Movie shot with a GL-2

Shows what good lighting and sound can acomplish.

http://gumspirits.com/sundowningtrailer.html

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0443658/technical

I must admit, as a GL2 user, I am surprised by the quality of those images.... then again, it is a hardy little camera. I don't look forward to giving it up for my XL2, but then again, maybe I'll keep it on...

IMDB list of movies (http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Canon%20GL-2) shot with a GL2, some with trailers.
Day of the Scorpion (http://gumspirits.com/media.html) has some night scenes.

As someone said once, anything within the semi-professional range or above can be made to look like the real deal.

When you have a GL2, VX2100 or better you can't really blame the camera too much for the final result...

I wonder if they shot w/ the 16:9 setting of the camera or used software to snip it. My guess would be the software as a lot of the close-ups start at the hairline and the resolution is very good. Anyone else have any idea or agree with that?


This thing looks great!!

Not only does it look great, the writing, acting, and editing are excellent -- all of which count toward the "look" as well.

You're absolutely right!! Who is the guy that did this stuff. Anyone you've heard of?

How much color correction do you guys think was done in post?

Don't forget the trailer is small. MY video looks pretty good too if I leave it at 100% or 50% of it's size. Certain scenes of his look really good though, but I've seen better. He's not very artsy, he's more like into reality editing.

Hi everyone... Just stumbled across this thread... I'm the guy responsible for these pics.

Thanks for your kind comments.

I've finally retired my GL2... Next movie (shooting this summer) will be on Panasonic Varicam HD. BUT in my opinion, GL2 was/is one of the best things going in DV, especially if on a budget that won't allow an XL2... incredible what this tiny little camera can do.

To answer your questions: "Day of the Scorpion" was cropped to 16:9 in post... "Sundowning" was shot using in-camera 16:9. The theory is that, since there is less actual data hitting the ccds when using in-camera widescreen, less compression is applied. Supposedly there's actually a gain in quality (this does not hold true for all cameras; i've been told to avoid it on a Sony.)

Actually very little lighting is involved in these movies. Both were shot at a breakneck pace with very little money, so there was no time for precision lighting or camera moves... just a question of knowing how to angle the camera and position the actors to make the most dramatic use of available light. Try to create a key, fill, backlight, etc. with what's actually there, by moving actors and camera in relation to the light, rather vice versa. However, obviously, good lighting is crucial when it's called for. For example, all night footage in "Sundowning" was shot VERY bright to avoid grain, then darkened in post. Gain was always set at 0, iris usually wide open to reduce depth of field. The camera is usually back 10-20 feet from the actors, then zoomed in, again for shallow D.O.F. (just a look I happen to like.)

"Scorpion" uses very little color correction... just a "Diffuse Glow" photoshop filter applied through Premiere. Color effects were all achieved by "tricking" the white balance... for example, white balancing to an orange card for a "colder" look, white-balancing to blue for a pink, "warmish" hue. And all sorts of other combinations. "Scorpion" was shot in frame mode (fake 30p).

"Sundowning" was deliberately shot very low-contrast and low-saturation, then edited (with straight cuts, NO rendering) in Premiere, then processed in After Effects, in 16 bit, using Magic Bullet to add contrast and diffusion. Only rendered/recompressed once to DV. Magic Bullet seems to work best with very neutral, gray, washed out footage, so the whole movie was shot with this in mind. If you turn the saturation WAY down in the custom presets menu of the GL2, you can avoid the DV artifacts associated with oversaturated colors, reds in particular (blues and greens seem to be better.) Then, after recording very muted color, you can bump it back up to full saturation in post, in 16 bit color in After Effects, where DV artifacts are much easier to control and minimize.

In order to maximize the resolution of the camera, we avoided frame mode and deinterlaced to 30p in Magic Bullet.... LOTS of rendering time, but noticeably better resolution. Magic Bullet isn't really a "film-look" (I'm not personally a fan of those), but it does create a unique and dramatic look for DV.

I have seen both movies projected on BIG screens at film festivals... "Scorpion" suffers due to lower resolution from frame mode, cropping, etc. "Sundowning" however, looks great... no visible artifacts or DV "blocks", high contrast, almost no jagged edges, very sharp and clear, but not harsh. It actually looks far better than the trailer when it's blown up... don't forget the trailer is highly compressed (and I'm far from an expert on compression for the web). If anybody's in Boston, you can see it on a big screen at the Independent Film Festival of Boston, end of April.

