Hey guys and galls - Does anyone know where I can find a list of equipment used in various movies? The usual method of typing it into a search engine isn't proving to be very helpfull. I get movie reviews, advertisments selling HD DVD and a ton of other sites about everything else other than what camera was used. As many of you know, I have just been getting into film production and have little knowledge about some things very essential. Every time I watch the special feature section at the end of a movie I always see this outragous equipment (outragous in comparison to a consumer camera) but can never put a name to it. Some things are obvious, the giant reel hanging off the camera man's back indicates that these movies are traditionally shot with film. However, what is all that stuff, who makes it and why do they use it!? Sorry if this is a pretty demanding question, I just have few sources other than DVInfo.net.

Thanks,
Terry lee

Not sure how reliable the info but a lot of movies on IMDB have a technical section that you can read up on.

300 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/technical

The print edition of April 2007 American Cinematographer has an article on 300.

For camera gear info try here:

http://www.arri.com/

http://www.panavision.com/product_category.php?cat=1

Hi Terry. You might enjoy some of the photos on this site: http://crewpix.com/

Wow..Thanks alot everyone. I found everything I needed to know 15 minutes after I posted this thread haha.

I found out something interesting though. Zach Snyder used the Arriflex Cameras, Panavision Lenses and cameras to shoot 300 this year. George Lucus used the digital HDW-900f in 2000 to shoot Attack of the Clones and the rest of the Star Wars films. Wonder why?

300 had lots of slow motion effects... to get high quality, a high enough frame rate, and a reasonable workflow it was likely easiest for them to shoot on film.

I found out something interesting though. Zach Snyder used the Arriflex Cameras, Panavision Lenses and cameras to shoot 300 this year. George Lucus used the digital HDW-900f in 2000 to shoot Attack of the Clones and the rest of the Star Wars films. Wonder why?

Lucas has been probably the single most outspoken proponent of digital acquisition in mainstream filmmaking for the longest period of time (the 900 was replaced by the next-gen 950 for Ep. 3 by the way) and has mandated that the productions he controls will originate digitally. Most DP's still prefer to originate on film as it is a more mature production workflow and arguably produces superior imaging. The very latest cameras are leveling the playing field on many levels, however, and a small but growing number of established DP's who can suggest working in either medium are now expressing a preference to digital acquisition.

Surprising as it might be, you may find an encyclopedia to be your best bet for a "movie tools 101." I believe World Book (the print edition) had a great primer a while back. Unfortunately, there is no "all-inclusive" list of the equipment used in production, along with uses. If you break production into its departments, you may find it easier to reference what certain things are.

If you have specific descriptions Im sure we could identify some of your mystery gear.

Glenn - Most of the ariflex cameras i've found pictures of look absolutely ancient. Is this because production companies have to use old equipment if they want to shoot film or are there newer cameras out and im just not seeing them?


Also, I've heard alot about the Z1U being somewhat equal in image quality compaired to the 900f. Just add a matte box and fallow focus and you got a 900f? Now, you know im just playing dumb and probing for information, I know the 900f is way more complex. I just want to hear someone's thoughts.

I doubt it's the same ballpark, though I'm not familiar with the other camera, but I'm actually testing a new workflow with the Z1 right now....

50i -> force progressive/%4 slowdown (via HDLink/Cineform) = 24p.

Looks great. No Sony CF24 B.S.

Now all I need is a capture solution to Cineform bypassing the HDV compression, and I'd be a happy, happy man. Oh, and a 35mm adapter. And lots of lighting and a warehouse of props. :P

Carl

Do you think this looks old fashioned?
http://www.arri.de/entry/camera_configuration_overview.htm
(Click the products -> cameras -> links)

If so, this must look positively anclient
http://www.wisner.com

Both, of course, are current new production.

Since the mechanical nature of film handling hasn't changed, the cameras haven't either. They still have to do the same mechanical jobs they've been doing for decades, so no reason why they'd look much different.

Swoopy modern styling doesn't impress anyone in these markets.

I still use my 5 X 7 view camera that I've had for 35 years now
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Linhof_Kardan_bi-system.jpg

(The camera pictured is 4 X 5, my 5 X 7 has a larger back assembly and tapered bellows)

Glenn - Most of the ariflex cameras i've found pictures of look absolutely ancient. Is this because production companies have to use old equipment if they want to shoot film or are there newer cameras out and im just not seeing them?
You're probably just not looking at the right pictures?

