Sandy Thomson

I just bought a GH4. Have only done some cam tests with it but am quite impressed. Bought it for a shoot for a Cruise ship operator and I want to shoot without attracting attention. Was shooting with a Sony DDR pj 710 for these kinds of international projects but the single variable function on the lens was an issue. With the GH4, everything is controllable and focussing with zebra is great.

Sandy

I have several 400 ft rolls of 16mm Vision 3 500, 250 and 50 film that have been in my freezer for about 5 years. I am about to take a chance on using this stock although a test would likely be smart.

Didn't realize there are now broadcast restrictions on s-16. Back in 2006 film still had the advantage. This project will not be broadcast in any case.

Way back in 2006 I started back into the doc film production business. I had been in it 20 years before and then was shooting 16mm and editing on a Moviola! Bought a very nice used SR2 in 2006 after soliciting opinions on this forum about film or digital. I started shooting a 1 hr doc that Is just now going into editing. Seven years of shooting! Duration was framed by the subject. First third was S-16 then XD cam shooting with an EX3 and Canon 60D.

Looking now at a new project for a municipality about historic properties and am wondering if I should try to push the project into film acquisition. The editor who is cutting my 1 hr doc is not as old as I am but he is a real pro and his eyes lit up upon mentioning the idea of shooting again in S-16. Everyone i know in the business is now shooting digital but I still have the film gear. Nothing I'd like more than to resurrect it, because this is the kind of film someone might want to look at 20 or 30 years down the road. I still like the look of film better than HD and then there's the archival thing. Maybe not rational, but.

The budget for this project is going to be around 150k so i think I can afford film, but what do you think? I know i'll be taking money out of my pocket and putting it into film,processing and transfers but at my stage in life.... why not?

I have been a member of this forum since 2004; the year I started back into the business after a 20 year hiatus.

I prefer to shoot film and have my own S-16 gear. Much of what I am shooting now (docs and sponsored industrial) is on XDCam but film is still my first choice because I like the look and I think it is the most secure medium for preservation of historically important subjects.

However,I recently sent an answer print of one of my projects from the '70's to transfer. Original footage would have been reversal Kodak stocks. The lab examined the film and reported that in many scenes the fading was so severe that only the magenta layer seemed intact. Yet other scenes looked almost normal. I am going to go ahead with the transfer and see what my editor can fix but I wonder why the variability and is this generally the fate of most films this old?

If I store today's project on a hard drive or optical discs will they even be watchable in 28 years?

Sandy

Looks interesting to me as well. I've been shooting with an FX1 for about 3 years. Nice feature to be able to choose Mini DV tape or card. At least I think that option is possible.

If you're shopping be careful of the Expecam price of 4999. It looks like you get nothing with it, not even a battery.

I shoot mainly S-16 but the HDV seems to mix well with it.

With larger sensors and the lens option this camera ought to be able to deliver even better quality than the FX1.

Sandy Thomson

A: Not sure.. if this link doesn't help, I'm sure someone else here will step up to the plate. Here's the official Sony link:

 

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusin...rogressive.html

B. From what I've seen, it's useless for real production.. makes the video some ulta-low quality stuff. Again, hope someone else can get into that.

 

C. I'm very sure it's still HDV - 25Mbs, MPEG-GOP, and that's 1440-1080 res. Just good 'ole HDV. Hey, that hard drive is still a great idea!

I've been shooting with an FX1 for a couple of productions now and now an associate wants to buy an HD camera. I could sell him mine and upgrade to a HVR-VU1. But am I really upgrading or am I better to stay with what I have? Anyone know what a good used FX1 is worth?

Sandyt

Maybe Serious Magic DV Rack would work, they have a HDV pack now.

http://www.seriousmagic.com/dvrack.cfm

Thanks Wayne. I went ahead and bought a new Power book and I know that will work.

Sandy

Yesterday and was trying to find a way to plug a Sony HDR-FX1 into a Sony GVM1311Q Video Monitor but I wasn't able to get it to work. Is there a trick to this, or is this just too old a monitor to work with a Sony HDR-FX1? Thanks

 

I found a copy of the manual of this monitor online:

 

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/GVM1311Q.PDF

I've got essentially the same problem. The LCD monitor is too small to view either what you're shooting or shot critically. My problem is slightly different in that my director is in an interview scene and unless I can position the monitor so he can easily see it without making it seem like he's distracted, I'm going to have to download the scene onto a laptop and review it. I wondered if there's any way to do this without buying a Mac Powerbook set up with FCP.

I've tried PC's with various software packages but nothing seems to work.

Sandy

I want to be able to playback on a laptop stuff I've shot with my HDR FX1 and I can't seem to get it to work on my pc.

Do I need a Mac laptop or is there software available for a notmal (Toshiba) pc? The 4 pin firewire port is there but I may need software I don't now have.

