Chris Durham

Another thing. If I was looking to add an HMI, what wattage should I look for? I've got my head wrapped around tungsten wattage output, but know nothing about HMI's and what I need to consider. Or even how heavy they are, what kind of support I'll need, etc. thanks

Thanks for the advice everyone. I've heard that 1K's aren't as useful as 650's or 2K's - that it's often the case that if you need to go above 650 then 1K isn't enough or if you need to go below 2K then 1K is still too much. Can anyone comment on that? I know you can get used Mole 2K's for around $150, and if the above is true, I imagine I'd be well off picking a couple up? I imagine they could be mounted on C-Stands pretty well?

I have a Lowell DVCreator 44 kit and it's served okay and sometimes it's all I need; but it often doesn't give me the flexibility that I want. I'm not a rich guy, but I want to start gradually building up my kit. I know it's hard to say what is best to have because it's highly dependent upon the circumstances of an individual shoot; but I'm guessing there are items that are close enough to gimmes that I'd be safe dropping a little cash on, and be happy of having when at the last minute I decide my little Lowell kit isn't satisfactory for a shoot. So, any thoughts? Oh, and I have a light meter, which I'm guessing might be among the first suggestions.

The XL2 has 3 presets so I can just jump to another one and restore defaults on it. If I can find some time this weekend I'll shoot a couple quick clips on each and compare the two. You're right about me doing this in a broad stroke. I'm wearing a lot of hats on this film: writer, director, actor, editor, and since the guy I had running camera on the first few shoots is unavailable, I'm also DP now, with my AD and co-editor running the camera. So a lot of this is motivated by working with the tools available to me. Given 4 hours to shoot the scene and 9 setups I went for a single lighting arrangement. I was also sort of experimenting with what it might look like to have my lights motivated by an exterior source (the moon). My fill really killed me, but you're right that different setups per shot would have looked a lot better. The reason I couldn't gel the softbox, btw was simply that I didn't have a piece of gel big enough. Guess what one of my next purchases is going to be? I have other setups to shoot in the same set, that happen just prior to this scene. Would it break continuity to shoot them as you suggest with their own lighting treatment, or would I be better off setting up what I had? My guess is the former, but better to ask. As for the post-dependent workflow, it's something I rely on at the moment because I can. I am a filmmaker, really, and not so much a DP; as evidenced by how much I'm doing on the set here. I have control over every step of the process and so I have a tendency to look at the process as a whole, and at the individual steps in the process as ways to answer those things I can't control. Of course the answer tends toward fixing it in After Effects. Like I said, for right now, that serves me well; but I am nowhere near satisfied by that as the general answer - hence my questions here as to how to do this better during principal photography. Moreover, as I become more interested in working on the individual aspects of filmmaking - having now DP'd a couple of other peoples' shorts - I am interested in doing an individual job the best way possible. And on that note, let me say that when I've DP'd something or been credited as a DP that I am in no way calling myself a DP - that's a title I really respect and is reflective of an artistry to which a guy like me putzing around with my video camera aspire to. Again, thanks for the help.

Hey Matt, Thanks for all the advice. There are a couple points on here that I want to answer to; but I also want to drop a diagram on here to give you a little perspective. (not exactly to scale though) Actually, this is shot wide open between f/1.8 and f/2.4 I think, depending on the zoom. The XL2's 3x wide is becoming my go-to lens and that's what was used in all three of these, but not on the entire shoot. I've got a rule about never going above 0db gain, and of course keeping everything at 1/48 shutter so in a situation like this I have to stop the camera all the way up. See the diagram. This was the intention of the 750W Tota. That damn pillar blocked the light from her face. Without it, or if she'd been lighter-complected, I think that light would have sufficed. So I was faced with putting her somewhere else or making other concessions. Without much room to move and make a gunfight work, I went with the latter. Something I wish I had was another 250w with a softbox - I think by just pointing that at her I could have gotten what I want without having to make those concessions. (Or I could have knocked the pillar out - but it's my boss's house and I don't think his wife would approve). You, know, I went out and bought a Spectra IV and followed some tips on rating ASA for my camera; but none of the readings ever seemed to jibe with anything reasonable. Of course since then my knowledge and experience have grown so maybe it's time to pull it back out and start running some tests. I really wish I'd been able to gel my softbox. I wouldn't call it heavily diffused and scrimmed-down, but I think it would have provided better fill than the Omni I was using. Would it have been a good idea to shine some light behind the 'hero' - the guy in white with the beard-stache (that's me by the way) - as though it were coming from the windows in the other room? One regret I have about the image is the lack of separation between those two characters and the background. You can't even make out the cowboy hat. Well, there is a school of thought that favors a post-intensive process, and I can see the validity of it. One notion is to shoot low-contrast because you have less chance of clipping or going into noisy black regions, and the brightness and contrast, as well as other attributes making a good image can be achieved in post, and - assuming a solid workflow - with negligible degradation of the image; particularly in an SD format. While I ascribe to that ethos - particularly as a methodology for no-budget, micro-crew filmmaking - I also know that it's not universally valid. Particularly when I move to film, the notion of capturing the image in camera is necessary. And even given a post-intensive DV workflow, my post work is made easier with a solid image to begin with. And this is what I'm striving for. It's been more than helpful. Not only seeing what I did wrong, but what I could do to make it right. This is a good exercise. I appreciate it.

