Josh Bass

This looks like it might be something even I could build. Do you have more detailed instructions/diagrams somewhere? I'm really really unknowledgable about this stuff. . .so as basic as it is, if you have something more, regarding the specifics of how it's put together, I'd be interested. Also, my friend was going to try to build one of these, but could never find the wheels. Where'd you get yours?

I'm DPing a short film for a friend, and we've decided to use this "style" for certain parts of the movie, for humorous (hopefully) effect. Characters in the movie are competing against each other, the nature of the competition being very lame. To emphasize the lameness, we thought it'd be funny to have the camera work be all crazy, like the event/sport was the most exciting thing in the world. Imagine watching a movie about dudes playing chess, but with the frenetic camerawork.

You guys sure got excited over that spam.

Mr. Death.

David, I swear I saw "The Quiet" on DVD at Blockbuster last time I was there. This time of course, I didn't see it. I know it just came out in theaters, but I swear I've seen (legal) DVDs somewhere. I thought maybe it was one of those weird cases like Left Behind where it was on both formats simultaneously, for a little while. I've lost my mind, haven't I?

Oooh. . .can we have titles? Can I be The Reverend Josh Bass? Can I be Dr. Josh Bass? Can I be His Holiness Pope Josh Bass III? That'd be fu**in' sweet. Yeah, I know none of 'em are "technically" accurate, but as long as the real name's buried in there somewhere, it's all good.

Prince, Cher, Moby and Madonna will never be accepted here.

I disagree. To me, videographer carries certain connotations with it. Chip on the shoulder stuff aside, I hear videographer, I think: Guy who shoots weddings Guy who shoots news Guy who shoots B-roll at an event Maybe, MAYBE, a guy who shoots some nice looking documentary footage Regardless of format, I think if it's a commercial, movie, short film, something like that DP/Cinematographer is more appropriate. for EPK/corporate video/some type of interview situation with lighting that you (the shooter) manipulate, DP. I say "I was the videographer on Collateral," that makes me sound like the dude who shot the behind the scenes footage. You'd never hear someone say "What'd you think of the videography in Collateral/Sin City/Miami Vice?" (unless it's a film elitist being a douche). For reality shows, I guess videographer'd be okay. Although, those are generally kinda scripted/planned out, so maybe DP (if you're the guy positioning cameras/deciding shots), or camera operator (if you're the guy/one of the guys doing the shooting, but are not the DP) My thoughts.

He was supposed to be the Chosen One. Where didst ye go wrong Haley? WHERE?

You'll never get Capt. Video. Mwaahahahahahahaah. Or that Santo fella.

How do you guys know the background isn't totally phony? The whole picture is heavily photoshopped, so the talent could have been shot against anything, and cut out later. I'm not sayin' for sure that they were, but it could be.

Well, I still disagree. I guess it's what type of (sigh) film look you're going for. If you want crazy contrasty ultra extreme looks, then yes, the DVX can do that better (but I again say this is better to do in post). If you want something more naturalistic, I say XL2. As for resolution in progressive vs interlaced, I don't know for sure and don't wanna talk out of my ass. I do know the widescreen has a higher res than the full screen, though. It's a nice piece of camera ass, I tell ya. They say (and they might be right) that the DVX is nicer looking out of the box, and the XL2 takes more time to learn, if you want to get a nice image out it. For instance, you pull out your DVX, plug it in, switch it to one of the scene files, and you'll probably have something nice looking. With the XL2, you have to first activate a custom preset, and then tweak the preset away from the default settings, which yield a flat, low contrast, muted color kind of image. But really, we can just bitch at each other all day here. So that's my piece.

That almost hurts. Too real, too real.

But in addition, wasn't there a TON of post work? I mean, that wasn't by any means the raw footage look on screen, right? Also, some of it was film, yes? I know the end was, but I thought maybe I heard the night scenes, or some of them, were as well.

