Annie Wengenroth

Phil- that sounds like a good gig. John- I like your suggestion, thank you and I plan to look into it. I often get frustrated at owning this camera and yet realizing that if I were to take it apart, I would be helpless! Actually, I may be teaching a video class in the summer to kids in the 10-15 age range, and I must admit I am hesitant about how to approach it. I plan to do a brief run-through of all the different film and video formats, some examples, and advantages and disadvantages. Then I will talk about how if/When You Go To Film School (insert dramatic music), yes, you will be able to shoot on film. I'd like to present each method of moviemaking as an equal opportunity, but without being unrealistic. Actually, the program used to have super 8 cameras and then upgraded to video cameras as soon as they could fit it into the budget. So if I dig into the archives a little, I might be able to show the new students what the "old school" was up to. Then again I might not even get the job, but the reason I bring it up is because I think it's interesting to consider how we, as film- er, movie!- makers, describe our work to those who don't know as much about how a movie is made. And similarly, what do "non-filmmaker" people ask about first? How should we field these questions without coming off either as arrogant tech-heads, or dare I say "old-fashioned"? I found myself at a holiday party being asked, "So you shoot on video AND film??" like it was this extravagant thing, the subtle implication being "how can you afford to shoot film?" I was tempted to reply, "Oh well, I just ask people at Christmas parties for money." :lol:

I suppose there are two sides of the issue when it comes to fulfilling a vision- the practical and the ideal. This being said, if ever there came a point when we stopped shooting on film and proclaimed it dead and buried, I would probably cry! Just picturing the headlines, "FILM OBSOLETE- VIDEO THE NEW REVOLUTION" fills me with a sense of panic and dread. I hope it never happens. As interested as I am in new technology, I am also a die-hard fan of the old, because as a society we need to constantly be aware of where we came from and not just where we're going. Not to mention, there is a certain sense of working with your hands that is being lost to the point-and-click era of Instead of Opening A Book I'll Look it Up Online. I fear that this will cause us to atrophy, in a sense, and pretty soon there will be generations who don't know how to fix anything unless it's in the Windows control panel. I realized what I truly had when my Bolex started having problems with its motor. I think I emailed and called at least 14 different places about fixing it. Most of them were clueless. Some of them tried to convince me to ship it to Switzerland. One suggested a complete overhaul, a new motor, (for about $350 and $150) and if that didn't work, a new body. Well, I bought the whole package for about $500, lenses and accessories included, so I'm now considering a new camera body, an upgrade to the Rex-5 instead of the 3. Long story short, it occurred to me as I sat there calculating the costs of shipping my baby to Switzerland, that this wasn't as simple as reformatting my hard drive or cleaning the heads of the GL-1's because they've been eating people's tapes. I had this profound sense of owning something that was not as disposable as an operating system. To think that my camera is 40 years old and my computer is 4, and guess what I've had to reformat twice?! Someone asked me once, "Well, if you really want a 24P camera, why don't you just sell your Bolex?" I was absolutely speechless. I tried to explain that as a student, I feel it necessary to become equally competent in both formats- video and film; and also that potentially, one could end up paying for the other. I know of a few fellow students who videotape weddings and then use their earnings to pay for film. I think each format can have its advantages and disadvantages but that in each case, you should do the best you can to accomplish what you want. Maybe another way to think of it is to imagine every single stereo mix being reworked in 5.1 Surround. Would it be interesting? Probably. But necessary? I don't know. We are living in a unique time period where disposable technology seems all the rage, in many ways. But on the other hand, you have to make a decision and invest in *something* eventually. What if one were to refuse to shoot on video, how many opportunities would s/he lose out on then? Sometimes I resent being a part of the 20-something crowd because I think most of us grew up in a time where the given lifespan of any particular technological gadget was maybe 4 years or so. And that was just the beginning- it's getting even shorter now. I think this tends to limit our perspective in the long run because everytime something new comes around, it comes with an expiration date. It's created a lot of skeptical people who spend endless amounts of money on things that they become convinced they "need", if only because nobody knows how to fix the older models (and the mentality seems to be, who needs the older models anyway?!). Needless to say, as much as I look forward to plunking down my hard-earned dough for a 24P camera, I am taking every stop possible to understand what I'm truly getting into. Oh christ this is really long... :unsure: sorry...!

