Joshua Provost

You'll have to use locked-down tripod shots. If you move the camera around it may change its balance depending on the scene. If you leave it still, the balance should stay pretty solid.

It has been said before, but a video camera is basically a big light meter. Like any light meter, it is calibrated to adjust the image to 18% medium gray. However, because of the potentially complex image in the frame and the range of luminances possible in a single frame, it uses various methods to determine which parts of the frame to expose to. So, auto exposure may not always be accurate. However, that does not mean you necessarily need a light meter. If you get an 18% gray card, you can get accurate exposure from that, if used properly. Put the gray card in front of the subject you want to expose, zoom/position the camera so the card fills the frame and allow the camera to auto expose. Lock the exposure. You are now properly exposed for your subject. From there you can do creative things such as could be done with film, such as over or underexpose and compensate in post for different looks. There isn't as much room to play as with film, but you can try it out.

16:9 provides more options in terms of composing shots. To my taste, anyway.

Mariano, Check out the ARRI Lighting Handbook. A great primer. Josh

Charlie, The way I see it, film, with its 4k resolution... OK, that's a point of large debate, some say that with the constraints that you discuss that it is less, while others say it is more, and it may be true of original negatives, with release prints having less resolution, but... let's say it's 2k. Even at that, it's a smooth 2k, it won't exhibit jaggies. Compare that to DV, which at 720x480, is 1/3 of a MP, or in k terms, .7k. Obviously, film has a much greater potential to look better. As you point out, there are a number of factors involved in the quality of the film that is projected. However, there are as many factors (different factors) involved in projecting DV. The difference is that DV has a much lower high-end of potential. And that is in line with my experience. I have seen films of varying quality, and DV projections of varying quality... and the worst films I have seen are about on par with the best SD DV projections I have seen. There are ranges to everything, but there is very little overlap between film and SD DV, even in these broad ranges. I think the best SD DV projection I have seen was at the Almost Famous Film Festival in Phoenix this February. They had a great screen and the latest projector, and they didn't go too big with the screen, maybe fifteen feet wide. That looked very good. Not great, but very good.

Fair use would only apply in your case if you took a sample from the song and used it in creating a new, unique song. Even then, only if the sample is unrecognizable as relates to the original source. The same applies if you were doing an art project, using pieces of existing images to create a collage. You can't use songs in a soundtrack without obtaining permission. That may involve a fee.

If you have a ProTools interface and "good mics" you should have good sound. If the sound is not to your taste, you may want to think about other mics or pre-amps, because they all color the sound to some degree, but what you have should be acceptable to most people. It may be the sound of the solid-state mis pre-amp that is not to your liking. Try a tube-based mic pre-amp for a more classic, warm sound. Or, there may be something wrong with your equipment, or your monitoring devices. Josh

Charlie, Have you ever seen SD projected on a 30' theater screen? Or even a 20' theater screen, for that matter? I have, and it's pretty bad, even progressive 24p SD. There is no contest. SD can hardly stand up to the largest rearprojection home units, nevermind large theater screens. Also, a computer LCD screen is the ideal way to critically compare the images. It is progressive, of better quality than any LCD TV set, and won't be doing any rescaling or resizing like a set would. It's the best way, not the worst. However, heavily compressed JPEG images aren't a valid test. Josh

Mariano, right-click on the clip in the timeline, choose Time/Speed, and click the Reverse Speed checkbox.

I've had great results with the GS400. You can check out a number of my projects here. I've even won a couple cinematography awards using this camera. The level of manual control is great, the best you get in the price range. There are even manual controls for picture adjustment (contrast, exposure, color, and sharpness), which allow even more control. I did some tests with these, the results are here. Using the picture adjustments, you can even squeeze a couple more stops exposure latitude out of this camera. I'm sticking with the GS400 until I can afford a DVX-100A or whatever its successor will be (hopefully with true 16:9 mode).

