Stas Tagios

Here's the chart info, which I saved from the linked webpage before it was taken down: Measured from the accessory shoe / light mount. 50% 3?10" 51% 3?11" 52% 4? 53% 4?1" 54% 4?2.5" 55% 4?4" 56% 4?5" 57% 4?6.5" 58% 4?8" 59% 4?10" 60% 4?11.5" 61% 5? 62% 5?2" 63% 5?4" 64% 5?6" 65% 5?9.5 ? 66% 6? 67% 6?3" 68% 6?6" 69% 6?9" 70% 7? 71% 7?4" 72% 7?8" 73% 8? 74% 8?6" 75% 8?12" 76% 9?6" 77% 10? 78% 10?8" 79% 11?6" 80% 12?4" 81% 13?4" 82% 14?7" 83% 16? 84% 17?9" 85% 19?11" 86% 22?9" 87% 26?6" 88% 31?10" 89% 39?9" 90% 52?11" 91% 79?5" 92% 160?8" 93% Infinity

There's a very noticeable stop change in "Shaun of the Dead" during a Steadicam tracking shot following the lead character from the street into a convenience store and back out. Didn't mind it too much.

A slight clarification here... "Cold Mountain" posted on FCP, but the movie was shot on 35mm film, which goes a long way toward explaining the difference in looks between that film and material you may have shot on DV. Not, of course, to say that DV can't be lit and shot to look beautiful (e.g., the film "November," shot on DV with the DVX-100, won the "best cinematography" award at Sundance this year), just that 35mm film has far more resolution and exposure latitude than DV. This greater resolution, exposure latitude, and overall greater picture information also allows for much more extensive manipulation in post production, via digital grading (in which the original film negative is scanned into the computer at 2k or 4k resolution for manipulation), than what you could achieve in FCP using DV footage. FCP offers extensive image manipulation controls and you can certainly achieve many varied "looks" and styles, but in general, DV footage, due to its high level of compression, won't hold up as well to extreme manipulation (the more you alter the image, the greater the chance of introducing digital artifacting).

Cavision makes a 3x3 mattebox for the DVX. I haven't used any Cavision products so I can't comment on its build quality or robustness. Here's a link: http://www.cavision.com/for_panasonic_dv-100.htm

The way I understand it, 7.5 setup is strictly an analog issue for U.S. NTSC signals, and is intended only to boost the IRE on analog outputs of pro cameras and decks when feeding an NTSC monitor. On professsional cameras, setting the setup to 7.5 affects only the video signal being output through the camera's monitor jack, unlike on the DVX and PD-150, where it actually boosts the signal going to tape, and thus alters your black level. Of course, if you actually want to raise the black level on your tape, then you can use the add setup function, or adjust the camera's master pedestal level (or both). Have a look at these excellent sites, which cover this issue in more detail and more lucidly than I have: http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#Setup http://www.dvxuser.com/MP/MP.htm http://www.24p.com/dvx.htm http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm (scroll down to the section discussing 7.5. setup and master pedestal)

Honestly, you don't want to skimp on the tripod. You probably spent over $3000 on the camera, do you really want to trust that much money to sub-par sticks? That said, there's certainly a wide range of decent choices that don't necessarily break the bank. Most of the major tripod manufacturers now offer lower-priced DV tripods and heads for the new generation of light-weight pro and prosumer cameras. I opted for the Bogen/Manfrotto 503 head and 525 legs combo, which ran around $750. I'm guessing from your post that might be a little higher than what you want to spend. Bogen has cheaper combos, starting at around $230, which you can see here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...arch&Q=&ci=5136 Can't comment on their quality since I'm only familiar with my combo, but Bogen generally offers a decent price/performance ratio, and I've been happy with my 503/525 combo, which I used with my DVX.

I guess it depends on what you consider affordable. Lowell offers a bunch of relatively inexpensive and portable light kits (inexpensive at least in comparison, say, to Arri kits). Cheaper still are the open-face tungsten Britek lights offered at www.rostronics.com. They're not nearly as robust as pricier lights like the Arris, and aren't fresnels, thus don't offer quite the focusability and control, but for the price, they're quite capable, plus the light casing (made of "space-age plastics") doesn't heat up nearly as much as the metal casing of most lights. I bought and used a set of two 650w Britek lights with softboxes for a recent shoot (cost for the package: $365) and was quite pleased with their performance, though I used the lights more to supplement my DP's Arri kit than as the sole source of lighting. Since I've only owned the lights for several weeks, I can't comment about their robustness or the robustness of the accessories (softboxes and stands), but they seem soldily constructed enough to last, given the proper treatment. You can read more info and opinions on the Briteks at the "lighting" forum at www.dvxuser.com. Here are some links to the rostronics pages: Rostronics film/video lighting kits: http://www.rostronics.com/products.asp?cat=13 Individual lights: http://www.rostronics.com/products.asp?cat=27

