Phil Connolly

C4 is just about up to season 5 in the UK and thats still 4:3. Channel 4 have always broadcast scrubs in 4:3 its not the only inport they screen in this format, Simpsons, the daily show, most US reality shows (the osbourns, the simple life, junkjard wars are 4:3 and nasty NTSC standards conversions to boot) Generally C4 push for 16:9 - especially on commissions. But they are interested in the product, so will take other aspect ratios. They are not going to veto a popular show just because its 4:3, it won't affect viewing figures and won't affect advertising revenues. At the moment stuff is going out in 4:3, 14:9 (pillorboxed anamorphic), 1.66:1(pillorbox anamorphic), 16:9 anamorphic, 1.85:1(anamorphic) on C4 - its only on ratios above 1.85:1 that they are less keen on and resort to panning and scanning. 2.35:1 films are typically panned and scanned to 1.85:1 - not perfect but better than going down to 4.3.

Hi I shot some T200 in a Canon 814, a couple weeks ago - using the internal light metre. Got it back from the lab last week and the footage looks great - no major problems with exposure. I'm definatly going to shoot some more stuff in super 8 on this stock - its really nice.

i don't think the camera has a internal tone generator, well I couldn't find one after a quick flick through the menus - last time I used the camera. I always record tone from an external source such as a SQN type location mixer - as they generally have tone generators.

Hi I would agree with the general consensus and shoot 4:3 and ARC in post. A couple of years ago I did a film on the PD150 with century optics anamorphic adapter and it was a pain, zooming wasn't possible, focus was tricky(its bad enough on the PD150 to begin with). The results were not that great and not worth the hassel in my opinion. The anamorphic adapter does have is own artifacts - softens the image etc... I would say that the image shot with a anamorphic adapter is not much better than that of a ARC'd image. (ARC = Aspect Ratio Conversion) Again, converting to 16:9 in post is usually better in post than camera - I've shot a lot on the XL-1 and the 16:9 mode is quite soft, shooting in 4:3 and ARCing to 16:9 in final cut pro resulted in better images. The 16:9 mode on the 170 is probably better than that of the XL-1, (I've not used 16:9 on the 170)- but still I would still prefer to have the reframing flexiblity of cropping in post. There are different ways to achive 16:9 in post and some are better than others - I usually just do it in FCP, but I have found on the occasions when I've used a standalone aspect ratio converter, like the s & w ARC 150 - the image looked even better - expensive though, but this definatly would be better than the cheap ARC built into the camera

Hi If you get a really good, motion compensated standards conversion, you should be OK. The state of the art ones give decent results - the images are slightly softer than PAL origination. But its done all the time, plenty of US NTSC orignated shows are broadcast in Europe, It may be an issue if you are intercutting between PAL and NTSC on the same scene, as it will highlight the differences. Also depends if you are shooting interlaced or 24p, if progressive, then there should be a way to convert it to 25p by speeding it up 4% and you would get no motion artifacts, just the slight softness from a lower resolution format. I'm sure this is possible, but - I'm not sure of the exact equipment or technique for this method... Otherwise if you can't do the 4% faster conversion pans can look a little bit juddery/smeary - but its not too horrible if you use a good standards coverter, like the Snell and Willcox Alchemist, for instance. Is this a documentry or drama project? On a Documentry, Most audiences would accept the, minor quality differences, between well shot PAL and NTSC. Its not like your trying to intercut VHS with HD.... Good luck with it Phil

Hi, Generally Digi-Beta would be the best, some stations do take D5, one phone call to the engineering dept would confirm this. DVD isn't really a broadcast format (it sometimes gets used - but it would probably be dubbed to digi or transfered to a server for actual broadcast) The reason Digi-Beta and D5 are mostly used are so that they can be put in a ALS system, which is like a big tape juke box allowing automated playout. A music channel would normally play content from a server but the ALS systems are often still used to digitise the material to the server - meaning D5 and Digi are preferable. You may be able to get a Transmission guideline document from the broadcaster. I work for a station in the UK and we have document that is given to suppliers, that outlines the delivery requirments - including tape format, line up, clock format, safe text, audio levels etc... Sometimes there is some flexibility and the station will take an odd format if their prefered one isn't avalible - we sometimes get deliverys of old shows on 1"C format etc.. But again each station has its own policy and its better to check with them first rather than get something rejected.

David, There are no hard and fast rules, unless your delivering a project for a company that has a house style, so try to find a font thats not too distracting, so your captions are easy to read etc... I work for a TV Channel in the UK (that has a house style) and we use Gill Sans, white text with a drop-shadow, on the majority of subtitled films that we broadcast. This is sometimes different to the original subtitle style on the film, but we request a clean master and do our own subtitles so we have consistancy. I think Gill Sans is pritty good, a bit more stylish than Ariel but not too in your face. I think that a drop-shadow is better then putting them in a grey box - less distracting but still easy to read on a bright background. Hope this helps Phil

Hi I wouldn't worry about being broacast safe during shooting as it can be addressed during the grade. You want to record as much imformation as possible to tape, to give you as much grading headroom as you can get. As long as your not clipping the whites, still holding information - you can go a few % over. A waveform monitor on the set, can be useful to make sure your not clipping In post, any grading will re-sample the image and in some ways degrade it, but it would be very difficult to try and avoid grading on a drama project - even if you are trying to get the image as close as possible in camera.

