sneeze proof

hmm .... beer in combination with good cinematography I think that's do-able :)

Hi I'm hoping to get a little advice from the experienced crew around here in regards to workplace relationships. I'm an editor (am slowly learning the aspects of cinematography) and am having issues with the footage I'm being currently fed. They are just talking head interviews, talking about culture and intercultural awareness and interactivity. Anyway, some of the shots just plain suck. A couple I have refused to use - you have to draw the line somewhere. (two interviewees looks really stoned due to bad lighting). Others have been over exposed and off white balance etc.... Now, the guy who's doing the interviews is not a cinematographer, nor has he anything to do with film making. He writes the interview, sets up the camera (pdx10p) presses some buttons (depending on his mood) and does the interview. I brought him into the editing suite to show him the shots and chat about the good aspects and some things to avoid (being very gentle and constructive). He even went and did a short course on the basics of camera operation and lighting setup etc... (as he refuses to let anyone else shoot it). So the last time he called me to advise him on the setup and talk about lighting and composition and camera adjustments before he started shooting. We got a good setup, I adjusted the camera's exposure and focus and white balance and all things necessary - it was looking really good (all the while explaining to him why we were doing it and the effect it would have in post). After the interview I find out that he flicked everything back to auto (auto exposure, balance, focus) So now the shot is over exposed and looks blue and there's just no fixing over exposed dv, and I have to match 4 other interviews with differing, but equally bad mistakes. So what to do? I don't want to keep going down this path as I'm the one that gets talked to about the quality issues, yet I have the guy using the camera who refuses to trust my advise and continues to give me terrible shots (I haven't even mentioned composition). I have been nice and very constructive in the way I deal with him but am now at a loss as to how to deal with this issue. I guess the bottom line is, I want to get good work as an editor, but can't get good work if I'm producing crap. Is there a Dr Phil equivalent in here?

Isn't that something you would notice when you check out the camera before buying it?

and this is exactly what I am looking forward to where film is used like tape and vinal is used (run the signal in hot and let it naturally compress) rather than using film because it's the best picture quality if you know what I'm getting at :)

This all reminds me of the reactions to digital audio recordings when studios were converting from big analogue 24 track tape to digital items. Not many people liked it at first because it wasn't capable, and then as it started to become capable, there were those who believed it was too sterile and lacked character, until it became even more capable again. Granted, moving picture is in another league, but it's the same sort of arguments and I think eventually, in the not too distant future, we will see what we see in audio. Artists like Lenny Kravits who record (or used to) on old analogue equipment for a certain sound or groups like the Propellorheads who use vinal to create their sound. But digital will capture a broader, cleaner, fuller representation of the real thing and other mediums will be used for specific tasks. It's interesting to watch it happen. Revolution rocks!

Run Lola Run has a nice effect where the camera rises out of the crowd as all the people form together to create the letters.

I watched Constantine last night and I quite liked the effect of the titles being blown away. Batman (the first one with Michael Keaton) was cool.

hey, that's looking pretty good :) nice work

My view, as a current editor and complete novice videographer is this: the first pic looks like you don't know what you're doing the second pic looks like you you do know what you are doing that's all The phrase 'film look' like most of these people have been saying, is completely misinterpreted, and those two pictures there demonstrate this point. You say pic 1 looks like video and pic 2 looks like film. If that first pic was shot on film, it wouldn't look any better, and I bet you if you saw that on TV, you would pass that off as 'video' because it has that 'video' look you descibe, even if it was shot on film. I have seen some pieces shot on 16mm that you'd swear were shot using a mobile phone camera. I have also seen stuff shot on a $300 camera that you'd swear was done by a high end production company. why? pre production Obviously you have a look in mind that you want to achieve, and by all means, keep striving to achieve it. Take the advise of the people here about the production values because you will find out from experience, that this is the way to get the look you want. you have the right idea about test shots and experimenting with gear - you'll get your look if you keep that up, but do treat the advise here with respect - there is an incredible amount of talent floating around on this forum and like TSM pointed out, I'd much rather watch a great story shot on cheap dv cameras, than a crap story shot on billion dollar super fantastic film you'll see past a low budget within the first couple of minutes of a good story

ah ok So I need a mattebox. I think it's time to go shopping then. The softfx sounds like what I am after for the interview work, although if the filters are cheap enough, I might just get a few and experiment thankyou David - I really appreciate your help :)

Just a follow up on this. To get an understanding of what a filter would do, I applied a very mild black diffusion in post using magic bullet editors (not the film look stuff - that's not my style), and the result was quite nice. It softened the image in the way I wanted it to. So, I figured a real filter that I can fit to the camera might do a better job. So with that in mind, what filter should I get, and also how does the filter attach to the camera and do I need to buy a filter specific to the pdx10p? One more query (sorry) What circumstances would require the big lens hood?

Thanks Peter Being an Aussie, I shoot in PAL and have been shooting at 1/50 - just wanted to make sure it was the most appropriate setting. Well I have just been walking around the office playing with the exposure and it certainly seems that under exposing a little is a small step towards a nicer picture. That, along with careful lighting, as you said, should get the desired results. I'll have to look into those filters and see how they effect things. Thanks again :)

Thanks for the advice. What shutter speed should I be using during interviews (I mainly just shoot doco's)

Thanks for the reply David. :) I'll read up on what lowcons are and maybe give them a shot. I'll also try underexposing. Can you suggest any places online I can read up on how to get better lighting and using bounce and diffusion etc..? I think this and setting the camera up manually are my biggest issues I need to deal with.

Hi all Sorry if this is covering old ground.... I'm having issues with highlights when shooting on dvcam using a Sony PDX10P. The highlights always seem a little too harsh. The whites always seem to be glaring while the rest of the picture seems to be at the right level. For instance, I've shot a couple of interviews and for the most part, they look ok (colours and shadows etc...) but in one of them, there's a couple of white pieces of paper on the desk that really stand out. In the other interview, the woman's teeth look overly white while the rest seems to be at a decent level. I'll admit that the lighting left alot to be desired but the footage was usable. In comparison to an old Sony DXC-327P which looks very similar but without the whites issue. I only have a super vhs adapter for it so the best picture I can get out of it is through s-video output, so I don't tend to use it. I'm not experienced when it comes to shooting, but very much enjoy it so I would like to learn more about how to get it right. Is it lighting, camera settings (exposure etc..) or is it a dv thing? How do I get around this problem? Any guidence would be great. I have a couple of lighting kits, but those lights are extremely bright so if I use them, the people in front of the camera complain that they are blinded and can't see - I can't blame them - they are incredibly bright. (all my work at the moment is for television and dvd so I have no need, or capital to upgrade to hd or film as of yet) Thanks Matt :)