Jump to content

Phil Connolly

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Connolly

  1. If the Digi-Beta copy looks good it migh be cheaper to get a cinevator print from the Digi master direct to 35mm print. That may be the cheapest way to do it - but its still going to cost a lot and not look as good compaired to going back to the 16mm and doing a proper blow-up digital or optical. Still supprising that such a big festival can only cope with 35mm only. It would work out cheaper to rent a digi-beta deck and a high end d-cinema projector then it would to create a 35mm print. I wonder if theres any room for negotiation on that front and convincing them to allow video, they have video companies as sponsors and could probably add digital projection to the screenings quite easily.
  2. I guess Channel 4's - budget tightening exercises are hitting Film Four. But I did find, even historically there was a lot of repertition in the schedual, but there was the occasional gem - I used to work in their QC department so got paid to watch their films which was nice. I think they screened Northfork once - well I QCed it for them - so I assume it went out
  3. Lots of camera scams on the internet - if the price is too good to be true it probably is. A lot of them take your order the charge you extra for things that should be included in the standard package eg.. battery, charger, lens etc... Knocking the price back up to something thats not a great deal. Or they can be grey imports that don't have US warranties Not worth the risk
  4. Guess my post was a bit vague: But I would go: CAM: 1 - FOH - offering big wide/MS lead Singer/ Poss extra shots of other instrument CAM: 2 - On Stage shooting towards band or front row of audience - concentrating on the other instruments not singer as they are covered on CAM:1 CAM:3 On stage - OS drums shooting out - with the option of moving round and grabing another angle in profile on singer/guitarist Alessandro is right - 3 cameras is quiet tight, one or two extra locked off cameras might give you more options. Try borrow a couple of miniDV cams - if they don't match in quality make them black and white and use the quality shift a feature in the edit. I the past I've found that I don't end up using the big wide shot that much - just at the beginning/end of shots as a geography shot. MS and CU are much more dynamic and a OS reverse wide from behind the drums can be more interesting then the front on one. Last time I filmed a band I used 4 cameras and it was a challenge to get lots of variety - I had scripted the shots so most operators had about 5 different positions for each song. But this was vision mixed and I was directing over talkback, so I could move cameras while I was taking the other cameras shot. If you can cue the operators you can get a greater variety of shots without risking a situation where 3 cameras are offering the same shot and you miss something good because its not covered. The more you can plan the better - rehearse the shots - if you can't do it with the band do it with stand in's - so you can check the shot sizes the operators are offering and it all works together
  5. Doing a wide shot of the full band is useful since its your backup and you can cut to it at anytime and not miss anything. But your right its a bit boring and if you only have 3 cameras - could limit your choice of shots. I would perhaps use one camera FOH to get a mid shot of the singer for most of the time, since normally you need that coverage - that could then could grab quick wides as establisher between songs and during instrumental bits - on a big wide you might be able to cheat sync and use the wide over other sections. I would put a hand held camera on stage - mainly behind the drums so you can get nice close ups on the kit which always look good especially if you have a wide angle lens - from this position you can also get nice over shoulder shots into the crowd. I'd put the third camera hand held at the front of the stage grabbing different sized closeups - avoiding MS of the singer since you have that on the FOH CAM 1 The main problem is to try not to have cameras repeating shots but if you give the camera ops clear instructions - you can limit this. CAM 1 FOH: MS singer and big wide instrumental bits and between songs CAM 2(handheld on stage): OS drums/wide audience band in forground/CU drums CAM 3 (handheld front of stage): MS/LMS other instrument most of the time/BCU singer every now and again for variety/crowd shots Zooms are your friend use them to give different size shots - variety is the key - but don't mad you don't want a situation where all the cameras are zooming at the same time - ideally you want to hide the zooms - use the shot of another camera while one camera is changing shot sizes - maybe give one of the cameras a time to change shot - eg be wider on the chorus then the verse. Get shots of the crowd - the good thing about this is they are non-sync so you can cut them in and cheat the sync to cover bits when you are running out of shots of the band or to hide zooms etc... Shoot the soundcheck and rehersal if you can - you might be able to cheat in a few tight close ups - cymbals, kickdrum, feet tapping etc- giving more shots. Learn the set list - then you can give the cam ops notes - eg this shot on that song, that shot on this bit etc... You can prescript the shots and give the cameras camera cards... With a larger budget you could give the camera ops talkback headsets and you could cue the shots eg cam 2 go to shot 11 - BCU kick drum.. This might not be that expensive CB radios with headsets are cheap the rent and would allow everyone to communicate The better you know the music the more you can break it down and pre-script the camera shots. I make up A5 camara cards with a shot list for each song that can be taped to the cameras so the ops - know what shots to offer - rather then having to remember
  6. I think 5.1 on movies for TV use tends to be someth close to the theatrical mix - well thats what the channel I do a bit of work for in the UK does - it broadcasts a dynamic range compressed mix on its SD channel and a full range 5.1 mix on the HD channel. I guess assuming that the people listening to the 5.1 mix - are more likley to have speakers suitable for the mix then the SD stereo listeners.
