Stas Tagios

Here's a few that I know of (supplemented with info from the prod. credits in ICG magazine). Some of these I watch, many I've never even heard of: According to Jim Arrested Development Barbershop Battlestar Galactica Bernie Mac 8 Simple Rules Eve The George Lopez Show Less Than Perfect The L Word Reba Related Rescue Me Sleeper Cell What I Like About You Zoey 101 Here's a link to a Millimeter article, discussing Showtime's switch to 24p HD for all of its original programming: http://millimeter.com/e-newsletters/HD_focus_08_23_05/

As Gordon says, an XLR connection is preferred, since its more robust and less prone to introducing noise into your recording, say, from the cable getting jiggled (the XLR connection sits firmly in its mount, versues a 1/8" plug, which can easily rotate and potentially cause unwanted noise. That said, if you're looking for a shotgun with a 1/8" connection, the Sennheiser MKE-300 has one, and was designed specifically for the prosumer/small handycam market. Of course, its integrated shoe mount suggests the mike is intended more for on-camera use than as a pro mike shock-mounted on a boom pole. If cleaner, more professional sound is your goal, it's better to invest in a higher-end shotgun and boom pole set-up. The Sennheiser ME-66 (with K-6 module) is a popular choice for a decent shotgun mike at a reasonable price. Keeping the mike mounted on camera will do in a pinch, or if your audio source is near camera, but generally, getting the mike off the camera and on a boom is the first step to recording better sound. Check out the MKE-300 here: http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/produ...?transid=003171 and here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...tlist&sku=47031 And the ME-66: http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/produ...?transid=003284

Here's a few off the top of my head: Kids E.T. Bugsy Malone Stand By Me Harry Potter series

Panavision has a hi-def camera, the Genesis, currently being used to shoot the new Superman film. Styled and shaped very much like a Panavision film camera, with a Sony-designed hi-def tape drive taking the place of a film mag either atop the camera or at the back. Go to the Panavision site to see it: http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.p...de=c0,c203,c204

Briefly saw the Genesis at this year's Cine Gear and was impressed at its compactness, especially in comparison to Dalsa's behemoth Origin.

Anyone here a fan of Joss Whedon's unfortunately short-lived series "Firefly?" The show is a brilliant blend of science fiction, western, and character drama, and the cinematography by David Boyd is phenomenal... great handheld verite style, use of cross-processing for a flashback episode, lots of lens flares, beautifully blown-out highlights and deep shadows... The entire series is available on DVD if anyone's interested in checking it out. The show's now headed for the big screen in the movie "Serenity," which opens Sept. 30th, and which was photographed by the great Jack Green (who, judging from a preview screening of a work print, looks to have more or less maintained the look Boyd established, but adapted and tweaked it for the big screen). American Cinematographer did a web-only article about Boyd's work on "Firefly." Read it at: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb03/firefly/index.html And if you're interested, learn more about the show at: www.fireflyfans.net

Nic Roeg uses the zoom quite a bit ("Performance," "Walkabout," "Man Who Fell To Earth") Let's not forget one of the greatest opening shots, the ultra slow creep zoom into Union Square in "The Conversation."

Here are some grabs from a horror short I'm directing. In the first, key is a 1k shooting through a window from the right. Another 1k shooting through a window in the right b.g. illuminating the lamp on the shelf. Shot on DVX100, using 3200 white balance preset, and color-corrected in FCP to desaturate, boost contrast, and blue up the image for a low-key "blue night" look. We didn't gel the lights with CTB since we didn't want to cut the output of our lights. In the second, key is a 1k on frame right, fill is a Westcott reflector frame left, bouncing back the 1k. Another 1k shooting through blinds on a C-stand from down the hall, hitting the wall on frame right. In the third, cabinet in f.g. is keyed from frame left with a 1k shooting through blinds. Hall in b.g., behind silhouetted actor is lit with a 650 open face, positioned directly behind the actor, at the far end of the hall. Actor is holding a Surefire flashlight. A 150 is off frame right, aimed at the edge of the cabinet, to give some kick to the actor's leather glove when he puts his hand on the cabinet to open it. For the most part, we've tried to keep our "moonlight" direction consistent with the geography of our location, but opted to cheat it when it made for a better shot, rather than worry too much about maintaining the reality of one source, since this fits with the film's horror/fantasy tone.

