Chris Durham

Dammit that's aggravating. I mean, even putting it in the viewfinder display would be so useful. Anyhow, here's the chart I made. It's based on an x4.4 difference between the 35mm film plane and the XL2's CCD, and, a variety of mathematical formulas showing different values, seemed to be the consensus over at dvinfo.net

So I had this great idea yesterday that I'd research the focal lengths of a bunch of common prime sets and translate that to focal lengths on the XL2. Then I got home and started looking at my camera and couldn't find anything that displays the current focal length of the lens. Anybody know where I can find this, or if I even can? Thanks.

I've recently noticed that footage captured on my XL2, which looks fine in the viewfinder, comes out pretty dark when dumped to computer. One reason I've considered for this is that some time back I set my Zebra settings down to 90 IRE, and since I'm using Zebra as my reference (can't afford a Waveform Monitor right now) that would lead me to stop down or apply an ND before I would have to if my Zebra was set higher. I'm going to experiment with the setting some to see if I get better results when I reference Zebra set at 95 or 100 IRE. But that led me to wonder, being pretty new to all this, how well I understand IRE, particularly as it applies to a color image. For instance I know that 100 IRE represents white; but is that white or is it "white?" If I'm aiming my camera at an orange flame, for example, and I get zebra in the flame, does that mean that one color, probably red, is overexposed? Am I losing less detail than I would on, say, a cloudy sky where all 3 colors are clipping? With my flame, since green is involved as well (and blue to a lesser degree), am I retaining some detail from that channel? I guess what I'm asking is whether when we talk about exposure in terms of IRE, are we talking about exposure per channel of color? And if I see Zebra in my viewfinder is it likely then that it might only be one channel overexposed (unless, of course, I'm looking at something white?).

With the advent of previz software there's a big call for a change in the way things are done. Traditionally, when storyboards are used, the director will work with the storyboard artist to go through shot by shot. Depending on the director this might be a strict blueprint or a broad visualization guideline; but I don't think it treads on the DP's work at all because ideally a DP will be a partner of the director whose job it is to capture the director's vision on film - so the storyboard or the shot list is just a tool to organize the directorial vision. with previz, however, there is a real opportunity - and perhaps even a necessity, owing to the three-dimensional nature of previz modeling - for the DP to get involved. These days you can plot out camera placement, lighting plots, even lens choices ahead of time; and I think you will begin to see DPs utilized earlier and earlier in preproduction in the future.

So I've just got my hands on a Canon 814 and I'm excited to shoot something on film. I'm gonna order a roll from Pr08mm I think and shoot 50' just to make sure everything works and that I can operate the thing without messing it up. I'm gonna order reversal for now I think, so I started looking and was just wondering - would I be better served ordering ASA64 or 100? Is there big enough a difference for me to care? Any other advice? This is my first chance to mess around with film, so any advice would be welcome. Thanks

I agree. Great primer on the economics and finances of making movies. Not everything in any book, forum, class, whatever, will apply to everybody; but this will at least give you some perspective and realistic expectations of the way things work.

I use Celtx on both my Windows and Linux boxes. I love it. Good basic scripting software with production management tools as well.

Sorry, forgot the link: http://www.hatecityfilms.com/?q=node/83

Our to the Dallas 24 Hour Video Race. At 12am Saturday morning we were given a theme (Wrong Turn), a prop (Musical Instrument), a location (flagpole), and a line of dialog (you don't owe me anything). We then had 24 hours to conceptualize, write, shoot, and edit a 5 minute short. This was my first time to apply any knowledge of lighting to something. Please, let me know what you think or what I could have done better. Thanks.

MPS in Dallas. www.mpsfilm.com

P+S Technik makes a PL adapter. Or at least they made one. I can't seem to find it on their website; however a local rental house has it. See Here

A quick look through the manual seems to suggest that the front mic adapter is specifically for the front mic. The other available audio input (aside from XLR) is the Audio1 RCA input. What mic are you using that has a mini-plug connection? If you were going for quality I would think you would want an XLR connection. I will say this about the front mic: When I use mine it picks up way too much - it's very sensitive and I don't often find it practical. 1-2 shotgun mics on the XLR connections work perfect.

Can somebody explain the purpose of this thing?

Well now here's an interesting thought. If my market is both US and abroad am I better off shooting PAL, knowing that PAL is a bit better in resolution and that I can convert to NTSC later on? Of course there are other hurdles in that question, but it's an interesting point academically.

That is correct. If you look on B&H for instance you will see that they are two different items.

Are there any Directors who also act as DP on their films? I mean, obviously there are a lot of indie and low-budget guys who do this. Independents have to wear multiple hats out of necessity. But are there any big-time guys who do both either because they enjoy it or they want that level of control?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that film look=cleaner look. A a matter of fact, video being cleaner than film is one of the chiefest complaints from those who prefer film - excepting of course video noise which is less aesthetically pleasing than film grain. The best analogy I can use is records versus CDs. Vinyl certainly isn't any cleaner than digital, but there's something more 'real,' more visceral about it. Motion is the only place where you should notice a big difference between frame rates, but there are other things that go into achieving a film look. If you're not happy with the motion from 24p, check your shutter speed. Faster shutter speeds will yield more 'staccato'-like images; motion that is less fluid. Film also has superior range than video, so be careful of your knee (upper end towards white) and toe (lower end towards black). Another defining characteristic of film is depth of field, which is determined by your aperture and the size of your capture surface. Since you can't alter the size of your CCDs you should shoot as wide open as possible to minimize depth of field - that's right, minimize; remember film look is not about the cleaner image and having a huge DoF where everything is in focus is distracting and generally a lot uglier for narrative work than it is for shooting an NFL game. You can also shoot with a diffusion filter to soften things up which is a way of 'cheating' DoF.