Also, I've heard alot about the Z1U being somewhat equal in image quality compaired to the 900f. Just add a matte box and fallow focus and you got a 900f? Now, you know im just playing dumb and probing for information, I know the 900f is way more complex. I just want to hear someone's thoughts.
Certainly feature-wise they are different. The F900 can accept gamma curves (e.g. from dpraxis.net) to record all the information that the sensor can record. If you want to color grade the footage, the F900 likely has an edge there.

I haven't dealt with the F900 and the Z1U shooting the same thing. In terms of the Z1 and the Varicam, you can get them to cut interchangeably (this was done on the show "Full Ride" on ESPN). The main thing the Varicam has over the z1 is variable frame rates; the grain on 35mm adapters + HDV doesn't always play well in certain cases.
There are some pretty interesting things you can do with the Z1 / it can put out some pretty decent images.

2- The big picture is that Hollywood films tend to be of a high quality since:
A- Good writing. (Ok, not all Hollywood films have good writing. Sometimes directors who aren't necessarily great writers get to do what they want. But the writing from professional screenwriters tends to be a lot better than the vast majority of indie crap that gets made.)
B- Talented + experienced people working on the film.
This includes makeup, art direction, visual effects, etc.
C- Money. And high-end equipment.

IMO... so while the 'equipment gap' is starting to close in some aspects... the big picture is that you still need talent and experience to put out a good movie. And in some other aspects, the equipment/money gap is not closing... putting out a Hollywood-style feature still costs a lot of money. Lights, production design, extras, etc. etc. all costs money.

But I wouldn't really worry about that. Be resourceful and do the best that you can with what you have.

Not sure I'd call an Arri LT or 235 ancient looking.... but it's a matter of perspective. True, film still runs behind a physical shutter behind a lens, but the movements and electronics under the hood are constantly evolving and adding features... things like timecode, HD video taps, better ergonomics, quieter operation, etc. That said, most of the exciting advancements are in the accessories.

As for productions choosing packages, price often does have (a lot) to do with camera choices, though it's not the whole story. There's a lot to be said about how different internal movements affect picture quality, though amongst well designed equipment, its certainly less difference than lenses. Different producers, dp's and ops choose (or at least request) cameras for personal reasons that run the gamut from lens selection to quietness to weight to the ability to accessorize to voodoo. In super simple terms - a film camera is a light-tight box. What affects your final product from the lens back has a lot to do with the lens (including filtration) and your film choice, not so much the camera body the film is running through. It's like comparing the highest-end 35mm slr with the cheapest possible 35mm slr. Will one take better pictures than the other? Given the same lens and film, probably not.

Also important is field serviceability. Film cameras, though heavily electronic these days, are still very mechanical machines. A film camera will pull thousands of feet of film through the gate every day. As such, it must be serviceable in the field. Making something field-repairable means that you can't have hidden screws and sculpted body panels everywhere that would slow down service, if the only return is a better looking camera. Not so with video. Video cameras are NOT meant to be field serviced (gray area with older F900's, and similar cameras with internal rgb gains and board-based internals). If a video camera goes down, the LAST thing sony wants is you to tear apart the camera to see whats going on. You most likely will not be able to, because video cameras are so heavily based on integrated circuits, there rarely is any physical thing you could even do to field repair it.

A lot of the "ancient look" also has to do with the economies of scale. Things like 35mm sync-sound film cameras simply don't sell in huge volumes. Things like $2000 video cameras do sell in relatively huge volumes, so the life-cycle of the product is much shorter, and more likely to look "with the times." Also, a 20 year old film camera can be "modernized" simply by running modern film through it. Film itself isn't a singular object as may be represented in a lot of posts that concern the "video vs. film" debates. Film comes from a number of manufacturers and in a number of flavors. You could compare footage from a camera built in 1982 to footage from that same camera and lens setup today, and they would look nothing alike simply because the film stocks are so different.