I don't want to do any editing, just let the director see what we've shot in the field.

I have a shoot coming up soon in UK and I've got to get this this settled before then. The camera's LCD screen is just not big enough.

Sandy

Life just isn't that simple. You have to look at film as a distinct medium. It has and likely will always have a different look to Video. Personally, I think both can fit in the same production. I will shoot HDV if I need extreme portability, shooting internationally, or for interviews that could have very high shooting ratios. I have invested more money in my Super-16 film gear than in video but much of the equipment for example lighting and sound can be used for either. I prefer the look of film, frankly but I don't find myself struggling with the question of which is better. Both have 16X9 aspect ratios and they cut together well in a documentary. I have no doubt that the Arri SR2 gear I own will outlast the brand new video kit.

Everything about film is more robust... there are so many analogies possible with cars, bikes, musical instuments, airplanes, you name it. But I won't go there. You want to go from point A to point B. You can drive or you can fly. They both get you there. Which is better? Depends. But no-one can ever say absolutely.

Sandy

Hello everyone,

 

I'm camera assisting on a student Super 16 shoot at the moment. A professional cinematographer who is supervising the shoot said that instead of learning about film, we should be embracing digital, as it is the future, and that only "dinosaurs" like himself still care about film. That film will be dead in the water very soon.

 

Do you agree?

I'm rather depressed at the moment. :(

I've run up against a situation where I am having a loss of sync over long interview takes (over 5 minutes).

Up to now I've had no problems but the takes have been relatively shorter. It's only drifting by one or two frames but enough to be noticable.

I can fix it in editing with cut-aways but am I missing something? The camera is an SR11 and the recorder is a Fostex.

Sandy

Thats the montra that has been pushed around by people who have never had experience with HDV. Its not really a problem. I am doing final clean up work on a 100minute HDV feature movie and we have had a great working experience with the footage. It cuts easily, we can still scrub the timeline, nothing needs to be rendered unless there is an effect added on, and renders finnish quickly. I dont notice the codec causing any problems. the timeline is responsive and snappy. I really cant tell much of a difference between editing DV and HDV, except rendering time is about 2x what DV is.

Many thanks for the response. I have invested a lot in working in this format and have had no problems at all other than the ones one might expect to encounter after returning to a business I left 25 years ago! Mixing film with video was never my intention going in, but the definition of HDV and the 16X9 common aspect ratio seem to make the combination quite compatible.

It's interesting that people who may have a lot of video editing experience with DV feel qualified to project dire warnings about a system they've never worked with.

I'm shooting mainly S-16 but using a Sony HDR-FX1 for some shots where the portability of video is an asset. I have been transferring the film to HDV and editing it on line with a G5 in FCP together with the video footage. I have not done any transitions or other effects requiring rendering and really will not as I am only doing rough cutting in preparation for our editor. I have had no problems up to now other than some transfer issues on the film side where I was using a two stage transfer process. Howver, one of the labs I work with recenly told me that I can expect to have problems editing the compressed HDV particularily when it comes to rendering. They said that HDV is fine if viewed as it comes from the camera but trying to edit it creats many problems.

If this is true should I be transferring the HDV to another codec for editing?

Sandy

Hi, it sounds like you have your HDV post workflow figured. It may be a good idea to have your transfer record to HDCAM or D5 in addition to going directly to HDV drive. Since you are paying for the telecine transfer, it would be a good idea to record to a higher quality format to allow for more flexiblity in the future. I always find myself reaching for my HDCAM copies from archival. Best of luck

Thanks Josh;

Actually, that was the way I was doing it when I did transfers in Toronto. I went first to HDCAM and then at another house to HDV in Mini DV tape. Now I'm doing the transfers at Bono, it's a one shot process from neg to DVD as long as the size is not over 4gb. There's no lab in Toronto presently capable of telecine to HDV or even doing both transfers at the same shop.

I still have the film neg as backup and the show is going to be ruled by the least common denominator which is the natural HDV component.

Doing the tapeless transfers is half the cost and the quality is at least as good if not better.

I'd agree with you that if the whole show were to be S-16 in origin, the two stage process you suggest would be better.

Sandy

To note, I'd rather not use the p+s technik again (at least, with the FX1). Given the choice between that rig and shooting super 16, I would rather go with super 16.

I'm shooting HDV (FX1) and Super 16 and editing both in HDV. The important stuff is shot on film and where I need something very portable I shoot with the FX1. What's wrong with the lesnd on the camera?

Sandyt

I'm interested in comments on the path I'm using to produce projects that will eventually post to HD DVD's

I am shooting S-16 and having this transferred in tapeless form to HDV. I'm editing this material together with 16X9 native HDV shot with an FX1.

