John E Clark

My personal favorite Western, well... except for Sergio Leone's Man With No Name series, is "McCabe & Mrs Miller"(1971). The finale gun battle takes place outdoors in the snow.

Not quiet

INT. BARROOM/WHEREEVER - DAY

...

In a film script a SLUG LINE marks a scene. This is totally different from stage plays.

The 1/8 page = 1 vertical inch. Because Courier 12 is the standard, that means there are potentially 6 typed lines in 1 vertical inch. The writer may not have filled in those lines... but that does not matter for determining the 1/8 'line' location.

It would be easier to printout the script with the initial SLUG LINE at the start of a new page. The scene may have multiple pages, especially with dialog heavy scripts. This may be wasteful, but at least there's no question about the scene.

The 1 inch 1/8 page markers then begin just under the SLUG LINE, again regardless of whether there is typed material on that first line, and make lines every inch to the end of the scene.

I'd recommend getting a script writing tool like Fade-In, which is a commercial product, but it is only 79.95 at the moment. I receive no benefit by this recommendation...

I have used public domain tools, Celtx, etc. but for the price I think Fade-In is cheap enough but has sufficient capability to allow for one to get writing. It also has some export capability to export to say Final Draft, as well as some import capability (more recent FD formats.) if that is required at some point.

Fade-in will give the scene lengths in 1/8ths in the 'scene navigator window'. I'd have to check if there's a 'lined' printout option or not.

The more expensive tools may also have such features and more... but I'm cheap... well not that cheap... as one could type out the script, and use a ruler...

But these tools allow for easy reformatting of the script as editing proceeds.

This is your key to getting the video to play in different browsers. I forget which is which, but I seem to recall that Firefox isn't licensed for MP4 playback.

 

Whatever - the absolutely key reason you should upload to a video streaming service like Vimeo or YouTube is that every time a user of your website views a video the crazy amounts of bandwidth usage will accrue to the video streamer, not your webhosting account (I'm assuming you don't have one of the 'unlimited bandwidth' accounts, which are nearly always not worth the money).

 

PS. I'm a web/software developer of some 12 years standing.

Yes, Mpeg/MP4 has licensing/patent concerns, which has limited some support by those browsers which are 'open source'. So there may be a question of which codec, to which level, etc. Firefox, Chrome, Opera may support HTML5 and MP4 content, depending.

Here's the Mozilla blurb on the topic:

---

What happened to the old days when you could just upload a Quicktime movie (.mov) and everyone could view it? When did that go away, and why?

 

Best,

-Tim

Those days were fraught with even more problems. In order to play a MOV file... one had to have Quicktime lurking somewhere... and for Flash... obviously Flash player... etc.

Then there was the problem of compression, still is... but not trying to get a clip to play on a 14.4 Kb line...

Just a side note: There is not a universal code for embedding MP4 videos into a website. MP4 videos still require a player of some sort to play. When you upload to Youtube and embed into your site, you are not just embedding the video - you're embedding Youtube's HTML5 video player, which happens to also play MP4 files.

 

If you're not willing to use Youtube and/or Vimeo and embed the player, you'll need your own video player to host on your site. You can make these (overkill) or you can buy an HTML5 player from a marketplace. The problem with this method is that it's more complicated to setup, in that you need to upload files to your web server, and configure the player itself.

 

So much simpler to just embed a Youtube or Vimeo player. In all honesty, I'd say 99% of websites do this now anyway; the only sites that should be focusing on their own players are those who host a large multitude of videos that require features not available in an embeded player like Vimeo or Youtube.

HTML5 compatible browsers should have a HTML5 player as part of their support.

The browsers I use:

Safari

Firefox

Seamonkey

Chrome

As well as mobile devices:

iPhone

iPad

Android things...

All can play '<video>...</video>' media without any addon. There probably should be code to test to see if the browser supports HTML5. The mentioned formats are, MP4, WebM, and OGG. For others such as Flash, that's when one will need an additional 'player'.

For example:

Now, there are things about the Youtube 'player' which I do use, and have not figured out how to do for my stand alone needs, in particular what are called 'Nerd stats'... but otherwise my media plays on these devices... and in particular, even when the box or local segment of network is 200 miles from the nearest 'internet' connection.

I hate things Microsoft, so at the moment I've not bothered to test compatibility with my stuff and IE, nor 'Windows Surface' tablets, or whatever is the next big thing from Microsoft... Eventually I'll have to make sure Windows stuff... but life's too short to keep up with the vagaries of Microsoft.