  7. Normally the playback system would automatically reduce the frequency response - eg.. TV speakers will only reproduce the frequencies they are able to - you don't need to pre-filter the audio. Broadcast masters have full frequency response audio - even though 95% of TV's are no able to reproduce the full range of frequencies. The main issue with creating audio masters for different formats is dynamic range, typically TV mix's have the same frequency response as theatrical mix's, but significantly less dynamic range. This is prevent people at home having to ride the volume level - when listening in less then ideal conditions. Also TV commercials are mixed very loudly - so the audio levels of your mix for TV needs to at the same loudness - or the ad breaks crash in at a much higher level. So in general your going to need Two mixes a TV mix and a Theatrical - but anymore then that would be too much effort to keep track of, for diminishing returns.
  8. Sounds interesting but I think this film: http://www.youtube.com/user/thelonefilmmaker#p/a is the first attempt at 1 person feature film - if it gets finished. But from that guys blogs - it looks like a real challenging way to make a film - if film making wasn't hard enough.
  9. Most editing packages can handle DV - so your choice would be more down to the features you need to cut the footage. Final Cut pro would be a good choice - or you could try Premier or Avid - the advantage of these packages let you use a PC, which would be cheaper to buy then a Mac. That said Macs are nice and Final Cut Pro is very good.
  10. Just capture in as DV files, over firewire, it will be a direct copy of the data on the tape. You won't loose any quality. As long as you have enough storage you won't need to compress any of the files further - DV is already compressed. You will need lots of storage - 1TB is about 80 hours of DV quality footage
  11. Although you could grade the downconverted DV footage and it would probably look fine - your selling your project short if you have the rushes on HD. Also DV images degrade quite quickly if you have to do a lot of grading. The best bet would be to re-conform the HD rushes - its a pain to eye match the whole film. But if your organised you should be able to do it fairly quickly. It will take a lot less time then the orignal edit. I have eye matched a 9 minute film, once and it took less then a day to do, but it had quite long takes and not too many cuts. If you can work out what the timecode offset is between your DV rushes and HD rushes it might be possible to conform it more quickly by edting the edl. So re-doing the edit is a pain but its not going to take nearly as long as the original edit - since all the hard work is done and your just overlaying the HD shots and matching them in - with practice, you can get quite quick at it.
  12. Its noticably faster in low light - which seems logical, as it has a 720p sensor vs sonys 1080, so each photosite is larger - making it more sensitive. The manfacturer specs rate it at 640asa, although I didn't have a lightmeter - I can well belive its in that ballpark, as it really saw into the shadows nicely. In the end the biggest light we were able to get was a 1.2k HMI, so we really did need a cam that could work well with only streetlight illumination. At this level every bit of exposure we could eek of of the camera - was a benifit.