Also there are a couple of scenes from the movie up on the website here:
http://www.gumspirits.com/scenes.html

Dave Ferdinand wrote above: "As someone said once, anything within the semi-professional range or above can be made to look like the real deal."

I agree with this completely...it's all a question of camera style, lighting (or smart use of available light), a little technical homework... and, yes, good actors make the pictures look better!

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but happy to answer any questions based on my experience.

-jim

Hey Jim, did you do a lot of handheld shots or some kind of steadicam/glidecam. What tripod/head was used, mic, etc. Your stuff looks and sounds very professional. Great job!!

Jay -

There is a lot of handheld work. We did have a glidecam but used it very seldom... actually not at all on "Sundowning." I'm not a big fan of steadicam/glidecam work for this sort of movie...my feeling is that if you're shooting low budget without expensive gear, then it's better to make the most of that look, rather than try to fake a slick, expensive look... 'cause it never looks quite like the real thing unless you've got the big toys and the big cameras (and the money). For shooting low-budget DV, I think a raw, unpolished look can be very appealing and vibrant... doesn't have to look plain or "home-video"ish. And I think it helps avoid that stiff, stagey, over-planned, amatuer movie look. That's just my opinion, though.

We had a 14 foot jib, only used for 4 shots (in a 2 hour movie). We had a DV rig pro, which I used for about 50% of the handheld work. This rig actually does very little to stablize the camera, but it does make long handheld shoots a lot more comfortable, and takes out some of the jitters due to arm fatigue.

Tripod head from Giotto, Bogen legs. Audio-Technica shotgun mic with a Lightwave Audio Systems windscreen. Audio was recorded to minidisc. We chose the second audio system so that we could pull the camera way back (to get shallow D.O.F.) without tripping over cables. Remember that a good 25% of "Sundowning" was shot on small, moving boats, so extra cable was avoided at all costs. We used the Canon WD58h wide-angle converter for some shots.

Jim

I would have to agree with that also. I don't want a fake big budget movie look that can't really be pulled off. The way you did this just looks terrific. Good work getting that kind of look, talent working together, and technical mix. You definitely have a nice originality and sense of style.

Jay

(What model Audio-technica mic and which model tripod head?)

I believe it was the audio technica at-835b with Lightwave Miniscreen, and a Giottos MH5001 tripod head.

hey jim i saw your trailer and thought your footage looked amazing. what were the custom presets used for each movie?

Jim: Thank you for sharing the story behind your story. Your innovative ideas for using the GL2 have given me a ton of ideas for shooting my next project.

Can you talk a bit about how you used minidisc for audio? Did you mike the talent with a splitter? Did you use XLR-adapted microphones or 'phones designed with the miniplug? How did you maximize sound quality from your minidisc. I am trying to shoot a conversation on a chairlift, from the chair in front of the actors, and wanted to use minidisc planted on the actors for audio capture but need to figure out the logistics of it in advance, so that I don't torture them (or myself) with my learning process. Any hints? The more detailed, the better! Thanks!

Also, while I'm peppering you with questions:

How did you decide between shots using the in-camera 16:9 versus using the wd-58 adapter? Most of what I've shot is for TV broadcast (cable access stuff), and I'm still trying to make some sense of the wide-angle world. I don't really like the wide-angle looks I've been getting with the adapter (too much compression, doesn't shoot internal frames well, which I use quite a bit--too "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" for me). So do you have any insight to share about the GL2 in-camera v. adapter 16:9?

Evan -

I'm trying to reach way back two years ago in my memory to tell you what the presets were for "Scorpion." I believe everything was at the default except for the color phase pushed a bit towards green (IMO, this gives a more pleasing flesh tone on the GL2). black level was probably up a few notches. The "look" is really due to deliberately incorrect white balancing more than any special presets. This let us take natural lighting and make it look sometimes very surreal and stylized.

"Sundowning" uses a very different process. Since we knew we'd be running everything through Magic Bullet filters, and since tests had shown us that Magic Bullet does much better with very drab, neutral, stretched footage, we set the custom presets accordingly. black (or setup) level was around -3. Sharpness also at -3 (this seems to be a decent balance between avoiding nasty video sharpening, and becoming too mushy). Color phase again pushed a couple of notches toward green. Color gain at -3, at least. In most situations, the less color (especially red,) in footage, the less DV artifacts. I found that color information was very easy to retrieve in post, and that a post-enhanced red (in after effects 16 bit) is much more manageable that a bright red actually recorded on the tape. White balance was set correctly, and any particular color casts or effects were done in post.