Okay, thanks. I made one section for "Software Skills" and one for "Camera Skills" so I guess that should cover all my bases. I'm applying for a job in which I would be teaching video classes, so I'm assuming that they'd want to know about my camera experiences as well as computer skills.

Well, my theory is that if I buy a DVX-100a within the next year or so, it will eventually "pay off" [at least somewhat] in the work that I get. I mean, I like the camera, I'm comfortable with it, I like the look, and considering that it's about the same price range as a lot of video cameras that do *not* have the 24P option (and I personally *want* that 24P option), I figure what the heck, I should go for it. It just so happens that it's *also* The Latest Thing out there and everyone's raving about it (well not everyone...but a fair amount of people...). However, just because I want one of these cameras to go along with my beloved Bolex, does not mean that suddenly all my aesthetics have become reliant on the type of camera and not the story I am trying to tell. It's just a different set of tools to accomplish the same purpose. I try to learn about and appreciate each and every subtle difference between each video camera that's out there these days, because I feel that it's important for me to know that. I think Panasonic has really got something good with their cinema series of cameras and it's a bandwagon that I'm totally cool with jumping on, call me trendy but it's true! My frustration is with the people who seem to sell themselves short, and shoot with certain types of equipment when they could have something more advanced, and this is regardless of the final "look" of the piece. Mind you, my first experiences getting my feet wet in filmmaking were strange ones, in part because I work at the equipment checkout in the film/video/sound design building at my school. So for a little while, there were many pieces of equipment that I was checking and packing for other people before I actually used them myself. I packed up an Arriflex SRII at least 10 times before it occurred to me that I could duck into the back room on my break and build the damn thing myself and figure it out, which I did. I'm not bitterly jealous of my friends who have been able to afford and pursue a more legitimate film school education (which is another can of worms entirely!), because they've got their priorities and I've got mine. I just think they need to truly learn and appreciate what they have at their disposal. I know out in the "real world" it's a different story with the rental houses and it becomes a lot harder to get what you want or need, but if you've got an opportunity for something really good, shouldn't you take that and run with it while you can, if that's what your vision requires? I wonder why people resist this- are these the same people who won't go near computers because they aren't interested in the technology? A little side note: my grandfather is 82 years old and has been a photographer for many years. When digital cameras first started coming out, he was absolutely fascinated with the idea. He packed up his darkroom and bought a negative scanner and a Photoshop software package for his computer. Then after doing some extensive research via the Internet, he got a very good digital camera, and he loves it. It's not that he doesn't like 35mm photography anymore, but he really enjoys the capabilities of digital photography in conjunction with photo-manipulation software. I think we're all in the middle of a revolution in technology and I am very proud to be a part of it. It's a unique situation where we have access to the older classics and the newer advancements, without sacrificing our visions.

Hm. Well this is interesting, it's funny you compare it to synthesizers because I love old analog synths and feel nothing digital can ever capture that nice fat, warm sound. Oh for the record, I'm talking about video here and not film cameras. I have a 40-year old Bolex that I love to death so you'd hardly see me knocking the technology there! As far as Blair Witch goes, that's a good point. But on the other hand, I recently watched "Thirteen" (shutup, it was on TV!) and the whole time I thought "it looks kinda...gritty and raw..kinda cool...wonder what it is?") Turns out it was shot with Panavision gear, which I might not have guessed. So I dunno. It can work both ways, I guess? :shrug: It's kinda funny because as far as animation goes, I've worked with paper, clay and foam puppets, and Maya. And I F-ing HATE working in 3D. It just doesn't do it for me at all. Meanwhile I've got Jack Skellington tattooed on my arm, to give you a vague idea of where my loyalties lie. I suppose it's a neverending combination of personal aesthetics and whatever you can get your hands on. If I could only shoot on a $500 hi-8 camcorder and had absolutely no access to a higher-end video camera, I'd make the hi-8 work, but alas I have been spoiled... Edit: the irony is that while I was writing this, my dad called from the other room, "Hey, this miniDV camcorder's only 300 bucks! That's a good deal!" I guess it is considering that for my high school graduation present, the poor man spent $700 for a hi-8 cam...