Hi I recently assisted on a D-20 test shoot and was really inpressed with the camera. It has a colour corrected video mode, for in camera colour correction and a uncorrected film stream mode. The video mode outputs a 16:9 - 1080p in a variety of frame rates with either 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 colour sampling over a single HDSDI link for 4:2:2 or a double HDSDI link for 4:4:4 - this data can then be recorded on the HD deak of your choice. We used the portable version of the HDCAM SR deck in 4:2:2 mode. In video mode the camera has standard controls over white balence etc and the image we got on the monitor straight out of the camera was nice. That said it doesen't have loads of in camera colour settings, less than the sony DVW-970 I was using the week before, I found this a good thing as wadeing through menus on set can be a pain. The film stream mode would need some sort of hard-disk array to record it as you would'nt want to compress it by recording to tape For most things I would prefer this camera over the F900, the simplist way to use this camera is in Video mode with the HDCAM SR portable deck - I was impressed at how smooth our shoot was and how quickly everyone was up to speed on the camera. Avantages: Better image quality Proper 35mm depth of field - without messing around with adapters Better optical viewfinder Mechanical shutter - really helps the motion look more film like Disadvantages: Running cables between camera and Recorder, two cables are required for 4:4:4 and no steadycam Op is going to like that. The VTR is one extra thing to carry. Their is no indication on the camera that the VTR is running up to speed, so someone needs to sit by the VTR and call speed. More expensive - probably, don't exactly know what the cost to rent is going to be

I have this book its been pritty useful, especially as it outlines all the menu settings for the 700/790 and gives a good recommended base set-up. It just needs to be updated now to cover the DVW 970 as its settings are a bit different, as a found out on a recent shoot.

Hi Gregor I'm not based in NYC so I can't recommend a facility. Personally I would try and view the PAL copy or ask if you can watch the output of the standards converter as the dub is made. There are standards conversions and there are standards conversions, some are horrible and some can look pritty good - depending on the hardware. I would look for a facilty that has a Snell and Willcox, Alchamist standards converter - properply setup this will do a decent job. Look out for smearing, motion Judder and sat up blacks.

As far as your Digi-Beta master goes really you should get both -you really don't want to chuck away quality by only having a letterboxed master - anamorphic will look much better espcially on the big screen in festivals that can project that format and if you get it on TV in Europe, anamorphic is the way to go. Running off a 16:9 linear letterboxed dub at the saem time would not cost too much and would be needed for US Tv and festivals that don't like anamorphic - perhaps both versions could go on the same tape. I would get a letterboxed Beta-SP dub made as well, for locations that don't have a digi deck I would stick to anamorphic for the DVD On 4:3 displays the DVD player should be able to letterbox the image - I've never come across a DVD player that can't do this, as long as the disc is authored as anamorphic project - Senarist, spruce and DVD studio pro can handle 16:9 projects.

For television in the US either a 4:3 pan and scan master would be required or a letterboxed master You could split the difference, shoot 16:9 anamorphic and then produce a 14:9 letterboxed linear TX master - on a traditional 4:3 service you would still get black bars top and bottom, but it would be less intrusive - upset the, anti-black bar brigade, less and hopefully not mess up your composition too much. In the UK most programs are shot 16:9 anamorphic, but the analogue transmission network is still 4:3, so an aspect ratio converter is used in the TX chain to convert 16:9 anamorphic images to 16:9 or 14:9 linear letterbox on the fly. So even if the image on a TV looks letterboxed, theres a good chance the actual broadcast master tape/media file is full hight anamorphic - not sure if US broadcasters do this - most NTSC masters of 16:9 shows I've come across are letterboxed rather than anamorphic

Film Guard should do the job http://www.film-tech.com/products/filmguard.html

4:3 safe action is 5%, i.e thats the average amount most tv sets will crop off the edges of the images - some show slightly more, some less. If this is a problem for you, and you do have important information in the outmost 5% edge of the frame - you could always call the engineering dept of the broadcaster to see if they would allow a side matt for this situation. Its better to ask, then have the master rejected. Also, make sure all video levels are legal and all captions are within the safe text area (10%)

The XL-1 has the same size CCD as the PD150 so for the same focal length lens the depth of field will be exactly the same. Not sure as well why the image is grainy - although the built in ND filter is about 6 stops and you need a lot of light to use it in doors - is the ND filter making the gain kick in? It may be an Idea to invest in a mattbox and a set of ND filters so you can fine tune your f stop setting and light levels. I've got acceptable shallow depth out by shooting close to wide open and at the end of the lens - but it is a nightmare trying to keep it in focus with the standard lens and viewfinder I find that if I'm shooting with a bog standard XL-1 set up, I need all the DOF I can get to give me a fighting chance of keeping in focus. The mini-35 adapter would be another way to get a shallow depth look on this camera. Phil

The AJA IO will capture a 10bit SDI source and spit and an uncompressed 10 bit signal down firewire

Hi If you set your sequence settings in FCP to be 16:9, and then drop a 4:3 clip onto the timeline it should automatically pillorbox it as a 4:3 shot ,with black bars either side(you have to make sure that the clip preferences are set to 4:3) You could also resize the 4:3 shot slightly, by zooming it to say 14:9 so the bars a the side aren't too intrusive. Depending on the speed of your mac you may have to render the 4:3 shots - because the slower machines won't to the resize on the fly.