  13. Personally, if I audition someone - I tell them If I'm not going to use them. If they made the effort to come to the audition, its the least I can do. If it were me, I wouldn't want to be sitting by the phone waiting. I usually just send a stock email - "thanks for coming, but this time its a no", There's not point giving more information then that, otherwise you might get into the messy world of giving feedback. Avoid giving feedback at all costs, on something as subjective as acting it can only get messy. If I'd interviewed for a Job, I would like someone to give me the cutesy of putting me out of my misery. So I aways do the same to actors that are interested in my productions. It might not be the done thing, as its true actors don't expect top hear back. So its not bad form to not send rejection letters. But it takes a few minutes to knock up a stock email and send it out - so why not. I always set up a new email address for the casting of each production - so if you do get any crazies that won't take no for an answer, its easier to block/ignore. Obviously never let prospective actors get your phone number... Also it stops Agents hassling you to find out if you've made a decision yet.
  14. Thanks for your reply Steve - I've heard good things about the PDW700. We ended up using the HDX900, as I was able to get a deal and it was recommended over the HDW750. It performed really well great low light performance, not as sharp as true 1080 camera, but still nice and crisp.
  15. That said a sub $200 - 1 TB hard disk - will store around 20 hours of DVC PRO HD. So if you back up everything twice on two disks, it still works out less then $20 per hour of storage. Which is cheaper then DVCPro Tape. Backing up is a bit of a pain - but in some cases - tapeless could save you money on your stock budget compared to tape. Although this is offset by the time spent archiving the cards... But you save again in post production not having to rent a deck or spend time digitising...
  16. The other thing that will help is shooting format - some cameras are much better in low light. I just shot a project using the Pannasonic HDX900 - which is rated around 640ASA and a lot of the time we got enough exposure off streetlights alone. Sometimes had to go to 3dbs of gain but generally had nice results. We also scouted areas with lots of streetlights. But you can get some really quiet gennys these days - Last week I used 5KW Honda - one of their silent models - it had be converted to run off gas making it even quieter. Wasn't any louder then a car idling - really low key. It cost a bit more then a non silenced genny, but we were in a situation where there was no local power and it was a residentual area and noise needed to be minimised. In the end it was worth finding the money for, an added benifit was we could use it to boil a kettle. It was great to have access to hot drinks at 3 in the morning.
  17. Sure thats a risk- but you have to be disciplined - even when shooting digital you have to keep the ratio under control. When it comes to how much rehearsal you do with the actors it depends on the actors and material. I have been on productions where the actors were over rehearsed, because the director was worried about the shooting ratio, and the performance can become a bit stilted. I think the disapline shooting on film can enforce is great on a film set - but theres no reason why you can't apply that approach to digital. On low budgets I find there are other things help to keep your shooting ratio down - eg you can only afford the location/actor/equipment for a limited time. If your rehearsing and lighting your shots correctly you often don't have time to shoot loads of takes even if you can afford the stock. But the issue with shooting at mega low ratios is your going to have to make lots of compromises - what if the performance that looked great on set - just doesn't flow in the edit and you've got no alternative takes or coverage to try and rescue it. Although its important to make desisions on the set and have a clear vision for your film. Its important to give your self some options in the edit, some different versions of performances. Its only when you see the scenes running together in the edit that you can really see if its working and hopefully make changes if you've got the material to do so. But its all personal preference as well - the project I'm working on now is being shot on unashamedly on HD video. With the budget we have, we could have managed to shoot on super16 on a low ratio - with less shoot days and simplified lighting package. Yes 16mm would have looked much nicer - but I'm happy that HD was the right choice - as I know I don't have to worry about not getting enough material, and as the equipment is cheaper, so I can shoot more days and not have to rush over each setup. If I had 20% more money to work with I'd be shooting film, but at this budget level, although film is 'technically' possible, it would compromise the piece as we would be struggling for coverage. I think these questions about shooting format/ratio etc... are difficult to answer on forums because they are so dependant on the script the talent involved the budget, type of locations etc... Just because 6:1 works for one person, doesn't mean it will work for you on your project. Its risky to assume that your able to do the same - I've seen some really impressive films shot on low ratios - but personally it doesn't work for me, they way I tend to cover scenes as a director needs a higher ratio. On these decisions you really need to factor in the director/dp's vision for the script and work it out from there. As a Director I tend to average 15:1 when shooting digital, but the highest ratio I ever reached was 40:1, and that was on film - and I wasn't going crazy we just had 2 cameras and some 150fps shots - gets you up there quire fast.