Interestingly, "La Jetee" was originally intended as a live-action film, and was shot this way; the decision to tell the story almost entirely with stills came during post-production. I've heard varying stories as to why; one said Marker made the decision after some of the footage was ruined in the lab, and so to salvage the production, decided to make still frames from the footage that survived. Another said that Marker just decided the material worked better told in stills. Whatever the case, the decision resulted in one of the most compelling and haunting films I've ever seen.

I'm totally obsessed with the cinematography of "The Ring." Didn't catch the movie till it came to cable, and initially wasn't particularly enthralled by the concept, but after tuning in a few minutes of it, was blown away with the look of it, which got me to watch the whole movie, which I discovered was actually very eerie and compelling. Bazelli's work in the movie is stunning. The Nov. 2002 issue of American Cinematographer ("Die Another Day" is on the cover) has an article on "The Ring." When I saw the movie, I thought it had gone through a DI too, but according to the article, it didn't. The entire show was shot on Kodak EXR 200T 5293, rated at 160 and pull-processed 2/3 of a stop which "created softer tonality and less saturated colors..." The film was printed on Kodak Vision 2383. Bazelli used 85 EFs to "maintain a cold palette in cloudy exteriors," and used two green filters, a Tiffen and a custom made one from Harrison & Harrison. "The filters feature primary green coloration that was equal to +14 points of green printer lights for Green #1 and +7 for Green 1/2 [the custom-made filter]. the production shot on Arricam ST and LTs, using Cooke S4 lenses, a set of Zeiss superspeeds, and an Angenieux 12:1 zoom. "For the majority of the show, Bazelli set his aperture at T2.5."

Have you considered using a car mount to attach the camera to the car, and have the actors drive it, instead of shooting from a camera car that's towing the vehicle? Of course, that still requires spending money to rent the camera mount, so I guess that doesn't help you at all. Still, you might want to have a look to see what's available, either for rental or purchase. Here's one place that sells mounts: http://store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/carmounts.html

You can easily dub your VHS tape to DV by connecting the VHS camera to the DV camera via their RCA video and audio jacks, then putting the DV camera into VCR mode, playing your VHS tape, and recording it to a DV tape. Be aware, however, that your VHS footage will likely look noticably inferior in resolution and color rendition in comparison to the DV footage (to varying degrees depending, of course, on what kind of DV camera you're using; if it's a one-chip consumer camera with few or no manual controls, the DV and VHS will probably match slightly more than if you're shooting with a prosumer or professional 3-chip mini DV). Of course, this could work aesthetically if having low-res, smeary VHS footage is a deliberate creative choice and somehow narratively or visually motivated (e.g., if, in the reality of the movie, it's intended to be low-res VHS footage, like from a home video). Then again, if this is just a fun learning exercise, I guess it won't matter too much. I shot plenty of VHS back in my high school days, and sure, it looked terrible, but I learned a lot.:) If your VHS camera really is 20 years old, it's also possible it's not even using a CCD imager, but an imaging tube, an analog technology that was very prone to smearing (bright lights in your shot would briefly burn into the image and appear to streak or smear when you move the camera) and all sorts of other nasty visual artifacts that have been minimized in the latest generation of digital cameras (at least in comparison to older technology).

I agree with Sean that it's probably best to focus on one script/movie at a time. Especially when it comes to production, you don't want to spread yourself thin and compromise your creativity and projects by rushing to do them all at once. Start out with some shorts (especially if you've never made a movie before), and get a handle on the basics before progressing to features. For every Orson Welles, who made a stunning first feature without having directed a film before, there's countless other feature filmmakers who started off making short films in their youth, getting experience, learning their craft, before putting all their learned skills to use on a feature project. Good luck with whichever approach you decide on.

