Chris D Walker

Within the next year my friends and I hope to get a small film going funded from our own pockets- the budget will be somewhere between £15,000-£25,000. As this is not too much my thoughts were that we could shoot onto DVC PRO 50, my reasons being: -4:2:2 colour sub-sampling -Less compression than DV 25 and HDV -Cheaper to rent than DVC PRO HD, HD-CAM or film equipment. With a 16:9 image at 1024x576 I then thought in post we could uprezz by 25% to 720p and still have an acceptable definition; I know that 'Iraq in Fragments' and 'Inland Empire' both did something similar with DV 25 to 1080p. Firstly, I would like to know whether who here thinks this sounds like a good idea and, following from any responses, if anyone can direct me in finding a camera (or cameras) that provide: -DVC PRO 50 compatibility -Shoot 25p -16:9 aspect ratio Lastly, would we need a specific VTR to digitize the footage into our editing system (Either Final Cut Pro or Avid Media Composer). Thanks for any replies.

Before I write anything else, it was either three posts each with one question or one post with three questions. I chose the latter so that's why it's here. Question 1: Knowing that SMPTE timecode reads as 30Hz audio in NTSC and 25Hz in PAL regions, is it possible to record with different speed increments such as 48Hz or 60Hz? Or is it confined to what I've just mentioned? Question 2: What is the highest number that timecode can possibly display based on the 00:00:00:00- hours, minutes, seconds, frames system? Question 3: If someone were to shoot more than a million feet of film or a hundred hours of video for a production, what's the protocol for arranging all the footage in an off-line edit? Thanks for any responses.

Artificial in the respect that it doesn't exist. Realistic in the sense that it looks as if it does. Much like there was a whole ecosystem made for Skull Island in King Kong (2005 version) which plotted the evolutionary progression of individual species over millions of years (although this was never mentioned in the film), James Cameron wants Avatar to have a planet that carries ecosystems, civilizations and numerous cultures to enable the viewer to suspend their disbelief to such an extent that their concerns would be for only the characters within the story instead of the science fiction locale. Being in development for who knows how long, a great deal of time was made to create an extremely detailed cultural, evolutionary and planetary history. The question of whether this will pay off is something else. Maybe instead of writing 'realistic artificial world' I should have written 'excessively concise fictional world'.

Having been delayed from March 2009 now to December 2009, James Cameron is set to release his first narrative film in over ten years, Avatar; a 40% real, 60% digital science fiction film shot completely in 3-D on his made-to-specification Reality Camera system which, among other things, will attempt to seamlessly blend real actors with synthespians (computer-generated humans) and create the most realistic artificial world ever conceived. As always, James Cameron has seemingly given himself an immensely difficult task with his new project. I would like to hear some thoughts about James Cameron's words in an article several months ago (I can't recall which one) in which he said that he would rather shoot 48fps at 2K rather than 24fps at 4K after his work on Avatar. I should also note that in a perfect world he wishes for 48fps at 4K, but is being realistic in terms of production costs and special effects work as they currently stand. My first thoughts are concerning Avatar's CG effects, as twice as much footage would need to be rendered than a in standard Hollywood film; and if it ever came into fruition that Cameron would make his 48fps 3-D follow-up to Avatar there would be quadruple the amount of work required to make it happen, perhaps made even worse if shot at a higher resolution than HD. At this point I would see large studio budgets get even higher than they are now with perhaps less return. The question then becomes: would this type of film be special venue only or is it a realistic vision of where theaters could be heading? Other considerations: Real-D vs. IMAX 3-D? An entirely digital workflow? Perceptions of resolution? Is James Cameron's dream just a dream? Thanks for any replies.

It's difficult to put into words and the diagram is completely clear. My intent for the system would be to playback at 24 frames without speeding the motion up. The playback sequence would be A1, then B1 and then C1; the sequence would then be A2, B2 & C3. A1: Exposes from 1/24 for 1/8th of a second. B1: Exposes from 2/24 for 1/8th of a second. C1: Exposes from 3/24 for 1/8th of a second etc. The effect would be that the frames would contain motion artifacts from the preceding frame but also the following frame, thereby creating a fluidity in the movement of the camera or in the scene. Since this hasn't been seen before it is hard to imagine what a real-lapse film would look like. It would be hard work for someone to actually achieve this.

I could imagine this camera effect as a means of translating the sensation of nausea or delerium felt by a character in a narrative film; it could also be used to great effect in an experimental film. I grant that its uses are most likely limited but my curiosity is to see how something like this would appear on screen at 24 frames. I suppose it's what can be imagined by a director that presents the limits of something such as this.

This will be my first post so I would like to thank anyone who does read and maybe respond. For more than a few months I've been playing with the idea of creating a time-lapse effect in-camera at 24 fps. The idea came from the Technicolor process that used a beam splitter to create separate red, green and blue images. Using three rolls of film attaining their image from one lens via a beam splitter it would be possible to create exposures of 1/16th of a second long. While I have not fully run the math a DP would also have an additional stop of light striking the negative, taking into account a loss of light whilst traveling through the beam splitter. The first roll would carry the 'A' frames that are 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19 & 22; the second roll would carry the 'B' frames that are 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 & 23, and the third roll would carry the 'C' frames that are 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 & 24. I imagine the only way to join them as one whole continuous motion would be after they've been telecined. One interesting consideration would be that the long-exposed frames would 'bleed' into the following frames. There are also a number of problems mostly regarding how to synchronize the three rolls of film perfectly. It may be a better idea to use three CCD's on a special digital camera rather than use film. Below is an attachment that can help visualize how the system could work.