Thanks Matt. That's a great piece of advice. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm shooting and see how it effects my results. It was my original intention to achieve this kind of latitude in camera, but on seeing the need to bump the light I went to plan B, which is to create it in post. I'll post shots of the final output. Of course, getting a better look in camera is my goal and so I'm wondering what kind of tips you might be able to give to this end. How can I better capture unexposed and overexposed tones and the range between? Can you suggest camera settings? Lighting techniques (well, these you already did but any other thoughts from other folks?)? thanks for the help

Yeah, that was the idea, and I kind of got that in the first one (other takes of it actually has the background totally unlit), but getting in enough light around the obstacles to light her face made me throw more light. Working with limited resources, you know? You live you learn.

You're blowing out detail in the shirt. White shirts are hard to do right in video, because they clip so easily. If you can't change the colors, you can make sure everything's exposed and then stop the image down with ND filters.

What I did was shined the 750 Tota through the window to the left of the foyer. I put the 250 Pro in a sill above the door where there was a little window. and then I found a ledge where I could raise the 500 Omni within inches of the ceiling (which was around 18' I think) and flooded the room. The only reason I did the Omni at all, was that one actor had a really dark complexion that wasn't showing detail because where I had her standing there was blocked from the Tota by a pillar. Everything was gelled blue and I can always make it darker in post so I went that way. Really I think there were only a couple of angles where it was a big deal. The thing I would have done if I had the gel would be to have replaced the Omni with the Rifa softbox and gel for better diffusion. Maybe I should have tried bouncing it off an umbrella, but I think that would have been a bit harsher. Also, if I had it, I think a diffused 250w on her would help overcome the skin tone issues while not killing my sources. Drew, In the scene, there really are no practicals - except a little spill from the kitchen and outside light that have very little effect on the room. So I understand what you're saying though, use Daylight sources through the windows and tungsten practicals; but do I gel the windows or daylights. I wanted the scene to have that cliche moonlit look. So what do I need to do? How would I white balance or what stock would I use if shooting film? Just trying to learn. Thanks

Hey guys, I've got some ideas and I've done a search here and a couple other places to augment them. I'm shooting a break-in/shoot out scene at night on an XL2 with limited lighting resources - Lowell DV lights: 750w Tota, 500w Rifa (softbox), 500w Omni, & 250w Pro. I also have a couple of photofloods and worklights I could diffuse if needed, but I can't really gel them. I don't have a way to gel the softbox either. I'm really limited. The setup is like this: The bad guys are in the large foyer the good guys come into the foyer from further back in the house and the gunfight happens in the foyer. Sounds like I'm playing cops & robbers when put that way, but there it is. I'm thinking of blue gelling the 500w Omni outside a window as my key, throwing the Rifa into the kitchen to spill light around the corner where my good guys are, and blue gelling and bouncing the Pro off a surface to add a little ambient light and pick up some details. I suppose the details of what I can gel aren't all that important since it's digital and I can correct easily in post. Any suggestions or amendments to this plan?

I'll second the HV20. Since you need something camcorder-size, what the HV gives up in manual control it makes up in a great image, decent low-light properties, and the ability to capture 24p. And they're coming down in price

Dude, being a writer I'm a stickler for form - not because I'm a pedantic prick but because the established form for screenplays is the one that's most logical for reading, interpreting, and performing. Without spending a dime, go to celtx.com and download their software. It's pre-prod software, but has a built-in screenwriting app. It formats things correctly and is fairly self explanatory. I personally prefer Final Draft, but that costs money. I used Celtx for quite a while before I started using it. Put your screenplay in that format and you're much more likely to have people read it.

