Saul Rodgar

My mistake, h264 is not long-GOP, but its problems can be attributed rather to its slice encoding protocol.

I have noticed dropped frames on footage from 5Ds and other DSLRs' too. Like frames missing every so often, most noticeable on footage of slow and continuously moving things like smoke. Or it happens when the camera moves too fast, long-GOP compression style, which h264 as a codec uses, if in a combination of intraframe and interframe compression. This unlike older, less advanced long-GOP codecs such as HDV, say, which only uses interframe compression, but which is widely known to cause dropped frames during fast moving pans, etc. Advanced h264-based codecs like AVC Intra are better at handling this type of video dropouts, because they have been designed from the ground up for serious motion picture production, see below.

Compounding the h264 long-GOP issues, and because all this information needs to be encoded real time on the camera- which is very processing intensive- I think some of it also has to do with the fact that because most HDSLRs were never intended to be used a serious motion picture production cameras, when the camera's circuitry can't handle the processing crunch, it just drops frames. I have not tried comparing side-by-side cameras with double DGIC 4 processor to single processor ones tho. And it could be individual camera issues, and not inherent to the codecs or the number of processors they possess. But I sort of doubt that is the case.

Still, for the relatively high quality image one gets for the price and portability of today's HDSLRs, one's got to take the good with the bad. And there is no such thing as a perfect film or video format or video codec either . . . ;)

David, we've been discussing about that on the Brazilian Association of Cinematographers forum... some dops would say the same thing about the DR of the logC recording, however, I wonder if it really makes a difference, since the logC material is going to be graded at the end and present the same 'look' intended, even if it had been recorded in rec709. what I want to say is: even if you have a nice (full of information) logC material, it won't look like that at the end and you will bring in color saturation and contrast in post. I understand that it's always better to have the maximum amount of information in your raw footage, but you have to know exactly where you will be grading the material and test it, because the 'developing' of the logC footage CAN create some artifacts such as noise to color saturation on the skin tones, etc (some cinematographers had reported that - that's why we started the discussion on the ABC forum...). So, at the end we're not sure if it's 'that' better to record in logC... what do you think?

Well, at least the DP can choose how far to go with the LOG C material in post, as opposed to being saddled with whatever information the rec709 retains. It all about options in post.

But the underlying trend here seems to be that DPs are having to settle on less desirable choices because production can't afford or won't wait for rushes in rec709. Some DPs and crews are even being asked to "color correct on set" because it will save production money. Are cinematographers just sacrificing too much control of their craft just to be rehire-able?

I'm afraid is next to impossible to accurately judge original-source grain from a youtube video. What you posted seems pretty clean to me tho. You are not giving enough information about your post processing. If you saw grain on your laptop, could any transcoding or wrong setting on your editing software be causing this? I would think that is something to look into, since you mention that the HDMI signal from the camera straight to the HDTV monitor was clean.

Without having more info, and maybe even after having more info, I'd trust the clean signal on the HDTV more than what you are seeing on the laptop. I'd be inclined to think that something is happening to the footage in digital post that is causing it to look grainy.

Not quite sure which way you are arguing here, Saul. My point (which I thought was reasonably "big picure", was that NZ as a sovereign nation has its own labour laws, which are put in place (as in any democracy) by the government elected by the people of that country. And that these laws, despite "this age of global interconnectedness" should still prevail over the wishes of any corporation, even Warner Bros.

The way your first post on this thread was originally written was fairly vague. Should have asked you to clarify.

Best,

Hard to understand why everyone in this discussion, supposedly about NZ labour laws, refers to US and Canadian law. Believe it or not, different jurisdictions have different laws, and also different working environments.

 

You are failing to see the big picture here, for all your initial sarcasm. Unfortunately for NZ big-budget movies (Peter Jackson's fare) and The Hobbit being the one most directly impacted at the moment, most if not all of their funding comes from American studios, Warner Bros. in this particular case.

