Tim Shim

Yea that was what I wanted to know and that was my assumption - that it doesn't really matter if the camera is a 'small' camera or a 'big' camera ... a Firewire transfer should be 'lossless' theoretically as it is a 'digital' transfer format. Thanks for your thoughts and reply, Walter. Though if anyone else on this board has another 'theory', please feel free to post your thoughts.

Thanks for the reply, Walter, but I think you may have misunderstood my question. Or perhaps it's me who's not quite understanding your answer. :) What I wanted to know was if I shot HDV using a 'big' camera, then wanted to do a Firewire transfer using a 'small' camera, would there be a loss in quality via the Firewire output of the small camera? What I'm asking has nothing to do with the actual image capture of either camera - just the digital transfer process (Firewire). Hope I've made my question clearer this time? ;) Tim

Hi guys ... I am curious to know if there is any quality loss of HDV footage shot on a prosumer HDV camera (Sony HDR-Z1) when captured, via Firewire, using a consumer-grade HDV camera such as the Sony HC3? I have a debate going on with another person in my workplace regarding this. He claims that there is definitely a quality loss when capturing using a consumer-grade camera, but I'm not so sure if this is the case. If any of you tech gurus can clarify, please do! Thanks! Tim

Some programs, such as Commotion and Shake, have specialized wire-removal functions which do just that. Other software, such as After Effects, have simple workarounds to achieve the same result. Objects which take up more of the frame space (eg buildings) may be harder to remove as there may be very little 'background' information to work with. If you have used Photoshop before, this process is similar to cloning in and out objects from an image. Only, with motion pictures, the cloned area has to be tracked and matched to the video/film footage frame by frame. Depending on how the footage was shot, this could either be very easy or very difficult. Hope this helps. Cheers, Tim

It is interesting to note that our 'state of mind' may alter our perceptions of the films we watch. Also, how we watch a film will affect us too - be it on a big screen in the theatre or on a small tv on dvd. Our age, life experiences and emotional state all come into play as well. In fact, I think there are just too many variables involved to actually know what a good movie is. If filmmakers figured this out, we'd be rich. Obviously, none have. Even the great directors have flops every now and then which proves that it is very much a hit or miss situation with the film industry. Getting back on topic. For me, I'd have to say 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' had me scratching my head during and after the movie. I just didn't get it, I suppose. A very Brit sci-fi comedy following in the vein of Monty Python? I suppose the movie studios are now resorting to experimenting with mixing genres to see what kind of response they get from audiences.

Thanks all for viewing the trailer and commenting. I have to take the trailer offline now due to bandwidth issues so the link I have posted above will not work anymore. This is just a notice to let anyone new to this thread know about this. Cheers.

Matt, I did some calculations and although yes, it is on the slow side, but not exaggeratedly so. Ok, I based these calculations on Nikon's spec of 40 sec per frame scans. Of course, I assumed this was for full res 4000 dpi so scanning at less than that would speed things up somewhat. Also, this is 35mm so 16mm would theoretically halve the time. I presume. Here's my calculation: Say for a 10 minute short, that's 14400 frames (60sec x 10 x 24fps). At 40 sec/frame, that would take 160 hours or about 7 days of non-stop scanning. Practically, I'd say maybe 30 days to work on it with about 5 hours dedicated each day. (Not quite the months and months you quoted, Matt, but you were either using a different (albeit slower) scan time or calculating based on a longer short film.) Yea, it is still a bit of a tedious process and would require quite a bit of dedication and mind numbing persistence, but hey, for personal experimental stuff, it's a possible option. All this of course disregards the time needed to correct for registration, which in my opinion, is the bigger problem. Has anyone actually been crazy enough to have tried this though, I'm wondering? :P

I was just wondering if anyone has tried scanning a roll of 16mm/35mm 'motion picture' film with Nikon's Coolscan 8000 / 9000 which is capable of accepting 16mm/35mm film strips. I would think there'd be problems with registration but I don't know for sure as I've never used the Coolscan. Has anyone tried this?

I guess if you're worried about spending quite a bit on a camera that will go obsolete, why not just get a cheap consumer DV cam and spend more on making your films. In the end, it's all about the storytelling and learning from mistakes. For that purpose, any camera will suffice. Sure, the cinematography may not be as great, but you'll have a better foundation if you first focus on your story. A good story can always save a film whereas no amounts of good cinematography can save a bad story. That being said, digital cameras will depreciate much the same as computer hardware. But if you dwell on this issue, you'll always be waiting. Use what you can get now and use it while it can still be used. There will always be something better along the way but what really matters is making the best with what you have. Hope this helps, in a philosophical sort of way. ;)

Nice looking rig. I don't recognize the camera though. Care to share? Good looking films though I didn't really get what the films were about. Overall, good job.

