have very strong reputations from what I've heard here and elsewhere. Not sure what degrees they offer, as if the degree matters.

Anyone know anything about the florida state film program? Right now I am interested in directing and cinematography equally, but want to learn more about directing since I have less training there. Opinions from others have run the gamut. Thanks.

Are you sure? I've noticed that the 7d seems to have a slightly better image, but never noticed a difference in latitude (except there might be a tiny bit less noise with the 7d?). Also, bitrates aren't apples-to-apples; codecs have to be taken into account so your comparisons with the red and alexa aren't really helpful. Also, my t2i records at about 45 megabit/sec on average on cheap media so I don't know where you are getting those numbers. I am not disagreeing; I am really quite a newbie to all this, but I am still curious to see your sources as I am working on some projects later this year for which it might be worth using a 7d if I can afford to rent one. And yes, I have used both cameras rather extensively, but never directly side-by-side.

If the short is very effects-heavy, a dSLR may not be the best choice. The skew can make motion matching virtually impossible and extraordinarily time-consuming. Ask the director why he has chosen that camera, how it fits into the workflow he envisions, what specific aesthetic concerns were behind his camera choice (if any), and even if you do not agree with him then you will know what you'll have to compensate for if outfitting a dSLR. Maybe he wants deep focus and really long lenses? HDV would be nice for that. Or if it simply comes to giving up some of your fee to rent a better camera...ask yourself why you've chosen the project and what matters most to you.

At what ISOs and focal lengths were you shooting? The consensus among web tests seems to be that the t2i and 7D have the same image quality, but I too have noticed that the 7D seems to have better image quality and maybe a stop less noise, even with the same lenses. I'm scared to repeat that belief since it goes against the conventional wisdom. I've used them on the same set but never shot tests side-by-side. Also, what picture style were you using on each? Imo, neutral with highlight protection is the best for video, far better than standard (too much sharpening, resulting in halos and aliasing) or the custom ones online (which are generally too flat and result in bad tonality and weird saturation issues in the highlights, shadows, and skin tones while actually delivering no additional latitude). Oddly, I have found the kit lens to be rather good optically, but only toward the wide end. It's less impressive zoomed in, but at 18mm it's unexpectedly good.

Douglas' advice is more-or-less spot on. I would only add that the t2i (and presumably t3i and 60d) have significantly better LCDs than the 7d and pulling focus is a lot easier with them if still imprecise. The ratio concerns are real. You get eight meaningful stops, maybe, of dynamic range, and if you go over the clipping looks a bit digital (but still not that bad), if you let things go too far under and push them the noise is chunky, and if you light flat there's not much information bit-wise and it gets veiled in noise and compression artifacts. So you need to light to the medium. The dSLRs are nonetheless much more forgiving in this regard than most digital video except maybe the really high end stuff. They have approaching two stops more highlight detail than the hvx200, imo, but certainly way less than film. Andy, remember that the difference between a black object and white one in completely even light can still be as much as four or maybe even five stops through a spot meter. So if you're lighting that at a two-stop ratio you're already getting close to filling that 8-9 stop range. I mean, is the red really giving you 14 stops of dynamic range and a dSLR two stops? No. In terms of latitude, that's a factor of camera dynamic range and scene dynamic range, so there's no hard fast number, but a stop or so of latitude is certainly all the dSLRs have, I would agree. Not much room to fix exposure in post. My figures aren't too much more scientific than waving around a camera and light meter, sometimes together, sometimes independently of one another, but I know enough about ratios to be relatively confident in them, ballpark-wise. That said, if you just stick to using a two-stop ratio you may get way better results than approaching things how I do, though that wouldn't say much given my recent work. Heh.

