Josh Hill

160 to 200 is way low, I think. All of the numbers I've seen tend to say the XL1(s) is up into the 500-800 range and possibly higher (depending on each individual camera). I believe I read, once, that it was even 1600. But of course, I could be wrong (and so could the dozen of people writing articles postulating on the ISO rating of the XL1(s).)

Don't forget lights outside the building. I'm sure that there are streelights somewhere in the vicinity or something of the sort. Or hard moonlight (I have a high window in my apartment and have noticed that moonlight is far harder than I ever gave it credit for). With lights outside coming in you can get creative with the shooting and lighting without worrying about lighting everything solely from the flashlights.

You cannot be shooting 24p on an XL1. If you're shooting in frame mode you're shooting 30P, but it's really not even real 30P if I remember correctly.

Wow Bob, I've never actually thought about that. Next time I'm lighting a small room (which is pretty much everytime I shoot) I'm going to try that.

Use your trial version of Final Draft to save to a .rtf file. It creates its template within Word (or whatever you're using). Just delete whatever you've written and save the file as the template. Then you can write in your native word processor. Or buy a typewriter. That's the most trusted piece of screenwriting hardware in history.

I'm not sure there's really a whole lot out there right now. The XL2 is not even a year old yet, so I think you'd be hard pressed to find as much stuff as, say, a DVX100a or an XL1s. I would look at stuff shot on both of those cameras, and I think that will give you a feel for what the XL2 can do. I'm sure there's SOMETHING out there already from the XL2, but I've not heard for anything.

I'd also like to point out that everyone has their own version of being well read. Not everyone has the same tastes. I don't want to read C.S. Lewis because i know his politics, and the only other author I know on that list is Geoffrey Chaucer, and while I like SOME of the Canterbury tales I don't like all of them. I much prefer Dante (whom you have left off YOUR list) to Chaucer, and as a theatre major I'm fairly well versed in Shakespeare. Does my reading Hunter Thompson make me any less well read? No. He's a wonderful author who has his own style and his own observations about the world. I read what I like to read, and occasionally things that I MUST read, but the fact remains that I consider myself a fairly well read person. As a twenty-something I know that I can produce quality product because I'm not grabbing a camera and running around shooting whatever I can like other people my age. I know how to work with actors and I know what makes a good script. And good writing does NOT usually "erupt" forth from the writer. When I write nothing ever just spews out onto the page brilliantly and I look at it and say "Oh, there it is!" The process of good writing, I think, is marked by the little discoveries along the way. You write something and you move on and forget about it only to find out that it is foreshadowing, or that a minor detail has become a major plot device. I always wondered how those kind of things happened, and in the last script I wrote I found out because it came together on its own, but did not ever "erupt" out of me. I have a story to tell right now and it's kind of sitting there, building. But it isn't erupting anywhere. And the thought of something erupting forth brings to mind someone who writes a first draft and says "That's it!" But even the great writers change their work, redraft their work, and make it into something through a thoughtful process. (Not to mention the editors who help them out in this regard.) Good writing is as much work as anything else is. But just a question for you, Mr. Seper, how do you feel about the BOOK Gone with the Wind? Is it part of your subjective idea of being well read? What about The Grapes of Wrath? Of Mice and Men? The Sound and the Fury? What about poetry? Eliot? Ginsberg? Frost? What about James Dickey? Do these people constitute being well read? My point is simply this: you should not come onto a forum and begin your very ignorant criticisms of the world and throw around your blatantly ageist views (20-somethings shouldn't produce anything?) and expect anyone to really take you seriously. I'm sorry I haven't read the same authors you have and can't carry on a conversation about them, but that does not make me anything less than you. Hold your head high, friend, because an education is a wonderful thing. But don't hold it over other people because you have a different taste in books. There are many intelligent and talented people on this forum, Mr. Seper, and I think you should realize that there is not a true objective measurement for that. It is not in the books you read, but in how your mind operates. It is not in your criticism of the work of others, but in the work that you yourself create. Age and education are not indicative of either of those things. Some things you can learn, some things you can't.

I agree with the separation of plot and story. In my directing class we went through that whole thing about how the plot is the "this happened and then this happened" but the story is in the details, about who characters are and why they do what they do among other things.

But remember, to have shadows you need light to cast them. I've found in my experience with the XL1 (I read from another post that is what you're shooting in) that I prefer using MORE light rather than LESS light. I tend to like to throw swaths of light around and stylize my light quite a bit (and I've worked mostly in small rooms). I also light lighting where my actors come in and out of darkness as they move around. You might want a couple of 650W fixtures, but I've found that using a couple of 200 or 300 watt lights works very well. Set your Gain to -3 and control set a constant stop. Don't let the camera do any of the work for you. Light from there and use a well-adjusted monitor to make sure you're getting the look you want. And make sure you know what the blocking is in the small room, because it is much harder to hide fixtures.

Don't forget 7222. Kodak 7231 is a 80/64 speed stock (I believe, I'm too lazy to go check the film can) while 7222 is a 200 speed stock.

