Michael Collier

For mini-DV and Beta I have always blacked the tapes prior to shooting with them and use regen. This way it just sets its timecode from what is already on tape. I dont understand, does this not work the same way with the F900? I have been shooting for years and never have timecode breaks (at least no more than maybe 1 per 3 months or so, when you absolutley have to pull the battery out before you can hit the pause button from record) I think its mre people are forgetting the advantage to proper shooting fundementals. I see it all the time in the field. I do it because it saves me time. If I do a rough cut or a cut where I save the master footage, I may at anypoint need to recapture and conform to the old for a new cut. Thats easy if timecode is constant. If it blips out, then an autocapture is much more difficult.

Digital effects add digital noise. This is true of any edit system running any program with any combination off settings. Its a fact of life, you are boosting a level mathematically, without adding any information to fill the steps in between. I am a fan of certain digital effects for ultra-fine tweeking, but when shooting even video I get the look in camera. (If you cant get it in camera, what makes you think you can get it in post? whats the difference between artistic inent and luck coincidence at that point?) The only effects I like in terms of DI (other than correcting mistakes) are related to contrast and saturation. Even with those my intent is only to draw the blacks where they need to be, bring the colors down (I always like to shoot more saturated than the final product will be) and make other broad value changes. However if you look at my computer you wont find any setting off more than 5%. If you cant get within 5% of your perfect image then you need more experience. as far as diffusion goes, Mr. Mullen has it right. $200K DI, $200 glass filter.

Well, if playback will be 24fps, then you would speed the song up by a factor of two. The singer would have to be able to lip sync to the song at that speed.

I'm not worried its too big of a leap. I have been studing and researching how to do this for almost 7 years. In that time I have shot so much video and made so many movies that I am ready to make a movie worth the money. I am the sort to research everything to the finest degree. When I was researching the Aanton a-minima I practiced 'loading' using scotch tapes as film reals and watching the video. I have read everything from american cinematographers field manual to Malkiewicz' Cinematography. I am ready to make this happen (after 2-400ft rolls of testing and practice I have budgeted) I just want to check with pros who have been there before and can help correct some of my assumptions. I have been calling everyone in town, and have started calling the lab to get their opinion. I know I lack experience in film, so I am trying to flood myself with information. Its the only way I learn. There is a possibility of a first AC to be on set for a bit, but I dont know how long I can afford that. There is a possibility of finding a first AC/camera owner and that would help a lot. Other than that I am faced with finding a jib, a dolly, a decent light kit. I found a grip truck and a generator, so i have a lot on my plate to get in order before summer.

Im a fan of tight grain structer, and thats in 35mm. so I am just assuming that the best 16mm can do projected to the same size would be about the grain I like, if not just a bit grainier, which is fine for a noir title. also thanks for the tip about pulling. It cost more (which I dont like) and the softer image is not right for this peice. I want sharp detail for a majority of the look. I wish I had funds for a 35mm, but the infrastructer in Anchorage will not support it. I talked to a location scout local to alaska (one of like, 3 or 4 film companies up here) and he pointed me to a few companies. There is like 2 or 3 super 16 cameras up here, AK grip and lighting has a 1ton and 3ton grip truck, and there are a few lighting kits around, though spacifics are hard to come by. Even a kino-flo has proven hard to find. It seems that I will be almost maxing out this states production capabilities, even on a small project like this. In the end this is like my first chance at a real film. I have experience in TV and small productions, but nothing narrative that I felt would really 'start' my career. I raised more than 20K in just 3 days, so I have a chance to make a good film that has a chance to be sold, being shot on film. I figure any distrabutor who wants to buy it can pay for a filmout or photokem finnish. Ultamatley I would also like more production up here. But faced with the 2million or so it would cost just to get gear and people up here, I think we need a big boost in infrastructer. I need to prove to every director out there that our light alone is worth the money. I have been watching a lot of old ford weasterns and old film noir and trying to find a look that can mix the two. I dont have much money but I do have time. so any help or advice you have feel free to let me know. Tips are always usefull. Im a bit concerened about exposure. I know you light to a certain apeture, but how many places should I take a reading. I assume I need to know the brightest parts of the scene and the darkest part. I am used to a very limited range and I am not sure how bright say a window should be to just barley reach films limit. I have heard around 3stops?