According to Panasonic rep Jan Crittenden, those pics are not of the under-$10,000 DVCpro HD cam. The pictured cam was a prototype mockup Panasonic showed at NAB last year. Read more here: http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=HDV http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post...526&forumid=162

The minimum object distance of the original DVX is around 3 feet, so that could be your problem; anything three feet or closer and you're limited as to how close you can zoom in without losing focus. On the DVX-100A, the MOD has been shortened to around 1.5 feet. Filters shouldn't affect your focus, unless of course, you're using a something like a soft focus filter, which would make it harder to determine proper focus. Phil, yeah, the bane of consumer and prosumer video lenses are the all-electronic/electro-magnetic servo controls, to be sure, though as you point out, the DVX lens offers the most nimble control of any fixed-lens camera in its price range... the odd thing is that some DVX's don't exhibit the brief "de-focusing" during snap zooms, which is why I initially discounted the defocusing as being a by-product of the lens's electronic insides. Now I haven't done official-type lab tests, just tried snap zooms on various DVX's besides mine at trade shows and camera shops, but some maintain focus during the snap, others don't. Weird. Aside from the snap zoom issue, I find that the DVX's lens has a lot more finesse that most of the others in its class, especially the Sony offerings (PD-150, 170, etc.), the servo control of which is far sloppier (and makes it impossible to do an accurate snap zoom; try it on the new Sony HDV and the lens takes a noticeable fraction of a second longer to arrive at the long or wide end after you snap the "manual" zoom ring. Really lame. As for the back focus issue, I mention it only because I recall reading somewhere (perhaps on this forum) that some people had focus problems with the DVX, and that it wasn't holding focus through the zoom range, which it should do. Of course, as you mention, the DVX lens isn't constructed like a normal ENG or cine zoom, and obviously doesn't have a traditional means of adjusting the back focus, but given the small size and complexity of the lens construction, perhaps some malfunction with the servos or electronics could result in a problem resembling back focus.

Could be a number of things... Were you using a monitor during production to check framing and focus? Since it was a doc, I'm guessing you were shooting run-and-gun, without a monitor. Judging focus via the LCD and/or viewfinder doesn't always produce perfectly focused images, since neither are hig res enough to always accurately judge focus. Are you using the DVX-100 or the DVX-100A? The 100A has a peaking control for the VF that should make it slightly easier to judge focus by. You camera could be suffering from a back-focus problem, which would require factory adjustment; try checking it with focus charts or some subject that's easy to tell if it's focused. Zoom in, focus, zoom out, and see if the focus holds or if the focus drifts. If it drifts, it could be a back focus issue. How close was your subject in the out of focus shots? The camera has a minimum focus distance that will prevent you from focusing at close range, especially at the longer end of the zoom. Were you using the anamorphic adapter? The anamorphic not only needs to be properly mounted and adjusted on the camera, but also limits the focal lengths and apertures at which you can get sharp focus. An odd problem I've got with my DVX-100 is that the image briefly goes out of focus in the middle of any snap zoom. Can't explain it. Back in December I did several weeks shooting on a short film I'm directing, and now that I'm cutting the footage, there are several shots where the focus on CU's is soft, like the problem you describe, but I attributed the problem to not having checked the focus before the shot, which sometimes happens when you've only got a crew of three and we're all doing multiple jobs. Other than that, I've had no focus issues with my camera. Hope this helps. :)

Here's some; some are free, others charge: www.entertainmentcareers.net www.mandy.com www.crewnet.com www.media-match.com Also try the L.A. Craigslist.org (losangeles.craigslist.org) Good luck :)

"In my opinion"

Totally agree. I've shot a lot of 60i video, and sure, it has its uses, and its own charming aesthetic, but unless I'm shooting something that needs to be at 60i for that familiar video/reality/news look, I keep my DVX "cineswitch" parked on scenefile 6 to shoot at 24PA. People have argued against 24P on its supposed deficiences compared to 30P and 60i: lower temporal resolution and thus more strobing, etc., but a century of flickering moving images (and most of those moving images moving at 24fps) and the acceptance of the 24p frame rate, plus the association of the temporally sharper 60i "video look" with sitcoms, sports coverage, reality shows, news, and such, makes it difficult not to consciously or subconsciously consider the 60i image to be aesthetically inferior, even if it's beautifully lit. Also, I think that because of 60i's use in so much verite programming (much of it ephemeral fluff), seeing 60i material instantly gives you a sense that the content isn't as important or artistically conveyed. You see 60i, you're more likely to think "Cops," football, "Three's Company," or Uncle Joe's shaky home videos, not "quality production." As for your friend, it seems from your comments that he really doesn't have a clear idea of why he's against shooting 24p, other than perhaps a misguided notion that 24p is just a stylistic gimmick or too trendy for his liking. 24p may be a relatively new development for video, but film's been shot at 24 for a good long while. Does your friend think all movies are too "stylistic?" Of course, some shows and commercials are shot on film at 30fps, but with their production value, cinematography, and origination on film, they'd never be mistaken for 60i video. I once saw a demo of "Showscan," the Doug Trumbull-invented large film format that ran at 60fps, and it just looked liked big screen video. The beauty of the DVX, of course, is that it can do it all: 24p, 30P, 60i. Okay, not variable frame rates, but for $3500, it's a steal. All other things being equal, I think that content can trump form in certain situations (e.g., I'd rather watch a well-made documentary about some compelling subject shot on 60i video than some forgettable 24fps film like "Jason X"), but if you're given the choice and the project doesn't require the "video look," why not shoot 24P?

