Bruce Greene

Just to add to what David said, the DVCProHD (panasonic) format can be captured via firewire and edited in it's orginal format on common firewire drives using Final Cut Pro. Just like mini-dv, but you'll need to rent a 1200a or 1400 DVCPro tape deck. The HDcam format pretty much requires that you downconvert to edit and recapture the HD for an online session. I guess what I'm saying is that the post costs for DVCProHD may be less if you want the final product in HD. And a personal disclosure: I own a Varicam. Camera wise, I like the Varicam camera more than the f-900 sony, but the sony HDcam format looks slightly better than the Panasonic DVCproHD format.

OK, so you're just looking for neutral/clean, will adjust in post... #1 Get Goodman's Guide to the Varicam if you don't have it. I would try these settings: In Gamma menu: Cinegamma select=Film Rec, dynamic level = 200%, master gamma = .48 In the knee menu make sure manual knee is on. In the camera menu make sure high color is off. If master detail is set to on, then set master detail to -2 for a start (in the ROP menu) Set color correction and matrix to off. Set master gain to 0 or -3 This should give you a pleasing, if slightly low contrast look that you can punch up in post. If you need a little less contrast, change the master gamma to .45. If you need a little more punch try setting the black stretch to -2 (it's in the low or med or high menus that correspond to the position of the gain switch on the side of the camera) Also, I would set the compression setting in the VTR menu to "dark" to prevent ugly compression blocks in the deeper shadows. Also note that this setting uses the "FilmRec" mode and therefore the knee point/slope settings will not effect the image.. Hope this is a good starting point. Personally I would advise against just downloading a look or settings from the internet as many that I've seen appear to me to be kind of poor choices for this camera. And I'm sure they would say the same about my choices I guess :blink: Best of luck, Bruce

I think you'll need to ask a more specific question. It seems to me that your question requires an entire course in using the Varicam. Perhaps you can find a qualified person to set up the camera for you... If you have a more specific quesiton I'd be happy to try and contribute an answer. Maybe you could start by saying what you do know about using the Varicam? -bruce

If you're talking about the cinematography business...I'm not sure that there are any "stable" jobs. I think for most in the business, it's a life of always looking for the next job, without the certainty of a paycheck next week, or next month, or (when just starting out, the next year perhaps). I'm really being serious here. If you get very nervous just thinking about not having a steady paycheck, cinematography, or the entertainment business, might not be for you... On the positive side, after 20+ years of making a living in the business, there is the stability of not depending upon one company or boss for your living. Changing jobs becomes so common that you won't be in the position of working 10 years at Enron and then...poof! Best of luck though, -bruce

Responding to Tim's post, he recently worked with me as a gaffer on a small HD project. Tim proved extremely helpful and brings a wonderful work ethic and attitude to the set. I would highly encourage others to take advantage of his work on their projects. Thanks Tim for your service, and we'll work together (hopefully soon) in the future! -bruce

Mukesh, All you need to do is to load up an old 35mm (manual, not autoexposure/focus) still camera with color film. You should also have a handheld light meter, ( I would strongly suggest a spot meter), and a photographic grey card to learn to set exposures. After you've got the camera and light meter, go to the library/web/bookstore to learn about the "zone system" for setting exposure. The zone system gets complicated when shooting b&w negative and altering the development of the film, but for color film, the development is usually standardized so you can just concentrate on how much light exposure produces x amount of density on the film. Actually, you might want to start with shooting slide film (color reversal) so that the lab has no influence over your exposures as you learn the technique. You might even want to contact a local old time still photographer to give you some lessons or at least an introduction to shooting on film. Though you may have to spend a little money for this education, it's much less expensive than film school! -bruce One last thing, a test that I've done to learn how to expose a particular film: Set up a white towel on a wall and light it with one light from the side to make it easy to see the texture. Keep the light far enough away to be able to light a portion of the towel evenly. Photograph only this portion. Measure the exposure using your spot meter and the ISO setting on the film box. This exposure (should / might) be middle grey on the film. Set the camera to expose the towel 4 stops darker than the light meter exposure and shoot consecutive frames increasing the exposure by 1/2 stop until you've exposed the towel at 4 stops lighter than the light meter suggested exposure. Take careful notes! Develop the film (I would suggest starting with slide film) and spread the developed film on a light table in the order that you shot it. You will have before you a progression of black to white frames. Use a loupe (powerful magnifying glass) to check the amount of detail and brightness/darkness in each frame. The darkest and lightest frames will have no detail at all. Place your notes of the exposures opposite each frame. For the frame that was exposed at the reading from the light meter, label it "0" (It should be midtone gray, like the photographic grey card you bought). Each frame darker will be "-1/2", "-1", "-1 1/2" etc. Each frame lighter will be "+1/2", "+1", "+1 1/2" ..."+4". Now, load up a fresh roll of film and go shoot some photos, exposing using the spot meter. Start by reading a part of the scene that you want to appear as white in the final image. Take the reading from the light meter and increase the exposure by the amount you've learned from your test will result in a white tone, with just a slight amount of detail. (might be "+2 1/2 stops") Read other tones in the scene and try to predict how bright they will look on the developed slide using your towel frames as a guide. When you've mastered this, I'll send you a diploma certifying you as a film exposure master!

