Bobby Shore

so I was able to check out the 35mm print from the camera tests last week, was mostly checking out the effects of shooting with or without detail on the EX 3 and how it'd translate to the print. Also, did a side by side with the 7D. with the detail, I tested it both on, off, and then with a custom setting (ref. above) dialed in. I found the print looked best with the detail set ON. It added a certain crispness and sharpness to the image, but it didn't at all look like false edge enhancement. with the detail set OFF, the overall quality was kinda mushy. I guess I'd compare the discrepancy almost like using two different lenses, one being sharper and appearing to resolve more than the other. The custom setting was still a little on the softer side for my taste. I was pretty amazed at how smooth the crispness of the image appeared with the detail on... I'm not sure if that comes from there being a slight generation loss going to film (was an arri laser, so apparently there is no gen loss), or if it was just the analog look of the film taking the curse off the digital edge enhancement. Either way, definitely looked best to my eye. only problem now is that for the print, I'd defintiely keep the detail on, but for the HD finish I'd prefer to shoot with the detail OFF (just personal preference, I feel like detail setting when finishing HD looks too crisp and enhanced). I know that you can diminish the effective detail in post, but the post place is saying it'd be too time consuming/expensive. Now I'm trying to decide on shooting for the print or shooting for the non-theatrical finish. Or maybe just split the difference. For the other tests, night ext. side by side, the 7D won out hands down. I was under a sodium vap. street light in a parking lot, which was reading 1.4 rated @ 500 asa (which I've been rating the EX 3 at). The asphalt on the ground was spotting @ 0.7 6/10, and white car under the light was spotting @ 2.0 1/3) The EX held up, shooting wide open at plus 3 db, but the image was still a touch dark on the print (no color correct or anything was done). I could've even pushed the gain to 6 and the noise would've been minimal. However, the 7D (which was rated at 1000 with an L series 24-70 zoom shot at a 2.8) gave me the same amount of info in the frame (in terms of overall luminosity) even though it was shooting one stop down from the EX. I think with a fast prime lens, the 7D would work great for some of the night ext. establishing shots we'll be getting for the show that we won't have the firepower to light up to a decent stop. Also, even at 1000 ASA and projected huge, the image was still very clean looking, could definitely push it to 1600 easy. And the footage between the two camera's will be able to intercut for sure, as long as the 7D is kept to the wide side of the lens and with minimal camera movement (no jello cam). Definitely an interesting test. Any thoughts, comments, etc., are more than welcome. thanks. Bobby Shore DP mtl/la www.bobbyshore.com

damn, that was some pretty good lookin' footage. I kinda feel sometimes (maybe just in this thread) there's too much tech talk and not enough of the imagery and work that actually makes us want to keep shooting. Tenolian, thanks for posting that link. Do you have any info on the shoot? We're they using some sort of hand held rig, follow focus, etc., or was it just the camera? Best part was the credit tribute to Predator. Thanks for that man. came across this a couple weeks a go, pretty different look than the one Tenolian posted, but I think it looks really nice: perya Bobby Shore mtl/la www.bobbyshore.com

yo man!! how you doing? The sweet spot for the EX and nanoflash (from the research I've done), is floating around 100mbs (while still shooting 4:2:2), anymore and the added image quality is actually quite minimal in respect to the added memory required for post work. Any advice for using the thing? Issues at all? I'm testing it in a couple days, but if you have a heads up on inside info on it, I'd love to hear it. hope the feature's going well man. keep in touch. lates! bobby

hey guys, this thread has definitely become pretty interesting. I shot some tests yesterday (see this thread for more info), basically EX 3 and 7D side by side for an available light night ext. that's being printed to 35. I'll get the print next week and post results in the linked thread. All that being said, the ins and outs of HD via DSLR, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, or whatever sized pro or consumer video camera, it's really all subjective at the end of the day, and specific to each and every project. Definitely interesting to read everything you guys are writing though, thanks. bobby