Here's a brief discussion on HTML5 Video and some simple examples.

https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_video.asp

I've used a light meter for years, mostly a spotmeter. However, when I moved into making moving pictures many of the descriptions for lighting and proper exposure, were in terms of footcandles, I bought a 'cheap' Sekonic incident meter, L-308 DC, which had 'cine' features and footcandle readings.

For 'ratios' I use the spotmeter, for basic light levels I use the the Sekonic.

I believe the 758 has a 'spot' and 'incident/reflective' modes. And had I the bux, probably would have bought that.

Under 5K isnt going to get you much in the video world.. the OP is not a beginner and says he wants to move up to higher level work.. this isnt gong to be under 5K camera packages .. personally I think buying the gear pushes you to get that work..and makes eco sense.. tax deductible etc.. I could be wrong.. always a first time..

It does depend on the individual's assessment of their near term income... for an anticipated $100K USD income, I'd say go for $10K equipment... or about 10% of the anticipated income.

One can also go the 'rent/lease/own' analysis... and so if one is spending $20K USD/year on rental, again go for the $10K buy. Part of the issue with rent/lease/own is while the purchase may be 'cheaper', in general, one can rent the 'latest and greatest', and not be locked into last year's technology.

Also there's the idea that taking one choice in an investment, precludes using that money in a different, and perhaps more rewarding investment. Spending $10K on equipment, does satisfy one goal, but spending $10K a better store front address, could be more rewarding... but then could be a bust... that's the problem with investment and risk analysis.

So, that's my kind of reasoning for under $5K buy... at the very least one has a set of reasonable equipment while one is seeking employment in a paying field other than photography...

If you are shooting on B&W Film film... even though the result is monochome, the 'panchromatic' response of B&W is affected by the spectrum of light.

It may be 'ignoreable'... or cause problems with apparent contrast of 'color', whereas the B&W registers some different contrast.

In the past the Wratten 90 filter was recommended for viewing a scene, and estimating the resulting B&W film response. These days, perhaps shooting test film with a color chart, under the anticipated lighting, and then evaluating the color response would be a good idea.

In the case of Digital, unless you have a 'monochrome' sensor(which will still have some 'panchromatic' response), you are still shooting 'color', and only in the post processing phase converting it to monochrome. Digital sensors are more sensitive to red/infrared than B&W Film film, and so, a light that has more 'red' may impact the color balance, and resulting conversion to monochrome.

For me $5K USD is sort of the tipping point... under that amount, I'd say buy the camera package. Over that amount, one would have to have a real business income that could be counted on. That, or someone who is very very self confident they can beat the bushes for work to make the expenditure pay.

Even for the Wife's wedding business (stills...) we did not buy the top of the line Nikons, either in the olden days of Film film cameras, or the modern Digital world. We did spend on some lenses...

Of course she did buy a Hasselblad package when she was young, single, and fancy free... and we did up grade the basic 80mm lens + body over the years... but she did use them extensively for her wedding coverage, ranging from formals to candids. (I was the only one who ever used the 250mm lens... for those back of the church documentation shots... which no one ever looked at...)

For an idea of the sort of look I'm going for, here's a test sample:

 

And this is with the LUT I've built pushing the colour channels:

 

To me there's a bit of 'ringing' on the edges. Don't know if that is due to the 'push' or if in addition you are using some sort of edge enhancement filter...

In any case, I use the 'channel mixer' feature of Premiere to form my 'monochrome' out put. Film film B&W had a varying response to colors, and the channel mixer filter allows RGB to be 'weighted'. This is where you can also simulate the effect of a B&W filter. I tend not to put too much filtering in the capture. Perhaps the polarizing filter that David Mullen mentions, would be about it.

If I recall from one of the writeups on B&W from digital, perhaps it was the film "Ida"(2013), in any case, the use of a 'blue filter'(cut red...) was used to cut down 'reds' due to the inherent sensitivity of the digital sensor to reds.

 

I'm curious to see what the traditional broadcasters do. Looks like Netflix and Amazon are jumping on the 4K HDR train. It won't be good for the traditional broadcasters if Netflix can say, "we're cheaper, more convenient, and the only way to use the features on your fancy new TV.

Currently there is a transition from DVB-T to DVB-T2 in PAL countries, in the US and other NTSC countries it is ATSC-3.

These standards have the provision for 4K at some bit rate... but... at the same time there has been a movement around the world to 'repack' current over-the-air broadcast into fewer channels.

So, the net result I believe will be that one will have fewer RF channels, and more 'sub-channels' on a particular RF channel.