Hi, I am in Phoenix. The city is starting to have a really great and supportive filmmaking scene. Myself, I work with a close group of friends and family. Together, we have made something like 12-14 short and long films in the last year. We call ourselves Matter of Chance productions. Have you seen what the Phoenix Film Project is doing, particularly the local access short film show, Screen Wars? Also, Ballboy Productions is hosting challenges now. There was a 48 Hour challenge in February, and the screening was quite an event. The University of Advancing Technology (UAT) has a great video program, with Director/DP Paul DeNigris teaching classes and really evangelizing for digital video. Scottsdale Community College has a good film program. What are your skills and interests, and what equipment do you have? We are in pre-production on our next film, and may need some help. Josh

Thanks everyone for their insight. This should be a fun film to DP. I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks! Josh

David and Adam, thanks for the great feedback. I'm open to hear more. In thinking about it last night, I came up with the following: Lots of wide shots with medium to long lenses, very compressed space, flat, like a classic painting. Subjects often slightly obscured by objects or shadow and from a distance, but seemingly combined with close micing, makes you feel close, yet far distant at the same time. Can someone comment on his use of underexposure? I heard he often greatly underexposed, sometimes catching himself later for being too extreme with it. Now, does this mean underexposing while shooting, then pushing the film in processing somewhat? Or leaving it underexposed? Does this result in a different look? Less saturated colors?

I'm in pre-production on a short dramatic film about an assassin getting out of the business. It will be shot here in Phoenix, AZ, but we're playing it as being set in Italy and we have Italian-speaking actors. I have a number of inspirations I am drawing on for the characters, story, and directing style. Visually, my inspiration for this piece will be the work of Gordon Willis, particularly The Godfather Trilogy and All The President's Men. Could some of the more experienced DPs out there help a newbie quantify, in any respect, the look of Gordon Willis, in terms of light, color, and compostiion, so I might experiement with some of the techniques in this new film? I have seen and respect the work, but I can't accurately determine or communicate what it is he is doing. Anything specific in terms of lenses, filters, lighting, etc. that I could try? Thanks, Josh

Sid, underexposure on video is different than film. On film you can under or overexposure to some degree and then push or pull during processing. With video, if you underexpose, you are simply throwing away detail in shadows. You should expose as good a balance of capturing shadow and highlight detail as you can manage, and light and fill where necessary to get within the limited exposure latitude of video. Josh

Constantine, I would highly recommend using a camera with as many manual controls as possible. Turn down the contrast and exposure controls in-camera and you will gain some latitude. Add a low-contrast filter to get even more. In post, use Curves or a non-destructive contrast filter to bring back a normal contrast while retaining all of those great details you captured via low contrast. Josh

Figure out in advance where you are getting it transfered, and work closely with them. Use their recommended specs for detail, gamma, frame rate, and shutter speeds. If you can shoot PAL, you'll get better resolution than NTSC. Josh

Mike, It's all in the shutter speed, in camera. This will still look pretty good, as long as you deinterlace to 30p. If you want to go to 24p, it won't look so good, and Magic Bullet manuals tell you to shoot 1/60 (default shutter speed) when going to 24p. If you want to go to 24p and still have the fast shutter speed: Shoot at 1/250 shutter. Deinterlace to 30p. Interpret the 30p output as 24p during editing. It will be a slight slow motion (1 sec slows to 1.3 seconds), but it will have the sharp shutter effect and by very smooth. Josh

Rick, One factor is the speed of the film stock. 250 speed film will require twice as much light to properly expose as 500 speed film. However, it also has less grain, which may be desirable. Usually the stock is chosen as an asthetic choice, and the lighting is set up to properly expose that stock. Josh

Magic Bullet does a number of things, but it is not specifically a color grading tool. You are going to want to do a whole lot of correction using other AE tools before you get to the things MB does.

Difference between 4:3 (1.33:1) and 16:9 (1.77:1) is about thirty percent more angle of view. Take native 16:9 and throw an anamorphic on it and you have thirty percent more, or about 2.30:1, pretty close to 2.35:1, just crop off a pixel or two on the top and bottom. Whether you want to do this or not will depend on your destination format. If you want to uprez to HD, you might do this to squeeze the most out of an SD camera. However, if you are going to DVD, you may just want to shoot 16:9 protecting for 2.35:1 and letterbox. DVD's can't do native 2.35:1. You'll end up letterboxing at some point anyway. One advantage to shooting 16:9 and letterboxing... you can use the best part of the frame, shot by shot. Flexibility.