Chris Durham

I want to buy a Super8 camera and I'm looking at several on Ebay. I know that I want either a Nizo or a Canon - Nizos are spoken very highly of and are common, as are Canons - and I've never been dissatisfied with a Canon product. I willing to spend to get a good camera but don't want to spend more than I have to. So I need advice on this from two angles: 1) Is there a significant difference between the two manufactures in terms of optics quality and reliability. For the most part it seems used Nizos are being sold out of Europe and I wonder if the additional shipping cost (which granted isn't huge) is justified by quality. Higher quality would obviously compel me towards a Nizo. 2) Is there a significant difference in strata of product. Are the Nizo 801 or Canon 1014 significantly superior to the Nizo 560 or Canon 814 for instance? They represent an approximately $200 difference in price, which I wonder is justified. Thanks for the help.

Kenan, I'd look at the Lowel lighting kits. I got my DVCreator55 kit for under $1200 - it's 4 heads and a good kit. In the beginning, for audio I think recording onto the camera is a valid way to go. Just make sure your camera has XLR inputs, or will accept the input from a mixer that you can pick up for under $100. The key is to not go cheap on the mic(s). When you get more advanced and have more sophisticated sound needs you can move up recording audio on DAT. That's somewhere I haven't gone yet myself because, as I understand it, there's more to worry about because you want to make sure that the audio and video timecodes sync up. Recording audio onto your camera you don't have to worry about it.

So I'm new to this and most of what I've done so far has been outdoors. I've got a light kit (Lowel DV Creator 55), but haven't really had a chance to use it. But last night my buddy and I were going to do some still shots for our website and I thought, "Why not break out the lights and get some practice?" So I did a 3-point setup with an umbrellaed 750W Tota for fill, a 500W Omni for key, and a 250W Pro for back. The pictures came out great and provided levels of depth I wasn't really used to getting so I'm in love with lighting now. What I found kind of odd though was that they didn't provide as much light as I expected. The really brightened up the room and dialated my pupils like crazy; but shooting at ISO 100 F/4.0 I had to expose for 1/10 of a second. So I grabbed my light meter and set it up as if I was using my XL2 - 320 ASA and 24 FPS (Actually I'd probably use 48 FPS, but that didn't occur to me last night) and the readout was something like F/3.6. Now depending on the lens I'm using and the zoom I'm at that F-Stop shouldn't be a problem, especially because I prefer to shoot wide open to minimize DoF; but I guess I just expected the light to be more intense than that - based on what my (untrained) eyes were telling me. So I guess my question is: Is this normal? In lighting a scene are you lighting it to this "low" level of light despite what the eye sees? Or is it just that a combined 1500W isn't a whole hell of a lot?

Kenan, I wouldn't pay any attention at all to the debate between film and video at this point. It's a pointless debate: Video is here to stay and on the other hand anyone who thinks that Film is on its way out is mistaken. Both formats are valid. Work with whichever is best for you now. I started on video 5 months ago and I'm chomping at the bit to make the leap to film. But that doesn't mean I'm trashing my video gear. My take on things, and I think anyone here with a three letter suffix on their name would agree, is that the modern professional cinematographer will do very well to be familiar with both.

This is the first thing I've pieced together with footage I actually shot. I'm curious to get some feedback on it. This was shot primarily on an XL2, though there are a couple shots from my 'B-Roll Camera,' A Canon ZR600. This was edited together on Cinelerra and we did some color correction on a few shots. This is all part of a learning experience for me and one thing I've learned since shooting it is to turn Auto-Gain off! So some of the shots are kind of noisy. It's also relatively low-res on the website, so there's some noise because of that. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Renaissance Festival Documentary Teaser

Are you planning on buying a camera specifically to shoot this script? If that's the case, I'd recommend looking at renting equipment. Here's the deal: expect your first movie to be a big steaming pile of crap. May not be, you might be a natural. Probably though, like me, you've decided to make a movie but don't have any experience behind the camera, lighting, directing, supervising your script, etc. You'll be lost while you're making it and as you sit down at your editing station you'll begin to realize all the things you did wrong. No problem here, that's just part of learning. I made my first movie and started screaming at the screen. Now, if you have a laundry list of projects you can use your multi-thousand dollar camera investment on in the future, then purchasing isn't a bad Idea. I bought my camera partly because I need it long-term for my documentary. I'll probably use it in a few narratives as well. And if you're really looking to learn camera operation, cinematography, etc. it's not a bad deal. But it sounds like you want to write/direct, maybe produce. In any case, you're producing now - it's your money. First rule of financial management: Money now is better than money later (investment notwithstanding), so conserve money where you can. Don't spend $2000 on a camera that you're gonna shoot what would cost $500 if you rented. Even if you're gonna make 4 of those movies, spread out spending your money and don't get tied to a piece of equipment. Here's another option. Find someone like me who has a camera and trimmings and is looking for projects to cut his teeth on. Don't tell him you have $4000. Buy him beer and tell him you appreciate it. You help him get experience 'DPing' while you get experience directing. Craigslist is great for this. It's a synergistic thing.