Unfortunately, reports of a three-disc ultimate version of "Bladerunner," containing the theatrical cut, director's cut, and a new director's cut, were premature; though such a project was in the works at Warner, it apparently stalled because the film's completion-bond guarantor, Jerry Perenchio, reportedly refused to let Warner distribute the theatrical version, to which he owns the rights. Warner currently sells on DVD the director's cut, and the latest rumor is that said cut will be re-mastered and released, along with some supplementary material (Ridley Scott supposedly recorded a commentary track, so hopefully that will be included), sometime in 2005. Read more about the Bladerunner DVD debacle at the www.hometheaterforum.com. Here's the direct link to the thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/sh...y=&pagenumber=1 Here's the info on the rumored upcoming release, from thedigitalbits.com: "Here's some good news and bad news all at once. Sources are telling us that Warner is FINALLY at work once again on a Blade Runner: Special Edition. That's the good news. The bad news is that instead of the 3 or 4-disc ultimate edition we all hoped for (featuring all the different versions of the film), the title is now likely to be one of the studio's 2-disc editions, featuring only the recent "director's cut" version of the film (remastered from a new HD transfer), the Channel 4 On the Edge of Blade Runner documentary and perhaps a few other odds and ends. Look for it sometime in the first half of 2005."

There has been much discussion of "squeeze mode vs. letterboxing" in the dvxuser.com forums, with varying opinions as to which offers a better image. It's not an issue I have, because I have the DVX-100, not the 100A, so for me it's either cropping in camera or post (no "squeeze mode" on the 100), or using the anamorphic (which I don't own). I haven't seen any squeeze mode footage, so I can't comment on whether it looks any better than 4:3 footage cropped to 16:9 in post (or letterboxed in camera), but short of shooting 16:9 with 16:9 chips or an anamorphic adapter, I much prefer cropping to 16:9 in post, to retain some latitude in framing/re-composing up or down, if needed (kind of like doing a low-end version of a 2:40 digital intermediate from Super 35 and adjusting the frame within the letterbox as needed). The highest-res option for 16:9 with the DVX remains the anamorphic adapter (provided you shoot at the appropriate apertures and focal lengths to maximize image sharpness). Here's a link to the relevant discussion: http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.p...;num=1088273641

As Alvin excellently explained, video, particularly lower-end formats like DV, have less latitude/dynamic range than film or HD, making it more difficult to capture all the visual information present in high contrast scenes, like shooting indoors with daylight streaming through a window in shot, or filming something outdoors in shade and trying to retain detail in areas lit by direct sun. This effect can be exacerbated depending on the colors or your subject matter; e.g., filming dark green trees against a white, overcast sky will likely mean you have to expose either for the trees and risk your sky blowing out to white with no detail, or exposing for the sky and potentially losing detail in the dark trees. Short of standard pro production tools like big silks to soften sunlight and lessen its intensity, the best way to lower the contrast of your image to a level the DV can handle is, via ND filters, low contrast filters, and supplemental lighting (to raise the light on your subject to match that of an overexposed background, for example). As for the low audio, I know that low audio from the camera's headphone jack was a common complaint on the original DVX-100, but I'd read somewhere that this problem was remedied in the 100A. I have the 100, so I can't be sure of this. Is it just your monitored audio that's low, or is the signal you've recorded on tape low as well? Make sure you have your manual audio controls adjusted properly to get a sufficiently loud signal going to tape (your peaks should fall between -12 and 0 db), and use headphones for monitoring (if you aren't already); the camera's tiny speaker isn't the best way of monitoring your audio.

If you just want to crop your 4:3 image to 16:9, you can use the camera's "letterbox mode," which simply adds bars to the top and bottom of the 4:3 image to achieve a fake widescreen ratio. The "Squeeze" mode will yield a 16:9 image but one not as detailed as a true 16:9 image achieved used the Panasonic anamorphic adapter. If you just want to crop your 4:3 image, I would recommend not doing it in camera, but in post, where you'll be able to reframe your image up or down if needed within a letterbox matte applied via your NLE (e.g. Final Cut Pro). Also, applying the matte in post allows you to choose which ratio you want, rather than just being stuck with a 16:9 image; you can do 1:66, 1:78 (aka 16:9), 2:35, and others.

It's not a beginner's book or cinematography primer, but "Reflections," edited by Benjamin Bergery, and released by the ASC, is a great book on cinematography, with technically-oriented chapters focusing on specific DP's and featuring many movie still frames and lighting diagrams. You can get it at www.theasc.com

Could you clarify "washed out?" Are the objects overexposed? Out-of-focus? Are you shooting inside or out? If you could provide some more specific details or post an image, that might help in assessing the problem.

I agree with David. Why all the hostility toward Chris and his forum? As an occasional poster to the dvinfo.net's DVX-100 board, I find Chris's forums to be educational and low on hype. So what if there's pro Canon material in the forum? A lot of people like the XL1. The XL1 Watchdog began as an informational site about the XL-1 and a forum for users of the camera. And when I'm interested in info about the XL1 or its successors, that's where I go, just as I post regularly at DVXuser.com because the DVX is the camera I use. It's not like Chris is taking pot-shots at any non-Canon cameras or claiming anything non-Canon is worthless.