Magic Bullet (with some tweaking) added back all of the contrast and color that we avoided during shooting. This combo seems to minimize artifacts, and to look pretty respectable on a big screen.

Meryem-

1: We used one Audio-technica shotgun mic for the dialogue. It was adapted to miniplug for the minidisc recorder. The lightwave audio miniscreen was very, very valuable in getting rid of background noise. We had lav mics, but never really found them neccessary. Most important is a good crew person on the boom (especially if you're using a single mic). I found that Mic placement is incredibly important with this setup, so get a really good boom person. As far as sound quality, just monitor carefully through the minidisc... those things tend to clip very easily, so for shouting or loud sounds, you will need to back way off, or play with the record level. I wish I could help more, but I'm really only experienced with the specific gear we used.

2: wide angle lens: sounds like what you're asking about is an anamorphic 16:9 adapter, which we didn't have. All the footage used the in-camera 16:9. The WD-58h is just a simple wide angle converter, not a 16:9 setup. It was used seldom, mostly to compensate for cramped spaces. I've heard great things about using a 16:9 adapter, but to be honest it wasn't in our budget, and also I'm hestitant to limit the zoom range on the camera. The adapter will get you more resolution though, for sure. Just wasn't neccessary for this project.

Hope this is helpful
Jim

What were your settings to deinterlace and I guess deartifact.

I have heard that you have to be very specific in AE so that MB can do its job.

BTW: AWESOME FILM, I can't stop showing the trailer to everyone.

Where can one see that film? or Rent or Buy?

Thanks.

Tom

Hi Tom -

Here are the settings we used to deinterlace to 30p:

Comp framerate is 29.97.

In the "interpret footage" window for each clip, switch "separate fields" to "off." Make sure the framerate is set to "use frame rate from file (29.97)"

Apply the Magic Bullet filter (this needs to be applied BEFORE any other filters... it will cancel out anything before it).

In Magic Bullet controls, click the "auto setup" button. Switch deartifacting to 4:1:1 (dv/dvcam).

We chose 30p for a slightly smoother look, but kept all the source files and AE comps so that we can render to 24p if we need to do a film out for some reason. For 24p, the steps are the same except that you need to set your comp framerate to 23.976.

We're not mass distributing these movies right now (still doing festivals), but I can make discs myself and send small quantities out for "educational purposes." If anybody is really interested in a copy, email me at jim@gumspirits.com.

Jim,

Thanks for being so thorough in your responses. It's really nice to see someone so comfortable with sharing details about how a project went through. You've definitely given me some insight about color-correction and turning down the phases on the GL2 while filming, and then bumping it up in post. Definitely something worth trying out (especially if the images turn out beautifully on a big screen).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while I was watching the "Sundowning" trailer, I noticed that the scenes on the pier/boat seem to be shot at a higher shutter speed. Is that so? Perhaps it might be the compression for the internet that made it seem that way. I just wanted to know why you chose to go that route (if that is what you did). Thanks Jim!

Hi Allen -

Yes, many of the "action" bits use a higher shutter speed, though I think the web version (which is 15 fps) makes that stick out a lot more.

High shutter speed is just something I happen to like in some scenes; i see it as a very crisp, "you-are-there," documentary feel. It can make aggressive movements (such as the fight scene in the trailer) seem much more violent.

In bright exteriors where I didn't mind the high-shutter look, I would control exposure with the shutter speed, always leaving the iris as wide as possible to reduce depth of field. In scenes where we wanted a more fluid look, exposure was controlled with neutral density filters, and shutter speed was left at 60. Although the Magic Bullet manual will warn you about shutter speeds higher than 60, I didn't find that this was ever a problem.

Jim

Jim: Thank you for the generous and thorough responses. I will be absorbing all of the information in this thread for a long time to come, as I continue with my own modest experiments. This camera has so many possibilities, I don't seem to have enough time in the day to explore them all. Regards--

Hi Allen -

Yes, many of the "action" bits use a higher shutter speed, though I think the web version (which is 15 fps) makes that stick out a lot more.

