Chris Durham

A couple weeks back I was viewing some DV footage and was asked how all that dust got on the lens and only in this shot (it was one of several performances at a renaissance festival). I had no clue. After reading this post I realized that it was one of the first things I shot with my SoftFX 3 soft diffusion filter. I had to set up really quick to get it and probably stopped it down in a hurry instead of adjusting shutter speed or messing with my ND filters. That clears that up a lot - especially for future shots. Thanks.

Cage always wanted to remake this flick; apparently it was a promise he made to the late Johnny Ramone. Unfortunately they just didn't get it right. The original was just perfectly creepy. The remake missed on every note - it tries to spoon-feed horror to the audience which is just a horrible idea.

I actually recommend the novice filmmaker not go to HD. Being a novice myself, I really wanted to; but then I had to start looking at things critically - after all a decent camera is an investment. So, unless you're really confident that the work you're doing right now is going to be shown on a BIG screen I don't think there's a lot of need for it. The main reason I would advise against it - particularly in the prosumer market - is that the technology is still maturing. When you can buy a good 1080P camera under $5,000 AND there is a critical mass of consumers with HDTVs - a significant portion being 1080P - then it's a mature technology. Until then, you're just begging for your new investment to go obsolete. Instead, look for a good 24P SD cam that will suffice for what you're doing and what you're displaying on. If you're distributing by DVD, SD is fine. If you're distributing via the web, it's more than fine. If you're hitting film festivals that typically play on big (not BIG) screens, you'll be fine - unless you think what you're doing is going to end up a runaway hit. But you're a beginner like me, so if you're good - not saying I am cause this hasn't happened yet - you might end up getting some kudos at festivals which you can parley into a bigger flick where you have some money and no longer have to shoot SD. The thing about that is that it doesn't really matter what you're shooting on - you will get acclaim based on the way you tell a story and the way that you use the tools you have at your disposal to tell that story. If you're good enough to get that, then you can use your newfound clout to buy you some new tools. Or at least that's my take on the way it should work. Worrying too much about the best camera at our stage of the game is kind of like Picasso not wanting to use real sable brushes and waiting till they invented synthetics. You know what I mean. If I can't make a decent flick on my XL2 then I wouldn't have been able to make one on an XLH1 or even an Arri. On the other hand, if you've got some money behind you and you're going to make a visual spectacle, then go HD; but if you've got that kind of cash you don't want to go prosumer, you want to go pro - and at those prices you might as well go film because if you're making a BIG picture video's only cheaper till you get the thing in the can. By the time you put it on the BIG screen it costs just as much. Go for an XL2 or a DVX100B. I got my XL2 for $3600 new. The DVX is even less I think; and if you're really looking forward to an HD future, there's a 3rd party hardware upgrade you can get for it to make it an HD cam (can't remember the name) for about $3000 when you're ready for it. I'm partial to interchangeable lenses and non-anamorphic widescreen so I favor the XL2 - I'm in love with the wide angle lens. Anyway, that's my two cents. But I'm just a novice myself. The thing I will say that seems to make a lot of sense in the world of film is to take your chances creatively but be conservative fiscally.

If you can think of editing as your final rewrite, then think of shooting 1:1 as huffing gasoline before sitting down to the keyboard. You're far less likely to have the syntactic and grammatic capabilities you would otherwise possess. What you're talking about is guerrilla filmmaking. Great if you can pull it off, but hard to learn from; unless you somehow think you're talented enough to get everything right the first time AND think that everybody you work with is in the same boat.

I've got one complaint about my fig rig: When I'm trying to shoot non-narrative footage in a public environment I get tons of mouth-breathers making jokes as to where the rest of my car might be as though they might have been the first one clever enough to litter up my audio with that gem. Fig Rig is alright. I use it with my XL2 and it's a little heavy - the XL being naturally front-heavy unless you use the wide angle lens, which I recommend for this. It's not a steady cam, though. It's good for handheld moving shots and walking shots as long as you can move steadily. I wouldn't count on using it for any really long takes.

That is damn cool. I mean the flick as well as the techie stuff. I'm really new to filmmaking and never heard of Andromeda before (I've got an XL2) so forgive me if these are dumb questions, but: 1) how did you get 2.35:1 out of a DVX? Did you use an anamorphic adapter? (I've seen them for the XL2) 2) do you know if they plan on making a mod for the XL2? Didn't see anything on their website, but that would be awesome.