To get an exact match might be a little challenge depending on your preferred settings. The HDX (not sure if you're talking about the 900 or the 200) will have some different controls concerning gamma than the Varicam. I would try this: (hopefully they will have these tools at the rental house that you can use for prep, even if you don't rent them for the shoot) 1. set up a DSC "chroma du monde" chart by lighting it evenly with day colored light. (I suggest the 5600k light so that it is close to the color of your monitor) 2. also set up a test "scene" with a model and some props near by lit by daylight light 3. set up a calibrated or at least the best monitor you can come up with, shaded from stray light. 4. set up both cameras side by side to shoot the dsc chart. 5. rough in a set up that you like using the HDX using the dsc chart as a guide and observing the results on a waveform/vector scope. 6. pan the HDX over to your scene, to make sure you like the contrast, gamma, saturation that you're getting on the HDX. 7. pan the two cameras on to the dsc chart. Observe the result of the HDX on the waveform / vectorscope and adjust the Varicam to match the result on the waveform/vectorscope. 8. aim the two cameras at the test scene and a/b them on the monitor to confirm the look and the match. The difficulty will be that the HDX will have some "cinelike" gamma settings that might not be exactly duplicatable on the Varicam. The Varicam in "filmrec" mode might also not be duplicatable on the HDX. The easiest way to make an exact match will be to set the varicam to "vidrec" mode and the HDX to a video or standard type gamma setting and then use the black stretch, knee settings, black level to adjust the two cameras. I think that you will find the book "Goodman's guide to the Varicam" very helpful when doing this and allow yourself a lot of time (probably a whole day) to prep the cameras. Good luck! -bruce

Chris, You asked some really good questions here. I hope I can help a little. #1 Your camera probably records up to 109% rather than just 100% #2 If you set the zebra to 100%, it's still possible that one, maybe even two, colors are clipping when the zebras appear. #3 Judging your exposure on your computer monitor might be misleading. On a Mac for instance, the Quicktime codec for DV assumes that you have your monitor set to a gamma of 1.8 (a mac tradition). If you've set your gamma to 2.2 (the pc tradition, and the gamma correction for a typical CRT tv) then your play back will look a little dark on a Mac. Of course, most photographs on the web are set to a gamma of 2.2 and such will look too light on a Mac set to a gamma of 1.8. On a Mac you can change the gamma by checking the settings in the monitor display preferences. You should also have your monitor calibrated using an instrument. Since you are shooting mini dv, the best way to judge is to connect the firewire cable to the camera and connect the camera to a broadcast monitor, or at least a tv. #5. When I'm shooting, I like most to set my exposure by consulting a professional monitor and a waveform set to display RGB separately. When I'm on the run, and that is impossible, I set my zebra to 100% knowing that I have a little headroom above 100% before white out clipping (109%) The challenge with the XL2 is that the little viewfinder is a poor way to judge the brightness of the mid-tones. Try to use a real crt monitor to judge the overall exposure. Keep in mind that there will be times when you'll want to have some clipping in the image in order to expose the overall image to the best effect. I'm thinking of glints off of cars, practical lights in the frame, bright exterior windows, sometimes backlight on people. Also keep in mind that clipping a white curtain or wall does not look nearly as "electronic" as clipping a colored wall or worse, a face. Hope this helps a little.... -bruce