Now, just because NZ is a different country with "different laws and also different working environments" American studios shouldn't simply celebrate this move when it can get them in a potentially very dire situation in respect to their status as rightful copyright holders in the eyes of US copyright law for the movies they produce there. Any union of NZ film workers could potentially come to the US to sue Warner Bros. for their share of royalties and very, very possibly win. If I were a studio exec, I'd be terrified of that prospect. Secretly tho, I personally would love for the studios to lose big, the irony would be simply delicious. But that said, if the studios don't invest in movies, then we all lose out --film workers, studios and fans included.

In this age of global interconnectedness, for better or for worse, one cannot look at a nation's laws and not think of the impact they have on those who actively invest in said nation.

I personally think it could be a travesty of immense proportions that these film workers are gonna be stripped of their rights as employees with explicit approval from their own national government, no less. The fact that I am self employed doesn't mean I am not sensitive to their plight. Sad times we live in indeed.

Hi Saul

 

I mount the Isco on the CL with about 5-6 different stepper rings, it's a real Franken-setup. I generally set it at home by aiming it directly at a strong LED torch and aligning the top or bottom of the frame with the lens flare. It always gets knocked off a little here and there in the bag though, so some of them probably were a little less than perfect, but close enough not to jar.

 

I set focus on both the lens and the adapter and used a +0.5 diopter on most of the shots, though shooting deep at f22 for most of it too, the backgrounds are still soft in relation to the foreground since working with the diopter. But this was the only way I could ensure focus on the shoe at that close distance with the Iscorama. It's really tricky working with the Isco, but once you tame it a bit, it's well worth it, I just need to properly put it through it's paces now on something where I'd be moving the camera and pulling focus.

Right on. Thanks for the reply.

Well done. How did you mount the adapter on the lens? Is your Zeiss lens internal focusing? What I want to know is how you avoided getting skewed images form the Isco adapter. I have one and it is a pain to make sure the image is not skewed, but I guess since that is all you were doing (still plates) with no follow focusing, once you finally have it, is set it and forget it.

Yeah, welcome, fewer and fewer of us out there too!

We have discussed this quite a lot. Check the archives for tons of info.

Kodak stocks tend to have better grain structure, particularly 16mm stocks, so they get more love from DPs. But it all depends what one is looking for, including grain structure and color rendition among other things. At the end of the day they are tools, and one chooses the right tool for the right job. Which may be completely subjective or even biased by marketing. ;)

So you're saying that an employee of a company can claim the gas they buy to drive back-and-forth to work with as an expense?

 

R,

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. Check your PMs.

I think in the US self employment is a bit more difficult because you have to pay both the self and employer shares of the Social Security tax. Plus you have no national healthcare system, and the rates I have seen my friends pay for family health coverage as self employed people is astronomical. $800.00/mos for a family is not un-heard of!! Incredible!

 

In Canada I don't have to pay the un-employment insurance premiums that employed people do, nor do I have to pay anything extra per month for healthcare.

 

 

I think as self employed one does not pay unemployment tax here. But, certainly, having to pay for insurance sucks. That is not covered with SS or Medicare. Those benefits are usually only cover disability, retirement and old age medical entitlements.

I think in the US self employment is a bit more difficult because you have to pay both the self and employer shares of the Social Security tax. Plus you have no national healthcare system, and the rates I have seen my friends pay for family health coverage as self employed people is astronomical. $800.00/mos for a family is not un-heard of!! Incredible!

 

In Canada I don't have to pay the un-employment insurance premiums that employed people do, nor do I have to pay anything extra per month for healthcare.

 

Saul, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying? You're saying that you can deduct your expenses? If so, how is that a disadvantage? That's a good thing isn't it?

 

R,

 

PS: When I was living in the USA I paid the Medicare tax but I could not access it of course because it was only for poor people. So Americans pay a tax for health insurance that very few qualify to use. Bizarre.