There was an article somewhere - may have been in AC - about the techniques they used to film some of the skating shots in "Lords of Dogtown." Might be worth a read. You'll distinguish yourself if you stay away from cliche. Find interesting angles and ways to move the camera. Improvise a jib if you can't afford one. Don't use a fisheye. Follow the action and make the audience feel like they're in it, not just observing. I think Super8 is a great medium for skate videos - really classic. maybe shoot a couple carts of Super8 and intersperse.

I chose the XL2 for the Interchangeable lenses and because it has what I consider a superior widescreen mode because it doesn't electronically anamorphize the picture. But I've heard that the DVX is a much more rugged camera. And it does have a great picture. I agree that it's really a matter of personal preference and arguments as to which is better are largely masturbatory.

Thanks Stuart. That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks. I went ahead and bought a Spectra IV-A. Just came in last night. Very cool. Now here's another question. I've generally read that the ASA rating for my XL2 should be 320; but is there a way for formulating that accurately? I've read bits alluding to the use of a waveform monitor for that, but I'm not sure I completely understand.

I don't know about the XL1, but I think it's the same as the XL2 in that you can use an adapter for Canon ES lenses with a magnification factor, which will get you close if the standard lens doesn't get you close enough. I'm not sure if that's necessary as I've never had to shoot on that scale before.

Thanks Josh. I'll probably try something like that. I think in that scene it should be ok because it's well lit (well, not well lit, but there's a lot of fill) and there's really not a lot of gain like in some of the other scenes.

You shouldn't see a problem unless the actors are giving significantly different performances from take to take. I've got a short I'm having a hell of a time editing because in a scene with a guy and a girl on a sofa there's one shot with his arm on top of the sofa kind of around her, and then another shot where it's not. This was my first shoot and they were friends who had never acted before so one performance wasn't consistent enough to get a good master to go to and I'm left trying to figure out how to make it seem like a continuous thing. When dealing with proper actors you shouldn't have a problem though; and with a bit of experience I expect it's easier to notice and correct it. In the big leagues that's what a script supervisor is for. And you might change lighting from shot to shot to get a better picture but I think if you keep your key light consistent you should be ok.

I'm not sure that the video games outpacing movies is an altogether accurate representation. I don't have numbers and am not really sure where to get them, so please point out where I might be incorrect. While video games likely outsell movies in terms of dollars, that doesn't necessarily indicate a higher demand for video games. For one thing your average video game costs $50. If I don't eat popcorn I can go to the movies 6 times for that much money. 8 if I go to a matinee. I can buy 2 1/2 new DVDs or 3-4 used ones. I can watch negative infinity to infinity shows or movies on TV, depending on how advertisement sways my spending habits. And let's not forget that the more popular and more interactive games such as WoW require a month-to-month fee; however that's equatable to cable or satellite in the narrative world, so call it a wash. Point is that the fact that games are beating movies in hard dollars no way indicates a diminishment of the demand for film. It just indicates that interactive storytelling is just as viable a method of expression and entertainment as is narrative storytelling. Games won't replace movies any more than movies replaced books. We will see movies based on video games, books based on movies, video games based on books, etc.. Oh wait, that sort of thing has already happened. Yay Alone in the Dark.

When I was younger I didn't have the nomenclature down. I think that's true of a lot of people on the outside. The term 'cinematography' is taken to mean the art of cinema: film making. Ken, to be clear, cinematography is specifically the art of cinematic photography - which of course encompasses lighting, shooting, printing, etc., etc. So when you say "I don't know what direction to go" it's confusing because cinematography is a direction - a very specific choice of career within the film industry. That said, there are a lot of folks on here, such as myself, who are independent filmmakers - which requires at the least a cursory knowledge of cinematography. If you can be more explicit as to what your interests are we'd love to help point you in the right direction.

