Brian Drysdale

Besides the fact that you can scan a possible 4k vs 2k scan. Wouldnt 4:2:2 be the more cost effective way to shoot in HD? It would take some really smart eyes to know the difference between the 2.

 

Would just like to know anyone else thoughts towards the HDCAM SR format.

You can shoot 4:2:2 on HDCAM SR as well as 4:4:4. The advantage with 4:4:4 comes you to do green screen and other effects in post production. The eye mightn't be able to spot the difference, but when working at the pixel level with 4:2:2 you've got one luminance pixel, because the chroma has been sub sampled, the colour is on two pixels, this makes it more difficult to avoid getting a line on fine details when compositing.

HDCAM SR is also 10 bit as against the 8 bit HDCAM which is more more 3:1:1 than 4:2:2, so HDCAM SR is a big improvement on the older format, especially for big screen productions. Although productions without post production effects may very well decide to shoot 4:2:2 on the newer format. It's more a matter of the working out the requirements on each production and cost is one of the factors, but if it's effects heavy 4:4:4 makes sense.

That is not necessarily true. Steadicam can easily be more complicated because there are no marks to hit etc, etc. Using it could be more complicated. Repeatability may be off each take. It depends on each individual shot.

This is absolutely true. Each shot needs to be looked at objectively for what is trying to be accomplished.

 

Best

 

Tim

Straight tracks shouldn't be a problem with the Steadicam, you can put down marks if required. The main problem outside tends to be wind, that came really upset things unless you have windshields.

The best tool for the job depends on the style of shots you want to shoot.

Hi all:

 

I am going to be filming lots of tracking movements over rough ground/paved road, 10m-20m tracking shots from side, and on the road and want to ask, do you think steadicam on a better than dolly tracks? What is cheaper and will give me more versatility?

Both could do the job, costs depend on the dolly or Steadicam model you want to use (the Steadicam model will depend on which format you're shooting on). The Steadicam may need a remote focus control fitted, which adds to your costs. How many shots are involved? Do you see the ground you've just moved across? What lenses do you want to use? Longer focal lengths require a more skilled Steadicam operator, but are less difficult for the camera mounted on a dolly using tracks.

However, the Steadicam should allow you to shoot a lot faster, with less setting up time between set ups.

Can anyone point me in the direction of anywhere in London I can pick up a camera assistant toolbelt/pouch at short notice? Prices?

 

Many thanks in advance!

Check out the Panastore Tel : 020 8839 7333 Fax : 020 8839 7303

The first car shoot I was on we also made our own bonnet mount from wood, It think it was made from two 4" x 2" and a 1" x 9" plank with holes drilled into for the various camera mounting positions, where we fitted an old Vinten tripod head. The mount was secured underneath the wheel arches by long 1/2" threaded stud bars. You could shake the whole car when you pulled the mount up and down.

We also had a tray type job for mounting on the car doors, it was also made from wood so that you could mount a Bolex. We also mounted a Arri 16 BL just inside the windscreen for front 3/4 CU shots of the driver. BTW It's not the best camera for filming inside cars.

thank you but what is a "bonnet car mount"?

polarizing the lens is definitly what i intended to do, is it what you wes refering to?

Sorry, in America hood or le capot in french. You can get a beam that goes across the front of the car that you can mount the camera onto. Once it's set up you can chance your camera position extremely quickly. http://www.egripment.com/en/ProductInfo.asp?ID=78

There are also suction camera mounts, but you'll also need to put safety straps.

Using a bonnet car mount a polarizing filter is a great help. I like setting it so you just get a small amount of reflection in the glass. However, the light does need to be in the right direction to get the best results and you need to keep an eye on camera shadows.

If you've got the budget you can rig battery powered HMIs, or even rig a small generator in a trailer (sound mightn't like that one) towed behind the car. People have also rigged a black tent out over the windscreen to flag out sky reflections.

Just be careful to ensure that the driver can see out, because they'll be both thinking about their performance and driving the car.