I think if we mute the sound on "Kane" and play Yes albums, we might be onto something. :lol:

My friend and I are in this ongoing debate that seems to be having a considerable effect on an otherwise amiable relationship. You see, I am completely smitten with the DVX-100a. This has spawned many a heated argument about how much the camera and format matters when you're trying to make the best damn movie you can. I realize some people on this forum- since we all have a passion for cinematography-might be slightly biased! But I'm curious to hear your thoughts anyway. My argument is basically this: 1. To an extent, NO. The equipment/format does NOT make the film. I can appreciate something shot on super-8 just as I can appreciate something shot on 35, or HD, or at 24P, or whatever format you choose. And yeah, maybe the most important thing is the story, just like my writer/director friend insists. I appreciate a good story because I come from an animation and writing background. But again, I like the look too, and I think that both of these things in combination, are what make a good film (or animation). 2. Having said this, cinematography is obviously a part of the production as well, and I feel that if a film looks bad because it was shot on inferior equipment, then it therefore is *not* as good overall- people might not like it as much and it will lose its impact. 3. In other words, isn't there a *reason* why people don't shoot feature-length movies on $300 camcorders, or am I missing something?? :rolleyes: What do you even say to people who insist that It's All About the Story, at all costs, and that to place importance on format is a frivolous waste of time? Again, I'm probably biased because 1. my primary interest as a filmmaker is in cinematography so I'm a sucker for something that looks good, and 2. I work at the film and video building at my school in the equipment checkout cage and refuse to believe that it doesn't matter if you shoot on a 6-year old DVCPro or a new DVX-100a. (Just ask me how many older DVCPro models I take off the shelf every day versus how many students come in asking about the "nice new 24P cameras!") Another side of this is that I look at buying video cameras like buying a computer. It *will* become obsolete, to a pretty big extent, after let's say, 4 years or so. In theory, yeah, you could continue on with Windows 95, but people would probably start snickering at you behind your back. Similarly, since the miniDV format has come down in price, not many people shoot on hi-8 anymore. (at least that's the impression I get...correct me if I'm wrong) However, my friend maintains that I'm thinking about it the wrong way, that nothing is obsolete, and it shouldn't matter. Well, I can't shake the belief that it does matter. Shouldn't you always choose the best tools you can get your hands on to get the job done? What do you think? Should I just pocket my 3 grand and go get a little camcorder from Best Buy, or should I maintain my status as Equipment Snob? :P Sorry this is so long, I just wonder how other people see the technology of video equipment and how they think it will affect us all. I have been following the threads about HD and find them very interesting.

Just a heads-up, you might want to check www.dvxuser.com for info about DVX-100 sales. There have been some scams on ebay and also some "gray market" cameras selling for very cheap that don't have warranties. I too am on a wild goose chase to find one for the best deal possible; I plan to squirrel away some dough and spring for it in about a year or so. It's hard to wait, they are great cameras!

Oh yeah. Those Gnomon DVD's are good. They have some available where I used to work. I would also say, just start networking with people and WATCH LOTS OF MOVIES. I watch so many movies nowadays that the real world seems oddly jarring. I consider it a valuable part of my education outside of school. I do it both for sound design and cinematography.

So I'm updating my resume and I'm wondering how I should go about including the freelance work I've done and if I should include work I've done on student shoots. Also, should I mention which cameras I've worked with, like I would with computer software? Or what? This is just a general template that I would then tweak depending on the job opportunity. I'm just not sure what my format should be here or how much detail I should go into. Any suggestions?

Well, SCAD offers a program in visual effects. So you might find something like that of interest. Not to shamelessly promote my soon-to-be alma mater or anything. :-P

I'm going to get the EDL today and have a look at it. I'm sure I recorded in 24P and not 24Pa. But out of curiosity, what would the latter do?