Currently the US has 6 MHz channels for TV, as well as other NTSC countries, DVB-T has a range of 6-8 MHz. So potentially PAL/DVB-T lands could have higher bit rates, depending, but again will probably be squeezed for more subchannels.

Over The Top (OTT) content delivery I think is the area that will see 4K if it becomes popular, and perhaps would be part of a 'premium' package.

The Irony is... For most people who are accessing OTT content, they are doing so with mobile devices for which 4K, 2K, 720 are almost over kill, unless they have attached their mobile device to a larger display (which is how the Clark Family views TV content... never had cable... but I digress...).

To get an idea of the bit rates of content, at least for Youtube... if you 'right' click or 'control-click'(for macs), in the content window, you will get a menu, one of the items is "Nerd Stats"... click on that and you will get some stats on bit rate, buffering, etc, and depending on the 'pipe' you will see that many clips will pay reasonably well at bit rates of 1-2 Mbps... again given a 'mobile' device is being used. And in some cases even an ordinary laptop display, in full screen mode, may be about 3-4 Mbps for an 'acceptable' presentation.

I've been trying to understand how different lights create different fall-off lately. I'm going to lay out what I understand here and hopefully some of you will read it and hammer me straight.

 

With soft light sources, I've always held the belief that the closer a subject is to a light source then the quicker the light cast on the subject will fall-off. This understanding aligns with the inverse-square law and usually seems to be well received by other technicians I talk to. My troubles start to arise when I start thinking about focused light sources and fall off.

 

For instance, deep, rounded bank-lights like the Briese seem to operate under a different set of laws than flattened light sources. Is this because they focus the light? I always thought it was silly when people put the diffusion over the front of these banks because then doesn't it just make it a big evenly lit light source that you could achieve at a much lower price? (ie: book lighting) Could someone explain how the quality of light and fall off differ in these modifiers?

 

also, Is fall-off a concept that is primarily discussed when talking about soft light? I don't see a lot of people talking about fall-off in relation to hard light. Is there something I'm not understanding?

 

Thanks for reading :) Hope you can help!

Fall off, and using the Inverse Square Law is in regard to 'point source' lights... The single light bulb, candle etc.

In the case of a 'soft light', I'm presuming that one is using some sort of 'screen/softbox' or the like, and as such, is not a 'point source'.

However, as one moves away from the screen/softbox, the source becomes a 'point source', and so the Inverse Square Law holds at that point and beyond. I believe the usual rule of thumb is Inverse Square Law holds for distances greater than 2x the diameter/diagonal of the screen/softbox.

So for something like a 20"x40" screen/softbox, the diagonal is 44", and so 2x would be about 88", or about 7'.

Calculating these sorts of things may give a general idea, and good for getting a rough idea of the lighting required for a shot, but in reality, measuring the actual setup is better...

I was totally underwhelmed with "La La Land" in regard to cinema... ok, everything... especially cinematography... I'm pretty sure the 'look' was what the direct and cinematographer wanted... but for me it was a big failure.

I felt the lighting was given a heavy 'noir' slant, for a story which had no noir element in the least. If there was supposed to be an homage to Cinemascope and "Rebel without a Cause"(1955)... the results were ugly.

On quick search I could only find this gif for the opening scene... where lighting is sort of the broad daylight...

There were many other occasions were for me, the lighting failed relative to 'content' vs 'style'. Perhaps it should have been a Murder Musical... I could have probably 'worked into' that sort of thing...

The Wife liked it, and we saw it a second time... and afterwards, she said... 'Perhaps we should have left it at one viewing'...

Stills would be glorious though! (thanks for the suggestion Gregg).

 

I'm particularly keen on dark, gritty looking ones. And ones that made good use of B&W contrast filters. Anything that looks like Tri-X would be mint.

If you are looking for grit, and B&W then I'd point you to say Val Lewton produced films, such as "Cat People"(1942)

You can also take a gander at Julius Dassin's pre exile works in the late forties, with "Naked City"(1948) and for his exile works, "Rififi"(1955).

My personal favorite being "Ποτέ την Κυριακή"(1960 aka "Never on a Sunday") (if ever I was going to be a youthful fan/groupie... it would have been for Melina Mercouri...)

Another gritty film would be "Psycho"(1960). Ok... maybe not as 'gritty' as some of the others...

But what's the deliverable for a 4K home TV? There's no consumer format that supports it as far as I know and streaming it over the net is going to compress it so much it'll look no better than 2K. What exactly are we going to watch on these tellys?

Both ATSC 3.0 (US and former NTSC countries) and DVB-T2 (The rest of the world...) standards support 4K/UHD, etc.