XDCAM, like BetaSX seems to be more of a highly compressed ENG format than anything else. It appears to be a very similar situation with the P2 gear thats out now, where the limitations and advantages of the gear is best suited to ENG work.

 

I honestly think XDCAM HD will only compete with HDCAM, in the same way that BetaSX competes with DigiBeta. Theyre different formats for different uses and ultimately will work side by side rather than in competion.

The XDCAM disk is a recording medium, in theory you could record DVPRO HD onto it. The data rate for HDCAM is 140 Mb/s, so you could record also HDCAM onto an XDCAM disk if required. Of course, the recording time wouldn't be that long - around 15 minutes I'd guess. However, you can see how Sony could develop a range of formats based on it rather like how the old Betamax cassette has ended up with HDCAM.

Unfortunately, Thomson don't have the marketing power of Sony. The XDCAM disks with a writing speed of up to 144 Mb/s have a lot of potential for formats with higher data rates. However, I suspect Sony are holding off at the moment to avoid causing problems with the HDCAM sector of the market.

It looks interesting, those productions that have been shooting on DVCAM with DRS 570s etc will be very interested. I believe that there's a 2/3" CCD version coming out as well.

There have been quite a few low budget features that have been shooting on 2/3" CCD cameras using DVCAM and XDCAM HD should meet their needs.

That light box looks rather limiting. I'd make my own curved backdrop cove using white showcard if it's small object or background paper. You can get backgrounds made from white perspex - you can shine the lights through it (just don't put the lights too close).

With a more open layout you'll have space to place the light(s) where you want them and also put in reflectors and/or negative fill to suit your subject. You'll also have a wider range of camera positions.

You can get a smoke machine that creates a low lying fog effect.

On a recent film we had a one that is used in clubs - it uses a special fog fluid and has an ice compartment. The fog effect lasted a reasonable length of time, about the same as the normal smoke. You should be able to get one in places that supply clubs and DJ kit.

We also had a mist machine for a haze effect.

Sorry, you're right about the Cin Log 709.

I've got the curves on a Memory Stick, I've been meaning to use one of them on a production.

I work both HD resolutions (720, 1080) and my question is can I view the material somehow in my SD monitor?

You need a down-converter, you'd need to check to see if the camera you're using has one fitted. Also. you can get your rushes HD down-converted to a SD format.

Hi;

 

All valid points but I'd say there is ALOT of value in experimenting with the Bolex and what it can achieve too. I think you will learn more about the material of film itself and it's physics by playing directly with the film image than leaping into the world of narrative fiction and dealing with scripts and actors.

 

Olly

You should get some film and just shoot test material. Don't start shooting a "serious" film until you feel comfortable with the camera, try out the variable speed, change the shutter etc. You'll make mistakes, have edge fogging, wrong exposure and various other problems, but it's better to get these out of your system before you start filming some thing you feel is important.

Once you see what the camera can do, ideas will come to you. The Bolex can do a wide range of in camera effects, but you need to be in control of the camera and plan how you want to use it. The film stock that you use will be another factor that comes into the equation, you should test that as well.

Hi Scott,

 

Check out this link:

 

http://www.digitalpraxis.net/dpsonycurves.html

 

Good Luck,

 

Rich

NY/Boston DP

These curves are intended for grading in post rather than creating a look inside the camera itself as is the case with the SDX 900 set ups.

Try here: http://jkor.com/peter/F900paint.html

This give a good basic look that works extremely well. Unfortunately, it won't give you the range found in the Panasonic site. However, the site does go through the paint menus on the F900 in some detail.

Having a good script well acted and well crafted on screen will make your film stand out. The camera is just a tool.

I know a few people in design and set construction who work in film, TV and theatre. There are also some electricians started out in theatre. The main difference is the faster changes and re-rigging, a big setup might only be up for a matter of hours. They'll have to learn the different techniques, so there'll be some training required and building up of experience. Some make up artists do both as well.

Also, quite a few directors & producers started out in theatre.

The old Aaton LTRs can be modified.

As has been mentioned, you need to lock the elevator off using keys. I shot in one last year and it wouldn't have been possible unless it had been immobilised. However, we also used the key so that the actors could close the doors on cue.

This was a small elevator and with nowhere to put a light. I was planning to use Dedo lights either side of the doors, but these weren't any available on the day of the shoot. In end, we just used a Kinoflo above the camera which was more or less facing straight into the elevator. Unfortunately the practical elevator lights weren't strong enough to make as much impact in the actor's hair has I'd have liked, but it worked.

I haven't had this effect for some time. It used to happen with the old broad type quarz lights, where the barndoors were extremely close to the lamp and the heat couldn't get out.

If you've painted the barndoors yourself, chances are the paint isn't heat resistant.

Try using flags to get the same effect, you'll also get a harder edge without getting the smoke effects from the paint.

I shoot I have planned which involves someone sitting on a bus at night - pretty simple.

 

However bus lighting is fluroscent, and the lights outside will be tungsten. I was thinking of using a kino miniflo for some fill. But what about film stocks, gels ect for the varying colour temps??

 

Many Thanks

You could add + green gel to your tungsten & kinoflo lights (use the tungsten tubes) and put a magenta CC filter on the camera. You'll need a colour temperature meter to work out the strength of the + green & CC filters required. You may also need either 1/4 or 1/2 CTB on the film lights to match the colour temperature. You can get specialised correction filters if you know the type of fluorescent fitted in the bus. US tubes are different to tubes in other parts of the world.

An alternative is to put filters on the bus fluorescent lights to match the tungsten, but I think you'll lose a lot of light.

I'd shoot with tungsten stock (how fast will depend on how bright your bus is - remembering the transmission factor of the CC filter) and then grade out the effect of the 1/4 or 1/2 CTB when printing - you'll be losing light using the CC filter.

I have a two shoot, mostly internal bedroom and kitchen scenes. I fear my trusty blimped BL2 will be a tad to noisy in close, one of the rooms is quite small. Looking at renting a kit. Really just wanted some feedback on the two cameras of choice, Aaton 35lll or Arri BL4. (A BL Evolution is also on the table)

 

The Arri seems pretty straight forward, but the Aaton is a good size, and had nothing but great shoots with the XTR Prod, although the 35lll's mag loading seems more effort. Noise is the main factor though, well that and weight as will be using a small dolly and gib set up. Running through both cameras at the rental house. But again just want a bit of feedback, general pointers, thoughts? Thanks in advance.

 

BTW: The dialogue sequences in Lost In Translation, where shot with the Aaton .. yes?

 

ps: T1.3 Zeiss super Speeds the difference between MKll and lll? .... Mr Low budget here, only really use Cooke Panchros and Zeiss Standards

The Aaton 35III is noisier than the Arri BL4. I believe the Aaton is about 31dbA (not sure if this figure is with a barney fitted, it used to be), although 3 perf is quieter at around 24 to 25 dbA.

It's pretty hard to control even within a scene, but nobody shoots cross-processed reversal for consistency anyway, but for whacky color accidents.

 

You can simulate it digitally with color neg, perhaps pushed for more contrast, but it won't be quite the same. You can also just develop the color reversal normally and then pump it up further digitally.

I cross processed some 7240 a few years ago. The look in the video rushes was very different to that on the final 35mm blow up about 6 months later. I learnt later that cross processed reversal is pretty unstable. However, it didn't matter so far as the story was concerned, it worked out since it was supposed to be a nasty flashback.

You should go with what ever formats and workflow your post production people can handle. It's very easy to come up with a system that introduces problems down the line.

I was reading an Article in "Showreel" that was about transferring 24p HDV from the JVC to 35mm and they had real problems getting it to work even in a high end production house because it's still early days for HDV (especially 24p). So, you really need to work all this out in advance.