I haven't shot in snow before but I imagine that a good neutral density filter would be necessary. I find it hard to shoot without one on a sunny day, let alone with white reflecting everywhere.

One reason to shoot as wide as possible is to limit depth of field, which aids in the "film look" by minimizing the sharpness of background objects and more closely approximate the DoF of film.

Just bought that Varizoom. I'll vouch for it - I love it. Mounts perfectly on the shoe.

Yeah, I liked the first one better too; but that's a taste thing. What'd you shoot with?

The commentaries on the Buffy and Angel discs are the same way - Joss's episodes talk a bit more directing and thematics; the other directors usually talk cinematography a bit more. For me, I'm just happy to get to nerd out with these shows and hear a little info from their makers. Kevin Smiths commentaries are fun to listen to but have so little to do with actual filmmaking. But the best is the teen movie Eurotrip where the filmmakers turn the commentary into a drinking game and get snotty drunk in the process. I know, I know - no real artistic choices; but fun ones to be sure.

I read that article, and it really got me interested. Like I said above I don't know a lot yet; but reading articles like that and a lot of the postings here are kind of my "immersive language program" in cinematography. When you start realizing how much you don't know it's pretty humbling.

If you're trying to go cheap, you might augment the daylight with a 5000K photoflood - put it in a chinese lantern to diffuse it and make sure that the placement doesn't cause any distracting or unbelievable shadows.

I agree with the low angle on the drums. I will say that the switching between aspect ratios was kind of distracting. I generally prefer 16:9, but the 4:3 did add a bit to the feeling of enclosure of the car; however if that's what you were going for, you could have shot the whole thing 4:3 and just had the band stand closer together.

A "harsh" look is kind of part of the gig with video. The picture's obviously better on 3ccd, motion looks better in 24p, and good optics do a lot; however the physics involved dictate your results. A smaller imaging surface - 1/3" CCD as opposed to 35mm - means means that you're basically going to get a crisper looking image. This isn't always a good thing. The deal is that you have a much larger depth of field with a smaller surface so everything in frame has a tendency to appear crisper than it would in film - which is distracting to the human eye even if the brain has trouble articulating what it is that's distracting. You get closer to a "film look" by paying attention to things like focus and lighting; however you should always be aware that you're not working with film. Play on the strengths of the medium. When was the last time you heard a water colorist say he was going for an "oil paint look?" And BTW, Dave, the rules here are that you post with your real name. The folks here are either professionals or folks like me - amateurs who conduct themselves professionally. They don't like it when people hide behind nicknames or handles.

So I'm shooting a documentary on an XL2 in 16:9 24p. I also have a small Canon ZR600 that I carry for "quick and dirty" stuff - I see something but don't have time to set up the XL, I reach for the ZR. The ZR600 is, of course, a 29.97 consumer handheld camcorder. So the question is when I go to edit; am I gonna have any problems? Do I do a 3:2 Pulldown or can I intersperse frame rates - the media will be DVD - expecting little notice of it since the real meat of the doc is higher quality? If I do a 3:2 Pulldown will it match up right with the footage from the XL2 or do I have to worry about the fact that 24p isn't really 24 frames? Thoughts?

Right. A wide angle will give me more top and bottom, left and right. I'm shooting 16:9 and back 17'-20' from the stage in order to get both ends of it in the picture; which is far enough to give me more on top and bottom than I want. With a wide angle though I should be able to move the camera closer to the stage and still get all my left and right in frame - with the aspect ratio and perspective doing the cropping above and below for me; right? I'll admit that I'm new to this so I could be fairly well off in my thinking; but I intend to do a test before I make any purchase. If I'm wrong, please tell me the flaw in my thinking. Thanks. Thanks for the link; that helps a lot. I found another link - by Mr. Hurd - that was helpful too. It indicates that focal length is magnified by a factor of at least 7.8; which is definitely not what I'm looking for. That leaves the two other options - anyone have experience with wide angle converters?