It is my guess that most over the air broadcasters will opt for packing more 'sub channels' in to the spectrum, rather than broadcasting a 4K/UHD single stream.

In the US there has been a squashing of TV broadcasters in to fewer 'channels', and 'repacking' multiple stations on a single transmission channel.

Then there's mobile...

 

As far as I know, film works a tad differently and the ISO of film is actually dependent on the grain structure of the emulsion (smaller silver halide vs. larger silver halide) and doesn't result in a dramatic change in dynamic range between the shadows/highlights of different film ISO's. However, "re-rating" the ISO of a stock (under/overexposing) will yield the same results.

 

Film film ISO is 'very different' from how Digital Film ISO is calculated. For Film film, a densitometer is used to determine an exposure to yield a .1 log reading above the film base + fog of the development process. The time for development was such that the resulting gamma was .5.

While I don't know what may have been required of cinematography students, for still photography students taking advance exposure classes, going through a 'zone system' procedure, using densitometers and various development processes, one was required to determine an effective 'ASA/ISO/Exposure Index'.

There are several specs for how to determine a Digital Film Exposure Index, or ISO rating... but the specs include has sort of 'vague' what looks good to the engineers in terms of picture quality.

I think ARRI engineers spent some time analyzing Film Film characteristics and developed/rated their camera's response so as to minimize transitioning from Film Film to Digital Film.

I use the terms 'Film Film' and 'Digital Film' to emphasize that the goal of the digital cameras, either stills or motion pictures, are to 'replace Film' and were not really designed to match analog video characteristics. Few Film Film photographers and cinematographers where all that familiar with vidicon tube responses, limitations, and the measuring equipment relative to 'video', and so, information and understanding of that class of equipment had to be acquired.

There has been some seepage of video terms into Digital Film, but not that much. One now speaks of Dynamic Range, rather than 'latitude', or one speaks of Signal to Noise, SNR, in terms of dB values, rather than 'film grain'(*), etc.

I have never quite understood precisely what it was about nitrate film that made the industry apparently so reluctant to give it up. Was it just price?

Or did physical characteristics such as flexibility come in? If there is any confusion between the possible quality of images and different film bases,

I suspect it arises from the amazing clarity of early films, which could show through even in their narrow-gauge reproductions.

This sharpness and depth of field went away (much earlier than nitrate did) and, again, I am not really clear why. How much of it was due to changes in cinematographic

practices? - this is something members would know about I guess. No doubt there are other factors, only hinted at in Simon Wyss' post.

 

The fear of nitrate does seem odd. After all, it was used for decades with relatively few fatalities - it would be interesting to have some

exact facts and figures and not have to fall back on an early French disaster for illustration. But going to the movies was not normally seen as a life-threatening practice,

From the wiki on Nitrate based film stocks...

---

The year 1978 was particularly devastating for film archives when both the United States National Archives and Records Administration and George Eastman House had their nitrate film vaults auto-ignite. Eastman House lost the original camera negatives for 329 films, while the National Archives lost 12.6 million feet of newsreel footage. Because cellulose nitrate contains oxygen, nitrate fires can be very difficult to extinguish. The US Navy has produced an instructional movie about the safe handling and usage of nitrate films which includes footage of a full reel of nitrate film burning underwater. The base is so flammable that intentionally igniting the film for test purposes is recommended in quantities no greater than one frame without extensive safety precautions.

---

3D was never going to take off. I think I have 1 3D DVD from 2005 and that is it. It was fun to watch Shrek in 3D but that is about it. Just not bothered

since.

 

4K HDR will kick off but wont fail though. Once people see it they really want it. But there is so little out there atm that support it in terms of TVs and content providers. Even then the content.

Unlike 3D, it is not a gimmick, it is evolution of home cinema and HD/UHD broadcasting.

 

Betting £5 on it.

Do we have to show up in the UK to get that (funny L symbol)5?

The one thing with 4K is that there are a large number of people who like the big screen, and that would support some 4K sales. Personally I've not upgraded my 720 'native' TV screen to even 1080(ip)... But then I don't position my viewing a football field's worth of distance away...

In terms of Broadcast... the real deal with implementing ATSC-3 or DVB-T2, which has higher resolution capabililty, is... more subchannels at reduced resolution...

In the US there has been a great amount of TV band channel 'repacking' which is to say, combining what use to be separate stations and transmitters into one transmitter, with the separate stations on a subchannel.

As for content providers shooting in 4K... could be sort of an ad gimmick or future-proofing, having been caught out on the NTSC/PAL resolutions of yore when the cutting edge went to 720/1080.