I beg to differ, tornsprocket. I've used both the Canon XL1 and XL2 as well as the DVX100A and I still think the DVX produces better looking images. But of course, this is just a matter of personal preference. Don't want to start a XL1/2 vs DVX war here. leslierenee, if you're looking into 'prosumer' MiniDV cameras, these really are the two major contenders. But you will have to decide by trying both out and reviewing the footage for yourself. Also, things to consider are perhaps size, weight, lens interchangeability and usability. There are lots of other threads on this forum discussing this topic. And more perhaps over at DVInfo.net and other DV forums. Cheers.

No way of doing this in camera. It has to be a VFX shot. You'll need to learn some 3D (Maya, XSI) and compositing (Shake, AE, Fusion). You could also achieve the effect purely in 2D using morphing tools/plugins available for AE, Shake or Fusion. Perhaps you should be asking that question on another forum such as CGTalk.com or HighEnd3D.com. Cheers.

Thanks for helping me explain that bit for Josh, Justin. Alex, the film was shot on 35mm Fuji stock with an old Arri BL camera. Still, it worked out great. And thanks for all your kind words. The full length short will probably be available online after it has run its course in the festival circuit.

To all film labs and people in the industry - I'd like to hear your side of the story. See, I sent in some unprocessed film to Bono's for processing and transfer to HD tapeless early January and till today haven't gotten back my footage. I've been corresponding with Tim Bono over the past few months starting in January when I sent my unprocessed film. Earlier, his response was that they'd have to gather sufficient lengths of stock to warrant a run. Later, it was some problem with my film needing rewashing. I emailed him again two weeks ago and he promised to give me an explanation and mentioned that there have been issues with film processing in the US. Today I got Tim's reply with this lengthy explanation: ---- Hi Tim, I agree totally, it's beyond ridiculous. Here goes. The film industry in the US is in shambles due to many factors that we we're not able to control nor address. I'll give you the film lab perspective. A processing machine without use will sour or exhaust within three weeks or less. The processing machine must be run daily or at least weekly to be kept on AIM and fresh. This is impossible to do with the state of affairs in the states and Kodak has realized this just recently. To recoup a machine (our machine) the cost is in excess of $500 and we're good for another three weeks. At .18/foot which is list price you have to run close to 3000/feet to even come close to breaking even and this is a gross not net price. Not trying to give you a business lesson here but I feel it important to explain. We have come to the realization now that Kodak has copied our idea for film kits that we had the correct idea 4 years ago when introduced. We don't participate as a lab due to the pricing Kodak tries to force on us and it's simply unacceptable. Having said all that we will be offering packages to high definition and they will most likely be 5000ft and 10,000ft kits direct to drive. At these lengths we can make a fair profit and that's what we're in business to do. You happened to jump into this mess during a redefining stage and I do apologize for that. The $95 premium fee didn't work as we had hoped and we're discontinuing that too. In fact we've stopped all processing with exception of black and white negative. To operate at a loss will close a business and that won't happen here. We have two choices with your film, either transfer now and you ignore the uneven drying that has taken place on the non perf side or wait another week for me to clean the machine up. It takes 3 solid days for a proper clean up. I will not run your film through bad chemistry. It's your choice and let me know how you would like to proceed. Regards, Tim Bono ---- Is this really an issue in the US right now? Myself not being in the US, I'd like some feedback from all ya American folks out there in Cinematography land. Note that this issue only concerns Bono's film processing options - not it's telecine to HD tapeless transfers. Also, please don't mistake this post as a disgruntled post against Bono - I think they do a fine job when it comes to HD tapeless transfers. Don't let this thread deter you from using their film to drive services. Just be aware that they are now having problems with processing film. Cheers.

Paris, France. Thanks for the comment. I guess that's the point of a teaser trailer. To tease, right? ;)

The Bolex is definitely cheaper to rent though the only issue other than size (Arri SR2) is noise (Bolex) - though a blimp could solve this somewhat for the Bolex. Whichever you pick depends on your preference or your willingness to put up with the inherent qualities of each camera. For a saturated look, I'd recommend you try Fuji's Velvia 50D stock, now available from Spectra (http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com). It's reversal film and will give you higher saturation and contrast right off the bat. The Velvia stock is a highly regarded filmstock by professional still photographers for its color saturation. As for Super8, there are many cameras to choose from, but non from Bolex or Arri as I know. Depending on your camera budget, you could get the cheaper Nizos or Nikons or the more expensive Leicina or Beaulieus. I personally own and use the Nikon R10. It's affordable and works great. Hope these personal insights help you decide. Cheers.

Due to Film Festival requirements, I'm not able to post the full length film online. In any case, there's a trailer available here: http://www.timshim.com/downloads/FinalTrailer02.mov Any feedback would be great. Also, on a side note, does this teaser trailer make you want to watch the full length short film? I'd like to gauge the interest level created by the trailer as well.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic," speech at the Sorbonne, Paris (April 23, 1910)

You're speaking as if he's a one-man show in this one. Sure, he may not have the experience to build this imager, but he can HIRE people who know a thing or two about them. Steve Jobs ain't no software/hardware genius at Apple and the company is doing just fine. To his credit, he's got some of the best people working for him and his job is to inspire them to do their best. That, I believe, is Jim's role in RED.