High shutter speed is just something I happen to like in some scenes; i see it as a very crisp, "you-are-there," documentary feel. It can make aggressive movements (such as the fight scene in the trailer) seem much more violent.

In bright exteriors where I didn't mind the high-shutter look, I would control exposure with the shutter speed, always leaving the iris as wide as possible to reduce depth of field. In scenes where we wanted a more fluid look, exposure was controlled with neutral density filters, and shutter speed was left at 60. Although the Magic Bullet manual will warn you about shutter speeds higher than 60, I didn't find that this was ever a problem.

Jim


Jim,

3 quick comments;

1st: Congrats, superb work on many levels, really blew me away as to what can be done with the GL2. To think that I was about to Ebay 2 units with less than 100 hours each on the heads and upgrade to something like the Sony FX1 HD units, why oh why bother!

2nd: Your willingness to share tips and tricks is what makes this forum so great, a great lesson to be learned by all, keeping it close only hurts you.

3rd: I take it that it goes without saying but, the GL's were fully manual during these projects. I assume that at no time was any AV or TV preset used, or could I be wrong about that.

Again, WOW and great luck with future projects and festivals, in fact I think that the Scottsdale Indie Film Festival is going on here in my backyard either right now or in a short few weeks. Would be cool if you had a project in this one to catch some of the work on the big screen.

Regards,
MIGUEL

Hi Miguel -

Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, the GL2 was on full manual for the whole shoot.

wow, I wish I would have seen this sooner. Simply amazing video..great look to it. Well done Jim!

Thanks Nathan, I appreciate it.

Jim,
I can't seem to view your trailer. Is there a chance that you have a broken link?

Thanks.

Hi Dave -

seems to be working on my computer... most likely the problem is with the version of quicktime you're using... I think you need to update to quicktime 7 to watch the trailer, since it's encoded with the H264 codec. If this doesn't work, let me know. I'm working on putting up a wmv version as well.

thanks!
Jim

For joining and posting this good info. Being one of the many GL2 users here, it gives us a nice boost in confidence to our initial choice of purchasing this camera. Seeing what others (like yourself) can do, and learning new techniques for shooting and post work, really helps us all improve our own projects. Especially since most of us are seriously budget restricted.

I know I will be applying these tips in many areas of my own works to improve the over all look and feel of them.

Thanks again!


Sean Hansen

You said you shot Sundowning in the regular 60i mode, then used Magic Bullet to deinterlace. I participate in events where a short movie must be shot and edited in less than 48 hours, so it would be unrealistic for me to use Magic Bullet, due to the long rendering times. If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?

You said you shot Sundowning in the regular 60i mode, then used Magic Bullet to deinterlace. I participate in events where a short movie must be shot and edited in less than 48 hours, so it would be unrealistic for me to use Magic Bullet, due to the long rendering times. If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?


Absolutely shoot in frame mode otherwise it's going to look like total amatuer video.

Frame mode really doesn't look that much different than Magic bullet unless you look really careful. It is better, but not as much as 50%.

I saw this trailer over a week ago and I was impressed.

I thought it looked well even if it didn't have a big-budget appearance. In fact, the acting and the trailer were so intriguing that I didn't care, and I just took it as a complete package.

I won't be doing any film for a few years, I'm considering taking some classes at a nearby college and doing a 20 minute short first. I'm still learning, but after seeing "The Riddle" (which I believe was shot with an XL1S) I figured that the XL line, maybe an XL2, would be something to look into.

But now finding out your work was done with a GL2, and of course I'm not forgetting about post-production (in your trailer and "The Riddle") -- it is still inspiring, and I realised I could save some money by going with a GL2! So now I am weighing in on that option. There is one thing that kinda bothered me, the trailer had a "bloomy" highlight look. It was most noticable on scenes where some characters were wearing bright clothes like a white t-shirt.

What I have seen is inspiring, thank you.

About frame mode...

I just did a quick test, a 3/4 close up of myself (shoulders included) with soft key on the off-camera side, a reflector for fill on the on-camera side, and a hard backlight. Ratio at 16/9, shutter 1/60, aperture 2.0, gain 0dB (custom presets at default).