Heck, if you've got access to a camera for free then right on! The rules of storytelling visually don't change whether you're working with a consumer miniDV cam, a Genesis, or an Arri 35mm. Technical aspects are important, but they can't replace a good foundation. As far as the DVD thing, that's kind of a pain; but Dory's right. Just rip the thing to AVI and cut it how you need it. As far as editing software, you can cut your teeth on Windows Movie Maker or iMovie or Kino, depending on your platform. Of course the more basic your tools the fewer tricks you have; but get used to it. This is an art that requires a degree of inventiveness.

I just saw 'Brick' the other night and it quickly became one of my favorite films in recent memory. It's one of those films that, as a beginning indie filmmaker, makes me say "Man, if I can make just one flick like that I'd be one happy SOB." The premise of doing film noir in a high school setting is just brilliant. And I think about how he subversively inserted a noir staple - first person narration/internal monologue - by having dialogue with a character nicknamed "Brain" and it just gives me goosebumps. Very very cool. Of course none of that has to do with cinematography, but the film was visually excellent. Though limited in budget, the palette and composition just fit the mood of the story so well. One of my personal favorite shots is when the main character throws something at the drama vamp's head, or perhaps the mirror behind her and when she rises from ducking the black wall behind the glass is right behind her head and the broken glass around it makes a sort of corona or halo. It reminded me of an Alfons Mucha painting.

I don't know; but the XL2 lets you set to 80, 85, 90, 95 or 100. That's it.

As far as a laptop goes, it depends on what you intend to edit with. To me, the most obvious disadvantage of a laptop is screen size, however as I travel a lot I will soon be looking into getting one. The next thing is rendering. Any processor-intensive filters or effects will be difficult to view in realtime, and rendering them will take longer on a laptop. You'll also be hamstrung by hard drive speeds which top out at 5400rpm for most laptops. If you carry an external drive that's high-speed you may offset that a bit, but you'll have to account for USB2 or Firewire throughput and I'm not sure what the performance breakpoint is there. You'll want a lot of drive space though. Pick your platform and get the best you can afford, paying particular attention to how much memory you can load it with. As far as cameras go, I think 1500 pounds equates to about $2500 USD, so that puts you into something like a Canon GL2. Of course you can also look around for a used DVX100 which will get you 24P. If you're looking for HD then you're out of the prosumer market for that amount, but you can go HD on a consumer-level cam. Just remember to account for the extras you'll need - tripod, filters, adapters, etc. Not sure about being able to transfer your Hi8 stuff though. You might have to dig some to find that out. Good luck!

I know I'll experiment myself, but using this methodology as a jump-off point, how should I compensate for the fact that my camera's zebra only goes down to 80 IRE? ND Filter? Underxpose by a certain stop?

The thing I would think about is not showing everything. For the punch you can do a point of view shot where the criminal is throwing the punch straight at the camera, next cut to the guy falling back. Then show a cut of the criminal pulling his gun and then cut to a wide shot where we just here the bang. Maybe even rig something up where there's a quick flash - like have the actor flick a cigarette lighter (obscured by his body) to provide just a quick flash. Cut back to the woman's face or even the criminal's to show the shock. Maybe a trickle of fake blood. Fights are messy. Fight scenes can be too - choppy and confusing can be effective as long as the key points are clear. Think of the classic films or even some modern ones where the violence doesn't have to be explicitly shown to be effective. In Braveheart, for example, Wallace's execution is probably the most emotional scene in the movie. We know he's been beheaded. We've scene the axe. We know the exact moment of it. You never actually see the act. As a student or indie you've got to be creative like that. You don't want to use a blank gun if you can't afford insurance for the production, and the moment an insurance agent sees the words "fight scene" or "gun" you know the price is through the roof.

My tota light is alright. Playing around with it, it makes a good fill if you use it with the umbrella. When I got my light kit I set my camera up on a tripod pointing at a chair in the middle of the room and hit record. I turned on one light and said "This is with just a fill" and sat in the chair for a minute. Then I ran and turned on another and sat down. "This is with fill and key." etc. etc. Eventually I got into "This is me with a three point setup shooting at f/1.6 with a shutter speed of 1/250th" and running around playing guitar to see how motion looked. When I was done I sat and watched the tape to see what all the effects were. I've also found that learning how to shoot stills with an SLR is invaluable. My still camera is a lot more portable than my XL2 and I carry it with me when I travel for work. I've learned so much about exposure and composition by taking stills. That's only half the game in cinematography, but whether you're shooting stills or motion the most important thing, I think, is to become intimate with light (photo=light)

Well, I've got nothing with snow, but here's a trailer for something I'm working on. Several outdoor shots. Click Here