I'm heading out today to shoot something a little more comprehensive in terms of striking a print from the EX 3: testing detail settings (on, off, and a couple variations like the settings posted above), as well as some different gamma options. I was hoping to shoot this round of tests with the Convergent Design nanoflash recorder, which allows the EX to capture 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0, but unfortunately it's not available. I'll be using one once principal starts though. Also, as per an earlier post regarding resolving power of the EX 3 vs the canon 7D here, I'm also gonna shoot a side by side night ext. WS (available light), and see how the two render next to eachother on the print. This shot will be static, so as to avoid any of the movement issues the 7D has. I'll post results when I check the print next week. In the meantime, any advice, opinions, experiences, etc., would be more than welcome. Thanks. bobby

hey peter, thanks for the link to the barry green article, was really informative. bobby

hey, So I've just started prep on a feature that'll be shooting on the Sony EX 3 and finishing to film for theatrical distribution. I've had a chance to test out the workflow, albeit in a pretty basic way (was comparing different camera's, RED, EX 3, 5D and 7D). I'm trying to get production on board for something a little more comprehensive focusing only on the EX 3 - mostly to test detail settings in camera, gamma, etc. in order to strike the best print. The feature is a follow up to a canadian moc doc shot 8 years ago called Fubar - was ultra low budget, had a really lo-fi feel to it (was shot on an Xl 1). This time around there's a good budget, lot of production support, etc., but the aesthetic has to remain in the same ballpark as the first. It's pseudo moc doc again (not strictly adhering to those rules for the whole shoot), so the aesthetic will run along the lines as the first - handheld, lo-fi, available light type look, etc. I'm working really closely with the production designer to get as much practical lighting into the sets and locations as possible. There's no blocking, the entire script is improvised, and we have to be prepped to shoot 360 almost always. I'm posting cause I'm trying to gather as much info about filming out from digital formats as possible. I was able to test a couple settings with the EX 3 - ie. pushing the gain, lattitude, etc., but if anyone has experience with the process, I'd love to hear what you have to say. Like I said, I'm trying to shoot more tests, but the more I know before the more specific I can get with the testing. I've found some info on the boards from David Williams that was really helpful: If anyone has any other advice, info, opinions, I'd love to hear them. Thanks in advance. Bobby Shore mtl/la www.bobbyshore.com

hey, if you dont' have the money to test or for special processing, you're definitely on the right track in terms of working the look in through the choice of neg., how you expose it, and how it's printed. I've shot with the eterna 400t, has a nice soft pallette to it, and you could definitely crunch up the blacks if you overexposed it and printed down. unfortunately, that'll also bump up your color saturation a bit as well. In the stills you posted, a lot of the desat. look actually comes from the set and costume design. Not sure how much control you'll have, but if there aren't any strong colors in the frame to begin with, then you're half way there. hope this was a touch helpful. If you can swing it (which it sounds like you've already thought of), beg the lab to skip-bleach the neg. But that'd defintiely mean a test so you'll know exactly how to rate and expose the stock. Good luck man! Bobby Shore mtl/la www.bobbyshore.com

David, thanks the reply. I guess there's a lot more to consider than just the sensor size. I was able to filmout both footage from the EX 3 and 7D, but unfortunately it couldn't be a side by side comparison. If I can swing it, I figure the best way to actually answer this question would be matching wides blown-up to film. If I can get production on board, I'll post the results. @ everyone else - thanks for all the info and advice, much appreciated. bobby

hey stephen, thanks for the reply... for me it's more a question of whether or not the 7D could serve the shoot well for some of the wide shots we're planning. We're planning on finishing to film (which will probably be the next thread I start - EX 3 filmout), so I'm curious if the larger HD sensor would actually better resolve fine detail. I've found some info for the EX at 1000 TV|/ph, but nada on the 7D. bobby

hey, just curious, would the sensor size of the 7D have better resolving power than the sensor size of an EX 3? I guess in theory I'm thinking yeah (the same way 35mm resolves better than 16mm), but since both the 7D and the EX 3 shoot native 1080P HD, would the sensor size necessarily make that big of a difference? I've tried researching, but haven't really found anything too concrete. Thanks in advance for any input. bobby shore www.bobbyshore.com