Thank you John. It's interesting you say that because some people were unsure about that shot, but I kinda grew partial to it. Overall I'm pretty happy with the piece with the exception of this quality issue. I plan to eventually write a score for the piece myself as part of a class assignment, so that should be pretty cool. Anyway, I think what I'll do is ask my editor if I can see the original Premiere file, and then I can kinda go through it with him and figure out how best to salvage this. He said yesterday that he was trying some different codecs when exporting and that it helped clean it up. But I don't know. It seems to me that you could try every single file format and codec in the book, but if your original file in the timeline is not what it should be, isn't it a moot point? And this is why I am not an editor! :blink:

I would've thought Premiere supports the 24p output but maybe my darling editor (:rolleyes:) screwed up. Maybe what Mr. Rhodes said is correct and it doubled those frames. What a !@#$ pain! I have half a mind to hand the tape off to somebody else (like an editor who knows Avid Symphony!), give them a copy of what I've got as a rough guide, and let them start from scratch so that I don't risk having the final cut look like @$$. I am not sure how to handle this but I'm open to suggestions. I mean, it was just an experimental project for me but it ended up kinda growing on me and I want it to look as good as the original footage; there's no reason why it shouldn't. So I am a little frustrated. By the way, it seems the moderator has moved this thread to a more appropriate category; thank you!

Well Daniel, I know I already chipped in here but I will say this: I would argue that it's HARD to know what makes a "Truly Good Film" in this day and age. Why? BECAUSE LOOK AT ALL THE CRAP OUT THERE! I mean really! So don't feel bad for asking such a thing, and don't ever beat yourself up about your personal choices, because sometimes it's all you've known, so how can you possibly do better? When you've got people out there trying to sell you on a bunch of bullsh*t, little wonder that you have to dig around to find something decent. To an extent, we're all products of our times, and to truly progress, we have to expand outward from what we know. The fact that you understand the difference between making a film for the people and a film for the sake of making art, is very good. A few years ago, my tastes in films were somewhat similar to what they are now, but overall, I'd say they've evolved since then. And this comes from watching tons and tons of movies and forcing myself to think outside the box. Watch the bad ones too. Decide for yourself what you enjoy. Eventually you'll find common ground with others. When I was about 17, I took a foreign film class at my high school. It was great. I developed a whole new taste for these films that I hadn't even heard of before. Then a few years ago in college, I took a class on the films of Alfred Hitchcock with Hank Moonjean, which was also really cool. Not that classes are necessary to appreciate good films, but I think finding people to talk with about film can be an incredibly valuable experience. (Hence why I am on this board!) So keep at it. Don't worry about sounding like you don't know what you're talking about, or not having the "right" idea about films. You'll get there.

I don't know what the equivalent of a pound is to a dollar. I think the Panasonic DVX-100a would be a little more expensive anyway because I know in American dollars it's more money than the XL-1 series. (I'm pretty sure, anyway. Feel free to correct me!) However, the DVX-100a cameras are really good for that amount of money, and they shoot 24P! So I would say that might be your best bet, even though it might cost more.

I'd say 3 things that happened within a matter of a few years: 1. My dad bought me a Bolex. 2. I saw "Citizen Kane" and many other films where I found myself thinking, "I have to do that someday." 3. I decided that I would make a sh***y 2d animator after all, and that making films was more fun. More time running around on a set, less time sitting at a light table staring at my paper. There's probably more to it than that. I'd always been somewhat interested in filmmaking, like when I got my first video camera (a hi-8 camcorder! Ha ha, those were the days!) and when I would always do videos for school projects instead of a presentation. But I'd say those 3 events sort of clinched it for me. Oddly enough, I'm actually majoring in sound design.

Okay, here's the story. I shot this short video on a DVX-100a at 24P. Gave it to my editor who, to my dismay, used Premiere to edit (I'm sorry, I hate Premiere. I think I actually banged my head on my desk when he told me that's what he was going to use). Anyway, something happened between the footage on that miniDV tape and the final product that ended up on my website as well as on DVD. It doesn't look AWFUL considering that it was compressed for the web, it just doesn't look like 24P. And I have to say, that really bums me out. Might I add that the DVD looks quite a bit better, but still not like the original footage. So what happened, is this the fault of the editor using Premiere and not an Avid program like Media Composer or Symphony, which has an automatic pulldown option (or so I've been told; I'm no editor!) ? Or is this something that might have happened during capture into Premiere? OR did things just get screwed up during the compression of the file? If you go here and scroll to the bottom of the page, you can view either an MPEG or a Windows Media file of the final (for now) cut of the movie. The Production Stills section is not up yet because I'm still working on the site in general, but it will be within the next week. This will probably give people a better idea of what it REALLY looks like anyway. :rolleyes: So, if anyone has any theories as to what I could do differently to make the downloadable versions of the movie look nicer, please let me know. I don't know, maybe I'm just being fussy, pedantic, and unreasonable. p.s. I hope this is in the right category; if it's not, I apologize profusely!

