Tim O'Connor

Great site but all those poor Chargers! I know a job's a job but I couldn't saw up ten (or however many) beautiful muscle cars for that movie. I think the t.v. series killed around TWO HUNDRED! That's two hundred and ten gearheads whose dreams will never come true. Michaelangelo did less damage and he painted the Sistine Chapel.

Of course, I'm so used to thinking of the camera in VTR mode when using it to capture footage that I totally spaced on that.!

I've heard about the lens breathing but haven't used Canon. Is is that bad? I've heard that the Canon lenses do not not have back focus adjustments. Does the lens on the HVX-200 have one? What is colour fringing? Are you at all worried about the extra wear and tear mileage using your camera for playback for capturing? /quote HDV is perfectly find format to work and learn on... When you can afford it you can upgrade to the better HD format. Good Luck Rik, Please don't hate me because I know that this has been asked 10 million times but I've been reading and reading aand reading about HDV vs. (P2) HD. May I ask, what is YOUR opinion of choosing between the HVX-200 for P2 HD work or a Canon HDV camera such as the G1 or A1? (The XL-H1 is too much $ for me.)

I just e-mailed that guy - he's the owner of the company and he said that I could go to my laptop - and asked him again "How?". Yes, I love the HVX-200 and was all set to buy one last week when this other guy, who does seem extremely sincere and reputable suggested the XH-G1 with the HD-SDI out and what he says is a far superior lens to the one one the HVX-200. I decided to sit tightly and investigate. Since then another vendor whom I know well has suggested I wait to see the new Sony HDV camera that's coming out in the same price ballpark. I'll wait a bit but I want to get to work. However, I've heard that editing HDV with Final Cut Pro is a real drag and taxing on the C.P.U. whereas editing P2 footage is handled a lot easier. I have a MacBookPro which doesn't accept P2 cards so I think that if I got the HVX-200 maybe I'd skip them and get a Firestore which would both record footage and could be used by the MacBookPro to capture.

That is question one. question two involves eyelight. I randomly thought it would be a nice effect to keep eyelight out of a charecters eyes for a large portion of the short, to dull her eyes. What lighting problems would this present. I imagine I couldn't use much frontal light or soft light. Seems like it would all have to be top light. is there any way around it? If I can't figure any good work arounds I might have to digi it out for the HD master (though if I ever did a blowup, the effect would be lost) I think that's a very good idea to convey some sense of an emotional state (which is what I'm guessing that you're doing) by keeping the light out of her eyes since so often we want the snap and sparkle of the light in the eyes that evokes a person's spirit. I have a thought that might work although it may start in the opposite direction from what you might expect. Why not a hard key but through a frame-even of a Foam-Cor cutout with a strip of gaffer's tape or a long narrow strip of grid cloth stategically placed - that cuts the light on her eyes, sort of a "reverse snoot" if I can coin a phrase. This would of course work best if the actress is still, but if she's dull emotionally she might well be listless physiclly as well. If she has to move but not much or too sharply perhaps you could pan the light in conjunction with panning the reverse snoot so that the effect travels with her. Good luck.

I think that you're right about the scrim effect. People do what you described and say, "See, a softer light" but what they perhaps ought to be saying is "See, less light." To them that looks softer.

I just watched a a film called "November" with Courtney Cox and James LeGros that was shot with an inexpensive Panasonic MiniDV camera yet it looks great and the cinematographer is a woman, Nancy Schreiber ASC. I would suggest you get a subscription to "American Cinematographer" magazine and also perhaps write to cinematographers, particularly women, whom you admire and ask them how they did it. If you want to know if it's fun, listen to a DVD commentary track that includes a cinematographer, such as the one on "November" and see if that interests you.

Thanks, guys! ( and thanks for the link!)

(I remember that the 5600K was defined as daylight at 11:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C. - in Spring I think - so I know that daylight is subjective and also that there's a difference I believe between daylight and skylight, the latter I believe being bluer because it's got more UV bouncing around. Yes, "bouncing around" is rather untechnical so please correct me as necessary.) Thanks. I think that I may have heard "sunlight" (not "skylight") compared to "daylight."

Thank you, John. Now, although you've answered my question and this detail may not be important; I'm curious as to what the "D" in "D5500K" represents. Should I/do I need to know when buying tubes?

I was looking through my local rental house's catalog and whereas HMIs where always advertised as 5600K, ( a number I've known since my first ASC manual 20 yrs. ago) the "daylight" Kinos are advertised as 5500K. Wouldn't they have to go out of their way to make it such and if so, why? (I remember that the 5600K was defined as daylight at 11:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C. - in Spring I think - so I know that daylight is subjective and also that there's a difference I believe between daylight and skylight, the latter I believe being bluer because it's got more UV bouncing around. Yes, "bouncing around" is rather untechnical so please correct me as necessary.) Thanks.

You guys are great. I really appreciate it so thanks to everybody (although I don't know what word you use overseas to say that.)

Thanks, guys. Those are great points. The "different texture" note is a good way of putting something that I think I've heard people attempt to express without those words and this makes sense to me. Also, mixing lights when the sources are presumably radically different - the example by the window- is a good tip and I'll take another look at those movies. I do sometimes have people under the lights for a long period of time. Good point there about keeping them cooler. I like bouncing tungsten too but usually into Foam-Cor. I'm not sure; what is "poly"? P.S.: If Kinos don't have the same texture; that makes sense to me, and not exactly the same color makes sense too, yet if they're rated at say 3200K then how do you say what is the difference in color between them and say 3200K tungsten units or HMIs gelled to correct to 3200K? I'm pretty sure that I know what you mean but maybe I need the right words to understand if you have them. Thanks for all your help.

I was looking at some old posts and people talked about how they like to use the smaller Kino units for fill but not for keying (the word "ugly" was mentioned) but one person said that he felt that the lights have a "nice, fast drop-off" that shows on "the actor's/actress's face". He asked why not use Kinos as a key (again referring I believe to the smaller units) but nobody answered. Anybody have any thoughts?

Interesting because if you would agree that the Canon has a better lens (I don't know, would you?) then how often are you shooting for a slow motion effect? Yes, maybe overcranking produces superior slow motion vs. modifying the speed in post BUT you use the lens ALL the time and usually overcrank not often. I agree it's great to have but if you use it only 3% of the time, is it worth it, particularly when it goes up to only 60 f.p.s. which is not bad but if it went up to say 96 f.p.s. then I'd find it offered a lot more. Other than the work involved, how much do you think people will see a difference in slow motion shot at 48 f.p.s. vs. footage modified to a speed of 50%? It's kind of like yeah, I want the jackpack but for $3000.00 more is it really worth it? Have you shot any HDV 1080 and if so how do you feel it compares to 720/24p with a P2 card? For that matter how do you feel 1080/24P with a P2 card cpmpares to 720/24P with a P2 card?

In the opposite direction, with little correction I suspect, the use of natural light in "Local Hero".

I'd like to hear if people have any thoughts on the diffusion/gel order of placement. If you consider the difference between diffusion on the barndoors vs. diffusion on a frame or a chimera or something; there's a difference but could moving it a 1/16 (I guess) of an inch matter or whther you put it before or after gel?

First off, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for me committing the sin of cross-posting (I asked this in "video only" first) but I realized that this is really the place for this question. Thanks. I'm thinking about buying a camera and although I like the HVX-200, I've been leaning towards the XL-H1. Now Canon is coming out with the XH-G1 ($6999.00) and the XH-A1 for three grand less (No jackpack.) I'd like the HD-SDI out but for the money I think that I could do well with the XH-A1 as I get hired to shoot shorts and it looks like a nice camera (and I would want the HD-SDI out for projects with more money where we could record to an HD XDCAM deck but that won't be common enough so I figure for those when I rent the deck I'll rent a camera.) I'm sure this has been discussed a lot but I missed those discussions and haven't found everything in my research although I will continue to search but in the meantime does anyone have any thoughts on shooting HDV vs. the HD of the HVX-200. How do you weigh the pros and cons of the optics, the imagers, the different numbers Canon's 1440x1080 vs. the HVX-200 which is less I understand, the 24F of Canon vs. the seemingly more desirable 24 options of the HVX-200, the GOP of the HDV format vs. the HD - and thus tape vs. flash cards( or maybe Firestores have diminshed that issue in favor of the HVX-200) and finally (although I know that this is not a post-production forum) how your projects have made out in post due to the differences of these two formats? If I need to say it, I'm most interested in using the camera for making great-looking "films" like everyone else. "The number one question on the internet: 'How do i make video look like film'?" The top three answers: 1. "If you want it to look like film, just shoot film." 2. "Never ask this question again. There are a billion pages of archived notes on this." 3. "Hire me." Thanks!