I wouldn't say that "good filmmakers" try to get the wrinkles out of the face. That was the style fifty years ago because there was a big emphasis put on the beautification of the actors. But of course the original cinematographer on Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe was fired for trying to beautify Elizabeth Taylor. There is a use for having softer footage and taking those "wrinkles" out, but there is also a use for having very hard focusing that leaves all of those winkles in. I don't think the softness of progressive scan makes it look more filmlike, because when I think filmlike I don't think soft at all. Or at least not the kind of soft that I associate with video (I find this point hard to explain, thinking about it, but it is something that I just notice). I'm in total agreement with you that the story and the characters are the most important thing in a film, but I think everyone here would agree with that. But you seem to miss the point (as so many people on this forum do) that when we say things about not attempting to make video look like film, we are not starting a film vs. video debate. How many times must people say, on this thread alone, that we are simply stating that you must shoot GOOD video as opposed to associating what is good with a format--a medium. Quite frankly, I think everyone here is quite tired of the film vs. video debates that continue to rage, but it is hard to resist throwing in your two cents especially when people (not citing you, but just in general) are throwing around things that are not necessarily true. Perhaps there should just be an answer in the FAQ to "How do I get my video to look like film" that says: "Don't worry about it looking like film, just learn how to shoot good video."

I believe that Florida State University thesis films are being shot on 35mm.

Matt, If he made 20mil on Mullholland Dr., then he made his money back (according to IMDB who says the budget was 15 million). Of course, on the other movies you named he has made nothing back, in fact lost quite a bit of money, but there is something different about David Lynch that allows people to disregard, I think, these losses. Many people look at David Lynch as less of a filmmaker and more of an artist, and in that light he is probably being funded similarly to how artists are quite often funded (only speculation on my part). He is given the money not to make it back, but rather to make art. If he turns a profit, good deal, and if he doesn't whoever gave him that money is happy to be a part of the final product. I like David Lynch, in a sense, but I'm not the biggest David Lynch fan. I like how he puts passion into each and every one of his projects, but sometimes it seems like he's doing crazy, over-the-top weird kind of stuff not because it is what he likes, but because it is what is expected of him. Of course, this is probably wrong because he does seem utterly insane sometimes. Later, Josh

Or get a darker cat. :-)

I think the did in quotation marks confused me because I didn't know you were creating emphasis, because quotation marks are not used for emphasis. Other than that comment I'm bowing out. I still believe that there is no reason for someone to attempt to make video look like film. Don't attempt to make one medium look like the other, use the medium that best suits your project and push whatever medium that is to its very limits if need be.

Check with Visual Products. I think their price is like 500 dollars or so. Call and ask for a quote.

CP16R can also be easily converted to Super16. Visual Products will do a wonderful job with that, and can even give you a PL hardfront.

Does no one remember when FilmIs4Ever used to stir up poop on the forum?

Firstly, I think using the word "video" is not indicative of someone describing hi-def. Video, I believe, still brings to mind standard definition. But we are talking, here, about DV. These television shows you named are shooting hi-def, sure, but they are not shooting DV. When we say video in this thread, I think it is understood that we are all talking about DV (since that is in the title of the thread). You may not like El Mariachi, and I may not like El Mariachi, but look where Robert Rodriguez is now based on that one film. You may not like Kevin Smith, but look where he is now based on that one film. They got there by putting their passions into one project, and had they been able to shoot DV I seriously doubt either of them would have made a project that would have garnered the same attention. And there is something to shooting film that, I think, garners better results than shooting DV. It isn't in the medium itself, but rather in the process that you go through. Film is more expensive, and so you are less likely to have a young "filmmaker" slap something together over a weekend and pass it off as their master opus. When burning dollars as fast as you can burn them on a film shoot, it forces people to put a little bit more thought into what they're sending through the camera. Plus, the intimidation factor of film is more likely to have a young director have someone else come and shoot for them, rather than just grabbing the video camera and running off with it. My generation of filmmakers (all of the ones I know anyway) don't want to go through the sweat and blood of the process, but rather they want to grab a camera and shoot. They see film, the medium, as a quality control matter and so they waste time and effort on attempting to get that film look. You also selected quotes out of the context of my entire post. I didn't just say it was pointless to attempt to make video look like film, I also said that video is a medium, an aesthetic all its own and that one should attempt to use the medium to its fullest potential rather than spend your time making it look like something else. You also, as I mentioned before, brought hi-def into the mix, which was not a part of the original thread. But everyone my age does seem to want to be the next Kevin Smith, Richard Linklater or Robert Rodriguez. Especially in Austin where I am currently residing (and there is still good independent film coming out of Austin, but because of UT film school and everyone trying to be one of those three people, there is still a lot of bad stuff coming from here as well). Later, Josh PS: I don't know why you put did in quotation marks. Either you did add grain or didn't. That confused me.

Like I've said before, Paul Hillman at Visual Products knows his CP16s. If you have a motor problem, he can most likely fix it. Plus, during a regular overhaul he replaces the belts in the CP16 with custom made belts that don't disintegrate over time.