But I think it's kinda funny now...! People get in the strangest arguments over words. It never fails to amaze me. I mean, it's a valid point, but it's NOT the point. A movie is a movie. If you want to call it a film, you can do that too. It rolls off the tongue better than "video" anyway. And then similarly, "music video" sounds better than "music film" which just sounds sort of awkward. I guess it's good that people question the English language, even if it sometimes seems petty and ridiculous. On the other hand, people make a lifetime out of squishing everything into neat little categories and slapping labels on them, instead of just enjoying them for whatever they are. We do it to each other, we do it to the music we listen to and the FILMS AND VIDEOS we watch, and it goes on. As someone who still gets called a "goth" whenever I happen to wear black clothing and eye makeup on the same day, I have very little patience for these things. It's all just motion picture anyway! We could start calling them "talkies" again! :-)

I recently took a class in Surround Sound mixing (we covered some mastering as well). We used a program called A-pack to lay out each channel from the bounced mix session, into a format that would "read" them the way they were in the session. Then we built the DVD in DVD Studio Pro, which is where we added the stereo mix. I guess you *could* just have your 5.1 mix become your stereo mix, but my professor had us create a separate stereo mix of our project because otherwise, everything tends to get sort of "squished". With 5.1 Surround, you've got a lot more space to play with, literally. In stereo, you definitely have to handle it differently. Those ricocheting gunshots might sound really cool in surround, but in stereo, it could be very jarring. Also, Mr. Pingol was right about the frequencies. Tomlinson Hollman (I hope I didn't butcher the name...) wrote a Focal Press book called "5.1 Surround: Up and Running". It's a worthwhile read if you want to learn more about creating 5.1 music or soundtracks.

I must say I have a hard time not jumping down the throats of people who don't "get" Citizen Kane. This film changed my life. It made me want to make films. One of the coolest things I ever did was attend Roger Ebert's 3-day interactive discussion panel on "Kane" at the Savannah Film Festival. It was really intensive but I found it to be an amazing experience. I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, no matter how pretentious/cliche this seems, I laugh when people try to compare the greatness of "Kane" to anything else. In my opinion, it's more or less in a class by itself. I mean, I've practically lost friends over this: "What?! You'll sit through the latest 3-hour LOTR movie but "Kane" won't hold your interest for 45 minutes?! GET OUT! And take your mass-produced, shallow, shoot-em-up blockbuster culture with you!" I'm kidding about that last one. Seriously though, there are volumes and volumes written about this film, and for a good reason. While I don't think it's possible to choose ONE Greatest Film Ever Made, I can definitely understand why "Citizen Kane" is so often cited as one of the greats. Because it IS that great. It set the stage for so much else that audiences worldwide have grown to appreciate and even expect. Whether or not everyone in the world appreciates it on the same level, is almost beside the point. Most people don't appreciate visual art much anymore, either. This isn't a crack against those people, I'm just saying, art appreciation doesn't seem to be in the cards as much these days and I think it tends to change the types of films that most people watch. And for the sake of preserving "high art", I hope to g-d that every high school English course "forces" its students to watch "Citizen Kane". That was the first time I saw it and I knew it was only the beginning of a true love for the film. I sat through my slight impatience, my lack of understanding, and then I watched it again a few years later, and again, and so on...and then I saw it for about the 5th time in the theater here in Savannah over a period of 3 days for the discussion panel. I felt that through discussion and debate I could finally understand each and every shot, and it was then that I realized how hooked I was. Oh boy, I sound like Roger Ebert. I'll stop now. Just be aware that I defend this film on all fronts, to the death. Not to mention, I think it's like many other good films, in that it will grow on you. So give it time. :-) Oddly enough, and maybe I was just put off by the fanatical army of Star Wars geeks at school here who fit the "nerd" stereotype a bit too comfortably, I think it took a little longer for the Star Wars movies to grow on me than for Citizen Kane. On a side note, can you imagine if "Kane" became sort of a next Rocky Horror Picture Show? How funny would that be? Orson Welles creates an instant cult classic....!