If you're shooting a short for festival play or an indie feature or something, consider that while 16mm used to be seen as a cheaper alternative to 35mm, now that red and the 7d have monopolized the "cheaper than 35mm" market, 16mm is seen as something of an aesthetic choice and not a budgetary one. So in terms of promoting whatever it is you're shooting, you've got an advantage right there shooting film. It's going to look different and more expensive than video. It may also get more respect on set. The dSLRs have more like 8-9 stops of dynamic range, much better than most prosumer video (similar to the ex-1 and a bit less than the red, though, maybe?), and the resolution is poor but not dreadful (about 720p but good micro-contrast). Skew is really, really bad and if you want a handheld camera or a lot of camera moves with longer lenses just consider that a deal breaker. I went for it with lots of camera moves on a t2i and it's not so good. Aliasing is bad but generally manageable. The footage is very difficult to grade nicely. Skin tones and foliage (memory colors) are substantially better than with the red, worse than with film, but the lack of flexibility in post sort of offsets the nice colors out of the camera. In terms of aesthetics, of course you won't get any unbiased opinions here, but I think dSLRs produce nice video. A lot of very nice major ad campaigns are shot with them so if you're getting terrible results it's likely a matter of approaching the medium wrong. Yes, Rob's footage looks soft, low contrast, and sometimes out of focus, but it seems to be shot almost entirely wide open. And 35mm glass with be hazy, soft, low contrast, and more likely to go out of focus when shot wide open. I do, however, think the dSLR look, like the red look, will become increasingly associated with cheap content and that will hurt you in the long run. But really it depends on what you're shooting. For a short with no budget, a dSLR buys a lot of production value, especially when you consider how the light sensitivity and superior highlight handling (relative to other cheap video only) lets you skimp on lighting a bit compared with other inexpensive video. You can probably find a friend or local studio that has one so just try it out. Don't judge it by the first video you shoot. Video is free and instant so test the hell out of it. Start with neutral mode and with highlight priority on (what I use, ha) then try other settings or whatever. Shoot under lots of different light. See what works and what doesn't.

More glass is one factor, but not to the extent that more glass means more light loss (with modern coatings you lose very little light and contrast even with complex designs); it's mostly a factor of more glass costing more money and resulting in an enormous lens. The front element has to be as large as the maximum aperture and so a 240mm f1.4 lens would need a 171mm-wide front element, which is HUGE and very expensive and would likely result in tons of flare. Image circle is another factor. I shoot some large format and lens designs list coverage in degrees (so the longer a lens the more coverage) and the word is that the widest lenses of a given design are also the sharpest over their (more limited) image circle. So it gets really hard designing fast, wide, sharp lenses for bigger sensors. I have a 135mm f5.6 plasmat that weighs half a pound (and is disgustingly amazing); its 240mm f5.6 brother weighs more than four times as much and seems even bigger than that. Equally important is the fact that you need some depth of field to shoot. Imagine pulling focus at ultra-telephoto t1.4 on super35. No one could do it! I assume it would be possible to make a t1.4 zoom for super35, but it would be incredibly expensive and probably have rather poor image quality (flare, spherical aberration, etc.) and be almost unusable in terms of size. You'll notice it's the same with stills. For 35mm still cameras you usually get primes in the f1.4 range; for 6x7 and 6x6 cameras f2.8 is about as fast as it gets; for 4x5 and 8x10 f5.6 is fast (f2.8 exists and by most accounts is amazing), for ULF Schneider makes f11-f22 lenses. The limitation seems to be related to the size of the front element and depth of field. Despite normal aperture values of f16-f64, focusing in 4x5 is an art and a science. This is mostly second hand and maybe full of fuzzy science. I have a book on lens design but am scared to read it. It's full of real science. I'm just repeating what I've been told and have found from experience.

You've probably made up your mind judging by the date on which you posted, but I would think twice before building one of those home depot things. All they are is a counterweight with no gimbal and you might as well just tie a weight to the bottom of your tripod and operate from the center of gravity for even less money. The result will be equally poor. I bought a glidecam 2000 about six years ago (for my long gone dvx) and have used it with the dvx, 7d, t2i, hv30, etc. Also used the glidecam 4000 with the vest, which might be more appropriate for an xl2. These are usable to the extent that they'll actually help stabilize your shots a bit way when used correctly (they have both counterweight and gimbal), but they are a pain to balance and the slightest error balancing will result in wonky footage. Unless you build up a lot of intertia and get perfect balance the look is still more smooth handheld than steadicam, but they are good for the money. None of these cheap options will compare with a real steadicam rig and experienced operator. Not even close. And they'll all tire you out really fast with a camera as large as the xl2. That said, I do find the glidecam useful and it's inexpensive. It's just not great. Raimi was doing a trick shot at a low frame rate. Pretty effective, and the guy is a genius with the camera, but that technique is not really versatile.

Nikon's old lenses are really great so I think you will be pleased. If you go that route keep the kit lens. It's surprisingly good and has IS. f3.5 is close enough to f2.8 that you can get away with it even if your scene is lit to f2.8 and 18mm is a focal length I find I use a lot. I can intercut between it and nikon lenses and the difference in color rendering/contrast is so trivial. Also recognize that you can't really do on-camera zooms effectively without a constant aperture zoom...so if that's important to you go for the zoom. I used to recommend buying from keh.com and getting BGN lenses, but their prices have risen so shop around. Even eBay or craigslist can be okay and some local camera stores have good selections; old nikkors are durable and plentiful. If you shoot stills I think you will find the t2i to be a very nice camera for that, too. Liveview makes manual focus primes usable for stills--and the screen on the t2i is great.