  18. Not wanting to sound like a heathen - but if the production can't afford at least a 8:1 / 10:1 shooting ratio I would push for digital. Its better to shoot in a lesser format and have all the coverage you need to tell the story correctly. Trying to shoot on very low ratios below 8:1 will probably result in a lot of compromises - it doesn't matter if you rehearse the actors to death - stuff can still happen to blow takes - stuff you don't expect and and if you don't have the stock to re-shoot then its going to compromise the final film. Film-making is hard enough with out adding the extra stress of low ratios. As much as I love film - I've pushed producers onto digital on low budget projects where the shooting ratio would be too tight.
  19. I've got a project coming up which involves shooting city buildings at night with video images projected on them. The projected images will be achieved in camera using a video projector rather then compositing. The budget is quite tight so we would like to use a camera that would allow us to use available light from street lights/architectural fixtures to do a lot of the work - which we could then augment with a modest lighting package in the 5 -10 KW range. Also we are limited by the brightness of the video projector to using 6000 lumen models - although we could stack 2 projectors together to get a bit more kick. Its still early days of planning but I'm starting to think of camera choices. I thing Super 16 would be too grainy and 35mm beyond what we can afford. I want the image to be as clean as possible with not too much noise and grain - like the image below That image was shot using long exposures on 35mm - so I'm aware that I'm probably not going to achieve that level of quality as we need to shoot real time, but I want to get as close as possible. I also want fairly deep DOF - so that rules out 35mm sensors, 35 mm at wide apertures is too shallow. So I reckon the best choice is a 2/3" HD camera. Viper/F23 are a bit beyond my price range. So we are looking at F900. HPX3000, HDX900, HPX500 Varicam AJ-HDC27H type cameras. I'm not sure how much testing I'll be able to do but any advice or recommendations would be great. On paper the original Varicam looks to be the most sensitive being only 720p (which would be fine for us) - but the newer panasonics have better codec's but are less sensitive - any thoughts as to what would hold up in post colour correction? At the moment I'm leaning towards the varicam - but am aware that its a bit old with a not great recording codec, is there anything that offers similar sensitivity but with less data compression? How does the Panasonic HPX-500 compare to the Varicam in quality and low light performance. It would be nice so spend less on the camera if I can - so I can perhaps stretch getting some Digi-Primes Any suggestions/thoughts would be welcome at this stage
  20. So that's why I didn't get on the cinematography course? Phil not being a very exciting name..... well either that or my showreel was a bit rubbish... ..erm ...probably the name then, did you think I've get more work if I changed it to 'Max Power'?
  21. In addition to the stated answers about slating being still useful when editing video... Its a big help in focusing the cast and the crew - the snap of the slate, reminds people that this is a take and not a rehersal. To my mind it sometime can help people zone in when your going for a take - true for both actors and crew.
  22. I might have to get an iphone: http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp...7625A4805C02A69
  23. For Telecine - you can pretty make the stock do what you want - its very flexible. I directed a project on 7219 last year and had no problems getting a partical Bleach Bypass crushed blacks in the TK suite see below - compressions not great but you get the idea.
  24. On the epilepsy front, for some reason DVD's aren't censored. For TV broadcast (in the UK at least) films have to pass a Harding test and then be 'fixed' for broadcast - for the worst example of this see Aliens next time its on channel 4. In the cinema the screen is much darker than a TV screen and as such doens't trigger Epilepsy as much as watching the same material on a TV. Still flash dance is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, I mean whats not to like?
  25. I do agree that progressive can look weird on monitors, but I tend to notice it more when I'm watching a live feed off a camera. I've been on shoots, when the cameras switched to progressive, everyone looks at the monitor and goes eek thats a bit extreme. But the productions always looked fine in the edit suite - its as if our brains are fine with recorded progressive images and are confused when watching it live. I also find entertainment TV looks 'wrong' when its been de-interlaced, I am watching time team right now - it looks wrong. That said if you can't convince her to shoot 25p, 540 lines though not ideal, its still ok. I've seen a few Z1 productions that were de-interlaced in post and still looked reasonably sharp. Whats the intended release format - film out? TV or some flavor of digital?
×
×
  • Create New...