Oh I see. Hm. Well, I'm taking the camera in for cleaning pretty soon so I'll just bring the lens and see what's up.

Okay, so I was taking a closer look at my 2 75mm lenses that I got with my Bolex H16 RX3. One of them focuses and one does not; I found out that this is because one of them is a non-reflex lens...or something? (I came across this article about the Bolex prism and how it affects their lenses and I'm still trying to make sense of it all) The guy who sold the camera to my dad (who then gave it to me last year) just kinda shipped it off without any notes about it or anything (except something in German that we have yet to translate). This being said, I don't know that much about specific types of lenses, such as when these were made or what the advantages and disadvantages are. With the exception of the non-reflex 75mm that I mentioned, I've otherwise shot well-focused footage with all my other lenses and would just like to know more about them. So who is familiar with some of the older Yvar and Switar models- what does the "AR" stand for on the barrel and why does it still say Kern-Paillard on the barrel of my 25mm lens but Switar on the inside? I'm assuming that Switar made the glass and Kern-Paillard made the housing but I have no idea. As you can see, I've got terrible insomnia and too much spare time.... :rolleyes: EDIT: Oh boy I need more sleep. AR=Anti-Reflection coating. I'm a smart cookie.

I have to say that if you know exactly what you want to do, you will most likely figure out a way to do it. When I first started making films, I was the typical one-woman crew and it took me about 800 feet of 16mm black and white reversal before I realized that it's okay to admit that you can't multi-task, and SHOULDN'T multi-task because it has a way of compromising your work (tell THAT to the typical American 9-to-5ers!). Instead you should figure out what you want to focus on and find people who you trust and work well with to fill in the blanks for you. On student shoots it's easy to see who naturally falls into what role. I was always the one setting up the lights and camera, deciding on the look of each piece, operating camera, and framing the shots, so it was pretty clear to me that I should pursue cinematography on some level- if only because I really enjoy doing these things. On the flipside, I am NOT an editor or director, and that's okay. I'm also not an animator, which prompted a change in field of study about 70% through school, but that's okay too, because I'm happier now than I was when I was trying to make myself a chicken by sticking feathers up my butt, if you will. (to paraphrase Tyler Durden..) So I don't know how I feel about this thread. I understand some of the people's attitudes in this topic but I don't necessarily agree, or maybe it's more that you're all "right" to a degree. I think it's important not to give up on what you want to do, but perhaps it's more important to be aware of what you DON'T want to do or maybe aren't that good at. It seems weird to say this, but maybe feeling like you've "burned out" at age 26 is a blessing in disguise in that it will free you up to pursue other interests? I don't know. I'm glad I threw down my blue pencil and declared that I suck at traditional animation and hate doing 3d animation and would rather do something else. It ended up changing my life for the better. Similarly, I took a break from making music and DJing to pick up a camera and obviously I'm very glad I made that choice. Ultimately, you just have to bounce your ideas off the people you know and not be afraid to work with others. It's a delicate balance but it is possible. I myself am still finding this balance but if other people can do it, then so can I. So in conclusion, I don't necessarily think that people are meant to only do one thing at a time in their lives but I also don't think spreading yourself thin is the way to go. If you can find a few art forms or trades (or whatever) to "get your chops" in, (meaning, get really good at them!) as one of my sound design professors would say, and if all of these things you do are related in some way, then I think you've got a good deal going. Wow, that was long. I enjoy writing too, can you tell? :-) I hope this was helpful advice for, well, whoever needed it ...

A quick update: we shot today and things went well. I ended up using a combination of strategically placed nets and silks from the dot and finger kit (I LOVE that thing!), a few little Arri 150's, and some non-flammable hairstyling product to create a happy medium with Barry's hair. I kept the background pretty dark and played with highlights closer to the side of his face rather than the top and back of his head, so it looked good. I am quite satisfied with my efforts and very pleased with the footage.