Alright, it won't let me edit again. Here's the other stuff I wanted to add. Yes, it has knee and black settings you can adjust, as well as separate settings for R,G,B; color saturation, color matrix, gamma settings, etc. I have the 16x manual lens, and it's very sweet. There's no reason you couldn't add a follow focus to it. I guess the stock lens, yeah, not so much. The XL2 also has real widescreen. It does this weird thing, with some of the gamma/black settings, where really underexposed areas of the picture, instead of going black, will become kind of blue/grey and desaturated. It's a lot of dynamic range at the expense of color saturation. You can eliminate this by not having way underexposed areas, or by settings the blacks to "press". I rented one over a weekend before I bought.

Dude, I own an XL2, and have used the DVX. Regardless of HOW it gets its 24fps, it looks the same on both. The big big differences I see between the two are that the DVX will let you push the image farther, to more extremes, in terms of color saturation and contrast. You can make some really ugly stuff. Is this a good thing? Up to you. The XL2 limits how crazy you can get with your "looks", but shouldn't you do that stuff in post anyway? I have the 16x manual lens, and it's very sweet. The XL2 also has real widescreen. The iris dial/switch is kinda lame, and the XLR inputs don't have a line in option (you'll have to use the RCAs). Other than that. It's pretty fu**ing nice. Don't believe the silly things you hear. . .try one and see. I'm sure Ash Greyson will chime in with his thoughts. PS. I believe 28 days was shot on an XL1, a PAL one. Had a ton of post work done to it.

Also try Vegas for editing software. There' s a free demo.

Ok, sorry, I did not get where the variation in numbers was coming from.

There was a formula I used have written down, an equation, that would convert shutter angles expressed in degrees to shutter speeds expressed in fraction form (1/x). I have no idea where I found it or where it went. We would like the effect to be pretty pronounced, that is, to stand out from 24p footage shot at 1/48.

I guess that's it, then? They did some crazy stuff to it in 28 days later that made it like quite a bit nicer, at least. It also seemed the "Ghetto" footage was more brown/monochrome, and became more bright and colorful, and more saturated once they were in beverly hills. Maybe that's just my imagination.

I felt special when I found Wassup Rockers was shot with an XL2. I have an XL2, with the manual lens, so that's nice. I thought the movie looked incredibly sharp for being blown up to a full size screen (at one of the major theaters here in Houston). The colors were sort of flat, but that may have been by design. It looked pretty decent, though. Especially when you think back to Tadpole, 28 Days Later, etc.

You know what I mean. . .the jittery, no-motion-blur effect, where you can even see individual particles as they fly through the air. Shooting at 24p, what is the "proper" shutter speed for this? It seems like there would be an ideal speed, with which to get the greatest noticable effect, and lose the least amount light.

regarding the unavailability of small/indie films, I agree, but only to an extent. I can't tell you the number of times I've mentioned something that was out that I wanted to see, only to be met by "never heard of it". A lot of people just really aren't aware. It's not like I have some secret source that tells me about these movies; there are reviews right in our major newspaper.

I remember when I made the same comment about box office/movie quality not being related in another thread, and Richard made a snide remark to me in return. But I'm still right. And I think it's combination of both. I think people don't read reviews, a lot of the time. Not that reviews are everything, but if you read three or four negative reviews of a film from publications you respect, that's not a good sign for the film. I don't think the public is very "aware" of things outside of what's marketed/publicized on TV/radio. For instance, occasionally an indie will break out and become huge (lost in translation), but most stuff goes under the radar unless it's got commercials all over the place.

re: mixed emotions I don't know how it is in Aus, but in the U.S. "the poop" is synonymous with one appreciating whatever one is calling the poop. If I say superman is the poop, then I find myself very appreciative of said movie. If instead, someone says "that was poop," then they are of course expressing displeasure with whatever it is to which they're referring. The "the" makes all the difference. Just saying that if that's the case, the emotions weren't mixed after all. Unless you were being sarcastic.