Josh Bass

Wouldn't that be 60fps at 50%? 60i is not 60 fps, it is 30fps interlaced.

I swear I read somewhere (maybe even on here) that Primer was 78 minutes in length, and they shot 81 minutes of film.

I think we should all have a high degree of self-loathing/hatred regarding our work. Seriously. You should hate yourself and what you've written/directed are going to write/direct so much that there's JUST enough non-hatred left to push yourself to do the project anyway. . .even though you secretly think it's crap and no one will like it. But you have that glimmer of hope that maybe they'll dig it. . .if you try really hard.

I don't know the details of the edit suite. I'd assume it was a heavy duty desk. You wouldn't bone on a glass one unless both parties were anorexic or dwarves or something. No one wants shards in their genitals. Except for on that one website.

Hey, gang. Since this is barely a real thread to begin with, here's a porn-related anecdote that has nothing to do with cameras. So I have a friend, and he had a friend who used to edit porn for a living. The thing that made him quit was when he one day found himself editing footage of people boning in HIS EDIT SUITE. Yep. Right thur on the desk.

I'll try. . . So basically, see, you have these things callled "fields'", when you're looking at footage. Each field is either all the even lines in a frame of video, or all the odd lines. So you have two fields per frame. When you talk about interlaced video , you are actually seeing two images at once (hence the term interlaced), one field (one set of lines) from one image, and one field from the next image. Pause a VHS tape (if you have access), and sometimes you see it jittering. . .that's cause you're seeing the two images at the same time. With progressive footage, all the lines are from the same image. This means a couple of things: Higher resolution, since you have twice as many lines representing a given image, and a more stuttery motion signature. Interlaced video looks much smoother because you're seeing two images simultaneously, leading to smoother motion. Speaking from an NTSC standpoint, you might associated interlaced footage with the look of news, some reality shows, etc. Progressive footage looks more "cinematic" to most folks, and can be found in narrative television shows (sometimes) and movies, although it's starting to make its way into reality TV and related things. The standard for NTSC is 30 frames per second, interlaced (this is also called 60i, meaning 60 fields interlaced per second (30 frames x 2 fields/frame = 60 fields). Now, check THIS: even though when you watch a movie or narrative TV, anything that looks progressive on TV, it's STILL interlaced, it's just that the source footage has been transferred in such a way as to fake a progressive look. When we're talking about film or video shot at 24 frames per second, the method is called the 2:3 pulldown, and I'll let someone else explain how it works. Suffice to say, when you watch NTSC signals, you are ALWAYS seeing 30fps interlaced, no matter how it LOOKS. To sum up. . .progressive footage looks stuttery, generally more "cinematic" or "film-like", interlaced is smoother, more like reality, news footage, etc. As for PAL. . .I really don't have experience or much knowledge with it. I believe it is 25fps instead of 30, and has 625 lines of vertical resolution instead of 525. It's also generally agreed to be a nicer looking signal than NTSC. But oh well!

Glad it wasn't anything that would have cost you money to fix.

I assume this is on a PC? If so, just for fun, my try downloading the trial of Sony Vegas and see if you can capture using that. I'm not even sure the trial will let you capture, or if it does, puts a watermark on the footage, or something, but just as a troubleshooting tool it might be useful.

I was just throwing ideas out there. Just for fun, could you try, on a new tape, just record five or ten minutes of whatever, and try to capture it. Maybe even make several clips out of it. DON'T PRESTRIPE, is what I'm getting at, and then try capture. If you still have issues, that'll at least be one variable taken out of the mix. It sounds from your description like the software isn't reading your TC correctly, or the software itself is goofy. By the way, what NLE/software are you using for capture?

What problems exactly are you having? Capture starts, then stops before it's supposed to, or what? Have you investigated broken timecode issues? Breaks in timecode make computer ANGRY! P.S. There is no need to prestripe tape. Recording on the tape in the first place lays down timecode, and the only time you should have to worry about breaks is if you're reviewing the tape after shooting, and don't leave it parked on a spot where timecode exists. Even turning the camera off, then back on, the tape should continue recording from the last TC laid down.

It just seems to me that if you're young enough and or devoted enough to the source material, you kind of turn a blind eye to the actual quality of the film. You multiply that by enough folks, and you have a hit. I don't understand the comment about Spiderman 3. You're saying it started out making money and then quickly tanked?

well, despite others' criticisms, I think it looks phenomenal. Just like last time, I have to ask, what else was there to the setup? If I put up a DP light at the angle I'm assuming you did, it certainly would not come out looking like that! Any flags, snoots, scrims, etc.? How come that wall to the right of her face (nearest the left side of her face) isn't blown out?