Thanks for the advice. I didnt want to give the impression I will have no lights. I do have a good budget for that. Its just light resources are limited in alaska, and shipping up from rental houses is not an option, so at no point will I have anything more than 5-10Kw of light total, and no large units. (since I intend to go for a noir look, I am thinking I need a large number of lights. I want to emphasize depth and space especially so I would like to use B/W stock just for cost savings. Is B/W 200 stock that much grainier than 200color? If so I can adjust the budget a little bit, but it would be difficult. I want the color scenes transfered in full color so I can tweek the colors later in Premiere Pro. I talked to the lab and they sent me a disk with test footage and I was able to run it just fine. I want the saturation to slowly grow muted over time (as it cuts from bw to color and back) I can shoot 200 if I have too, I suppose I underestimated how grainy a faster film would be. The one thing I want to avoid is grainy image. and I suppose a 200 stock would be easier to make a darker look, needing less fill? Sorry if I sound like a newb. I want this movie to be solid in photography. Is it a good idea to keep a video camera on hand so I can see what the scene looks like in B/W? I dont want to pay for video assist in camera, so I figured that would at least give me an idea of what the grayscale would look like. Also are there any in camera tricks to reducing grain. I heard pulling the footage works? Does that sacrifice the highlights to reduce grain?

Ok, so I have never shot film before and want to make sure I start with the right stock. My film will be in black and white for a majority of the film. Parts will be in color and I want those to be desaturated, as fine grain as possible, and be good in the highlights, as they will be generally bright and backlit (Im used to video, so I want good highlights for once) The black and white parts I want to be contrasty (minimal grain. that is most important. I want the option to blow it up to 35mm at some point and I want the S16 to hold up. DI is a possibility, but that will come later. For now I will shoot and proccess the film, transfer to DV and edit from that. after the cut is done i will transfer the negative to 10bit uncompressed HD or 2K and conform the EDL. I will then probably release the film on HDCAM-SR or similar format. (will most film festivals screen in HD? thats also important) what stocks would be a good choice for this. I have to shoot 500asa for the BW just because in alaska I dont have much access to lights. There is really only one grip company up here. The color I can do part in 500T part in 200d for exteriors, if that would help keep grain down.

No, if there were anything but added creature comforts and improvements it wouldnt be a B model, it would be a DVX-200 (look at the history of names from every manufacturer and models they have produced. eg, XL-1, XL-1S then to the XL-2) Now what are you saying about hacking? I have heard with a mod it can output an SDI signal, but I fail to see how a 'hack' can make it record both more resolution than the Chips can physically provide, and record more resolution than the tape system can hold (Unless this hack turns on HDV, a spec that was not availible when the 100A was released.) is this magic?

I have built a sturdy dolly. It was even fairly lightweight. I took angle Iron (Instead of the uniframe) and put bolts in the middle of both sides. I mounted skate wheels I found at wallmart for 20 bucks (they were still attached to skateboards at the time, made for great shoe grips) and had the whole thing for under 30 bucks. It ran super quiet and smooth on PVC track and was very safe. I would second kirks sugestion but add its all dependant on the production. If I had a shoot that was funded to 500,000 or more then yeah I wouldnt mind having production spring 200 bucks a day on a good dolly. But my dolly would still be in the back of my truck. Always will. Its cheap, reliable, fast to set up and its always there. Getting a wide establishing shot and thing that forground needs a slow creep to it. Boom. It allows me some flexability on set, and keeps me movin on productions with less money to throw around. As for building jibs or cranes, I personally wouldnt recomend it unless its a personal camera (and no riding cranes. buy a remote head). Also make sure you design the thing like a tank, there is no room or use for flimsy equipment (otherwise we'd all be shooting on those $50 walmart tripods. (immagine an Arri ontop one of those. Haha, I think the column would snap if you raised that gear driven pedestal too high.) I did make a stabalizer for a shoot I did with a GL1. I used my bogen 3036 sticks with a 501 head and mounted a few weights to the feet. It was a heavy rig, but all that weight below the head allowed me to run and keep steadycam-solid shots (Im pretty good with over-the-shoulder however. I have been a freelance ENG photographer for years) You can make one though with some steel conduit, a board to mount the camera too and some weights. make sure it has a horizontal stabilization bar for your left hand, otherwise you will correct all shake except the twist made possible by the eleastic nature of the skin on your hands (even a rock-climbers grip wont be able to stop the twist if your movin) I found a good way to make this bar is to hing it, so yourleft hand is free to move up and down (keeping your moves flexible and one-handed) but restricts the bar from moving forward and back. that way all your left hand does is control the pan of the camera, and will never give you a dutch angle if you push down to hard on it.

That was from a year they only gave out ceramic awards right? Does he still have the ceramic one, or did they take that away when he got the gold one? I always wondered what happened to those ceramic awards. They must be worth a fortune these days.

