Gabe Spangler

I've had moire show up on clothing that has a visible knit pattern, not even tweed, corduroy or intricate stripes or patterns, just a knit pattern. It's the fine detail that does it. I've had moire show up on blades of grass. You did a test and the moire showed up. The best thing to do would have been to approve the article of clothing days in advance. The second best thing to do after confirming the moire in monitor would have been to have the guy change into something else, even if it meant a trip home or whatever. I'm gonna go ahead and say NEVER defocus your shots to account for moire or aliasing; you'll always end up with useless footage or footage only useable on the Net at a very small resolution. These cameras don't have the resolution to do that. Even in focus, they lack the sharpness of true 1920x1080 cameras and obviously don't come close to the detail of a 4K camera. The simple fact is, until Canon solves the moire and aliasing issue (if ever), these cameras have serious limitations that you must work around. For planned shoots, you must approve and test everything ahead of time. I think you learned your lesson there. The more light you have on something prone to aliasing, the more likely it is to show up, which is why intricate patterns in sunlight are murder. If you are having an issue with a shirt or whatever and you have no time to make changes, try reducing the amount of light hitting your problem area. Having a dark area is way better than having the dancing rainbows all over your footage.

Jim, no offense at all, but based on your post, it would really behoove you to stay away from camerawork and leave this to someone who has experience and is familiar with the technology. Becoming a good videographer involves experimenting with many different cameras and going through years of experimentation and making mistakes. It also involves a great deal of education, whether one is taught or self-taught. If you tried to just pick up a cheap HD "palmcorder" and do it yourself, I can guarantee the results will be terrible. This is not to discourage you, but the great pieces you see on YouTube of Vimeo were done by professionals who know their craft and have years of experience. You say writing is your craft. If you are any good at it, you will find the right technical people to make your words into images. I suggest aligning yourself with local filmmakers. Somewhere down the road you will find the right people to hook up with. But just being honest, if you go forward with what you are planning right now, you will fall flat on your face, realizing just how little you know about video and cameras. But to answer your question, there is a WORLD of difference between a $200 camera and a $3,000 camera. And even further, there is a WORLD of difference between a $3,000 camera and a $15,000 camera. A $200 camera is what I would give a 10-year-old to screw around with in the back yard. They are garbage. There really is no point going dissecting HD technology because (again, no offense) the technical stuff would most likely sail right over your head. Keep writing. The film industry needs more exceptional writers, not wannabe cinematographers or directors. Good luck either way.

Night and the City – 1950

I don't see any problem with using a Joker. These are excellent HMI fixtures with electronic ballasts, so you don't have to worry about flicker or anything like that. Camera motion affects rolling shutter more than anything, except for quick flashes of light, like a camera flash or a strobe light. Those you have to stay away from. But a Joker is a continuous light, so, again, you don't have to worry about it. Shoot away!

Fred, I have to agree with you. All things being equal (aperture, focal length), the larger the format the shallower your depth of field will be. I don't know how anyone can disagree. If you take a 35 mm sensor camera and a 1/3" sensor camera, put a 50 mm equivalent lens on each, set iris to f2 and focus on a human subject about 5 feet from the lens, you will see a huge difference in your depth of field, or appearance of depth of field. It's as simple as that. Scientific and mathematical mumbo jumbo aside, sensor size (or film size/format size) is a key piece of the depth of field puzzle, along with focal length and aperture. Am I right in saying that smaller format has a smaller circle of confusion diameter, therefore more of the image is likely to be in "acceptable focus"? And with larger format, the circle of confusion diameter is larger, therefore out of focus areas will look really out of focus, giving us the pleasing out-of-focus bokeh that we all know and love? If I'm wrong ... oh well. I don't care about the technical stuff anyhow, just how to use it.

This is what sucks about indie filmmaking nowadays. Writers, directors and producers think you can make movies for nothing because of advancements in camera technology. There are a slew of companies running around thinking they can make a $5,000 movie for $5. Yeah ... not gonna happen. You still need good actors, good production design, good writing, good wardrobe, good lighting, good editing, etc, etc, etc.... I'd turn it down if I were you. If they were paying, I'd say go help them make their pile of garbage with a fake grin on the whole way. But for free? Hell no. We need to all band together and teach these foolish people a lesson. Don't work for free unless it's really worthwhile. And don't knowingly work on a terrible project. Let's establish a little artistic and professional integrity here.

I just ran into this problem when shooting a feature. I walked into the house where the entire film was to be shot, and almost every wall and cabinet in the place was white! I cringed and died a little inside. Get your actors out from the wall. Put as much decoration on the walls as possible, to break them up. Pictures, nick knacks, etc.... Accent light in flat areas and strategically placed practicals will also help. Think about using a little more color in your light, too. Pure, white light on white walls will make it worse. Control your spill, too. Flag your key light so it doesn't hit a bare wall and draw attention to it. You can also white balance a little warmer or cooler, in effect making the walls a little orange or blue, instead of boring white. But this is also dependent on the story. Don't do anything that doesn't fit the narrative. But the main thing is no blank walls. Blank, white walls are the worst.

I'd say you'll probably be fine with a couple of 1.2K HMI's. The thing with a bunch of 5K's or 10K's is, how're you going to power them? You'd need a genny. Plus, that much light seems to be overkill for a night scene. With that much light, it's going to look like daylight coming in those windows. Is this some gigantic room or something, with twenty-foot windows? If you want it to look like soft moonlight, move the lights back and use some sort of diffusion, like a big silk frame or something similar, otherwise it won't look like moonlight - it will just look like bluish exterior street lights, not the moon. Just my opinion.

My first camera was a Panasonic AG-DVC30. Hated it. I could never get that camera to look the way I wanted. Standard definition. Pffft... Second camera was a Canon XH A1. Damn good camera. For on-the-fly documentary stuff, I would say that a camera with this general form factor is ideal. Third camera (recently purchased) Canon EOS 7D with Zeiss glass, rails, follow focus, matte box and 7" Ikan monitor. For narrative filmmaking, this is the way to go. But, if I had to do what you do, no way. Handheld is way more difficult (shots are very shaky unless you have a lens with good image stabilization). Pulling focus without a competent AC is damn near impossible, unless you design your shots to be simple, which is limiting. Battery life also sucks. You only get about an hour, enough to fill up a 16 GB memory card. I've worked with the Sony EX1. In my opinion, it's the best under $10,000 camcorder (emphasis on the "camcorder") that you can get. It has both servo and full manual lens options. It has 1/2" chips instead of 1/3" chips, and believe me, that makes a big difference for light sensitivity and cleaner image. The XDCAM codec is better than HDV (my humble opinion, and I think most will agree). You could easily go from shooting documentary and commercial stuff with the EX1 to shooting narrative films. It's very versatile that way. I bought a Canon 7D DSLR because I want the 35 mm depth of field. Small format depth of field looks atrocious to me. It looks like reality TV or a sitcom. Try making a small room look good with small format depth of field. It's much more difficult. You can only get shallow depth of field by opening the lens all the way (it then becomes less sharp) and zooming almost all the way or all the way. Then your depth of field might be an inch, or a half an inch. Try shooting a scene where your actor can't lean forward or backward at all. Whereas with a DSLR you can get that nice shallow depth of field and still have an area of about 3 feet that falls into "acceptable focus." There's a reason this has been the format of choice for a hundred years and still going strong. But for documentary or commercial work – no way. It's too finicky unless you have a nice crew helping you out. If you are operating alone, get the EX1R and don't look back. Just my two cents.