Mark Duckworth

It's the same for me. I work independently, so the place doesn't matter too much in that regard. My location criteria revolve more around being in close proximity to the mountains and that lifestyle. Toronto is a beautiful city, but it is too far away from the mountains for my taste.

Here are some PDFs about the productions in Vancouver, Toronto and the Montreal Film Commission site.

http://www.mediaroom.gov.bc.ca/Download.axd?objectId=402

http://www.toronto.ca/tfto/pdf/2006stats.pdf

http://www.montrealfilm.com/anglais/index.htm

Toronto has more overall production (TV mostly) but Vancouver does do more films and TV shows you may actually have heard of (in the states). I haven't been able to find the stats for Montreal recently but in 2002 the MFC lists direct spending at around 750 million CAD on productions. For 2006 Toronto reported $705 million CAD spent on production and Vancouver had 1.2 billion spent on production.

Cheers

I have a shot in which I'd like evrything to be black and white except for a basketball which ideally

would be moving but if necessary could be done with the ball stationary and camera stationary too.

 

I edit with Final Cut Pro studio. Does anybody know how to do this? Thanks.

I not really familiar with FCP. The last time I used it was in the mid nineties so I cant give you step by step instructions but most NLEs nowadays have the same basic feature set.

You can use a secondary colour corrector to isolate the basketball's colour (orange I am guessing). This will pick out everything in that hue of colour from your shot. Then you can simply desaturate the the rest of the colours in the shot. Keep in mind that any colours which are near the colour you are isolating (perhaps skin tones) will either become B&W or go a little funky. Then you will have to do some more color correcting to bring those colours back. Keep in mind there maybe some spill from the ball (like from a green or bluescreen) that may be on your subjects as well when they are close to the ball so you may have to mask or roto to get rid of it. Good Luck.

For a half hour talk show that's just adding names and transitions- figure 2 to 4 hours, 40 bucks and hour if editing digitally on PC. HD (NOT HDV, true HD) would be more.

What exactly is true HD?

The HVX200 shoots in DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO, and DV. It does not shoot in the HDV codec. Cinematography.com really isn't the place to be discussing video cameras in this range because most of the advice will be telling you to shoot film. As I said before you are better going of going to websites like dvinfo.net and dv.com, as well as the manufacturers websites like http://panasonic.biz/sav/p2/ to get some info on the cameras. Good Luck

All the HDV cameras can shoot SD as well. You can decide to shoot HD and then have it downrezzed to SD on capture or you can choose to shoot SD from the beginning. The HVX can record to multiple resolutions and frame rates. You can choose which one you want all the way from 480i to 1080p. I would suggest you check out places like dv.com and dvinfo.net . I personally wouldn't buy a SD cam now that affordable HD cams are available that can also shoot SD. You could buy a DVX100 and get a good SD cam or you could buy the HVX200 and get SD and HD for the future if you can only shoot SD now. Do some more research

at those sites and make an informed decision. Good luck.

The best all in one NLE for audio is Sony Vegas. I would recommend downloading the trial versions of the programs you are looking at and giving each of them a whirl before you decide on one. Vegas is a little bit different than PPro or Avid in that it is coming from a computer and sound editing background (instead of from the film editing world like Avid) so it is configured a little different than those two ie, it calls files files instead of bins and things like that. As you are working in SD I would also recommend checking out www.dvinfo.net. It has many forums on many NLE's and lots of information. Good luck with your production.

Stick to your computer Mark, location filmmaking isn't for you. Guess what dealing with rain, and the other elements is a part of location work whether you have 20,000 extras or three, your point is moot.

 

Leafs? Leaves? Doesn't matter, they are losers who have not won the cup in 450 years.

 

R,

My point wasn't about the rain it was about the fact that you had all of these unbelievable fortunes come into play in order to shoot your scene and you had to do it all over again because of matters out of your (although it seems limitless from what you have written) control. Your method of "friends" filmaking in this particular instance are neither repeatable or controllable (two things I believe are important in filmaking) and would make me very wary to be an investor in your project when I was told about your method of aquiring this money shot in the pitch phase. I would give you the same amount of money you pay your extras.

As for Leafs or Leaves, if it didn't matter enough to mention the spelling in the first place then why mention it at all. Unless it was supposed to be directed as a backhanded insult?

"It's all well and good to boast about how you could get 20,000 extras to show-up for your feature for free, but it might be easier to swallow if you actually did it first before you boasted about it. After shooting thirty features, small to medium in budget, I can tell you that getting large numbers of extras for scenes is always a challenge (and on a union shoot, the first thirty or so have to be paid and members of the Screen Extras Guild.)"

 

You haven't done it, so it can't be done....how many times have I heard that? (Good thing I've never paid any attention to that philosophy or I'd be in a homeless shelter instead of driving my Audi A6 and living in my 5,000 square foot home.)

 

Good thing David Lean never listened to any one tell him the big shots with hundreds of camels could not be done or Lawrence Of Arabia would have needed to wait until now to be made.

 

I'm not saying there are not logistical issues when one uses a large crowd, but these issues can be over come. Lots of people have done it, I see no reason to simply use CG just because it's available for crowd shots.