For my product, I watch a lot of content, purely for academic research purposes mind you... and one of the features of some HTML5 content is being able to see the bit rates that the media is being received, at. And often, even for 'HD' selection, the bit rate is below 5Mbs.

There have also been startling revelations from Netflix last year, that for content accessed via smart phones from providers like ATT, Netflix has adjusted the resolution/data rate to minimize going over the data caps that ATT has in place.

In a word, the industry uses for 4K suck people in, and then the reality is 'things are different'.

Most people don't spend time looking at performance much after they decide to get X service.

I don't work in the film industry, but have worked mostly in startups or small companies that did not have 'pension plans'... so my 'plan' is US Social Security and poverty.

As it is the company I've been working for, we have been developing a new radio, and that is our collective great white hope, and those ever popular stock options.

I think as early as 2013 there were rumblings that 3D home entertainment was not taking off... One wonders what is going to happen to all those 3-d BD disks that people bought...

Not the Oscars, but here's an article on some of the more noted Sundance submissions. Heavy on ARRI, and as one gets to more nolo budget films, one sees Canon CXX and X-Ds... hey and one listing for a DVX100...

In any case... the article.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/01/sundance-2017-cameras-arri-canon-red-sony-1201770071/

I'm a fan of the BMPCC, and others have more detailed answers, but for the price, it is I think the greatest buy around for the Nolo Budget filmmaker.

Specific items.

1) I have seen my work on a large theater screen and was not embarrassed relative to other contributors to the fest, who used a variety of cameras that one finds at this level, such as the ubiquitous Canon series.

2) Audio... double system sound is the way to go for filmmaking. The 'all in one' cameras are compromises based on the need to have package that is run and gun situations. Audio is 'good enough for nightly news' or 'corporate interviews' where one wants minimal setup times.

3) I agree that the battery is a 'unfortunate' element... but there is a AC power adapter, and I have used my 'portable batter/starter/airpump' to power the camera on location when shooting was over a long period of time. (Powered the lights as well...)

 

It's pretty obvious to me. Bricks, fabric, fences, even non-patterned stuff like concrete.

 

...

 

It's certainly the least compression at the lowest price, but there's too many things that annoy me about BM cameras in general. I got my start with 3-CCD cameras and film though, so perhaps I've been spoiled. Problems that didn't exist in pro/semi-pro cameras 20 years ago are commonplace now and most people don't seem to care.

I care, but my budget isn't such that I can, and still shoot something... anything...

I have seen my material on a theater size screen for a fest last year... and I was not embarrassed relative to the other contributors, who shot on a variety of cameras, especially the ever popular Canon series.

But then, I also don't shoot a lot of people in hound's tooth suits, or roof tops.

As for the olden days, there were a number of conditions put on 'video' to eliminate visual problems. From 'not using white white', not using wardrobe with potential moire patterns, and for Black and White back in the real olden days, using different colors than 'natural' to give better B&W presentation. My favorite was Superman, in color dressed in blue body suit with red trunks... for the TV show, the outfit was grey body suit with dingy brown trunks.

The point being every age has required compromise with what is available, and of course, if one has the budget, certain solutions are 'more available'.

Is not the DR of a scene simply from the brightest/highest reading to the darkest/lowest reading..

Yes, it is a ratio of 'high' to 'low', and that is unaffected by the f-stop setting on a lens. The sensor/film stock has its dynamic range and threshold of usable recording, aka 'the speed' of the sensor/film.

All is well if the sensor/film has a larger dynamic range than the scene in question. And the lowest light level is above the minimum threshold of the sensor/film.

Then there's the dynamic range of the display/output/print... which is typically much lower than ether the sensor/film recording DR, or the scene DR.

I participated in a shoot with the C100 a couple of years ago. I was impressed with the low light capability as we were shooting in a famous and vintage hotel with dark wood paneling, and because we were there 'gratis', we could use only very minimal lights.

On the other hand I'm also impressed with my BMPCC and I have seen the results projected on a theater screen for a fest, and I was not embarrassed when comparing with the other fest contributors, who used a variety of cameras including various versions of the Canon CXX series.

As for lenses I have a Panasonic Lumix 14-140 f/3.5 and a very old 16mm 25mm f/1.9 lens. One can find 'cheap' 16mm lenses, but under 25mm often the coverage vignettes. One can also rent... buy... Super 16mm cine lenses that have the correct coverage... but they are expensive.

The camera standard firmware does provide for a reasonable Pro Res 'lite' compression, or RAW. And so one could do more on the color work, or even 'save the day' with exposures that need work due to circumstances beyond one's control.