I am hoping that by the time I'm ready to finish post I'll be able to go to HD DVDs.

I have viewed both images on monitors as well as projected to a large screen and the blend seems to be more compatible than mixing S-16 in SD and SD video.

Ive been shooting interiors with Vision 2 500T stock and exteriors on 50D.

Assuming what I am producing is not going to be projected via film to a screen and will be most likely viewed on a HD TV is this process a good choice?

The reason I'm mixing film and video is mainly to do with with the portability of the gear as I am shooting in different countries and there are other situations where the video package is just a lot more convenient to move around.

The film has a different look, you can notice the grain and whereas the HDV is extremely sharp, I really prefer the look of the film.

Is anyone else out there doing it this way?

Sandy Thomson

Please consider film when you need the advantages film offers for HD nature cinematography: wide range of frame rates, robustness and portability of equipment in the field under a wide variety of conditions, ability to handle extremes of exposure, etc.:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why...ker/myth2.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/fastFacts/fastFacts.html

 

Look into the advantages of the new KODAK VISION2 HD Color Scan Film 7299 for documentary use, where its latitude and flexibility are very useful:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.4.6&lc=en

John:

I've been very happy with the results of several studio interviews shot with 7218 in S-16.

I recently shot a short film on board a ship with both interior tungsten lighting and external shots using an 85+ND#3 and I was aware of more grain than I'd like to see in the neg transferred to HDV.

I'm also shooting native HDV with a Sony FX1 and cutting it into the film production as the video gear is a whole lot more portable particularly when we have to travel internationally.

While the HDV is incredibly sharp, I somehow like the film look better, but I wonder if maybe I should be using a slower stock for the external shots?

Sandy

ns and would usually cover so people didn't want to reinvest in a bunch of filters so they kept one tray 4x4.56 and one 4x4. It's a lot cheaper to just buy a few 4x4.56 filters and mix between the two as opposed to replacing everything. I must have $4k in filters alone!

I adapted a Chosziel 4X4 to my SR2 S-16 with Canon lens (11.5-135). Initially I had problems with vignetting but it was not the box but the adapter ring which fits to the bore of the lxtended cylinder of the lens. This was a plastic ring which basically adapted the bore of the matte box to the lens. I machined a taper to the inside of the adapter to reduce interference and not it works perfectly at 11.5 with no vignetting.

sandy

22 ibs is certainly pushing it when you want smooth control over a camera of that size. I would go for something rated for at least 28ibs., and I would also want it to have numerus drag settings and spring tensions, plus a balancing plate. A Satchler Video 18 or similar should do you quite nicely.

 

There is a good rule of thumb which states that there is no such thing as a tripod head that's too big. The only difficulty may be in lugging it around, but the bigger the better. I use a head the equivalent of a Studio 25, and I also prefer 150mm ball to 100mm ball.

Thanks Mitch. When I bought the camera the owner had it mounted on what I thought to be an enormous head and tripod. I thought it would be way to heavy to cart around but I guess he knew a whole lot more than I.

Looks like I'm going to have to spend 6-7k unless I can get something good used.

ST

I've been shooting with a Sony HDV camera using a Vinten head and tripod rated for 22 lbs. The results have been good as have studio interview shoots using the same tripod and head but with my SR2 package.

However I have recently screened dailies shot on a field project and am very disappointed with rough pans and tilts using the Arri/Vinten setup. I think I need a more substantial head/tripod for this camera package. There are probably many possibilities but I'd appreciate a couple of suggestions.

Sandy Thomson

David:

Thanks for the response. I don't know if NZ is PAL or NTSC. I'll have to ask.

The intention is to transfer to an HD master, and downconvert for editing. The HD is for some time in the future because I expect to see this project sold as DVD's before it may have a TV opportunity. However, you raise a good point in suggesting the option of transfer all to SD initially with an EDL with a later transfer to HD. I presume the latter would be less costly.

Yes I have shot everything to date at 24 fps.

The production will be 50 min with a shooting ratio of maybe 10:1.

The subject is the restoration of a vintage aircraft.

I'm not new to shooting film but I am to electronic editing.

Sandy

I'm shooting a documentary mainly in S-16 but due to the distance involved between my home in Canada and New Zealand where one of the principle subjects is located, I am looking at farming out some progress shots to a freelance video cameragirl who is shooting with a Panasonic DVX100. She's asking me if she should shoot in "cine" mode or normal video and not knowing much about the video camera world I don't know what to tell her. Of course the S-16 is just for capture. In post I'm doing to an HD master and dubbing to SD video and release initially will be in DVD format.

Any suggestions?

Sandu Thomson

Sorry folks, I omitted one small detail. S-16.

That changes things considerably.

Add the cost of converting a good SR11 package to S-16 and you're right there where the already converted cameras are, in the 27-30k price range. Or am I missing something?