 

Screen Extras Guild be damed who are these useless idiots that sit around collecting dues from people that work and offering nothing in return? All the union actors I talk to go on and on about how the union makes their life very difficult, collecting dues, and giving them nothing in return. What a racket!!

 

As for my friend who suggests I see a Leafs game, FYI the plural of Leaf in Leaves, but I digress. Do you remember the Terry Fox Story from the 80s? They shot a scene in Nathan Phillips Square with thousands of extras where Terry addresses the crowd. This was a low budget movie and the people just turned up to be in the shot and the movie. No one got paid, no lunch was provided, guess what no riot broke out. It's amazing what can be done by people with vision.

 

R,

Of course any logistical problems can be overcome with two very important things, time and money. Both of which are usually in short supply on a film set of lower budget (and sometimes towards the end on large budget projects), but if you work for free and have no outside life it is not a problem :) . So if you take your idea of 20,000 extras, who you don't pay or feed, show up to your set at the exact time on the call sheet (let's say its a park, nothing to difficult like a town square or city street), arriving by public transportation in 30 buses (provided by the city at no charge) all shuttling back and forth for about 2 hours to get everyone there, everyone is already dressed appropriately for the scene (wearing modern clothes or the costume that they have hand sewn to the directors specifications), the extras who are going to be seen in the shot have the appropriate make-up touch-ups that your 5 friends who are make up artists do. You got your shooting permits from your buddy at city hall who greased them through on the sly for no fee. The hospital has sent an ambulance over for you to use and a couple of EMT's. The head constable at the police station has graciously arranged for all off-duty officers to assist in your security as part of some "crowd control training". Hydro One has sent out an electrician free of charge to help you tap into the power to light your scene (if its at night) or to make sure that everything is up to spec if you are tapping into the power for any reason. A couple of hours later all your free AD's and wranglers have got everyone in place for your shot. You put your principles in place and just as you are about to say action the skies open up and it starts raining. Well i guess you'll just have to call everyone back tomorrow.

And it is the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Ok well....judging by the number of people who offered to work on my last feature film for free, I actually do believe I could get 20,000 extras for a scene!! And quite cheaply as well.

 

There is a huge pool of people out there who would love to be an extra in a big crowd scene for a movie, just to be able to tell their friends, "I was in that movie." (The unions can stick their heads in a toilet, it's a free country, I can do as I please.)

 

I'm not sure there is any law that says I have to pay any one for a crowd scene? People are allowed to give their labour away for free if they so choose, there's no law against it. If I'm shooting an outdoor crowd scene, and 20,000 extras show up, well then I've got my shot.

 

I was just watching Spielberg's "Empire Of The Sun", they have some pretty big crowd scenes in the opening of that movie when the Japanese invade China. From seeing the behind the scenes footage it appears they where all extras and they handed out packets of period costumes to every one to boot! If they used any CG crowds for that scene then I guess I'm eating some crow, but it didn't appear that they did. I was reading an article about this by the DOP, he says that one big shot was "modified" but he didn't give any more details than that.

 

Granted there are limits to what one can do in camera. I was watching "Reign Of Fire" last night and in the final scene where they battle the dragon the CG dragon was very good indeed. I doubt a minature or puppet would have been any where near as good.

 

However, the fire, still looked fake :)

 

R,

Wow, if you can get 20,000 thousand people to show up for a film, give them no monetary compensation or even give them a sandwich or drink for lunch, then you must have a messiah like personality. You should run for PM. However, The difference between STEVEN SPIELBERG on a HOLLYWOOD feature with a Hollywood support system in place having 20,000 extras showing up and being a smaller production with a budget of say 1-2 million is huge. How are you going to control that crowd? Do you have places set up for people to change into their costumes? What about bathrooms? Permits? Medical services? Go see a Leafs game, look in the stands at the 20,000 people there and honestly ask yourself the question of if you can control that crowd by yourself who, by your account, have no attachment to the production other than being your friend. But I guess you will have your multitude of AD's, PA's, costumers, make-up artists, wranglers to help you organize them. All unpaid, of course, doing it for the love of film and paying for their own lunch. Now that truly would be a special effect.