Cinema equipment is also very evolutionary. Rarely does something totally new come along, sweeping change through the industry. Its usually small but helpful improvements to existing products that define the "current generation" of things. A crane for example - cranes have been around a LONG time on production sets, though there are many more choices these days, and operators don't necessarily need to ride (though they often choose to) on them. Remote heads, technocranes, ultimate arms, etc... have certainly changed the way camera movement can be performed, but they are essentially evolutionary products. Gear heads look positively arcane, though some models (arrihead 2) are the result of lots of research, and can be equipped to perform motion controlled moves.

As for the F900 vs. Z1u debate, this forum is a great place to dig in and start reading about what these cameras are and what they can and cannot do. There's a lot of information regarding that particular topic, though I would personally caution taking someone else's opinions of subjective quality as gospel, having not seen and compared things yourself. The F900 will make better pictures than the Z1U, but that doesn't necessarily mean it fits every workflow or budget, meaning that it's not necessarily the right tool regardless of bottom-line resolution and color representation. You found a good place to ask your questions and hopefully we can all help fill in the gaps where we can.

I think it's important to realise that the film cameras are industrial equipment, they are mature designs and new models evolve. They shouldn't be compared to consumer cameras which get changed design wise every few months.

Broadcast cameras are the same, there's not a huge design change between the Betacam SP Sony BVW 200 of 20 years ago and the F900 - other than the former is nicer to handhold. Interestingly, there's currently a movement towards the film camera type layout on the high end digital cameras.

You can still shoot a feature film with a 30 year old film camera, upgraded with the latest imaging by Kodak or Fuji.

Thanks alot everyone for your replies. Very good advice.

I think my main reason for asking that question is to get a sence of what I would be able to accomplish by buying a camera like the Z1. What I've taken from your replies is that essentially it is not the equipment that makes the film, it is the film maker. However, my concern with the equipment is I want to get away from the "home movie" look and not just into a semi-professional look, but a George Lucas/Zach Snyder look. I very much understand that in order to obtain these qualities, one must first master sound, lighting, camera techniques etc.. or atleast have a collection of individuals who do. My point is, is it possible to obtain that look with a higher end HDV camera such as the z1u or xh a1? Would it be safe to say that George Lucas would use one of these cameras for a primary shot? Now I know these two cameras are designed for portibility and versitility, but lets say George broke his F900 and has a day to get this film done and all he has is an a1 or z1u. Would we know the difference?

One of the important things that George Lucas persuaded Sony to do was to make a 24P camera. In that case what you need is a camera that shoots progressive frames, so that would rule out using a Z1. It also depends if he would want to shoot all that green screen stuff, but I'd assume you're not planning that.

I'd tend to go for one of the JVC' HD 100 or HD 200s they shoot progressive and have interchangeable lenses or a Canon XL H1 that shoots 24F. These are all HDV.

An alternative would be the HVX 200 that uses P2, although perhaps the new XDCAM HD EX looks more interesting.

To ask for Hollywood-style production values with little money / crew is asking a lot.

On the other hand... check this out:
http://www.poetsofthefall.com/videos/
I believe the "carnival of rust" music video was shot on a z1. Some important things to note are:
A- A lot of what you see in that video is matte painting / virtual set work. (Similar to star wars.) I believe the software for doing that is pretty affordable (unless you want custom effects that you get a programmer to code for you). However, it's a labour-intensive process and usually you need to pay somebody to do all that work.
B- Keying HDV material is not that fun... the compression artifacts take extra work to deal with. Keying not-very-compressed footage makes your life a lot easier. Right now, you'd probably get a camera that shoots real progressive (i.e. not cineframe, not the z1) if you want to do that kind of work. Or better yet the Red camera looks like a real winner for this type of work (very low noise from the sensor and compression).
It is likely cheaper to use more expensive cameras if you price the VFX artists' time reasonably.
C- The use of virtual sets lets you get pretty interesting-looking stuff without having to spend a lot of money, though you need to spend a lot of time on the project. That time normally costs money unless you get people to do that work for free/cheap... e.g. some people are doing some pretty good VFX for those Star Wars fan films out there.

Brian - lets say I did intend on using green screen, what were you hinting at with that? educate me :)

I think you're asking about a lot of different things at once.