Dunno about the A1U. My boss has the Z1U and loves it. I know it's not the same, but it seems like a decent line. I had a lot of reasons for going with the XL2 but I could afford it. I might have looked at the GL2 otherwise; but I'm a Canon guy. My current arsenal is an XL2 as my main video, a ZR600 as a "home video" and B-Cam, and a Rebel XTI for stills. Part of it's loving the color, the other part is probably indoctrination - I worked for a Canon office equipment dealership for 7 years.

Well, I can vouch for the XL2. As far as I know, though, the GL2 isn't 24P (Though I've been wrong before;-). Ebay can be your friend. Just be wary.

I'll throw in with John. Never could see the point of Lynch's flicks. Every time I watch one I come away feeling like I could have better spent the past two hours numbering my nose hairs. that's not meant to be critical really, nothing bad anyway, they're just devoid of value to me personally. I understand some people dig it. Well, except Eraserhead. I'll probably decry that flick I'll decry forever. All that said, I've been considering just going through his flicks to see if I can figure out what I'm missing. After all, I used to say acquiring an acquired taste was a silly thing. But that was before I gave beer an honest chance :D

Damn. I thought Texas was good being the second biggest and no income tax. But wow - biggest and no sales tax either. I'm unusually jealous.

Texas Film Incentives Sorry about the misinformation on the XL1.

Excellent. Sorry about all the run-around; but "how do I spend my money?" is a pretty open-ended question. I would advise using a 24P prosumer model like the DVX100 or XL2. Problem is your budget keeps you from picking one up new, but if you look around you can find a used DVX or XL1 for around $2000 (which is about the cost of 2-3 weeks' rental - but I understand you'll want to repurpose afterwards). The good news is that either of these cameras has two XLR inputs so you can save money on recording equipment if you want to go that way (The XL2 can accept an adapter for 2 additional XLRs, which reduces all four to 12-bit - not sure if this option is available for the XL1). If you want to record sound to DAT, I'm not much help for you. Don't go cheap on the mics. A $300-500 mic is worth every penny and sound is very important. For lights, you can get away with a tungsten kit like a Lowel. A 4-head kit like a Lowel DVCreator55 kit goes new for like $1100-$1200. So my $4000 budget-at-a-glance would go something like: $2000 Camera $1200 Lights $600 Mics $200 Tape Stock I don't know about Alaska, but in Texas filmmaking, unlike still photography, is considered manufacturing and therefore any of this equipment is exempt from sales tax. Something to consider looking into. Also, if you want an example of what these cameras can do, the horror movie 28 Days Later was shot with XL1s.

I was under the impression that the Genesis was going for way more than that - retail anyway. I checked out the ndierentals site and it looks good; but I was a little disappointed that it's all video.

I agree with Jeremiah. 25 minutes is a lot to do in a single weekend; even with a single location - especially if you're looking to take advantage of magic hour for most of the flick, because you'll have to spread out across several nights. That may make shooting film impossible, unless you can borrow a 16mm camera from someone. Of course there could be arguments made for shooting Super8... (of course shooting 25 minutes 6:1 will run you about $2500-3000 after stock, processing, and telecine; but it would look good) Just be careful in any case because there are many video horror movies that look like video horror movies. If you're gonna shoot video, shoot 24p, light the scenes carefully so you can 1) keep your iris open and minimize DoF 2) reduce gain in your toe. Looking at a black ProMist filter wouldn't hurt either - aid your shadows and add diffusion to offset that video crispness. But yeah, storyboard it first. Get a shotlist. Figure out what you'll need in terms of 1) set design 2) props 3) special effects. then you'll know what your budget is for equipment and you'll also have a more accurate view of your equipment needs. And don't forget to feed your crew and get them drunk at a wrap party.

I'm using a pair of Audio Technica shotguns that I think were around $280 each. I also use a Sennheiser UHF lav when I'm doing a talking head with 1 person. The shotguns are perfect though in most cases with the remote lav being used just when I want to get some distance from the subject and not worry about mics in the shot. If most of your subjects will be close to you (and close together if you're talking to 2 people), then a good shotgun will work wonderfully. The DVX has 2 XLR inputs if you're going that route.

First thing's first. Do you have a script? You say you've been thinking about it for years, which is good; but nothin's nothin' till it's somethin', as they say. There's no point worrying about how to spend your budget, and possibly even worrying about what that budget might be until you've written "THE END." It's tempting to think of how to budget an idea, especially when it's like "okay, I've got 4 grand now and I can finally make this happen." But before you spend dime one, make sure you take care of the part that's free.