I never meant it to say it was a disadvantage. All I am saying is that ultimately, whether one is self employed or married to someone who is employed, as a film worker one can claim all kinds of deductions. Which is obviously great. Whereas you seem to have meant that as a (self-employed) independent contractor it wasn't worth to become an employee for tax reasons, my whole point is that it doesn't matter, one can claim all sorts of deductions if one's tax person is worth their salt.

You've missed his point. He's agreeing with you.

Who missed what point?

double post

The larger question is....why would any film worker want to be listed as an "employee." Your tax position is far worse as an employee than an independent contractor.

 

As an employee the gov't gets a hold of your pay cheque before you see a dime and you have no write offs to offset your tax bill.

 

As a contractor, you can write off the gas you buy to drive to and from set as a business expense. You can write off the portion of your car lease that you use for business. You can write off the portion of your house that you use as a home office.

 

Employees can do none of this.

 

A smart accountant can find you a dozen other good write offs. I have not been an employee for 10 years, and there is no bloody way in hell I will ever become one again!!

 

R,

This is not accurate with regard to US tax law. I am self-employed, and I have dealt with this issue extensively with my tax person. In my experience, if one is filing as self-employed (schedule C) with the IRS, everything that is applicable can be written off against any money paid to the IRS, on the tax return at the end of the fiscal year. As self employed, one is still responsible for paying SS, Medicare, etc taxes that would be deducted and forwarded to the IRS if one were employed by a company. These taxes are usually required to be paid quarterly to the IRS by all employers and / or self employers.

Whether one makes those payments as self employed or a company makes those payments to the IRS on one's behalf, it makes no difference because those amounts can still be adjusted by a smart tax person at the end of the year. The same can be said if a married couple is filing jointly and one person is employed and the other one is self employed. At the end of the year, all amounts collectively paid to the IRS by the spouses are subject to adjustment.

 

 

Yes, some of this is due to poorly maintained projectors (and maybe unskilled projectionists), but also the nature of mass-produced release prints.

 

On multiplexes and in non-union locales (pretty much 99% of theaters across the US nowadays), there is only one or maybe two projectionists (generally poorly trained, usually teen-aged, and almost invariably making close to minimum wages) on duty at any given time.

These projectionists are responsible for keeping up to 24 projectors going when the theater is open. The head projectionist usually just makes sure the projectors are running and that there is an image on the screen, and that is the extent of his involvement and care. Virtually all of these theaters operate platter systems, and sometimes, if the movie is hot enough, a single print will be run on several screens using a really long leader and a pulley-like roller system to deliver the film to multiple projectors as it comes off the first one. Depending on the scope of the multiple screen projecting task, this may require more skilled operators and in greater numbers to pull off, but the profits soar exponentially. If one ever goes to a movie theater where they are showing a hot title on multiple screens (and it is a film projection) with shows that start within a few minutes from each other, that is what they are doing in the projection booth. The flip side is that during those types of multiple screen projections, the film is likelier to be scratched or damaged.

The last time I went to a multiplex theater, the weave on the projector was so noticeable that at first I thought it was the beginning of a camera pan, then I wondered if the camera op was drunk. After a few moments, I realized it was the projector. It was very noticeable and distracting, but no one around me seemed to care. Theater owners have very little incentive to keep the projectors running tip-top. It would mean a highly trained projector tech on staff and tinkering all the time on the projector during the off-hours. And that is expensive.

With digital projectors at least there aren't any moving parts to go out of calibration. So once the projector is professionally installed and focused, since there aren't any lens changes, the image stays pretty much the same for a long while. All the projectionist has to do is press on and off and play on the media player. Much less to go wrong with it. Most of the digital movies come in large capacity USB-type solid state drives that plug to the players. There has been talk of delivering them via internet, but I am not sure how many theaters do this now.

As much as they would otherwise desire to do so, the biggest reason why studios and producers in the US would never consider giving legally recognized independent contractor status to film workers is, quite simply, because then these workers could attempt to claim some sort of ownership under US copyright law.

"Although U.S. Copyright law generally recognizes the creator of a work as being the copyright owner, an exception is created by the “work made for hire” doctrine. The definition of a “work made for hire,” which is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101, is defined as “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment.” This may include works in the form of visual, audio, film, or printed works. Employees who typically fall into these categories are computer programmers, sound engineers, video editors, graphic artists, and staff journalists."

http://www.mcafeetaft.com/Resources/Attorney-Articles/Articles/Copyright-Law-and-Employee-Derivative-Works.aspx

Not only movie studios, but employers of all kinds, like universities, laboratories, and any enterprise where new works or advancements of any kind (patents, technological and / or scientific research, artistic works, etc) are created, produced, designed, researched or developed follow similar guidelines.

This is why deal memos are required to be read and signed the first day a crew member officially starts to work on a movie production. Anyone -particularly from the below-the-line ranks, but anyone really- who has taken the time to read a few of these deal memos has found that they go to great lengths to make absolutely clear that under no circumstance and in no way, form or shape they have any rights to the material they help produce.

 

 

I'd say you could get a USB3 based capture card, like the new Blackmagic Design UltraStudio Pro system, but that would necessitate finding a non PCIe USB3 card for your tower, which sounds unlikely, even if it were compatible with your tower's older version of OSX, Power PC computers reach the OS glass ceiling at 10.4.4 or something like that.

 

Actually, because there aren't any USB3 MACS released as of yet, the UltraStudio Pro is only available for Windows.

The biggest problem you will have is that the more affordable SDI-ready break out boxes are PCI based. However, the G5s have the older PCI kind, while Mac Pros have the new kind, called PCIe, which is incompatible with older PCI technology. Obviously, AJA, Matrox, Blackmagic Design, et al, are now using PCIe for all their (post 2006) PCI-based products.

So that leaves you with very limited options for your G5, like choosing an older, used PCI card version of a mid-level AJA Kona LHe or similar I/O card or buying a more expensive Firewire 800 based box (Kona IO HD) or obviously, upgrading to a newer PCIe tower.

I'd say you could get a USB3 based capture card, like the new Blackmagic Design UltraStudio Pro system, but that would necessitate finding a non PCIe USB3 card for your tower, which sounds unlikely, even if it were compatible with your tower's older version of OSX, Power PC computers reach the OS glass ceiling at 10.4.4 or something like that.

Or maybe you can wait until Mac computers are coming out with USB3 ports, sometime next year maybe?

I'm seriously considering getting a PC tower and Premiere / lower end Avid or something similar at this point and ditching Apple, or at the very least owning an HD ready tower PC in addition to my Apple computers. On the plus side, Premiere handles anything from MXF to RED files natively.

Quite honestly, while I appreciate their hardware / software stability, on the flip side, I am definitely and finally getting sick and tired of Apple's "walled garden" approach to building and designing computers.

[/color]

One or the other, not both!

I never cease to be amazed how many people assume that the codec-o-the-moment (DNx, prores, red's latest permutation of JPEG-2000) are "uncompressed". Less compressed, sure, but to be honest there are standard def formats that shoot more bitrate than a Canon DSLR.

P

"I'll just have my DP record my 3D 6K Epic HDR RAW footage uncompressed, so that I can edit on my laptop on the way back from the shoot" :blink:

double post

In theory, I know most modern (square wave) electronic ballasts will work. I am not so sure if some of the older magnetic ballasts will work as well, particularly at some more exotic frame rates, like 25fps, if the ballast is set to 60hz firing; but this is not just particular to HDSLRs, film and video cameras will have issues in these circumstances. So, it depends where in the world you are filming and at what frame rate. A quick test with the lights you intend to use should tell you what you are up against.

Looks like old tube video camera trails (ghosting) to me. Dunno how you can recreate that look with anything else (digitally). Getting a tube camera would be the easiest, if you know of someone who can calibrate it and put it up to spec, as they were notoriously hard to keep working properly and consistently.

I'm assuming that you must have meant 320 right?

Based on the original post, my assumption was that Duclos rehoused the lens for cine use, which would make it worth the $3200. And indeed they do offer the service:

http://ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/PL116.html