A lot of "is this good enough" has to do with your final product as well as the path your footage takes to get there. If you're looking for your projects to look great in SD resolution for DVD release, then yes, in many instances you could use something like an XH-A1 to intercut with something more robust. With careful shot selection and color correction, the footage could work in concert. However, if your question is - could George finish Star Wars using only an XH-A1, then the answer is not likely.

There is a WHOLE lot more to a camera than resolution, although theoretically the XH-A1 records about the same resolution as the F900. In a wide shot, consumer HDV cameras use all of their bandwidth to try and fit the every detail of the scene. This results in a look that can sometimes be confused as blown focus. Something like an F900/950 or F23 has a LOT more bandwidth to work with, milder compression, cleaner chips, better lenses, larger chips (less DOF, hence less "unimportant" detail to try and compress), meaning that wide shots will look far, far, FAR superior to consumer cameras. The gap closes drastically on closeups though, where there is less in-focus detail for the camera to compress. This is where you could theoretically intercut between vastly different price classes of camera. Theoretically.

Beyond the compressed resolution is also color depth. The F950 and F23 can shoot 4:4:4 color, which means that all of the color is preserved, meaning that the colorist has a lot more information to play with before the picture is completely degraded. This also affects the ability to pull a clean key. While there certainly are good tools out there to get HDV to key, it's like trying to make a moped go 100mph. Theoretically, with enough time you could do it, but there are certainly better vehicles to start from.

As for virtual sets, they have come a LONG way. I think, however, that if you talk to any first-class cg artist, you'll find that set extension generally turns out more realistically than complete virtual sets. This is especially true if there's a lot of movement. The software is so good now that tracking camera moves is less important than it used to be. However, there is still a lot of attention to detail which needs to be kept to make the illusion work. Things like focal length of EVERY shot need to be noted, camera lens height, lighting angles, etc... need to be noted so that when the green screen is keyed out, it doesn't look like what it is. Green screen is a way to make backgrounds softly fall out of focus, as if using larger chip cameras, though the illusion can be a little discomforting when the entirety of the real foreground is always completely sharp (thanks to 1/3" chips).

Now all that said - a number of years ago when the XL-1 came out, I'd heard a lot of raving reviews of it. I saw a lot of footage, and couldn't for the life of me figure out why people were so excited. Everything I saw looked like complete crap - and I was pretty easily impressed then. 4 years later, when the camera had been updated, I saw some footage from the original, and was blown away. The difference between "most people" and a good eye behind the camera was beyond night and day. As resolutions go up and viewing screens grow, skill becomes more important than ever. There is no formula for making a camera look "professional." If there were, boards like this wouldn't exist - the formula would be included in the packaging of every camera sold. The best formula I could think of would be this - learn to light; whether adding natural light, subtracting natural light, or adding artificial light. A well-lit scene that's appropriate to the material will look professional, no matter what the camera.

A- A lot of what you see in that video is matte painting / virtual set work. (Similar to star wars.)

Matte painting? Sorry, new term for me.


I believe the software for doing that is pretty affordable (unless you want custom effects that you get a programmer to code for you). However, it's a labour-intensive process and usually you need to pay somebody to do all that work.

So, I suppose that sort of thing exceeds the limits of Vegas eh..?

B- Keying HDV material is not that fun... the compression artifacts take extra work to deal with. Keying not-very-compressed footage makes your life a lot easier. Right now, you'd probably get a camera that shoots real progressive (i.e. not cineframe, not the z1) if you want to do that kind of work. Or better yet the Red camera looks like a real winner for this type of work (very low noise from the sensor and compression).

Keyings is simply adjusting the light so that the image that you are placing over the green screen fits or doesn't look fake, correct? And this is difficult with HDV because there is so much detail thus more, as you say artifacts, to adjust? Therefore, a camera that shoots 24p or 24f (any others?) would be best for green screening. Am I on the same page? haha.


Again, thanks alot Glenn for helping me out with this stuff, very much appreciated.

Jaron - Wow, that is a lot of information to digest. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.

I suspect it might be worth your while reading one of the books on Industrial Light & Magic (ILM).


http://www.amazon.com/Industrial-Light-Magic-Mark-Cotta/dp/1852276061/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4986711-8989711?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194642856&sr=8-1

A history of matte painting:
http://www.matteworld.com/projects/siggraph01.html

Lots more info if you google matte painting. That site also has some matte painting breakdowns.