Regarding Question 1, I believe - and I'm not at home to check right at the moment - that those clicks don't happen coming out of standby, just when you turn it on. If you're concerned about the noise, try leaving the camera on and going into and out of standby which I think is silent. I'll check this tonight to see if I'm right or not.

The first thing you have to understand is that writing and directing are entirely separate arts. As a writer-director, the first thing you have to be able to do is not get married to any idea you have when writing. The most important skill a director has to have is the ability to communicate and work with actors. This does NOT mean getting them to play the picture you have in your head. Film is a collaborative form which means you have to be willing to share pieces of responsibility for the end result. If, as a writer, you want the audience to see exactly what you have in your head, then you should be a novelist. The screenwriter is responsible for putting together a bunch of ideas into a story that works and is interesting. Once that is done (as much as anything can be done) he hands it over to the director and washes his hands of it. Likewise, a director will put together all the pieces - sets, locations, cast, etc. - required to relate his interpretation of the screenplay. Once he has created this set of circumstances, he must wash his hands of it as well; for now the "performance" is in the hands of the actors. The actors must find a way to make these artificial circumstances (plot, location, character, etc.) palpable for themselves and accordingly act honestly in reaction to them. Often, the actor's behavior will not be the performance and delivery pictured in the writer's head or the director's. This is a notion that can be intimidating to the writer or director - that his 'baby' won't be his. Get over it. Writers and directors who don't trust the next person in line to get it right sabotage their own work. A single person - writer or director - can not handle the intricacies of balancing every piece of a story. I'd be afraid to meet someone who could keep real tabs on all the characters in a film. Authority and responsibility in filmmaking are necessarily distributed on down the line with the idea that each person adds depth and the final product is better for it. So, in response to your question, they are able to do it by compartmentalizing their roles throughout the project. I do it too - when I write I write, when I direct I direct, and when I act I act. Just like any director, I find thoughts and ideas in the script that weren't apparent to the writer - and it would be irresponsible to dismiss them just because the writer is me and me-the-writer had a different idea. Likewise with acting - I have to shut off directorial ideas when I act. If something occurs to me in the moment when the camera is rolling, I have to be very careful of me-the-director popping into me-the-actor's head and interjecting his ideas. So these are different skills and talents. Writing is one, Directing is another, and acting is yet another. Finally, the discipline of separating them is even another skill that takes a lot of focus and practice. I think what happens to a lot of novice filmmakers (and I certainly fall in that category) is that we have to take on all these roles out of necessity. Many finally settle on one or two. Some focus on writing, or directing, or DPing,or acting, or editing. Others are very happy doing them all; but it's not easy and you really have to love doing them.

Thanks David. We actually intend to tow some of the cars, so bouncing light may be helpful. Where I can't, though, is there a cheap way that anyone can think of to get decent light in the car?

I'm shooting a low-budget (nearly no budget) short on an XL2. We've been doing some testing beforehand and did our first tests yesterday inside a moving car. There are several scenes like this so I want to get it right. I noticed a couple of difficulties and I've got some ideas on how to overcome them, but I thought I'd throw them on here for advice. 1) Driver underexposed, outside overexposed - in order to get the background outside the car from blowing out, I have to filter out to the point where there's little detail in the driver. I was thinking about buying a roll of ND gel, but I'm not sure what factor to purchase. Also, it might not matter for the shots we need, but when 'stitching' together two pieces of gel roll with gel tape, what can I expect as far as the seam appearing on camera? I've never done this before. 2) Light from the front windshield - When the driver reaches forward to play with the radio - as is indicated in the script - the hand passes into direct sunlight and goes overexposed. I figure gelling the windshield might help this as well. I can't think of a good way to bring lights into the car with the equipment I have available to me. I know also this is a time of day thing. If we drive into the sun late or early in the day it might minimize this, but I expect that there'd be color temperature issues. Any thoughts on this? Thanks guys.

Don't forget the XL2 here folks. XL2 = Native 16:9, Interchangeable lenses, 24P, CineGamma DVX = Anamorphic 16:9, Fixed Lens, 24P, CineGamma You can find the DVX at a lower price of course which could make it more desireable. Plus I know people who just swear by that camera. I hear they're rugged as all get out (and not quite so front-heavy). I like the XL2 myself. Lack of 24P would steer me away from the XL1. Try them both out and see what you think. As for the applicability of SD: SD shot right looks much better than HD shot poorly. And from what I hear it's easier to shoot good SD than good HD. I don't have an HDTV either. And HD standards are still evolving. SD is perfectly applicable for low-budget indie filmmaking.