Whitebalance is overused. Its not a magic color filter, it works by turning gain up on certain channels. Always correct light with glass filters, then whiteballance. but either way, I think he is posting in Digibeta, I think he said he was shooting on kodak 7218. In general I dont tend to mix lighting unless you want a different color of light (it has to be for a specific reason, not just to make things easier.) Have you looked at gell tubes? There are nifty sleaves that fit over the bulbs and pull the greenspike out. At night I like to shoot on daylight film with 5600k lighting. That way any incandescent lights outside look really orange, and any sodium-vapor lights look crazy orange (most of the time they are blown out and hallating) It also keeps the occasional murcury discharge from looking blue. of course this all depends on the tone you want for outside, I do shoot outside blue sometimes, but in general I tend to follow warmer colors unless the story calls for cool colors. I grew up in the city so city night to me is that sodium-vapor opressive orange. It can look dark and sinister as well. Check out requium for a dream, under the bridge scene. First there is lazy, then appethetic. let background fall where it may? The background is the charecters world. Its important how that is rendered and if taking the lazy road doesnt work to accomplish that goal. Simple clean effective? Lazy, lazy lazy is all I hear. I wonder if I were to see one of your movies, could I ever pull meaning out of the cinematography, or would it all be a product of the quickest acceptable solution?

I set my lighting by eye. In general I know what 3stops over looks like (When I am out shooting news and I get bored, I use my camera and zebra to find the contrast ratio between a pool of light. No real use to doing that, but I think now after a few years of being bored I can tell by eye relativley accurately how bright something is) Set your lights using films rationalization (IE you know what key, fill, hair and eyelight is, now apply that to video, but keep the contrast ratio much lower) And use your eyes to make sure everything looks ok (experience in video is required if you want to trust your eyes, otherwise use a monitor) The last step is set your exposure by waveform if you can. A waveform will ensure you get the fattest possible signal everytime. The first time I saw one was when I became a news photographer. Then I saw DV-rack and got the demo version (It lasted 30 days, I had 20 days left of a feature shoot at the time) And I will not go back, any feature or shoot that I get, if at all possible I will use a waveform. The reason is simple, you are gathering numbers, nothing more as far as the record medium is concerned. If you peak out you loose detail and oportunity to color-correct. Hook it up to the waveform and a little practice should show you how to use it. Some areas need to peak out, but you can make sure the highlights land on 95IRE, not 100IRE or higher, causing those wonderful blooming looks

My first edit bay for 10MB/sec YUV video was an AMD K6-II 350 (thats 350Mhz) and 128Mb of ram. Later I also cut mini-DV footage on it. So basicly im saying if your just cutting mini-DV or anything but HD buy whatever you can afford. The cheapest computer will still be able to edit seamlessly. Speed only helps when proccessing power is the bottleneck, which really doesnt happen much with mini-DV footage. HDV and an avid DNxHD codec is a different story. Much more speed and power required.

It will be hidden. Overscan covers a 10% boarder around the frame. most likley those lines will never even make it onto a phosphor pixel, but instead land on the curved portion of the glass tube. I would not worry about that. DV has black stripes of about 4 pixels on either side and that never presents a problem, unless picture in picture work or compositing is done. If it really bothers you strech the image the small percentage needed

Jarhead (props to Dekins. my favorite DP of all time) The hoarse walking up in the burning oil fields at night. With the story where it was during that shot, it was just so surreal, like I myself had gone mad with the charecter. beautiful shot. I refuse to believe it was shot on stage with a cyc. I think dekins secretly set a whole desert ablaze to get the one perfect shot.

How did you get noise? Both of the features I shot on the DVX looked great. IMHO (keep that part in mind) I would recomend the ZU1 and even better than the ZU1 is the JVC HD-100U better than that (maybe, I have no practicle experience) is the pannisonic model. The DVX gives great colors and I love the 24p. Very easy to use and has powerful color matrix options. The ZU1 in my opinion is just as good as the DVX in image quality. The 24pfs (or what ever they call it these days) looks ok, but not enough like 24p to shoot on it. The best part is the resolution. Even for projects that end up in SD, they look much sharper than the DVX. also when you downres from such a high res original, the 4:2:2(?) that the ZU1 shoots gets put into a 4:4:4 colorspace (due to supersampling) and allows for even greater color correction possibilities than the DVX. The HD-100U offers great 24p capture, and because of the combination of the lower res and lower frame rates, the compression is about 1/2 that of the ZU1 (given the constant 19.2 Mb/s data rate) Comparing them side by side, I had a hard time choosing a cam, so I would say the HD-100 just by virtue of the lens included, and the 24p function.