Mike, Very good point. And well said. Later, Josh

Jim, you couldn't be further from the truth. Composition and focus can be learned on a 16mm camere just as well on a 35mm camera. You can learn composition from shooting video, and never touching a frame of film (or from taking enough art classes, or just looking at painting and getting a feel for what is right). Focus, I will agree, is easier to learn on film but you could learn from a 35mm still camera and not have to deal with the extra expense of a 35mm motion picture camera. Even a 16mm camera has a great deal of focus to deal with, but I don't think focus is that hard of a thing to learn. A sync sound 16mm camera can be had for cheaper than most MOS 35mm cameras. That opens you up to more projects, because you have the ability to shoot sound should you desire it. 16mm will also take someone new through the film process much more cheaply than 35mm. Taking 400 feet of film through shooting, editing and to printing for projection will run someone far less than taking the same running time (1000 feet or so) of 35mm film through the process. This allows for him to shoot greater amounts of footage, or shoot more often and gain experience with film than if he were shooting the costlier 35mm. Plus, 16mm is a medium all its own with its own aesthetic which I happen to think can be just as beautiful as 35mm, if not more so sometimes. By your logic, why shouldn't he try to get himself a 65mm camera? That would really future proof himself, and he would be competing with virtually no one. And in the larger format he should learn about composition and focus much better than 35mm, right?

My lay friend could tell 28 Days Later wasn't shot on film. He didn't know PRECISELY what was different about it, but he asked me: "Why did that movie look like that?" He could tell there was something about it that he was not used to in a theatrical film. Also, just because someone has an XL1 doesn't mean they know anything about video. My first (and only, to date) video camera was an XL1s. Until I picked it up I knew absolutely nothing. I also think the Frame Mode on the XL1s looks nothing like film. I think it looks like crap, personally. Frame mode alone doesn't make things look like film, especially if you're shooting NTSC like so many of us are. I also think what people are saying with things like "embrace the video" is that it has its own aesthetic. It really is pointless to try to make something look like film that is video. But to use video's inherent aesthetic, play with it, turn it on its ear and come out on the other end with some good VIDEO is better than coming out with a bastardized stepchild of either format. Video can be beautiful and impressive. The problem is that people want to have the prestige of film without the price. If you have a project that you want to shoot on film, but you can't afford film, then pick a new project. Hold off on it a little while and wait. Instead of flooding the market with "okay" digital movies, people should hold off on their filmmaking and put their efforts into just ONE really good project. Everyone wants to be the next Richard Linklater, Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez and they think that DV is the gateway to that. But it is not. All three of those filmmakers focused their energies and money into one really good project, because they had to. Digital had not proliferated to the pandemic proportions that it has today (I only say that because of the market being flooded with crap and making it harder for anyone to sort through it all to find the diamonds in the rough). All of those filmmakers were shooting on film, because that was the accepted format of the time. They threw themselves into it full force and made the best movies they possibly could. People today are using the cheap, affordable digital revolution to shoot crap and then say: "How do I make this like film?" I don't think it is like this in any other art form. A sculptor doesn't say: "How do I make marble look like bronze?" A painter doesn't say: "How do I make watercolor look like oil?" We are simply talking about a medium here, and in all other arts people choose their medium carefully. People come to this forum constantly and ask about video looking like film, because they are naive and don't know the right question to ask, much less how to make anything of any quality. People throw around 28 DAYS LATER far too much. If you listen to Danny Boyle talk about the film, he USED THE VIDEO AESTHETIC. He used it because he liked the dirty, gritty feel of the video. He used it because he felt it made the movie feel more real world. He did NOT attempt to make it look like film. They used film lenses for quality issues as well as depth of field issues, but they still embraced the video to make the movie they wanted to make. What we are trying to teach people by saying make video look like video is that film does not equate good. There have been plenty of bad things shot on film (MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE springs to mind). And by the same token there have been plenty of GOOD things shot on video. We are talking about a MEDIUM here. You choose the medium that suits the project. Like I said before, if you want it to look like film then save the money and throw yourself headlong into shooting a film. But you can make fine looking video, and with everyone trying to shoot video that looks like film it gives you the ability to play with the inherent videoness of your footage and come out with something that no one has ever seen before. While everyone else is putting filters on their video to simulate grain, you can use your originality and creativity to spawn an entirely new look for your project and be noticed. I personally don't shoot any of my own projects on video, which is a reason I don't shoot my own projects at all. I want to work with film, because I like the way it looks. I like the granularity. I like many things about it, and it is my medium of choice. I do not run around like the people my age (21) and make crap on video and try to supe it up to make it look better. That is like people hotrodding a Honda Civic around. Sure you have a spoiler, some new hubcaps and a new engine ... but it is still a Honda Civic. By putting 10,000 dollars worth of junk on your car you did not make it a Camaro.

Meter 50, that is 2/3s down from 80 (which is the daylight rating for the stock).

Paul Hillman at Visual Products will do a refurb (with lens collimation) for about 1200. EXCELLENT work too.