I repeated the same shot in both normal and frame modes, then watched it on my TV. Sure, the motion rendition is nice in frame mode, but the drop in resolution is pretty bad! I wear glasses and the frames of the glasses become all jagged in frame mode (this looks fine in interlaced mode). On a more extreme close-up however (basically part of the face, centered on the eyes), it's not as bad because the detail is bigger.

I need to see how this looks when I deinterlace the interlaced shot in post. But with this test, I don't know which is worst, the loss of resolution of frame mode, or the "video-like" motion of interlaced... BUT, my TV might make this look worse than it is, as it's pretty big (51").

So you know where I stand, I've always used my GL2 in normal mode, because I'd heard of the loss of resolution in frame mode. I had never made a side-by-side comparison before (I've only had it for 5 months). I'm going to do more tests now!

great stuff!

Jim, how did you "monitor" the in-camera 16:9 mode?

Grazie

Grazie: you might want to send him an e-mail to get him back to this thread,
I'm not sure if he is still following it. Good luck!

Yes, Rob .. I did this before posting here .. for the same reasons! But, it would appear I'm NOT getting a DVinfo "Your email has been sent" or any reference within my own emailer that I had in fact emailed Jim. Sooooo... that is why I posted here .. .

But thanks for the caring thought . . . vot a MENCH! ! !

Grazie

. .. note to self . .I must contact Chris and see what is happening with me emails . . .

Hi Graham et all -

re: 16:9 monitoring on the GL2.... it's a simple answer - I didn't. I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen. I'd say this is do-able, and it is the kind of compromise one can easily make when trying to stick to a very low-budget. But of course, it's also a huge pain, and is definitely one of the drawbacks of the GL2. I would always be in favor of letterboxed monitoring on a built-in lcd. Of course, a 16:9 capable broadcast monitor would also do the trick, but if you can afford one of those on set, you're probably not using a GL2.

A quick word about an earlier post re: frame mode.... to my eye, the loss of resolution in frame mode on the GL2 is very noticeable, and I would strongly advise against it for any work that will be shown on a big screen. I don't think shooting interlaced for narrative work is a good bet either... unfair as this may be, the general public/distributors/festival juries subconsciously but unfailingly associate the progressive look with that of "quality" in a narrative. This may change. In any case, that's why we chose to use Magic Bullet, rendering times and all. BUT, I think I've read that more recent releases of MB have dramatically increased rendering speed... somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Just finishing up post on a Varicam feature... and still using Magic Bullet (just MB for editors now, since cam shoots 24p.) Should have a trailer up on www.gumspirits.com/threepriests within a couple of weeks. Also, a quick plug (hope that's ok) "Sundowning" is gonna be released on DVD within the next 2 months, keep an eye on our website if interested for more info.

best
Jim

I missed this question: Jean -Francois asked: "If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?"

I guess it's a subjective decision... Personally I'd shoot in Frame Mode in this case, though I'm generally not in favor of it... although you'll take a hit either way, my feeling is that most audiences are far less aware of "resolution" than they are of the "feel" of the images, and progressive vs. interlaced has a very profound effect on the feel of a piece.

jim

Thanks Jim. Yes I've heard from another "professional" source the, "I basically just got used to looking at the stretched image on the GL2 LCD screen." . . . oh!

I'm considering a lowly priced monitor just for frame and focus.

Grazie

I missed this question: Jean -Francois asked: "If deinterlacing in post is not possible because of the time constraints, would you then recommend shooting in Frame Mode over the regular 60i? Or does you experience say that the loss of resolution is not worth it?"

I guess it's a subjective decision... Personally I'd shoot in Frame Mode in this case, though I'm generally not in favor of it... although you'll take a hit either way, my feeling is that most audiences are far less aware of "resolution" than they are of the "feel" of the images, and progressive vs. interlaced has a very profound effect on the feel of a piece.

jim

Since my last tests with frame mode, I've shot 3 short movies, all of them in frame mode, as there was no time for deinterlacing. I prefer the look of it over 60i, but I can sure see the degradation when projected on the big screen. On one of the movies, I added some diffusion in post, which had the side effect of hiding the loss of resolution a bit. On my next few projects, I'll have more time available for post, so I'll probably shot 60i, and then deinterlace.

As for framing 16:9, I also do it from the LCD. The bad thing about this is that I sometimes end up with a little too much space left and/or right of the main subject, unless I make a conscious effort of "de-stretching" mentally.

How did you do the sound editing for the film?

That is an amazing video. Great shots with the GL2.