I've not looked for the viewfinder of a SDX-900, but PAL video doesn't have a complete top or botton line and it should look cropped.

Its does have a 16:9 mode but its not true 16:9, it just uses a 16:9 portion of the 4:3 chip, so you lose vertical resolution resulting in a softer image. Using a 16:9 anamorphic adapter allows you to shoot 16:9 without losing any vertical resolution, but it does soften the image slightly, some vignetting and focusing is more difficult and you may not be able to use the full zoom range of the lens. But it would look better than the in camera 16:9 mode. Personally I would shoot in the standard 4:3 mode, compose for 16:9, and then covert the footage in post using something like a Snell and Willcox aspect ratio converter, this would do a better job than the in camera 16:9 mode - it perhaps may no look quite as good as the anamorphic adaptor, but it would would be simpler to shoot, as the anamorphic adapter can be annoying especially if you like long lens.

The Imax film 'Destiny in Space' has a few shots from 2001: A Space Oddessy, Letterboxed within the Imax frame. It looked really good, certainly sharp enough and better than some DMR Imax blowups. I don't think the full film would be transfered to Imax as it would cost a fortune and because its not a mainstream film would probably make a loss. Also there is little point as the 570 prints look great anyway and could be projected on the Imax screen (this has happend in Bradford England) with good results Also the Imax sound system couldn't reproduce the proper 5 screen channel sound mix of the original.

Hi I've used the dwv-700, its very similar to the dsr-500 to use, all the main controls are in the same place. Also the viewfinder is 2" rather than 1.5", giving a clearer image which is nice. If anything digi-beta is easier to shoot than dv, since you have more colour lattitude to change things in post. Paul Wheelers book 'Digital Cinematography' has a good section in the back detailing the picture setup menus of the Dvw-700/790 and gives suggested settings. Whether or not to shoot on it is a difficult decision and it depends on your post production route, overall budget and the look you are going for. I shot my first short film on the dvw-700, it was self financed and I got a good deal on the camera and I felt the quality would be worth it, but I had problems in post. The digi camera tapes were dubbed to dvcam, so I could do the off-line edit at home on adobe premier. A freind at a post house had offored me free time to online edit the digi-tapes, one of the reasons I shot digi in the first place. Ultimately I never got this free downtime (even after waiting lots) and I couldn't afford to pay the going rate for a digi-beta online(or even half the going rate). So the final version of the film is the slightly lower quality edit I created, from the DV dubs - defeating the point of shooting on digi-beta. My next film is going to be shot on the dsr 500, because in my case I know that I can finish it at home on my PC(if need be), rather than spending lots of money on the edit or relying on favors. You can can get very good results on the dsr-500, and by spending less on the camera it free's up money for other things, like more lights. digi-beta tape stock is more expensive as well

The location stuff on league of gentlemen is shot on Digi-Beta, from the DVD 'making of' doco it looks like a sony camera so I guess it would be either the dvw-700wsp or dvw-790wsp. On season 3 the slow motion footage is shot on super-16, and it matches the beta stuff, it's intercut with, really well, they must have a great grader. If you do find a good de-interlacer, pls report back. I've got at DSR-500/570 project coming up and I'm thinking about de-interlacing it - if I can find a way of doing it well (ie league of gentlemen standards) without paying a fortune. In the past I've just kept my footage in 50i because I've never been happy with the results I've got de-inerlacing in FCP.

Hi I've not used the DVfilm software but you can download a demo version of the software(from the dvfilm site), this would allow you test it with your footage. Since your in PAL land you would need to convert to 25p. You can get good results de-intelacing footage, personally I think 'The League of Gentlemen' is well done, but I'm not sure what software is used.

Digi-Beta would be the best option in terms of quality, a good play-back only deak is the Sony J-30 in the UK it costs about £9000 and for Digi-Beta Recorder the standard Deck is the DVW-A500 yours for £27,000. Its a great format but not cheap to buy, but you can rent these deaks quite easily. If digi-beta is too expensive, I would go for DVCAM as its much cheaper and much easier to get it into a computer for editing and DVD mastering, all you need is a fire-wire card. I find in general that DVCAM master creates better looking DVD's than Beta-SP. The slightly noisier SP image makes the mpeg2 coder work a bit harder. The colours on DVCAM may not be as nice as SP but the image is cleaner and this suits DVD.