Hi Chad, In response to your "poll", I own both a chroma du monde and a backfocus target. Yes, they are quite expensive. That said, the chroma du monde chart is a tremendous learning tool, and for me, the only way to see what I'm doing while adjusting the color matrix/color correction/gamma/ped/gain settings to set up a look for a shoot. The really bad news, is that in addition to the chart, you'll need a waveform/vectorscope which costs about 10 times what the chart costs. If you're working with a camera that has firewire out then you might be able to get a software waveform/vectorscope that will work on your laptop. Final Cut Pro may be able to do this as well. I have tried downloading and printing backfocus charts, but no inkjet printer can reach the resolution necessary to do an accurate backfocus. I use the one with the concentric circles, though I don't know the name of it off hand. This chart works for me better than the "star" charts to pop the viewfinder detailing when performing the back focus. I would at least get the focus chart, if you want sharp images. It's much less expensive than the CduMonde chart (about $50). That said, many rental houses have the chroma du monde charts. If you're renting a camera, you could use the chart and their waveform to set up the camera before going out into the field. I will mention that I've spent hours examining the effect of the paint controls while looking at the chart and the waveform to get the look that I've wanted. Now that I've done it a bit, I don't need to spend too much time with it anymore, but it's the best learning tool. The chroma du monde seems pretty unique in that the colors are made to line up with the boxes on the vector scope and the in-between colors are equidistant from the primaries that line up in the boxes (if you want them lined up in the boxes). Also the grayscale is truly neutral and it's the only target I'll white balance on if I'm using the auto white balance. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. -bruce

Many years ago, I owned a set of Ziess super speeds T1.4's and had them at one of the major rental houses for an evaluation. For some reason I was concerned about the accuracy of the iris after a repair, and so we put the lenses up to be read for exposure accuracy. Much to my surprise, the lens tech informed me that there would be some variation in the exposure across the iris range. Though the lenses are marked in T-Stops, he said, the markings are only 100% accurate when the lens is wide open. Once one starts closing the iris, I was informed, the marks are made using math/geometry and not light measurement. He told me that the spec from Ziess was that each stop be accurate +? 1/3 stop. I checked the lens set, and well it was true: Exposure varied in accuracy as I closed the iris. This was true for every lens in the set. This has not been an issue shooting color negative film as there is enough latitude to cover up the iris variation from lens to lens. On an HD camera, (when not shooting a raw workflow) tiny changes in iris have a very noticeable effect on the image. I'm not sure one will be able to just set all cameras to the same stop in this situation, regardless of the T vs. F markings because of the variation in the accuracy of the irises themselves. I thought this might add some perspective to the f vs. T stop discusssion. If there is a real lens expert out there who would like to comment or correct me here, please step forward. -bruce

I would first have a discussion with the 1st ac to learn the routine that he/she would like to use. Short of that is: 1. Know where everything is! And what it does. Go to the camera prep, whether you are paid for it or not. 2. Always have spare batteries, tapes, most used filters, lenses, slate, and a focus chart close to the camera. Take charge of battery recharging and make sure that the chargers are plugged into a reliable power source that won't be disconnected without your knowing it. 3. Keep your ears alert to rehearsals and always be prepared to mark actors when needed. Have the marks prepared, on your person ready to go. 4. If you're in charge of the dreaded video village, plan in advance how to cart, power, shade, and cable to the "village". 5. Discuss with the 1st ac and the DP about what information they might want kept in a camera report or log. Make sure all tapes are labeled and stored correctly. That's about it off the top of my head...From my experience, 2nd ac's are kept really busy on HD shoots! Have fun! -bruce

Adam, It looks great. I really can't make any suggestions for improvements. I'm sure if there is a way to improve it, you'll find it yourself as you seem to have a fine "eye". -bruce

Nick, Mr. Lartigue did use a focal plane shutter. In fact to find the photo, I googled "focal plane shutter". There is an interesting article about this effect made famous by Mr. Lartigue at: http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10531/ . On my leaf shutter still cameras, the motion distortion is more like a checker board pattern than a shape change. The author states that digital cameras expose the pixel sites consecutively and create their own kind of distortion which he links to some examples of. While I don't know how accurate that claim would be for all digital cameras, it would be interesting to know how a mechanical focal plane shutter (Canon 1Ds, Arri D20) interact with the CCD/CMOS exposure. -bruce

Hi Nick, I picked the Lartigue photograph because it is always used as an example of the effect of focal plane shutter exposing movement and the associated distortion that results. Spinning shutter motion picture cameras have a similar shutter and can create the "bendys" as things move across the frame. Please accept my apologies to the heirs of Mr. Lartigue as I naively thought that his photograph was so famous as to not need a credit :unsure: While we're on this subject, I've often heard people remark that the motion of electronic motion picture cameras seems odd to them, even when shot at 24p. Perhaps we have grown so accustomed to the "look" of the spinning shutter from movies that images from digital shutters are perceived a little differently. And, please excuse my ignorance: Do electronic imagers expose every pixel simultaneously, or do they scan from top to bottom (or side to side)? -bruce

Ok Alex, I'll bite.... It looks quite nice actually! My only suggestion is regarding your website design. Please place the quicktime window against a darker color than white as all that white on the screen makes it hard to see the movie for me. -bruce