hey, I just finished a music video on the RED, and there was an issue with the footage that I didn't catch till the end of the shoot. Basically, I think the on-board monitor (which I was using as a reference for color, contrast, etc.) was out of whack, cause after looking at the downloaded footage on the DIT's computer, instead of having the cold cyan cast that i dialed in in-camera, it was actually really warm and contrastier than what appeared on the monitor. More than that, this issue wasn't fully consistent: sometimes shot to shot within the same scene, the cyan look would be there, and the following shot would be crunchy and warm. I metered for exposure rating the camera at 320, and shot in the rec 709 color space. it was all overcast day ext. work. In the end, it's no problem, cause I was able to turn off the grade in RED alert and see that all the info is in the footage. But I want to make sure the director is able to edit with the metadata off so he's not influenced by footage that doesn't look the way it's supposed to. Is there a way he can do that before down-rezzing to a editable format? I know it's more of a post question, but any advice you have would be great. Thanks! Bobby Shore www.bobbyshore.com

thanks for that... I think it's easy to forgot that even though there's a highly technical aspect to being a cinematographer, at the end of the day it's just as subjective as any other art form. well said, David. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

thanks for posting Hunter, really informative work (and the Broken Social Scene is a great touch)... did you outfit the camera with anything at all to help with the filming (ie. follow focus, etc)., or was it just the camera body and lens? I thought the footage was pretty dope man, loved the night ex poop. Thanks again. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

alright, so apparently the link doesn't work... you can go here for the example: http://bobbyshore.com/usta.html

you could also try Fuji Vivid 160 T. Still a neg. stock, but with leanings toward the contrast and saturation of reversal. Also, you'd be surprised at how much punch you can get from force processing. You can look here for an example: Stock was 5246 250 D. For the punchy, saturated poop, I pushed the stock a stop and a half but left the EI rated at 250. The other parts are a full skip bleach on the neg. (rated at 400). Hope that helps. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

Thanks for the post Adam, It;s definitely interesting to hear other shooter's opinions on the RED, and I think that a lot of your take on the camera comes from a really valid place (especially the Sony poop). But, for my money, I think the RED is pretty bad ass... I don't have a ton of experience on it, one feature, but it was such a nice change from all the other HD show's I had done... even with only a couple hours of testing, I was able to figure out a pretty good system for metering and would really only use the viewfinder/monitor for color and framing reference. I was able to take the tests to a 2K lustre suite, so I felt comfortable with the process when I finally got to set. I have to say though, it's the closest I've felt to shooting film with an HD cam... What color space were you monitoring in? I've read a ton about using Rec 709 to help protect the highlights, but I thought it looked too video-like and preferred the REDspace (even though it was a bit lower con). Anyways, I found the latitude pretty amazing, sometimes doing day int. poop with hotspots 5-6 stops over and still holding detail. Granted, most of the other HD show's I've shot were with either the HDX 900 (which can;t handle highlights for poop) or the F-900 (which still falls apart at the shoulder) The look of the feature was complete 70's style, strong influence from Klute and Network, so alot of dark, top lit scenes underexposed by a stop (even more) sometimes... The post house treated the show like film as well, we only shot onto cards and delivered them to the lab every day to receive DVD dailies the next morning. Having been able to set some looks with the colorist before hand (and test the work flow with the metadata dialed in camera on the day), the dailies came back looking pretty good. Again, just my take on it, but it was a pretty refreshing change from the HD shows I was used to... I'm pretty sold on the camera (haven't used the Phantom or D21 yet), and look forward to shooting with it again... though not as much as 35mm. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