It's not that it's suppposd to be that great on its own merit, but it has a HUGE built-in audience guaranteed to make it a hit.

Oh, and while we're on it, MadTV is a pretty dumb show most of the time, but every once in a while they do something decent. I think this is an example of one of those times:

Brick was cool, though I needed the subtitles to understand it. I don't think people are necessarily put off by the sap in these films as they are the whole hipster/indie/quirky/alterna thing. Sometimes movies try so hard to be cool/non-mainstream that it's off-putting.

It's become a thing, in recent years. . .the quirky indie comedy/light drama. There's a almost a formula for it: quirky characters, non-mainstream music, odd situations happening to people, monologues about deep stuff, probably some casual drug use. A whole slew of films like this exist -Rocket Science -Thumbsucker -The Go-Getter -Kabluey (though I rather liked this one) -Chumscrubber -Little Miss Sunshine -Year of the Dog -The Promotion -Napoleon Dynamite etc. etc.

I'm about out of ideas. If you look at the specifications/features tabs on those links, the HDV tape claims "42 minutes in professional mode", nothing of the sort mentioned on the plain old miniDV tape. I have no idea what that means, but maybe you do. Also, again, the HDV tape mentions 30% fewer dropouts. Is there some deal where HDV recording spins the differently than DV, or something? Kind of like DVCAM versus miniDV modes on some sony cameras? Maybe the HDV tape is better in that regard, or something. Other than that, if it's really important to you to get the issue resolved, search the Panasonic website for info, or call them and ask.

Look closely. . .one of the AMQ doesn't say anything about being HDV/DV, just says miniDV. May not be intended for HDV? And one of them doesn't have AMQ in the model number at all, and also says DVC real large on the front. That would probably be the uber cheap consumer grade HD tape. The most expensive one advertises, specifically 30% fewer dropouts. Now, is all this marketing? Who knows. Try it and see. I always went with the most expensive grade (though I"m still on a XL2), and the DVC tapes, the SD ones anyway, have given me issues in the past, so I go out of my way to try and not use those.

I will relate to you what I was once told. Hopefully it's somewhat accurate. Firstly, I haven't even seen these particular grades before, but I'm assuming it's the same principle as the DV only (no "H") grades of panasonic tapes. So, they have DVC, PQ, and MQ (now AMQ) grades. One is the lowest, one the middle, one the highest, and their prices reflect such. What makes the grades different? Apparently the tape itself, the the black stringy stuff that records your video, is cut from some huge roll. Like a roll of toilet paper, or something vaguely similar. So, the outer edges of the roll are more exposed to the elements/contamination, whereas the center is somehow or other enclosed and protected from dirt and filth. So the lowest grade of tape comes from the outer edge, mid grade comes from between edge and center, and high grade comes from center. So, Seriously. . .this is what I heard. Is it right? I think there's a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere. What it boils down to is that, within a certain brand, the more expensive the tape, the less prone to dropouts and errors it should be.

I had a friend who made a feature for $35,000 or so. Shot on miniDV (XL1), actually flew some people in from Los Angeles to shoot in OK for some reason. It wasn't bad. Very bare but decent production values, DP'd/directed/edited himself, etc. etc. Anyway, he told me that to fund it, he threw a party, invited friends and family, and just hit everyone up for around $500 apiece.

Well, I was close. That's worth something. Thanks.

Bling bling! There you go then. One thing. . .I don't know what kinda cam you're using to shoot the interview, but beware the prompter adds quite a bit of weight to the whole setup. So if you're using a small format cam, you might look into borrowing/renting a heavier duty tripod.

Maybe for you guys. . .I'm still curious to see the setup. Here's my guess. I guess if it's right, then never mind. So he says a 2K. . .I guess that's the light in her eyes? Place directly in front of her, slightly higher than eye level (judging by the nose shadow). He mentions a bounce board. . .I guess that is underneath, somewhere, bouncing back a little something to fill the shadows left by the source? And then maybe some huge floppies for the neg fill, one to each side of her face. Either that, or the 2K is on the floor, pointed up at the bounce board, which is overhead, casting the light on her face. But that nose shadow looks awfully sharp for a soft source. Or I'm way off on the first two. Any of these is entirely possible.

any chance of a lighting diagram? I mean, I can guess how you did it, but it's nice to see if I'm right.