Hi Sean, First of all I don't know what "BUMP" means but if you could be more specific about what exactly is the effect that you like, unless I'm missing something obvious, a lot of people could help you here. It looks to me like the woman has a hard light like a Fresnel that's been diffused on her face but you ceratinly could get a nice glow with a Chinese lantern (Barbizon Lighting in Woburn, Massachusetts has all sizes and bulbs; for $30.00 you could get a 24" one and then use it to read by when you're done with the shoot.) It also likes like there's a light coming in from the side that is just tinting her hair and giving a kick to the man's right temple -easy enough to do-you could maybe borrow a light from your local cable access station or even use a photoflood bulb with a homemade flag or a bunch of blackwrap to control the spill. There's also a reflection -easier to get than get rid of usually- of what is apparently a light in one of the man's sunglass lenses. Do you want that?

I'm thinking about buying a camera and although I like the HVX-200, I've been leaning towards the XL-H1. Now Canon is coming out with the XH-G1 ($6999.00) and the XH-A1 for three grand less (No jackpack.) I'd like the HD-SDI out but for the money I think that I could do well with the XH-A1 as I get hired to shoot shorts and it looks like a nice camera (and I would want the HD-SDI out for projects with more money where we could record to an HDCAM deck but that won't be common enough so I figure for those when I rent the deck I'll rent a camera.) I'm sure this has been discussed a lot but I missed those discussions and haven't found everything in my research although I will continue to search but in the meantime does anyone have any thoughts on shooting HDV vs. the HD of the HVX-200. How do you weigh the pros and cons of the optics, the imagers, the different numbers Canon's 1440x1080 vs. the HVX-200 which is less I understand, the 24F of Canon vs. the seemingly more desirable 24 options of the HVX-200, the GOP of the HDV format vs. the HD and thus tape vs. flash cards or maybe Firestores have diminshed that issue in favor of the HVX-200 and finally (although I know that this is not a post-production forum) how your projects have made out in post due to the differences of these two formats. If I need to say it, I'm most interested in using the camera for making great-looking "films" like everyone else. "The number one question on the internet: 'How do i make video look like film'?" The top three answers: 1. "If you want it to look like film, just shoot film." 2. "Never ask this question again. There are a billion pages of archived notes on this." 3. "Hire me."

I have a Glidecam 4000 and like it a lot but have never used it with an XL camera? Anybody have any experiences? Thanks.

Yes, that's what I think and I haven't heard anything beside that D.P.'s comment to agree with it. Now, sure, a slower shutter speed can get funky ( but I think that means slower than 1/60) and sometimes people use it for effect, like the 'tracer' effect if you shoot at something like 1/15 but most people I think would rather play it safe and do their effects in post. Last night I shoot at 1/4 (yes) but it was a locked off shot of the moon and stars, and the sky became this beautiful blue and the house in the corner of the frame looked great. Just for fun and comparison, I rolled a liitle bit at 1/60 and saw the moon, a virtually black sky and no house. Opening up at 1/60 required the gain and started getting noisy.

I asked a similar but more general question a while back. Now i'm shooting 24F with an XL-H1 and inclined to shoot as close to 1/50 as possible (I think that's going to be 1/60) but a pretty well- established D.P. told me to use a shutter speed of 1/120 as "1/60 is going to be too strobey". That doesn't seem to be borne out in my experience of shooting 1/60 with other cameras. What do you think about this and shutter speeds in general? Thanks.

Hi guys, I talked to the Ford service manager and their mechanic said that changing speedometer gears (to make speedometer read faster than actual m.p.h.) could damage transmission. I'm going to check elsewhere and see if other transmission mechanics agree. Haven't done the 2-D tracking yet but my friend that he can show me how. Haven't done the torches yet but your suggestions answered my questions. Thanks for all the input and help. I'll keep you posted.

Why is it that so often an "exterior" scene shot on a set indoors has a look in the "air" that hollers "indoors" while stepping outside has that outdoor "air" look? Also, I was shooting a film a while ago in a big cornfield and a storm came up which, as often happens, resulted in a big drop in barometric pressure. It was still sunny and the colors became incredibly beautiful and everything was much sharper. I've learned that when the barometric pressue drops significantly; the atmospheric pressure is reduced on one's eyes and thus things are seen with greater resolution and colors. Now, the "lenses" of our eyes are softer than the glass of camera lenses but I've often wondered if some of this "low-pressure" look could be captured. Now, less pressure on glass wouldn't seem to affect a camera the way in which less pressure on somebody's eyes would work but I have shot on some beautiful days and seen some of that on screen. Did I see the part of the day that was from the rich colors of the sky and the landscape or do you think that it's possible to get a different look shooting when the barometer is at say 28.00 inches of mercury as opposed to 32.00 inches of mercury? (I'm no meteorologist but that's how my barometer measures - as opposed to millibars - but at any rate when it gets down to lower pressure like 28.00 inches of mercury it seems that you can see things differently.)