Mark Allen

Start with something you know first - the budget. If you have the budget to rent an HD camera - you might also consider Super 16mm scanned to digital intermediate back to 35mm or Super 16mm scanned to HD back to 35mm The rental on the camera is a lot less - if you're careful with film - it MIGHT be as good an option as HD. (read more at www.primermovie.com or watch City of God - both done this way) or shoot HD with film lenses (if you can afford those). I don't know which of those is better yet. If you don't have that much money - then you need to find options... before jumping down to HDV, consider the Panasonic SDX900 - I hear some very happy things about that as a low budget solution (DVCPRO50). Then... after that you're probably going to use the Sony HVR-Z1U - look into that (it's brand spanking new). Now can you distribute a DV movie? hmmm... maaaaybe. If it stars Katie Holmes and some other great actors and is a great movie - Sure! (Pieces of April). If it stars your buddy Charlie and sister's cousin Amy - then it had really be something special and you'd better be very lucky. Distributors don't love DV movies - in fact, right now there is a definite preference towards film - because it seems more valuable and classier - but a super unique movie plot will overcome this. Festivals btw seem to be totally cool with the whole DV thing. As far as everything else - you just have to do a bunch of conversions to get things to DVD. If this is your very first film and you have no budget (as in zero) - then maybe DV is the safest, simplest, most straight forward way to go and you can learn some of the other more complex media handling later. But... just make something really unique if you want people to see it. Not a story about two guys in the desert fighting over a gun and a girl.

I'm very curious to know if anone on the forum has seen a screening of Primer which was shot super-16, scanned to digital files, then printed to film - a process I'm considering using. I am wondering if the super-16 ends up seeming too grainey. I'm aware that City of God shot in a similar way - but I missed that one in the theaters as well and watching on Video was hard to tell - espeically since the lighting conditions were very different than what we will be doing while "Primer" was pretty similar. Any thoughts are appreciated. Wish I wouldn't hear about these things until a month after they've left the theater.

I've actually got some experience with this. (And I too happen to be a black belt in Karate for whatever that's worth.) Here are some things I'd point out. In general, all martial arts movie stuff is shot at 22 fps. There are some guys who are so fast that you don't need to do this. Now, don't get me wrong when I say "fast" - many people can move so fast that it is hard to see what they are doing... however very very few people can move that fast while performing a fight scene and not injuring eachother. huge difference. 22 is the speed you can go to without risking it seeming too odd. Now, for anything that involves kicking or leaping - 22 is even more important. Sometimes if you work with Hong Kong crews they will even set the camera to something nuts like 21.5 because they know the speed of their performers that well - or they have seen the choreography and just know what it will take. Here's a sample... www.leastlikely.com - the big fight scene where there tons of fighters. The two girls in front are at 24fps - everyone else is at 22. These two girls are the two champion female wushu artists - they are blazingly fast together. (one is lucy liu and kelly hu's stunt double). As far as shutter speed - if the bodies intertwine or you really want to see the path of an action - you might want to adjust the shutter speed so that the positions are a little more clear. For example in that same clip - the short fight with maggie q and kelly hu - that might have been served by a little sharper image - a little less than standard motion blur. I think you should pick your aspect ratio based on the movie itself and then if it is wide - let the choreographer know this and what it means so he can compose for that. "jumping around freely" - you might end up with a very flat lighting situation. Try to work with the choreographer - if he has different break moments - then maybe you can put in interesting lighitng hot spots and variations within the scene that they move within. Be aware of the background too - if it is very busy - it will mask the intricate motions. Do not make the mistake of getting in too close unless it's a story moment and you want to read an expression or see a particular moment... here's an interesting thing to watch... because it's a stunt guy's home movie but it shows some very very complex movments that read very well because he doesn't interfere with the action.... http://ilram.com/ then click Stunts then click the first movie under Scenes. (the rest are not applicable) (There are no face reaction shots here which helps in drama - but they were showing off their moves.) Now - know that most hong kong movies are not shot with multiple cameras - in fact, the standar technique is to just shoot partial moves - like four moves then over lap in the next shot one move from the other - because they are thinking of each move or combo as a moment which is meant to be seen. You'll notice a ton of unique shots in hard core HK movies. My concern wtih multiple cameras in this sort of situation is that you'll end up trying to make one camera angle work for like 10 seonds of fighting - and it probably won't - not if the fight is dynamic. And if you set it up for 2 or 3 for 10 seconds, then you are going to sacrifice a little on each shot.