What do I loose if I try it myself and fail? The scan is still on HDD, so I can still take to a post house to clean up my mistakes or entire start over. If I get it right tho I save thousands of dollars and move closer to the workflow I would like to use for all my films. If in 5-10 years I not only get to DP the projects, but also do the colorwork I would feel like I have more control over the image. Even if it were a monitored session I would be dictating to the colorist what I want. Is it wrong to have a strong idea of what you want and the experience to get it yourself? The point is im not reinventing anything. I am doing what I have always done. Yes color correction is complicated, but what I am trying to get accross to you is that I have been there before several times. I color everything I do. In HD you have to correct keeping in mind the losses a CRT monitor will put on the image, that I'm confortable with. But with a 2K or HD uncompressed file all I have to do is apply the LUT for the release stock I plan to use. I know I can probably get the LUT from kodak, and if after effects doesnt have a way to apply that right off the bat (I dont know that it does) it is quite possible and actually quite easy to write a script to apply it. (I mean its not a global thing, its pixel for pixel if this then that routine) The idea is that I see on my calibrated screen exactly how it would look projected. Thats what I'm most concerned about. How to get to that point. Also keep in mind I want to keep it simple. I will get the aproxamate look I want in camera. the most I will do is some desat and up the contrast. I have worked extensivley with combustion, but dont own a copy and never found it much better than After Effects (especially considering the relativley simple corrections I want done)

Thanks for the info on HDCAM SR. I had heard things about it being 4:2:2 in NTSC colorspace, but I suppose thats just one option of HDCAM My reason for not wanting to go to HDCAM is I dont want to rent an HDCAM Deck to fly the data in my computer. I am planning to use a Black-Magic codec (10bit 4:4:4 lossless compression) so that I can edit at home Why does everyone assume color is so difficult? Yes traditional shooters left that up to a colorist, but I think in the modern era there is no reason a DP cannot color his own material. I started when I was 13 on video and have color corrected EVERYTHING since then. My plan is to calibrate the monitor with a digital eye (similar to what a colorist would do) then I will see RGB data with accuracy. I just have to get the RGB to where I want then let the printout handle the LUT. I am not talking about a huge coloring job, just adjust the contrast of the image and reduce saturation to get the look im going for. Why should I pay a colorist to do that? A daVinci provides a few tools After Effects does not have, but in general After Effects will provide a great result. I am from the digital, rodriguezz era. I am simply trying to conform my old workflow to a film one, until HD advances enough to drop film. Also for the most part I am interested in data-reduction coloring. Contrast and Desat both loose information, so digital grain isnt much of a concern (unless I push the contrast too much) and the film out will be a low-grain stock aimed to look identicle to the RGB i will be coloring from. Does anyone in here have any real experience with this? I know its possible, I know it will look good, I am looking for tips and advice to make this work flawlessly, not naysayers.

The DVX-100 included true 24p scan chip, which was then put through a pulldown to NTSC 29.97. The DVX-100A included 24p Advanced, as well as the previous pulldown method was included. In the Advanced mode the 24frames are recorded, but instead of a pulldown frames are just duplicated, making it easier to handle in post if you want to get down to the original 24 frames. I have no idea what the 100B model brings, those are just things I know from experience with both the 100 and 100A on long feature length projects.