just to add to what karl said, there's plenty of films that have used pull processing as a creative way to achieve a softer, more pastel look, as the process tends to slightly desaturate the image and reduce contrast some. Requiem for a Dream used slight pull processing with fuji stock for some of the earlier apt. scenes with Ellen Burstyn. And yeah, a denser image comes from slight overexposure (a thick negative), which when printed down in post (either photochemically or in telecine) will result in an image with blacker blacks, a bit more contrast and slightly more color saturation. With that in mind, quite a few films have actually combined pull processing (or flashing, another contrast reducing method), with contrast enhancing processes such as ENR, CCE, or ACE. These are silver retention processes, that can be done either to the negative or the positive, which result in a denser (much denser sometimes) image, harshly affecting contrast, gamma and color saturation. Darius Khondji with Seven actually combined pulling and either a CCE or ACE process (applied to the answer print) to get good blacks but soften the image on the negative so as not to make the final look too harsh. There's a good article about these silver retention processes in AC called soup du jour, search the archives, someone posted a link to it the other day here. hope that helps. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

I've used a glimmer glass # 2 for tv show's for both IFC and Showcase (canada). Each time it's been on an HDX 900. GG can be pretty subtle, nice combination of a black frost (or pro-mist) and a Soft FX style of diffusion - a slight softening of hard edges with a pretty subdued effect on highlights (which will still bloom a bit, but not as much as say a pro most or fog filter). Of course, the effect of the filter is only subtle if you want it to be, throw on a GG 5 and you're ready to shoot a dream sequence from some lost 80's sit-com. There';s no light loss with the filter (if that's what you meant by rating). Good luck Bobby Shore DP Los Angeles/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

read up on the AC article for Babel, Rodrigo Prieto talks about one scene in particular (night ext.) that involved flashlights and pushing the film stock. Also, the AC article for Seven is really interesting for how Darius Khondji approached the gluttony scene early on in the film. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

What's up Tim, Thanks so much for the nice words, I really appreciate it. Most of the clips are 16-29 MB in size, which I know is bigger than iweb says they should be, but I haven't had any problems yet (at least none that I know about)... although, maybe that;s why the Destin clip had a hard time loading. For the compression, I usually exported a good sized quicktime from final cut pro, then exported again using quicktime with a broadband setting, that brought most of the video in the 20-30 MB range... I thought it'd be too big, but a friend said it'd work fine. I know what you're saying about iweb though, for some reason I feel like since I actually did it myself, it'll never work on anyone else's computer. Thanks again for your input man, talk soon. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com

what's up christian, dude, thanks so much for the comments, much appreciated. As for the biking, check out http://www.midnightridazz.com... weekly rides, lots of fun... I just got back from a 15 mile trek around the city, met some really cool people. email me so I get your contact info and I'll let you know the next time I go out if you want to peep it. As for AFI, yeah man, the tuition vs. education question is a big one... It was completely worth it for me, I learned a ton, had an awesome time (even though it was pretty tough), and for real, it had a pretty big influence on handling the work I was fortunate enough to get into after I finished. Remember also, those contacts you have now will still be there in couple years, plus you'll meet a ton more at the school. It's a tough call... there's nothing wrong with applying and saying no either. Let me know if you have anymore questions man. I'd be happy to help if I can. Peace. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com Let me know if you have anymore questions

hi, I've finally gotten around to making a website, and would love to get some feedback about the layout, content, etc. It made it in iweb (almost proving that it's not idiot-proof in the process). Here's the address: www.bobbyshore.com. Thanks. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal

Tim man, thanks so much for the heads up... I really appreciate all the help. I'll definitely give those ideas a try. Thanks man, talk soon. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal

some of the files are bigger than 10 mb, and some are smaller... they are all being compressed using quicktime, and I've tried importing them both through the media application in iweb and through choosing Insert, choose, then picking my file (what I called importing) ... either way, the result is video that plays about twice as dark as it should... I haven't had the chance to check it on another computer, didn't set up hosting yet. It's definitely a strange problem, I've tried researching it online, and nothing... thanks for the reply. Hopefully Ill be able to figure it out (probably starting with setting up hosting and seeing if it plays dark on other computers). If anyone else has any suggestions, I'll definitely take 'em. thanks. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal