Troy Warr

I checked out the Britek website, and I too was pretty surprised by the low prices. I do remember that a co-worker of mine used to have some small strobes for desktop photography work that were made by Britek, and one particular piece was labeled "Umbralla Hodlder." While that certainly doesn't speak directly to the quality of their products, you have to question to some degree what that suggests about their attention to detail and workmanship. They seem to be based in California, so unless they import their products (which they certainly might), I would doubt that's just a case of poor translation. But, at such a price I guess you can afford a few cut corners, and the particular strobes that I used didn't have any apparent deficiencies. If you're a student, practicing, just starting out, working on personal or non-critical projects, etc., they seem like a good deal to me - obviously you're going to want to avoid them for any professional gigs.

Hi Ljoski, I'm not sure that I can give much specific advice since I haven't worked with Avid before (only Premiere and After Effects). After Effects, as I recall, allows you to set an arbitrary resolution for a project and import different resolution images or footage pixel-for-pixel onto the stage, so there is no resampling and the resultant loss of quality. For example, if you had 640x480 NTSC footage that was letterboxed at a 1.66 ratio, you would have an actual image area (e.g. cropping off the black bars) of 640x385. You could create a new project with dimensions of 640x385, import the 640x480 NTSC footage, and add it to the stage aligned in such a way that the black bars are just outside of the project's visible area. When you export the footage, you'll only see the image area. Of course, you may still lose some image quality due to the recompression of the project at export, but I don't know that there is any way around this. Unfortunately, I could be confusing this all with Adobe/Macromedia Flash, since I haven't worked with After Effects substantially in a few years; but I seem to remember that this is the case - someone please let me know if I'm wrong about that. Hope that helps, and best of luck.

Mike, my apologies about the thread comment. I came upon the threads in reverse order so I hadn't noticed that you'd been directed to post in a different forum. I did post a recommendation for you in the other thread. If you feel that others in the forum haven't been welcoming, I'll apologize for that too, but the main reason for that is that this question has been asked a plethora of times, often in very vague terms that aren't conducive to constructive replies. I think that you'll find that there are an incredible amount of people in this forum that eager to offer advice, help, and guidance, but it's not fair to expect that anyone else has the time to "explain some specifications of different cameras and what they mean." There are numerous resources here, as well as all over the Internet for that. A few examples are: - This forum's search page - Resource links - Library I've witnessed firsthand that people here are very receptive to people at all levels in this industry, but it's necessary that you show the initiative to begin to learn these things on your own, rather than asking for very generalized information that can be found in any number of places.

Looks good - just a couple suggestions: - The two title cards near the end (Patriot Act, ACLU) are a little jarring since they're the only ones in the reel, and they appear too fast to read. I would either keep them on screen a little longer, or better yet, take them out since they aren't relevant to your camera skills. If you can find a better way to introduce the interview section (e.g. a shot of someone approaching an interviewee with a microphone), that would be a great alternative. - The first few shots (the guys smoking in the dark) seem to be less interesting than any of your other footage. I would either move that sequence a little further in to the reel, or take it out - I think it's best if the first shots are among your best, and set the stage for the rest of the reel.

Need some more info here - format, shooting ratio, editing time estimate (if possible), what kind of client, your experience level... etc. Even then I can't personally give a good answer, but I doubt anyone can with so little info to go on.

Charlie, thank you so much for doing this. To be honest, these images are better than I had expected. The color performance is definitely there, and the motion skew is not really that apparent when watched at full speed. There were a couple of things that I noticed, though, and was wondering if you had any input: - Around some of the highlights (e.g. the spot reflections on the Golf Guy's hat and sides), there is what appears to be some color banding/posterization. I played around with the saturation level in Photoshop and found that the effect diminished as expected as saturation was decreased - do you think that these stills/clips may be a bit overly saturated? Through the camera's software, are there tools to adjust the saturation, contrast, and other image qualities before capture? - The image skew can be seen clearly on still frames, most notably in the golf ball just after it is struck by the club. The shaft of the club also appears bent during the approach. I'm assuming that the shutter speed of 1/400 sec. has a minimization effect on this - is that the case? Or does the shutter speed not effect the scan rate of the rolling shutter? I would probably be shooting in the 1/48 to 1/60 range most of the time. Please let me know if I'm being greedy, but I think that the last major test of the camera's cinematographic capabilities would come from a capture from a more "life-like" setting or subject. At some point, might you be able to snap a frame of a human subject, and/or a natural outdoor setting? The images that you've provided are great at showing the camera's limits to color rendition and exposure latitude, but it's difficult to imagine a more "typical" film subject in this context. That would be much appreciated and would help greatly to judge the camera's capabilities. Thanks again, Charlie. Hi Adam, That's exactly right, and I alluded to that a little upstream in this thread. The issue is that I don't have the $15,000 to spend on an SI-2K mini rig and software, so I'm looking for a considerably lower-budget solution. The SI-2K uses a pretty high-end sensor, but I was intrigued by the other sensors out there that offer similar resolution and pretty decent image quality for the price (albeit not in the same league as the SI-2K). Hi Brian, Thanks very much for the link. I checked it out and unfortunately it looks like the camera (assuming that you were referring to this model) isn't capable of 24fps at 1080p resolution, as the Epix model is. I did notice that the 1.3 MP model is, though (as is the former model with a 1280x720 ROI), so that might be a good way to get my feet wet before committing $2500 to the Epix setup. Just curious, have you had a chance to use that particular camera before, or did you just notice the sensor specs?

Wow, that does look pretty good. So, will the HD251 record to tape at 720p60, or just through the HD-SDI output? If it does tape, how does it cram all of that extra data into the same bandwidth, without a serious loss of quality? Or does the tape run faster?

Mike, please pick one thread. It's not good practice to post the same topic (especially the exact same words) in multiple sub-fora. The Panasonic AG-DVX100B is a great camera, and I'd say go ahead and buy one today if you're not into doing your own research. It will do everything that you've mentioned and then some, and it comes in slightly under your $3000 price cap.

Hi Mike, Based on the information that you've provided, I would personally recommend the Panasonic AG-DVX100B. It features 24p recording and dual XLR inputs, and is capable of recording footage with a very "filmic" quality. Though it's a standard-definition camera (not HDV), it records beautiful footage and has some very professional-level features. Unless you have a specific need for HDV at this point (e.g. your corporate videos are intended for HDTV output, or you expect to output your short films to HD-DVD, Blu-ray or film), there's not an urgent need to go there, as the HDTV market still looks to have at least 3-4 years left to settle on standards and come down to consumer-level prices for widespread adoption. HDV is not terribly taxing on your editing system (at least compared to uncompressed HD or some of the more professional HD formats), but if you have doubts, it may be best to stay in the SD realm for now. HDV doesn't require significantly more storage space but it will require a more powerful processor(s) than miniDV. Check out this link on B&H Photo for an incredibly good deal on the AG-DVX100B through March 31 - $500 mail-in rebate along with some free software. Best of luck!

Here's a short list from IMDB.

I think that's definitely a good start. The picture itself did seem to vary in contrast/brightness along with the changing letterbox bars, but I think that the changes to the picture itself would actually be less visually jarring if the letterbox bars were consistently a deep black. Another option - and it's been quite a while since I exported a Quicktime file (and I've never used FCP), so I may be wrong - aren't you able to export the video at the appropriate aspect ratio for the film, sans letterbox? That would both eliminate the letterbox problem (at least for the web) and save you a significant amount of bandwidth, as the frame will be smaller. You could either keep that saved bandwidth or perhaps reuse it to increase the frame size slightly, or lower the compression. It's a tough call what the best approach would be; I'm a web designer by day so I'm forced to make these considerations all the time. In my opinion, you should definitely continue to consider the alternative profile that you mentioned, but I would think you might want to favor the PC display slightly over the Mac, since the vast majority of web browsing is done on PCs. But, be sure to consider your audience - if you're mainly targeting industry professionals with your website, then the Mac audience will likely be much larger than average. If you want to get really technical, you might even consider using web statistics (Google Analytics is free and very good) to monitor your visitors' browsing setups and configure based on that. That's probably all a bit too in-depth, though, and I've heard quite a lot of people advocate just splitting the difference as you mentioned. This article in particular takes just that approach. If you are able to flatten the black level of the letterbox bars, and average the gamma for a reasonably accurate display on most computers, I think you'll be fine. Best of luck! Again, the cinematography is great - just the issue of cross-browser/platform differences that's present here, and I know from experience what a *major* headache that can be. ;)

I've honestly never assumed that the foil was there to preserve anything about the film's life, I'd thought it was just packaging to keep dirt and moisture out, etc. I've shot rolls before and waited months to develop them (left in the fridge of course) with no obvious effects. I'd guess that your Plus-X would be mostly OK, hopefully the camera helped to insulate the effects of the X-ray somewhat. I worked at a camera shop years ago and I always recommended the lead bags, too, but other salespeople often told customers that the lower the ASA, the less of an effect the X-rays have. I'm not sure if that's true, though...

Hi Christopher, Great work here. Unfortunately, I'm seeing the same problem with black levels - my monitor is not precisely calibrated but it was quite apparent to me. I read through this thread before watching the film, so I can't say how much it would have distracted me if I hadn't known about it going in. If it helps, I posted a screenshot here that shows some distinct contrasts between cuts, visible at least on my monitor. The top left and bottom right images appear washed out or lower contrast on my monitor, with the letterbox bars also being distinctly brighter than throughout the majority of the film. These are just a couple of examples, but it happens several times. I confirmed the color levels in Photoshop and they're definitely considerably different. Keep in mind that for the web, it's wise to make some concessions for viewers with uncalibrated monitors. Obviously you can't provide an optimal experience for everyone, but since this issue is very apparent to at least a couple of us, it's likely to arise with others, as well. I'm also viewing the video on a PC, which has a different default gamma correction setting than a Mac, so these problems will almost certainly be exacerbated in a Mac browser. The cinematography is solid, though, and I think if you're able to hammer this out, you'll be in great shape.

Sure thing Nick, and good luck. I'd be interested to hear how it turns out. Since you mentioned water currents, I'd think that just as important a consideration as weight would be water resistance; you'd want to minimize the rig's surface area so that it doesn't drag the actor along with it. If you're able to get 4-6 rigid metal tubes linking the camera rig to the actor's body, I'd guess that would probably hold the rig steady enough while allowing water to pass through the rig without a lot of resistance. Also, I'm sure that the weak point in the system that introduces wiggle has to be the linkage between the vest/belt/harness and the cantilever. If your shot allows, you may consider building an extension where the actor can stabilize the rig with one or both hands out of frame. If not, I think probably the more mounting points, the better. You may even want to investigate various safety harnesses, weightlifting belts, back braces, maybe even a parachute harness to see if you can find a budget-friendly device that would hold such a rig tight to the body.

Charlie, Thank you! I appreciate this, as I'm sure the others in the forum do, too. I'm very eager to see the images and footage. Incidentally, do you have information on your website and/or publish a price for the SV5M12 camera that you mentioned? I wasn't able to find anything, though I may have been looking in the wrong places. Thanks again.

I saw David Lynch last night at a Barnes & Noble here in Austin, TX. He was speaking about his new book on meditation - "Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity" - it was interesting, and the book appears to be, too. He did a Q&A for about 25 minutes followed by a book signing. Most of the questions centered on his book and meditation practices, at which he spoke in his characteristically abstract, metaphorical way. Probably his most memorable quote from that topic was "water the root, enjoy the fruit" - meaning that good things come through nurturing a healthy, productive environment. I think his best witticism, though, had to be in response to a question from a young independent filmmaker. He described (as best as I could hear him) a chaotic filming enviroment - insurance concerns, unhappy actors, an on-set fire, etc., and asked Lynch for advice on how to proceed against such adversity. Lynch gave him a very thoughtful reply, but summed it up in his own, unique way: "focus on the donut, not the hole." He also mentioned his foundation, which I hadn't heard of until yesterday, the "David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace." I certainly commend him on his work and approach in that realm, but when he stated the title, it drew a bit of a chuckle from the crowd - probably from the "and World Peace" at the end of the rather lengthy title - quite a lofty goal that almost sounds like an afterthought in context. His argument is that the two concepts are related - meditation and world peace - in that the former brings about inner peace that is then reflected outward through our interactions with the world. All in all, it was a very interesting event, and Lynch was very personable and polite during the signing. I was glad to see that although most people there were most interested in him as a filmmaker (rather than an author), they were respectful to keep the focus on his book and the personal experiences that he shared, rather than asking fanboy questions like "who's that guy in the mirror on Twin Peaks?" :P

Hi Nick, Doggicam Systems has some information on their website about their Bodymount product. They even have pics from the Mick Jagger "God Gave Me Everything I Want" music video by Mark Romanek, which was the first thing that came into my mind when I read your post. I hadn't realized that was the actual Doggicam Bodymount. Here's their photo gallery. You can watch the video here, and it's also available on "The Work of Director Mark Romanek." Hope that helps somewhat. Good luck!

I think that Matt may have a point, though on the other hand, I think it's impossible to speculate about the studios' thought processes based on limited financial data. I would tend to think that Lynch could easily either get financing, or self-finance a higher-end shooting medium than miniDV if he wanted to. According to IMDB, Mulholland Dr. cost $15 million to make, so I think $20 gross global totals probably means that it, if it even broke into the black, it at least wasn't as profitable as a more commercial venture from a more commercial director could have been. Looking back through his other features, it doesn't look like his films have made a substantial return on investment since Elephant Man and Eraserhead. Something tells me that the Dune experience probably soured both Lynch and the studios on his prospects as a big-budget director (at least in the American system). Granted, I would still consider $15 million in the big leagues, but I think that his name and reputation could probably convince a European studio like StudioCanal to continue to invest in him for his current projects.

I'm going to see David Lynch tomorrow (Thursday 2/25) - he's appearing in town at a bookstore to discuss his new book on meditation. I'd guess that he'll focus on different subjects than his films, but I'm sure they'll come up in the Q&A - maybe I'll glean some new info to share here. Or, maybe I'll just try grill him for not finding a way to release Lost Highway on widescreen DVD by now! :P

That's an interesting concept - I hadn't thought of it like that before. Personally, though (and *please* don't view this as an attempt to make this a film/video thread), I think that the market that you mention - students and young independents - is becoming overwhelmingly, and seemingly irreversibly, interested in HD video. The tech may not be 100% there yet, but by the time that Kodak could roll something like this out to the market (2-5 years?), I would assume that HDTV penetration will be significantly higher, digital distribution will have continued to diversify and innovate (Netflix Red Envelope, online streaming, HD DVD/Blu-Ray self distribution, etc.) and pro-sumer camcorders will have evolved past the fledgling HDV stages into some truly formidable tools. Just through my own experience in film school, I've seen this transition first-hand - I shot my first student film in 16mm B/W with a Bolex, editing by hand with a Moviola-style machine, razor blades and splicing tape; but, by the time that I dropped out (only about a year later), the production department had created a Mac editing lab and purchased a slew of miniDV pro-sumer equipment for upcoming students. This was a major university renowned for its film school (I'm sure that you can guess by my location), but I dropped out because I happened to get there at the worst time possible, minutes before the broken 50's era equipment turned to dust and they replaced it with all-new, modern video equipment. In sum, I have to think that Kodak has perceived that there's become a more and more limited future in the student/startup market for 16mm film, and has committed itself to focusing on its professional film stocks and CCDs, which are thriving. I think that this would have been a fantastic approach 10 years ago - but today, I personally think that 16mm's time in the student market is beginning to run out, regardless of available equipment. When you're dying to make your first film and money is tight, it just doesn't make much sense anymore to aim for 16mm when you can shoot digital at a fraction of the cost, and worry about distribution later.

Hi Graham, The Canon XL-A1 isn't a camera that I'm aware of; do you mean the XH-A1? That wouldn't be a bad choice, in my opinion, though I think for your budget and experience level, you may be best off in the miniDV realm, unless you have specific plans to output to HDTV or the big screen. If not, I'd *seriously* consider the Panasonic AG-DVX100B. Get it from B&H by March 31, and you'll be spending $2900 on a phenomenal SD camera, and it comes with Magic Bullet Editors and some other extras. Kind of makes me wish I had $2900 on hand at the moment. B) That will leave you $2600 for tapes, tripod, circ-pola and UV filters (don't skimp - get at least Hoya HMC), cleaning cassette, lens cleaning kit, bag, etc. If you're really ballsy, wait until the rebate is done, and I'd bet that Panasonic has a new model or at least a new version up their sleeve. Keep in mind that you'll be waiting until at least summer, and the new model will cost full price again (probably $3500-4000). Personally, I think you'd be better off snatching up a DVX100B while the rebate is in effect, as that's a tremendous value. One advantage of SD to consider is editing ease and speed - you're going to be able to work much more efficiently with your footage than with HDV, which leaves you a lot of extra room for experimentation, trial and error. Best of luck!

Wow, now we're *really* getting small... forget an image in one pixel, now we have an image in one photon: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5792 Talk about efficient data compression!

If you're committed to After Effects (which is a great program), I'd recommend taking a look at the Adobe Production Studio Premium. I have an older version of it, but I've found it to be a well-rounded editing and compositing package, and it seems to have only gotten better in the current version. Most notable is the Dynamic Link feature, which will let you do things like work with footage in After Effects that will be automatically updated in your Premiere timeline without having to render and import each time that you make a change. Knowing how I've worked with my software package, that would have been a *huge* time saver. You've also got a dedicated DVD program (Encore 2.0) and sound program (Audition 2.0). Audition 1.0 was just a rebranded Cool Edit Pro, which I believe was already in version 2.1 at the time of the port, so I can only imagine it's gotten better still since the version I bought. Not to mention Photoshop and Illustrator...

Hi Jim, Just wanted to mention that there's a thread going currently that talks about a very similar topic: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=19692 I think there should be some useful information in there about what you're looking to do here. As for the actual Kino Flo brand bulbs, a quick search on bhphotovideo.com shows that they run about $42 per 6' bulb, which seems pretty astronomical to me. I'm not quite far enough in my own research to know what a different brand high-CRI bulb would cost, but I would think that you could make your money go further with a slightly less premium brand. I know that I've used the more expensive bulbs (<$10 each) from a standard hardware store like Home Depot and they performed well enough for my purposes at the time, so that may be worth some testing.

I'm totally with you there! I'm hoping that at the very least, it will form the full 1920x1080 picture in a way that's comparable to the method used by the Panasonic AG-HVX200. Since that resolution is essentially 1/4 of a 1080i/p frame, I'd guess that it has to employ both vertical and horizontal pixel shift to reach an effective resolution sufficient for the claimed "Full HD 1920x1080i." The 1/5" CCDs are definitely troublesome, though... no doubt that it's going to at least suffer in low light, unless JVC has somehow one-upped the competition in this regard.