Im not concerned about those extra 100 pixels, I'm worried about the compression induced by going to an HD format. They are set up for NTSC colorspace. I am well-familiar with NTSC colorspace (I have been knee-deep in it since I was 13.) Even if there are LUTs to aproximate the same colorspace, I am still loosing data in the shadows and hightlights, IE it will look more like video than I am willing to accept. If I can handcut the neg from my EDL I can then telecine out only 5% extra. David, thanks for the advice about keeping the handels long. I usually do that when autoconforming a project to save hard drive space, so I was planning on doing a 1-3 second overscan in the 2K scan. I always tweek projects hours before sending them off, so a little play room helps. Oh, and FYI this project, while funded will keep in my production workflow. My company (Random-Acronym) doesn not outsource work we can do. Right now we have enough time to do the post in house (I started with editing and ENG shooting when I was 13, so these proccesses are second nature to me. Data-centric workflow developed as I developed as a film-maker) So once scaned it will go to hard drive (not to an HDCAM-SR deck, useless unless you are shooting a cine-alta or viper, IMHO) and imported directly to adobe premiere, where it will be conformed to the DV and then imported into Aftereffects for colorwork (I have always prefered after effects to any other software, I have tried others and if you know what you are doing its all the same) Once this is done the resultant 10bit uncompressed file will need scanning to laser printer. I plan to do no degraining as David mentioned was possible. No offense, but as I see it that will introduce the video look into what I want to look almost photokem (reason for not doing photokem, I mean come on I am a product of the digital revolution. I would loathe seting up opticle disolves, syncing magnetic sound tracks to film and working with IP and IN workflows. I need instant control over very fine points of my image, and need to see the final output very very quickly.) My mindest for the production (Because I have worked in SD and HD, but not much in film, I think a certain way) I want to maintain data from the beginning. Film is a way to capture, but nothing else. All I want from film is the exposure latitude, the color rendition and the resolution that everone expects to see in a fullscreen movie. I would love to be a rodriguezz (sp?) and do everything digital, but I am a realist. With my experience shooting HD and my experience in the theater I know I need film. The other modivation for this project is two-fold. And Mr. Mullen I look to you to see what you think of this idea, I respect your advice in these forums more than anyother (partly because I have enjoyed the look of all your films I have seen to date, but mostly because you exibit the kind of encycopedic knowledge that I hope to have one day, if you have an opening for a protoge (sp again) let me know) First I have extensive demo reel covering dialouge shots, landscape, still, spot news, and extreme shooting but have very little film to back it up. I have good knoweldge applicable to any medium (including extensive knowledge of film and film equipment I have only read about but never used) and want to have a piece of film that shows that my abilities are not limited to any one format. Also the guy who wrote this short really wrote it as a feature length. The idea is to produce the short for 7500-10K and use that at festivals to try and find funding for a 3-5mil feature project, ala Napolean Dynamite. so obviously I want a 16mm or 35mm reel that not only demonstrates my commitment to the frames I create, but I want a short that will help forward my career a little bit (also I am making my way from Anchorage, Alaska,where I am a fairly big fish in a little pond to Orange County, CA where I will be hard to pick out of a crowd of students and ametures. I want to stand out and show my eye, because film is all I have thought about since I was 11)

I am looking to produce a 10-20 minute short adaptation of a feature length that I want to shoot in S16mm. First question I couldnt get a decent answer to is just how good will it look if I scan the negative into 2K uncompressed and the laser scan that to 35mm? I have heard everything from having the apperance of slightly grainy 35mm footage to Clerks. (I am planning on shooting Vision2 500T stock) next I am planning on shooting between 4,000ft to 8,000ft (10:1 shooting) This obviously would cost a lot to telecine out in 2K and edit online. Is it economical to just get a mini-DV work telecine if timecode is kept in tact (I plan to use an Aanton camera system with timecode). Afterwards can I hand-splice the film (from the negative or positive print?) for full 2K telecine or does it have to be scanned by the reel? My ultamate goal is to have a 4:4:4 2K 10bit file that I can do modest color work in Adobe After Effects After color work I want to be able to conform the 2K scan with the miniDV work-cut and render out again to uncompressed 10bit to be scanned to 35mm (also DVDs, HDCAM masters etc will be output as well) Will this workflow work? What do I need to watch out for? Does anyone know of a film-scan lab that can do S16 to an uncompressed 2K scan? I am also worried about getting a telecine with NTSC colorspace. I am looking for a full 2K DI. anyone who has done this before if you could help it would be much appriciated

Thats exaclty what I was looking for. The 60gb model at 1800 bucks is pretty expensive, and cant hook directly to the cam. I have 5 photogs to outfit so 5 4gig cards at 650 each is like 3200 bucks, plus the 1800 for the download unit. If anyone hears about one of those being availible for the SDC-700 model let me know.

Are there any devices currently availible that can take a P2 card and move all the data to hard drive automatically with no lap top? I need one that can work in on battery, or at least by car adaptor. size isnt too much of a requirement, maybe 100Gb or less

Dont use them. Thats my advice. They may flicker, may not. I dont care, they look like crap most of the time. And not even that kind of crap you can pass off as art, they just look bad. The color is way off on them, for most of them even farther than normal cool whites, even when you buy the 'tungsten' balanced versions. You may go mad trying to find filters that render pleasing tones, or you may just end up not testing and hopeing, which is much worse. The other question I had was why are you so eager to use them? Any particular reason. If ugly color is what your going for, for accent lighting or horor film lighting, then maybe they would work, but in general they look awful (and not one kind of awful, there are 3 different kinds I have encountered. probably 2 cool white versions and a tungsten that looked nothing like tungsten, even to the bare eye. Im sure there are more variencies in photon chemistry making them even more unpredictable.)

Check the website for updates. I had a problem with HDV and premiere until I looked online and found the HDV patch. May not be that, but thats a good starting point