Jim (Jannard), As someone with the entrepreneurial bug myself, I'd be very interested in hearing about how and why you started Oakley and now RED. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to hear your story. I subscribe to Greg Galant's podcast, Venture Voice (http://www.venturevoice.com), and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing an audio interview with him. Perhaps you two can hookup and work something out? I've emailed him with this suggestion. Sorry for going off-topic there guys. Jim, If I were you, I wouldn't even bother about people who say I can't do it. Dwelling on all the negativity will only make you depressed and angry. That's all I have to say about that.

Jim, I have faith in you. If I were in your shoes, I believe I would've done the same thing. In any case, I want you to know that we're all rooting for you, albeit some with more skepticism. Inside, I believe everyone wants this camera. So Jim, do your thing and treat RED as if you only had that $300 to go on. Desperation can be the best of motivators. "Andy Dufresne: Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And a good thing never dies." I like that one better. BTW, I just bought an Oakley to show my support (though you probably won't need it).

As the saying goes - 'we can't be taught, we can only learn'. That said, I personally believe that if you are really passionate about what you want to do (in this case, filmmaking), you will do all it takes to learn the art and craft. Most of you reading these forums probably regard yourselves as tech-savvy web surfers who, more often than not, use the Internet to find filmmaking related information. I can attest for myself that I've learned more from these Forums and the Internet than I have reading a filmmaking textbook. I would personally use my money to work on more short films before attempting a feature film. Working on your own requires more discipline and self-control and a feature is a huge feat for one person, the Robert Rodriguezes of this world notwithstanding (and even then, RR has made many small films before hitting it big). If you are not the type who can set your own goals and work incessantly to achieve it, you may want to consider film school. Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure. At the very least, it will help motivate you to get something done. Teachers you get are sometimes based on luck and sometimes based on which film school you can afford. In either case, you have to do the learning. The best teachers I find inspire you, they don't know it all, they admit that and in doing so, earn our respect and makes us strive to better ourselves. That being said, I don't think 'accomplished' filmmakers necessarily make good teachers. But for the very fact that they are accomplished inspires us more so than what they actually say. I call it the celebrity-worship syndrome. We all want to be like the person we hold in high regard. Advertisers know this very well. Whatever you decide, do not hesitate, just do it. Too much thinking and talking will create doubt and uncertainty. Like if you stand for too long on the ledge before bungy jumping ... or if you're a beginning skater, stand too long on top of the ramp deciding whether to drop in.

All this talk about RED and everyone hoping for it to be real reminded me of something a certain other Red said about hope in a film. Guess the film ... ;) "Red: Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane." So let's not get too crazy over this, shall we? This is a light-hearted post so please don't take this too seriously.

Cameras I've bought, in chronological order: Panasonic DVX-100A - Digital is so much easier to get started with. It helped me learn the art of filmmaking without the costlier mistakes of film. I used this camera for some music videos and it earned its cost back after about 2 videos. Bolex H16 EL - My first foray into the world of film. Got this for about $2k off eBay. Shot one music video and some clips to cut in with my DVX footage. I've started to only accept projects which can pay for the cost of shooting film as I would like to use more of film in my work. I'll go back to video only for low to no budget stuff and even then only for projects which I believe strongly enough to want to even bother doing. Nikon R10 - This cheap Super 8 camera I use to get those cool flashback moments. The Super 8 format is nice and I'll use this anytime over video. This one I don't even think about the cost since it's so cheap. That being said, even though I love film so much, I am also still very much a tech geek and am eagerly awaiting that RED camera which 'promises' to revolutionize the world of filmmaking. Yes, hope I shall and if it works as good as it sounds, it will most probably be my fourth camera.

One thing I noticed, your image button links don't act like normal links. The cursor doesn't change to the 'pointing hand' icon that is usually the case when a user moves their cursor over a link. I believe it could be extraneous code generated by Microsoft Frontpage or Office export to HTML feature. In any case, it still works - only not as a regular web surfer would expect. Thought you might like to know this. Design-wise, it is rather plain. Perhaps try to add more interest with graphical elements which match your film. Eg. dirt, rust or maybe even a symbolic object from the film. Just a suggestion but if you think this is stretching your technical limits, you'd be better off pouring your energy into making your film. If your intention is simply just to convey information, it works fine. If you want your website to market your film, please do something about the design. It will affect perception of the film. My honest opinion and feedback as a part time web designer/developer. For your reference, I helped a friend setup a website to showcase his film work a while back, you can check it out if you like. http://www.mettafilmworks.com. Cheers.