After effects will do a fine job; although I'm dying to get a Mac so that I can start using Final Cut and it's grading utility - Color. If you have a Mac, go for Color

Darrell, Sounds like you had the gain on the camera set to auto, which would have bumped the gain up in low-light conditions. I discovered this the hard way: NEVER use auto-gain. I always set my gain to either 0 db or -3 db. Gelling the light blue is a classic trick to make it look like night. Moonlight = blue. Also, minimize the ambiance of light. Light only the areas you need lit and let negative fill do the work of creating the illusion of darkness for you. Another good trick is to use Neutral Density filters. You can light a subject pretty bright and then use ND filters to bring the overall brightness down. The cool thing about ND filters is they don't change the color of the subject, just how much of the light gets to the camera. The overall exposure is reduced evenly. Take a look at I shot that in the lobby of my buddy's loft building in broad daylight. There's even actually a skylight overhead. The practical in the shot is a photoflood suspended from a telescoping mic stand over the table. Then I used an ND filter to lower the overall exposure and - Viola! We have a dingy dark back room. Hope that helps

By widescreen I'll assume you mean cinemascope because you can get 16:9 on a lot of cameras now. Depending on the camera you can get an anamorphic adapter which will give you just about a scope ratio if you shoot 16:9. That's the expensive option. (btw if by widescreen you mean getting 16:9 out of a 4:3 camera this would do it as well) The cheap option is to crop, but just remember that you lose resolution when you do this, so I would steer clear unless I was shooting HD.

Resign yourself to MiniDV for the time being. If your max budget is $300 that might get you a camera, but film isn't cheap. $300 isn't going to get you a great MiniDV cam either, but at least you won't break yourself making your shorts. The other option is to go 8mm, which is a good option; but won't be incredibly cheap either. I personally prefer the look and latitude of film, but as beginning filmmakers we have to embrace and be happy about the inexpensive options available to us today. With a consumer camera and software that comes with any computer we have a basic setup and editing suite. And there's a lot you can do to make MiniDV look good. Remember, it's what you shoot and how you shoot it that really matters - not what it's shot on. And if you can hone your skills to the point where you can make consumer DV look good then you've got something to build on.

So I didn't know much about what I was doing when I started - and still don't. But I started out documentary project last year without knowing much about my camera. What I've shot so far is with the camera set to a 2:3 pulldown. Now that I know a little bit more I understand that I'm better off with a 2:3:3:2. My question is can I expect any difficulty in mixing footage when I go to edit? Thanks.

I'm surprised at the criticism for this film. I guess you can kind of chalk whether you thought it looked good up to taste, but as far as the story goes I thought it was pretty solid. Most of all I want to rebut the notion that Sunshine switches genres in act III. Classically, SciFi and Horror dovetailed pretty nicely. Anyone familiar with Lovecraft knows what I mean. The logical conclusion to science fiction is this: What happens when man's quest to know the unknown is met by the unknowable? The writer claims that he feels this is a story about atheism and I think any tale of edge-of-space insanity has to be. The revelation of our own insignificance in the grand scheme of things can only be maddening. The removal of God is the removal of all meaning from everything we do. Or is it? Sunshine certainly showcases a variety of responses to this. Pinbacker's insanity and god-complex are one. Capa's response is to dwell on the beauty of the event. Although the plotline is not incredibly intricate, I think like the theme of it very much and I think the execution was good. And for what it's worth, I liked the way it looked. Saw it twice and read the screenplay.

Really? I had no Idea about that. I'm doing some tests on Monday so I'll have to check that out. Of course, I probably won't notice it on a TV though... This makes sense, though I never thought about it really. I guess another way of thinking about it is that the smallest possible circle of confusion in digital video is the size of a pixel. So I guess, that with these things in mind, the logical question iswhat is the effect of this in SD? In other words, is the resolution loss due to iris diffraction such that the circles of confusion are larger than an SD pixel on a 1/3" CCD? I might be using terminology a bit incorrectly, but I think you get the point. I imagine that iris diffraction wider than f/4 might impact a 1/3" HD chip worse than SD. Thoughts?

I'm trying to get something straight in my head. I know that DoF is a function of both the capture surface and the amount of light. So opening the aperture as much as possible is beneficial to minimizing it; as would be using something larger than a 1/3" but that isn't an option for me. So if I open the aperture and then use ND filters to control exposure, does that defeat the purpose? Or does this have more to do with the dispersion of light in a wider aperture? I'm confused. Would another way of controlling this be setting the gain on my camera to -3db?