My thoughts: 1. If this is not a big special effects show, I would suggest you consider this process: If you can find a local post house that has an FCP - HD system - this will work great... otherwise, it is a little slower, but still works - I've done it both ways. So - Forget about DV recording and such on the set. When you finish your shoot, go to a post house and capture all of your HD tapes to a proxy format in the same fps as your HD tape (which I'm gong to recommend as 24p in the next section). Then you are only dealing with a bunch on manageable proxy movies which FCP works very well with. You do your edit and then come back to the post house with your FCP project and load back in all the footage - frame perfect. It works amazingly well - you can even do temporary color corrections which will be carried over once the new footage is loaded in as a replacement for the proxies. Yes, you can then go in and tweak the settings and such durng your online if you like. 2. If you are going to film - absolutely use 24p. Why introduce any inconsistency? It's just trouble. The whole glory of today's non linear is not being tied to the TV specs vs. the film specs... just shoot 24, capture 24, edit 24, online 24, print to film at 24. 3. This issue will be irrelevant as proxies play beautifully on a stock G5. 4. If you're printing to film, I'd recommend HDcam... but I'm not nearly as qualified to recommend that as I am the issue in item number 1 and 2.

Is there any recent news about the D20? I've not seen much about it. Any word on when it may show up at rental houses?

Is there a specific numeric scale that can be used to describe the point at which a camera can no longer handle definition in whites or blacks? For example - "While Kodak XXXX in a film camera handles white to an 92, the Sony 900 only handles white to an 81 - however the new Panavision HD camera goes to 89." Purely an example - fake numbers. But I've been in so many discussions about contrast ratios and such but no one has ever once put a scientific number on it. It seems like it is possible. Anyone know? If you do, can you share the number comparisons?

I'll clarify the context. I'm really asking exclusively about scenes or entire movies which might normally be shot single camera. For example, the TV show 24 uses at least 2 cameras if not 3 at times and yet that show is really a "single camera" show in Hollywood terms. I'm also aware that some features are starting to shoot two cameras - and my question is really about the production ramifications of that.

I'm putting this question out there for those who have experience shooting both single camera and dual camera location shoots (not sit-coms). I've only ever shot single camera - but I'm very curious about the logistics of shooting dual camera. I realize all situations are different - but I'm wondering on the whole which tends to get the shots in the can faster. What are the key problems? Does the additional complexity in lighting overwhelm the advantages of getting two shots done at once? Are most people doing wide and close ups when doing two camera or are they actual covering two primary angles at the same time? Thanks in advance.

I figured I would wait until mid November to ask this, but has the Kinetta made it into beta yet?

Post added noise and video noise is not the same at all and the reason is because in film noise I've found you are actually getting a perception of additional resolution. What I mean by this is the video noise and post noise is not revealing different information, it is - instead - becoming more blocky. The reason why film grain actually has a respectible quality to it is because imagine if someone is holidng perfectly still - impossible i know, but imagine - whenever a grainual hit a certain part of the frame it is revelaing a tiny freckly - or maybe it's two which reveal that. Okay - back to reality - people are moving - but the sensation with the film traveling at 24 fps is that you still get a feeling for added resolution - just a variant in texture. The other methods (post and video noise) are a subtraction of resolution.

The Panavision camera has had a chance to be in existence for a little while now. I'm wondering what the current "word" on the camera is. Initially - a lot of excitement - people saying it really cam close to looking like film. Does it still have that very clean HD look to the skin tones? Does it really hold colors range better? Also - should this camera have a subtopic? Is this camera becoming available soon? I saw a movie for TNT the other day that was shot on the ...950 I believe and It still has no grit to it. I think because it smooths the details. Would be great for porn. An action adventure needs that grit.

When doing it in post.... Many people use the green channel as greyscale to create their black and white images. It's commonly recommended - something to experiment with. Or - you can do it with HSL and Level controls by eye to taste. I can't speak to whether to do it in post or in camera though - out of my knowledge range.

If there are a handful of shots posted from objective cinematographers who are showing strengths and weakenesses of the camera - raw files onlline would be really helpful because it would give me a chance to really examine the results from my own personally subjective stance.

Those in the know... (Mitch?) When the kinetta goes beta - will Jeff be allowing some test raw scenes to be posted so we can check out the quality of the imagery? Mark

So much to comment about! First I have to put a perspective on the quote that started all this. He said "It's okay to be paid the same as the president." That's 400,000 plus 50,000 in expenses. (Side note prior to GW Bush it was 200,000 hm.) Anyway - that's still a lot of money, don't you think? Do you honestly think you can't get a GREAT DP at 400,000? I really doubt anyone on this board is getting 400,000 to shoot a feature. Are there no great DP's here? At somepoint it's all name and relationships and he knows this. Good maybe someone will turn him down and some less established guy will get a shot. Wouldn't you like the shot to shoot star wars? come on! you know you would do it. Rodriguez believes he should shoot his movies himself as well. I think his DP abilities are simply awful.... (as well as his Visual Effects talents). Here is a guy whose ego is hurting his own projects. But, like Lucas, I guess he wants to put his own thumbprint on it. Now. I've read a few interview with Mr. Lucas and I should say that I think his choices for changing star wars episode 4 (having seen the movie the week it came out I HATE calling it episode 4)... were really lame. I think updating the space scenes so it doesn't seem distracting for today's audience is an idea that has some merit. I think clearly changing characters - having Han Solo shoot second is just poor judgment. If he invisioned that from the beginning, he should have written it that way. That said - he's right. They are his movies. I think what it shows us most is how movies really are made by a handful of people though - a collaboration. I have heard that his wife had a great deal of influence in the first few movies - and then they divorced. Interesting. It's just a good lesson. You need the people around you - not to guide you necessarily - but to give you perspective. you still get to be the author even if you don't do it all yourself. thems are me thoughts.

If you're using an HD capture card and wanting first to do an offline edit, the procedure is to capture in proxy mode usually half rez, half size jpg QT movies and use that for your offline. When you have found footage you need to effect, you simply load that footage because the time code will be perfect and you make your effect, put that down to tape (if you plan on onlining elsewhere) and then bring it back in proxied. When you're done, your edl should be perfect, since you have the deck, you can do the online at your own facility - it's a simple matter of recapturing all the footage in your project - the media manager tool handles this quite well. the color correction tools are quite strong on the FCP, but the render files these will create could end up doubling the amount of storage data you need.

12 audio channels has two purposes: 1) On movies it is common now to record with DA088's and use all 8 channels for various mics - individual booms, individual lavs, a comp of the whole mix, perhaps even an ambient channel. so, if you're recording data anyway, it makes sense to put all of the tracks in synch immediately. 2) For live concerts, these are shot with upwards to 48 or 64 tracks to be mixed later. Some concerts have even mixed to picture depending on who you're looking at. 12 is a lot less, but at least would get you in the range for many concerts.

Around mid April when NAB 2004 was afoot, Kinetta said they would have a camera for sales in six months. There was a forum member who offered to pay full price and if they were late, they would discount his purchase... is that correct? So, is it in October that you start getting your discount?

It's really common - not just in this thread or even this site - but in discussions across the world to focus on the "boy if I could just get a camera, I could make a movie!" In the ounce of reality, I have to bring up something. There are DV films being done by people who know how to make movies for $150,000, 200,000. So... that money certainly didn't go into the camera and stock. There are so many costs associated with the process of filmmaking that add up fast. I'm not saying this to be a fantasy stealer either, but just to put an ounce of reality into the dream so people can be better prepared.... Here's just a sample of what I mean - let's say you and your friends work for free. You'll probably have to feed them. Maybe you'll need some location that isn't one of your friends homes. Insurance fees, filming fees (for the public locations you can't steal maybe). Etc. But then in post. Okay - you can put together your own final cut pro stystem, but that does cost a significant amount once you have all the drives and such. But that's still in the thousands - and this stuff outdates in about the time of a editorial process. What about sound? Sound is a huge factor. Maybe you know how to do it right, but then - with just one person, that takes a long time and you'll need equipment for that - and a foley stage (if not the foley artist) - okay - so you mix in your living room, it's been done. visual effects? you don't need 'em? okay, make sure you don't have to fix anything like replace the name of a magazine for errors and ommissions. My point is simply that there is a lot of money I probably listed 40,000 off right there, but it could easily go north of there. I've just watched too many good people get their movies shot and then realize that there is a lot more expense. I've watched two filmmakers start with 30,000 budgets in mind and end up spending over 200,000 each. And these people knew movies. That said. DO IT! ;) Seriously, I really look forward to seeing great and unique cinema experiences from all over the world - I just want them to actually get finished so they CAN make it to the theaters. I guess my point in the end is... certain cameras can give you the freedom to move quickly and shoot fast, or get the impossible shot, or strap it to the hood of a car, or capture the deepest richest image ever seen - different cameras give different freedoms, but the only thing that can give you the freedom to make a film is you and it starts with something to share, not a camera. It's fine to be curious about what tools will come around - I sure am - just don't get miopic. So, give yourself permission to get from here to there and don't get caught up in all the technicalities along the way. Worry about that on your second feature when there's a budget. A viper might be worth 100 times more than a pd150, but passion is worth 100 times more than the viper. With the right story, the means will come to you, people will be drawn in to help realize your passion. oh - and have fun. Mark

It sounds the technology (the chips) is pretty well known at this point. Are there any downloadable samples of the images from these chips? Any good comparison tables? Also - if a camera is only a chip and a lense (which is how I understand these other options to be), is the intention to run them directly into a computer for the processing or would there the be enough software to run the data to a drive (or drive cluster) directly?

Well, I guess I don't spend enough time on the forums - I didn't realize there was a history with this character. Sorry about defending a troll. I want to agree with David Mullen. My hat goes off to the filmmaker who gets something finished and knows how to create drama. My personal interest in the new technology is that it opens up new options. When 16mm cameras were introduced, a whole new genre of filmmaking came with it. I find that phenomenon interesting. We've seen that happen with DV and we'll see it happen again with the new cameras. It's not bad to be curious about what is coming down the way - it is bad to not create things in the mean time.

Okay - first of all - I cannot find anywhere in this thread anyone other than myself saying "film is dead" and I was saying it in the context of saying that I didn't see Pete saying that here and wasn't sure why people started getting on his case for making a summation list. If this member has said something like this in another thread, I'm unaware of it. I don't see that here. Personally I have been shooting film despite being asked to shoot HD - but I'm very curious as to what the next developments are. As to your other point, I guess everyone looks at information differently. I see this list and the rumor factor goes without saying. I see how many times some fellow names Juan is on the list and I know immediately - that those proejects will never happen - unless Juan is the name of a company - there's no way someone can modify all these things unless he picks one. It is interesting to see there are two cameras with the same CMOS coming out and their two different approaches to using it. It's interesting to know that there is chatter about some larger companies and their plans - but I (and I would assume everyone) looks at that information knowing that chatter doesn't equate always to reality. So - for me, the benefit is to see all the information laid out so I could evaluate the information (including rumors) against eachother. And now I feel like I've killed the thread by turning it into conversation and for that I'm sorry - but I must say that it seemed like the attacks on the poster were unmotivated and I'm just the type of person that stands up when I see something like that. :ph34r:

I personally appreciate the post and time and effort that went into assembling all the information (and rumors). I don't think Pete is rebel rousing a "film is dead" cry as much as simply trying to figure out what all the new options will be as am I and many other filmmakers. It's important for filmmakers (directors, cinematographers, producers) to know what might be coming down the way. Sure, if you're doing exclusively studio pictures, then you're probably going to be shooting film for a while - but if you're an indie filmmaker, the options that are going to be available in the next six months are very important as it has a much greater budgetar impact. I think the best way to determine rumor verses fact is to put everything on the table and see what it looks like. So, thanks Pete - keep us (or me if I'm the only one whose interested) updated. :)

When I first heard of the "chip agnostic" nature of the camera my thought went to how hard PC manufacturers would always compare PC's to Macs by saying PC's were upgradable and Mac's were not. Being someone who had to use both this drove me crazy because the fact of the matter was... you could do things like bigger hard drives, more ram, in either - but if you wanted a new processor in your PC (and you wanted it to run smoothly still), you almost always needed to upgrade the powersupply, or the motherboard, or both... and whatever components were tied to them - essentially - you could keep the case which was just about the cheapest thing in the whole deal. Now, with cameras, the lenses are a big deal and the drive and mechanism on this particular camera is a big deal. So... it seems like the chip agnostic means that you basically only need to replace one third of your camera. Better than a PC upgrade, not as good as adding RAM. :) All I know is that I'm shooting a movie at the end of this year which is on a budget - and as the date gets closer and closer (Late November) I become more and more curious if any of the new disk based cameras will be ready by that time - AND if they will be the above a certain standard of quality. Which keeps me waiting for some full rez sample files... waiting waiting waiting.

I work with blue screen as a visual effects supervisor at least 20% of my time. I've done it with SD a lot before. The difference is.... HD is better and the problems you find in SD are less in HD. That said, here are a few points in no particular order: 1. You do still have to watch for high contrasts that will end up creating borders. (Thenk "detail" in betacam terms where the plan was always to "turn detailing off"). 2. On the post side move to D5 from HDCAM as soon as possible because HDCAM is more lossy and that hurts for screenwork. 3. It's always easier to key progressive frames, but that might not be your choice (frame rate).