Phil, I think that film cameras have had this "bendy" issue for a while...see attachment :rolleyes: -bruce

Alejandro, You are correct...and you are missing something ;) For the best illustration of what happens when you apply the gamma control, open the curves adjustment in Photoshop (if you have it) on an image and 'tug' the curve from the middle, up and down, and see what happens to the image. A few things though... 1. when you lower the gamma value in the camera menu, you will be brightening and lowering the contrast of the image for the values between 50% and 100% white. That is because 50% will get the most change and 100% will get no change. 2. when you lower the gamma value in the camera menu, you will be brightening and increasing the contrast of the image for the values between 50% and 0% white. (0%=black) 3. The exact opposite happens when you raise the gamma value in the camera menu. Think about this: If you have a medium looking red color with RGB=100-50-50 and raise the gamma to "darken" the picture, the same pixel will have a value of perhaps RGB=100-20-20. A much more saturated red. Of course if in the very same image you have a pixel of a rather dark red of RGB=50-0-0 it will change to RGB=20-0-0, a darker and less saturated red! So the same gamma adjustment both increases and decreases saturation at the same time! It also increases and decreases contrast at the same time. Hope this is clear :huh: , -bruce

Oliver, If you can capture only the flagged frames I would believe you can shoot high speed at any frame rate you'd like (up to 60fps). The only consideration would be using an HMI safe shutter speed for non-flickerfree HMI lights. Shooting 23.98 is certainly the easiest frame rate for editing at this point, I think, and can be converted easily to 25fps (at least in FCP). Lastly, I was looking for your web site to see the admired still photography, but couldn't find a link. Could you please post it here? -bruce

Skip the pro-35 adapter? You'll gain 2 stops of light, and you'll be able to dress and paint the set with the money you saved from the 35mm lens rentals and the generator. :rolleyes: -bruce

A few tips from a Varicam owner: In factory settings detail is set to zero I believe, which is a significant amount of detail. Detail can be turned off in the menu, or dialed down. If you adjust no details settings except the master, then minus 6 is just about the same as detail off. On my last project, I liked -2 detail on my film out test, but on the set I saw some "outlining" on people against bright walls and sky and reduced the detail to -4. I do not often use diffusion filters on this camera because it has little enough resolution as it is (compared to 35mm film). Black Promist and such filters raise or fog the shadows about 10% or more. If this is corrected out in post then the image gains harshness instead of softening the look. About the Panasonic 17" monitor, it can look quite good. There is a backlight menu item which can turn down the luminance of the monitor which is most important in dark viewing environments. I have learned in the past when shooting on night exteriors or dark interiors, that the monitor often looks bright in the darkness and it's easy to underexpose by judging the monitor only. This is true with a CRT or an LCD monitor. Use the waveform on the panasonic to see how bright the image really is. If the brightest part of the image is 5% you are in deep deep trouble. I sometimes light a piece of foam-core behind the monitor to keep my "balance" if you will. On the LCD it will keep the impression of black and help you feel the relative darkness of the image. Also, the factory settings on the Varicam have the knee point at 60% and the knee slope set to 500%. It's a pretty strange look if you ask me :blink: What this means is that you'll have "normal" contrast from black (0%) to light grey (60%) brightness. Anything brighter than 60% will be low contrast. This will help you see into the highlights, but I think it looks kind of strange. I think you might want to change this knee setting. If all this is too complicated, then you might want to invest in a qualified DIT or engineer to at least set up the camera at the prep. As these type of cameras go, the menu is easier than say, a Sony, but it's still quite complicated and it will be very easy to screw up the shoot if you make a mistake. The ideal thing would be to learn as much as you can about your equipment before you start a project. If you're really new to digital photography (or anyone else), I might suggest learning photoshop before learning the ins and outs of digital cinema cameras. Once you know photoshop, the camera will make a lot more sense in my opinion. best of luck with your project and let us know how it worked out -bruce