It is very interesting to read this thread and see all the vitriol being sprayed at VFX artists and people who work in the "Digital" side of that world. The lack of respect shown towards those people with comments like "cut and paste" is appalling. To belittle any trained professionals job as being so simplistic is unbelievably insulting (ie. He's the gaffer, he just hangs the lights). As Mr.Mullen has so elequently put talking about the "Digital" effects side that it is another tool to use to help out and in some films it is just as an integral part of the storytelling process as "hanging the lights" or figuring out which ones to turn on ;) . I made a short film a little while ago, a scene took place in San Francisco International. I live in Japan. I was not going to San Francisco. I hung a green screen, lit it , lit the talent, shot, and composited it in post on the computer using off the shelf software. It was simple, neat and helped tell the story I wanted to tell. The three criteria I go by for a shot are looks, cost, and time. If it looks good, is cheap, and quick I don't care if its a Maya model, a paper mache model, or a potato on a string. Filmmakers almost always in my experience try to balance those three criteria of looks, cost and time. Using Mr.Boddington's example of 20,000 extras. To pay 20,000 of them for 1 hour would be about $140,000 at $7 an hour at the current wage for extras in Ontario (they were trying to form a union last I heard so maybe it is more now). Filming big crowds scenes is (i have heard and read about) not a quick process. Quite possibly Mr. Boddington has 20,000 friends who will take the day off work to show up for his filming, I don't really know. But I do know I can film 20 people, use off the shelf software and create a crowd of 20,000 for my films if I decided that the story needed it. But for example say I decided that maybe a crowd of 20,000 looks a little overly large and ridiculous in the setting I am going for I now have the flexibilty to scale that back to only 10,000. However, If I hired 20,000 real people I have essentially thrown away 70,000 dollars per hour and extras which I ultimately didn't need. I realize that a lot of the time you do and film things that you may never use in the film but for things like the crowd example, it makes more sense from a　fiscal stand point to go with Digital or painted match sticks that you wave in front of the camera, which ever looks better ;) . Whatever works, Baby.

Yeah right. And after you finish your film you take the short ends and plant them in the ground and in the spring sprouts a brand new Kodak 5218 tree, that you harvest your film from. And after you shoot it you spray water on it and leave it out in the sun to develop. Film is a technical medium as well, and has , as the Kodak folks are quick to point out, over a hundred years of enginering and science behind it. Film is not dead but I really can't stand the "brought down from the mountain" mentality when someone speaks of film. Don't romaticise it as being anything but a medium to capture and present creativity and artistic expression, just like digital. It has never been and never will be about the brushes or paint, it is always about the artistic vision and presentation.

Did a qick check for their stock　on the Yodobashi website, they show:

Fujichrome ＲＴ２００Ｎ

Fujichrome Ｒ２５Ｎ

Hope this helps.

There is Yodobashi and BIC Camera in Shinjuku that you could go to. The last time I was there the had both fuji and kodak in Super 8 and 8mm. I know they 200t so you could check there. At Yodobashi the film was on the bottom floor of one of their buildings in with the still film in the back corner by the pay counter.

Well, I have done a lot of compositing using various programs like Shake, Combustion, Fusion. Usually if I light the greenscreen to what I think is close to perfection, being very very careful and shooting some tests beforehand, I still end up spending more time than I wish using the above mentioned programs to get it to look right ( ie, biggest greenscreen in the world in a mid shot, yet somehow one actors elbow manages to go off the screen). Granted I only do compositing using video and with a 4:2:2 colorspace. However, there are a few websites you can peruse to get a better idea of the challenges, VFXTalk.com is a good one. A general consensus from what I have read, listened, is that a good composite still takes time even with today's technology. I cant imagine what it was like to do before digital compositing, I find my patience now stretched to the limit with computers. Some good tips are shoot using the largest colorspace you can (4:4:4 is the best) try to keep the actors from wearing any colors which share similaries with the screen you are shooting on (Green or Blue) so you can cut down on painting and rotoing in post and light your screen first and then light your actors.

Editing native HDV is a very tricky proposition, it doesnt hold up very well to CC in its native form . I have a Pentium 3Ghz dual core machine and I am running Vegas. The best advice I can give is to use an intermediate codec for editing. The current standard is the Cineform intermediate codec, however I believe it is a PC only solution. Two sites to check out are cineform.com and redgiantsoftware.com for Magic Bullet which I highly recommend.

Same for me. Don't delete please.

What kind of camera are you using? The HDV Camera's dont really shoot at 24 frames a second but do a interpolation kind of like the panasonic 100a. I know using the Cineframe 24 mode on the sony cameras makes it more difficult to do slow-mo as the motion blur is not the same as film. Not knowing your camera I would recommend looking into Cineform, its a codec company that has an intermediate codec for capturing the m2t files that HDV uses. Its capture device as an automatic slow down button for lack of a better word but this slowdown happens during the capturing process. Hope this helps.

Aside from the Primary and Secondary Colour Correction tools Tim showed you. Vegas also has a Colour Curve Adjustment Tool, an HSL Adjustment Tool, Saturation Adjustment, Brightness and Contrast Adjustment, Color Balance Tool and an array of histograms and videoscopes you can use. A might have missed a couple as I dont have Vegas in front of me now. Having both used FCP and AVID, I find Vegas to be a much intuitive tool than AVID. Just be sure that your CC person is familiar with Vegas and you should have no problems at all.

Mark

This is from IGN.com. It's from an interview with with Eva Marie Saint. I wish I could be able to laugh off a mistake like this.

"Brandon Routh? We had this emotional scene? He has to come home after five years? He's been gone [and] we play this emotional scene the first time really working together. It went on for about an hour and then the cinematographer said, 'I'm sorry, I didn't get it.' They didn't get the film? Brandon said, 'Oh,' and I said, 'No, no, no. Just take a deep breath, just make believe you're doing Broadway [and] you're going to do the same right over again. That was a rehearsal. And so, we did the scene, but I remember Bryan Singer, the director, saying, 'Well, that cost us about $600,000 dollars, that hour?"

I guess they didn't see that the red light wasn't blinking. :D