So, I suppose that sort of thing exceeds the limits of Vegas eh..?
Some large VFX houses have programmers to code custom software for their 3D work.... e.g. stuff where they aren't happy with the limitations of their current 3D systems.

2- The problem with HDV and keying is that the noise will cause the key/matte to 'boil' or flicker.

There are also a number of other issues to watch out for when doing greenscreen/keying work. Lighting, motion blur, spill, reflections, hair, etc. etc.

Some large VFX houses have programmers to code custom software for their 3D work.... e.g. stuff where they aren't happy with the limitations of their current 3D systems.

So its not seprate software unless you want something specific, and the matte painting and virtual set stuff can be done with something like Vegas then?

I read that entire page you gave me on the history of matte painting. It appears in that short historical overview that matte painting is becoming a thing of the past and virtual set building (e.g. 300) is becoming favorable because with matte painting you are restricted to static still shots.

Now, just to make sure I understand matte painting, It is simply where an artist paints a scene on a glass plate which is slid into the matte box right? But matte painting can aparently be done on a computer and then integrated into the scene.

I learn something every time I get on this site...Amazing!

Take a look at Bryce and/or Vue (by Eon) These are good for building virtual scenery, "painting" vegetation in place etc. Vue (maybe Bryce - I don't use it so am not sure) will also import Digital Elevation Maps derived from US Geodetic survey data so you can for example import the topography around Denver accurate to within 30 horizontal feet or better.

The complete digital topographic maps of Mars are also available so you could model any surface feature you wanted.

You might also take a look at something called XFrog which lets you "grow" highly realistic virtual plants, trees, cacti, bushes etc.

One of the complaints about Vue, etc is the render time - as you add vegetation, clous, etc render times get really long - they make video rendering look positively instantaneous.

I read that entire page you gave me on the history of matte painting. It appears in that short historical overview that matte painting is becoming a thing of the past and virtual set building (e.g. 300) is becoming favorable because with matte painting you are restricted to static still shots.

Now, just to make sure I understand matte painting, It is simply where an artist paints a scene on a glass plate which is slid into the matte box right? But matte painting can aparently be done on a computer and then integrated into the scene.


The traditional glass shot used to be painted on location. They weren't put in the matte box they were on large sheets of glass in front of the camera.

A matte is a mask that prevents part of the image being exposed. You can make cut outs that mask part of your shot in your shot and place them inyour matte box. A travelling matte is basically blue screen or green screen effect.

Later the paintings were mostly done in post and using the camera negative, and a matte (which can be on high contrast stock) in an optical printer onto duplicate negative. To prevent a quality drop, special effects companies would shoot material on Vistavision or 65mm.

It's also possible, with a lot of testing, to use the original negative by holding back the unprocessed take and using processed test sections of the film match up the painting.

They weren't always static, motion control offered a lot of possibilities for movement and one helicopter shot in the Indiana Jones series has a painting as an element and the whole shot has a floaty helicopter shot feel.

Now these paintings tend to be done in the computer, but films like Blade Runner and the early Star Wars are full of these "glass shots". However, using the computer is a new tool for the painters doing these shots and it does offer new possibles.

So its not seprate software unless you want something specific, and the matte painting and virtual set stuff can be done with something like Vegas then?
2-D paintings are usually done in Photoshop or Painter (or similar app), with a tablet instead of a mouse (e.g. Wacom).

Interestingly enough, if you wanted to you can build a miniature and use a photo of that instead of doing actual painting. Though I don't believe that's a mainstream technique.
http://www.hatchfx.com/matte-paintings.php?dir=01_taking%20lives&year=2003&image=taking_lives_closeup_miniature.jpg

I am not very familiar with the 3-D side of things.

2- You also need talent. :D It's still mostly painting.

It appears in that short historical overview that matte painting is becoming a thing of the past and virtual set building (e.g. 300) is becoming favorable because with matte painting you are restricted to static still shots.
Some people use matte painting as an umbrella term that includes the new techniques.