So I started shooting my documentary this weekend and the XL2 was great for the interviews we did. The performances we shot left a little something to be desired though and I think what it is is that I need a wider angle so I can get closer to stage and capture the performers without a lot of crap above or below them. (I'm shooting a documentary about Renaissance Festivals). So I need to look at my lens options. 1) there's the expensive option of the 3x wide angle lens for the XL. 2) there's the less expensive option of getting a wide angle converter. 3) there's the middle-of-the-road option of getting the EF adapter and using Canon EF series lenses. Does anybody have enough experience with any of these options to advise me? As far as the last option goes, I have the EFS 17-85mm lens for my Canon EOS still cam. Is there any conversion of focal length when you use the adapter with the XL2? How is the image on either option? Can I still use my filters on the wide angle converter? Do option 2 or three stop me down? Help is appreciated.

My XL2s timecode carries over to the ZR600 handicam that I use for quick and dirty shots - but of course that's Canon to Canon so that doesn't mean much; but if you've got a little Canon like that you can try it instead of carting around the XL2 just to dump.

Just got my XL2 and love it. The XLH1 seems a bit steep for the market; but I feel stongly about Canon quality - although I feel at this point you should have very specific reasons for shooting HD. The XL2 is a bit front heavy; but I don't see myself shoulder-mounting much. Decent tripod for most shots and a Manfrotto Fig Rig for walking shots (which does get a little heavy, but looks good).

For under $300 you can get a Bogen Manfrotto Fig Rig. That will provide decent stabilization. It's a hard device to describe, so just google it and you'll see. That and a tripod. One relatively cheap lighting solution is to use photoflood bulbs in chinese lanterns - the round paper kind you see. It's hard to do a 3-point setup that way, but it's better than just practicals in a lot of cases. the bulbs run you about $5-7; $10 for the lantern shade (diffuses the light); and maybe $20 for the fixtures (cord and socket). The only thing is you've got to be careful. The fixtures are typically 60 watts and the bulbs are 250 watts. Turn the lights on only when shooting and turn them off immediately. Keep an eye on them. (Also, they start to lose their color after about 3 hours of use, so use them judiciously)

If you're ordering online, just make sure to do your homework on the reseller. There are a lot of operations out there undercutting reputable resellers by a grand, but they're almost universally bait-and-switch crooks.

Looks amazing Jeff.

You should be able to find a decent local dealer; but if you want a good barometer of what price to expect from a reputable vendor, check B&H. www.bhphotovideo.com

The thing I'll say about the cameras, and this is a personal preference thing, is that neither of these (vx2100 or FX1) support 24p. This might not be important to you because you intend to shoot Music videos and 24p is more of a cinematic thing. Regarding the FX1, I opted out of HD cams because I don't think the platform is mature in the prosumer market; 1080i will soon be obsolete and I haven't seen any 1080p prosumer cameras; at least not in the price range that is reasonable to me. Breakdown: 1) HD is still a fairly infant format - not a lot of people have the ability to view in HD. 2) HD will proliferate in the next few years, but 1080p being available now, most will opt for it. 3) Therefore 1080i will be fairly well obsolete pretty soon (within a few years). 4) There will be the introduction of 1080p prosumer devices in the next few years; but... a) They will be at a higher price point than SD cameras (duh), but not much more than... B) 1080i cams are now, and their prices will settle to what high-grade SD cams are now; however... c) By then, if you're worth your salt, you'll be able to afford them (and so will I); but... d) We'll both be smart enough to rent them instead of buying; or... e) We'll be working in film and not video. 5) Music Videos will be presented on... a) DVD = 720 lines, tops; and how much of that resolution is really important in a music video? B) Web = whatever resolution you pick; or... c) MTV if you're super lucky, and again, that will mostly be SD. And you therefore waste the resolution. Unless... 6) You intend to present on film, in which case 1080i will beat SD; but to do that you're jumping a couple tax brackets and I don't think we ought to be talking about <$2000 Cameras. Conclusion: If you must buy a camera, go with the SD. It'll be cheaper, teach you the same things, and not be significantly less useful for your purposes than the HD. When you need something better, rent it. That's just my advice; but I'm not significantly more experienced than you are. I'm pretty new to this; but I've done my homework (and I'm sure the points I've given above will now be ripped apart; but even if the details are off, the point is sensible). I myself opted to buy the Canon XL-2. It was in the range I could afford for my project, was SD, met my needs, and is a good product. But you really have to weigh the options for yourself. In the end, it all goes on tape, all gets edited in post, and is subject entirely to your ability. To take a musical analogy; I'm always amazed that Bohemian Rhapsody was recorded on a friggin 4-track. Despite what the girls say, it's not what you've got, it's how you use it. And on that note I say Adios.