From the Oct. 1999 American Cinematographer: "Kubrick framed 'Eyes Wide Shut' in the standard 1:85 format, primarily using a set of Zeiss Superspeed T 1.3 spherical prime leses, but occasionally opting to employ Arri's T 2.1 variable prime lenses or a zoom.... most of 'Eyes" was shot with the Zeiss 18mm lens, and the filmmakers rarely went longer than 35mm." Sorry, I don't have the AC covering "Full Metal Jacket" handy; it's in storage. Maybe someone else can chime in.

I've been using a Sony PVM-14L2 for six months now without a problem. My only thought with regards to anything smaller than a 14" monitor is that it can get to be very fatiguing on the eyes. I considered getting an 8" Sony, figuring I could use it for post and as a portable production monitor, but ultimately opted for the 14" to avoid having to stare at such a small image for lengthy post sessions. Ideally, you should at least get a monitor with a "blue only" mode, which switches off the red and green on the monitor to allow for proper calibration using color bars. The Sonys in $800 and above range have this feature.

David, thanks so much for taking the time to post such edifying and thorough info on your technical and creative choices for your projects. I've shot a bunch of my own short films, but I've got a lot to learn, and having you keep us in-the-know about your various lighting scenarios, production difficulties and challenges, and the entire cinematographer's process, is an invaluable educational tool, almost as good as actually being on set, but without a craft services table from which to snack. Please keep it up, if you have the time. Have you ever considered writing a book detailing your experiences and cinematography on all the films you've shot? Anyway, thanks again and best of luck for a smooth shoot. Looking forward to seeing it. Stas

There's really no trick to shooting 24p with the DVX, then editing on a 24P timeline and going out to 24p DVD. You shoot 24PA (24PA applies a 2:3:3:2 pulldown that allows FCP and other NLE'S to remove the frames added in camera to make the signal playable/viewable on an NTSC monitor and playable on any DV deck, digitize into FCP using the "remove advance pulldown" capture pre-set (also make sure your sequence settings are for 24P), then edit your footage on a 24P (technically 23.97) timeline, and when you're done, export your 24p project to DVD SP. Of course, if you plan on strictly a DVD release, with no plan of going out to film, you could also shoot at 24P (which applies a standard 3:2 pulldown to the footage to make it NTSC viewable), and not bother with removing the pulldown, then edit and export your footage at 60i, though there's no real benefit to going this route. Keeping your material in a 24p environment saves some space on your DVD, since if you have a 24p dvd, the DVD player will automatically add the 3:2 pulldown. Hope this all makes some sense. For more extensive info on all things DVX, check out the following: http://www.dvxuser.com http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html Barry Green, who posts frequently at dvxuser.com, sells a comprehensive guide to DVX shooting, which you can purchase here: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/

I'm shooting a 24p DV short involving a puppet and am trying to find some place that makes and/or sells green screen body suits like the one worn by Andy Serkis (Gollum) in Lord of the Rings for live action photography, to facilitate his removal in post and replacement by a CG gollum. I can't seem to find much info on the net about green screen body suits, only about green screen backing. Thanks for any info. Stas

Speaking of odd DVX-100 focus quirks, my camera has exhibited a particular focus issue from the day I got it, but I never really had a chance or the time to take it in and get it checked. I've tested various DVX-100's at trade shows and some exhibit the same problem, others don't. The problem is this: When doing manual snap zooms in or out, the focused-on subject goes out of focus during the zoom and snaps back into focus at the end of the zoom. Not the usual motion blurring of the image's outer edges that occurs during a snap zoom, but a definite defocusing of the very center of the image. Very strange and annoying, since I'm particularly fond of snap zooms both for stylized narrative work and for doc work.