As an exercise, try reading the credits for Superman Returns (or any other Hollywood blockbuster) and figuring out what every job is. e.g. rigger (the 3-D kind, not grip), Inferno, matchmove, etc. etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/fullcredits

Well for the most part I feel I have a grasp on the concept at its simplest, however I would like to know more in-depth details about matte painting and virtual set design. Im interested in miniature set building as well, and have had experience with building large miniature scenes myself. I guess what I don't understand is how you make something 10 inches tall and made of plastic look 10 feet tall and made of metal. George Lucas pulled this off beautifully and made it look easy, but how? Is there a "cook book" that walks us through how George pulled some of these things off? I've been looking on Amazon for books or videos and have found a few interesting ones but im not sure if they will enlighten me on what im confused about.


On and Glenn - Im looking through the credits for Superman Returns. Good idea, thank you!

[QUOTE=Terry Lee;773843]Well for the most part I feel I have a grasp on the concept at its simplest, however I would like to know more in-depth details about matte painting and virtual set design. Im interested in miniature set building as well, and have had experience with building large miniature scenes myself. I guess what I don't understand is how you make something 10 inches tall and made of plastic look 10 feet tall and made of metal. George Lucas pulled this off beautifully and made it look easy, but how? Is there a "cook book" that walks us through how George pulled some of these things off? I've been looking on Amazon for books or videos and have found a few interesting ones but im not sure if they will enlighten me on what im confused about.

QUOTE]

George Lucas didn't do this he's only the director, it's all the people in ILM who pulled it off. Quite a few of the special effects books with five stars beside them look worth reading, although they are expensive. Other books are pretty old, but they go through a lot of basic stuff.

You could go down to your local bookshop, some have quite well stocked film sections and might have some of the more popular books on the subject that you can look through.

The books on ILM will go through the Star Wars films. Although, one does appear to cover the later digital effects.

I was thinking about ordering the two ILM books. They are in my shopping cart now but im looking for something that covers Hollywood miniature set work if possible.

Something that covers things like this:
http://www.hatchfx.com/matte-paintin..._miniature.jpg

I have been building little models like this for years, but how do I get a model to look like the real thing on camera? Is there such a book or preferably a video that covers these sorts of things? Perhaps the two ILM books contain this information?

I ask because, as some may remember, my goal is to make a film for a Native American site in Southern Indiana called Angel Mounds. At the peek of its inhabitance there were some 200 homes enclosed by a mile long wall, which all encircled a large central mound. Today, all that is visually prevalent is the degraded central mound. It is my hope to rebuild the city using miniature set building, green screening and matte painting techniques. Now I know I cannot simply read a few books and become a pro over night. What I am trying to accomplish is an in depth understanding of the art so that I am better in tune with the people that will be doing this work and then eventually be able to do it myself.

For some reason that link isn't working...sorry :(

Unfortunately, I can't think of any books that just cover the actual model making for films. Quite a few cover the techniques for shooting models and discuss aspects of the subject, including scale, depth of field, slow motion to give scale etc.

Magazines like Cinefex go into quite a lot of detail on filming effects on the latest films (plus an archive of back issues that can be purchased), but you do need to be pretty up to speed to follow the articles, since it's aimed at professionals.

http://www.cinefex.com/

These do show the models being constructed and model makers discuss their methods. I notice you can get B & W photocopies of the early Star Wars issues.

Quite a few cover the techniques for shooting models and discuss aspects of the subject, including scale, depth of field, slow motion to give scale etc.

Yes! you see the model building I already have, its the ability to make a model house look full scale that I need. Which books are you refering to?

Yes! you see the model building I already have, its the ability to make a model house look full scale that I need. Which books are you refering to?

"The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography" has a couple of chapters on shooting miniatures plus a chapter on glass shots. It's an older book with a lot on optical printers and shooting effects on film, but it's very much about how to do things and quite a lot does apply when shooting on video.

You might be able to get a used copy on Amazon, rather than buying new.

Is this what you are refering to?

http://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Special-Effects-Cinematography-Communication/dp/0240512340/ref=sr_1_1/105-7211022-7731634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194912373&sr=8-1

Is this what you are refering to?

http://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Special-Effects-Cinematography-Communication/dp/0240512340/ref=sr_1_1/105-7211022-7731634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194912373&sr=8-1

Yes, that's the book.