I've actually found my bad lenses perform better on the t2i than on older, lower res cameras (in still mode), and that in video mode a really sharp lens results in aliasing more than it does a great image. Buying compact primes or the like seems like a waste to me for such a technically poor camera as the t2i, except to the extent they will be arguably more "future proof" compared with worse lenses. I also disagree with Hal to the extent that most of the automatic features are worthless in the t2i's video mode: autofocus is mostly useless; no one uses autoexposure, really; and beyond that it's simply a matter of rotating a physical aperture ring versus manipulating aperture via a dial. For stills the difference between lenses with adapters and EF-mount lenses is tremendous (and you will want a good adapter if you go that route; the cheap ones get stuck on lenses and don't have infinity focus calibrated correctly and that's a killer if you're using wide angle primes with floating elements or want to pull focus to infinity adroitly), but for video, using an adapter is fine. Otherwise, I agree entirely. The Canon zoom is a great choice if you can afford it. But I would add an 85mm lens for CUs and some inserts. I also like the Tamron 17-50mm IS for half the price, but it has poor bokeh and a frustratingly small focus throw (I believe so too does the Canon). IS is absolutely crucial for handheld work, especially for 50mm and above, when skew gets horrible, so don't get a zoom or telephoto lens without IS if you can help it, as it will limit what you can shoot a bit. For $1000, a Tamron 17-50mm IS and 85mm f1.8 Canon (be careful with skew on that one; it lacks IS) makes a strong kit. In this case the kit lens is redundant. The Canon 17-55mm IS zoom is superior if you can afford it. For cheaper, the kit lens (mostly useful as an 18mm f3.5 IS prime), a 28mm f2.8 nikkor, a 50mm f1.8 nikkor, and an 85mm f2.8 nikkor (plus adapter) would make a good kit for much less money. I actually prefer mf primes for their long focus throw but for a documentary-like situation I'd rather have the fast zoom. Check keh.com or ebay for used mf nikkor primes. Also invest in ND filters, an ND grad, a polarizer, and whatever else you like. The Cokin P system is nice. What matters MOST is covering a good range of focal lengths with acceptable (f2.8 or faster, imo) speed. I use 17mm-85mm for 90% of shots, maybe, and occasionally up to 200mm, maybe. A nature videographer in Africa would go much tighter. Terry Gilliam would go much wider. Above all else, get the focal lengths you know you'll use.

In theory it could be helpful, but in movie mode the camera hunts for focus really, really slowly and the noise of the autofocus motor is loud.

I own a t2i and have shot quite a bit on the 7d. If you're planning on renting out a kit and freelancing it might be worth getting the 7d simply for purposes of advertising/appearing more "professional." The t2i is about half the size and does not get taken very seriously due to its price and form factor. This can be an advantage if you're using it as a crash cam or with a tiny steadicam type rig. But if you have to cheap out and buy a t2i that does not say much about your level of professionalism and investment in your craft. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the image is exactly the same. I'm not sure, but there's certainly not a big difference. Image quality is so close it shouldn't play in to your decision. The 7d has a few real advantages: 1/3 stop ISO settings (which, surprisingly, isn't really that big a deal since you can set most lenses within the 1/3 of a stop, though it's very nice for maintaining depth of field within a scene and not having to relight as much) and vastly more flexible white balance settings. The t2i has no good settings between 3200K and 5600K except "white fluorescent," which is okay with cool white fluorescent lights and unacceptably red with incandescent lights. So if you like shooting at different white balance settings between daylight and tungsten or baking in slightly different color, this is a pretty big deal. The t2i has tons of daylight settings, though, for whatever reason. The 7d can also go to like 2700K or so, which is more neutral with most incandescent lights; 3200K is a bit warm. The 7d also supports external monitoring at useful resolutions and the interface is trivially better. The build quality is of course vastly superior, which may matter if you plan to shoot in the rain or extreme heat. The t2i has a few advantages of its own: autofocus during video capture (which is 99.9% useless) and a significantly sharper, larger, and brighter screen. I can't judge focus worth anything on the 7d's LCD without zooming in, and that's not available during capture, and that makes pulling focus really hard. The t2i's screen is still much lower res than its capture (720X480 vs somewhere around 720p), but I can spot aliasing and focus errors much more easily with it. This is a moot point if you set up external monitoring correctly with the 7d. As always, it boils down to preference.

This is a huge long shot, but was the footage by any chance shot with HMIs on magnetic ballasts? Shooting with a 180º shutter on such lights will produce almost exactly the phenomenon you've mentioned.