David, thanks for the great reply! Would I be happy if I never shot 35mm and had to shoot everything on a Varicam? Yes, if that meant I always had a job :D But seriously, shooting with an 8 bit camera where you have to nail the exposure and lock in the look on the set is not really how I like to work. I'd much rather shoot in 4K with a raw workflow and view the image via look-up tables on the set. I really like the way digitial images can look when they are of high quality. Given the choice between shooting a picture on 35mm film and the Varicam, I would choose the film usually. 16mm film, and I would think about it and weigh each alternative. I guess my original point was that the Varicam is a great tool and that the quality of the image possible on the big screen is not very different than many release prints. And that this has much to do with the poor quality of the release prints. Of course an HD feature that goes through all the optical generations will look even worse at the theater. I saw Zodiak last week and I thought the film print lacked resolution and looked like mud for most of the picture. I did like the movie though :) Shooting 8 bit HD with a Varicam or a Sony f-900 is a good choice for projects with a small chance of theatrical release and limited budgets. The images from these cameras will play very well when distributed in HD and hold up well enough that a theatrical distribution is possible. I think the Varicam in particular is a good choice for truly independent projects because of the DVCPROhd postproduction workflow. I do really miss the days when the major 35mm films were released on 70mm prints (at least at a few cinemas) I remember watching "The Right Stuff" in 70mm and being overwhelmed by the quality of the print and the photography. I think this process ended when they found a way to play the surround sound from a 35mm print, and it's really a shame. If we want to get people to pay $10 and up at the cinema, we should be offering a visual experience that was available more than 20 years ago. I saw "Fame" when first released in 70mm at the Zigfeld theatre in NYC. It just looked awesome on the very giant screen with the surround sound and the music....That experience might be why I'm not an economist today :blink: -bruce

Just for the record, I agree with just about everything that David Mullen has said about these issues, and he has said it well. However, since this is the Varicam forum and I own a Varicam.... Last month I shot a test of the Varicam and had Efilm make a 35mm anamorphic print from an f-900r and a Varicam. Both cameras made beautiful prints and were very hard to tell apart. But neither print had the detail of a 35mm film original print, especially, a 35mm anamorphic orginal. That said, the test print, in my opinion, had as much detail as many of the release prints I've seen at the local multiplex. The reason, I believe, is that the release prints have gone through multiple optical print/negative generations and the beautiful 35mm detail that we love at the dailies, answer prints, and studio screening prints is lost through the generations. If one can make release prints from multiple film out original negatives from HD originals, than the HD original has a fighting chance in a showdown at the multiplex. Regarding shooting in 60p, I'd love to shoot and release in that format. I kind of like the look (with a shutter speed longer than 1/120 sec though). But it's not practical because 60p does not convert well to 50i or 25p for non-US distribution. And come to think of it, 60p converted to 60i would have all the interlace movement artifacts that could have been avoided by shooting at 30p and converting to 60i. Not to mention, that it's just too much data for internet distribution where 24p would be more practical. I thought Showscan looked awesome, except for the unatural lack of motion blur when each frame was shot at 1/120 sec...When someone waved their arm, it looked like watching 5 freeze frames or the arm at once. -bruce

Adam, From your crew list, it looks like you won't be doing any lighting. In that case, I think you should have no problem shooting the script in 4 weeks. Yet, it may look very "documentary" in style, for lack of a better description. The 35mm lens adapter will be a real obstacle though as you will be required to work at miniscule depth of field, which will require expert focus pulling, probably beyond the ability of a 1st ac / PA. Also the adapter will use up two stops of light, requiring that you shoot all day exteriors. I would strongly suggest that you test the 35mm adapter in advance in the type of lighting conditions that you'll be using, along with a very good HD monitor to see if you can keep the moving actors in focus and have enough exposure for the camera. Personally, I would skip the expense of the 35mm adapter and lenses and get at least a few lights and reflectors and a lighting crew person, otherwise, what there is is what you'll get lighting wise, good or not so good... -bruce

As the cinematographer of additional scenes - the "hunting for sasquatch" sequences (shot after the principal photography was edited) perhaps I can answer your questions... The film was telecined from the original camera negative to a digitbeta master tape at low contrast. After editing, the low contrast master tapes went through additional color correction to what you see on the dvd. While at the post house for color correcting, I did not see anything unusual in the look or grain of the images. I will say this though: Release prints, in general, at the theatre may be many generations removed from the original negative and pick up contrast, grain, and resolution loss. Ironically, the video scan of the negative may be closer to the original look of the image. Also, the electronic color correcting of the film allows manipulation of the contrast and gamma curves of the film that cannot be done in optical film printing (unless a digital intermediate is made). This can give a different look than a direct optical print of the film. And yes, for this film a print was never struck. The 35mm film went to lab for development and then to video transfer. My guess is that the original negative reels are stored in a vault somewhere in Hollywood. The brief theatrical release was projected on ....standard definition video. There is a brief clip on my website for the curious -- www.brucealangreene.com -bruce

Press the jog dial and the frame rate should blink in the viewfinder. While it's blinking, adjust the syncro buttons. Don't forget to change it back when you're done! You can also do this in the menu BTW. -bruce