I'd be very happy to view it. I'm starting to develop an interest in travel video myself.

There are a lof of opinions either way, but generally it boils down
to what you like best. If you it is going to be aired on TV most
people prefer interlaced. Some like the softer look of frame mode.
As said: preferences. I personally like frame mode because of
the look and the more easily I can do frame grabs and image
manipulation without worying about interlacing stuff.

If you want to do slow motion effects most people agree that
interlaced with a high shutter speed is the way to go....

I assume you are using an NTSC camera.

If you are going to transfer to film, or want the option, the production houses that I have spoken to have advised me to shoot at 60i. Leave the footage interlaced, edit, when delivered to the production house.

If you are going to television or small scale then shoot in what you prefer.

Hope this helps.

Thanks guys. I met with the artist today and shot some test footage in his studio of "Orville" and "Wilbur" in clay - and I shot in frame mode.

His studio is in back of his house (a large metal building) with neon lights, skylights (let's in a lot of natural light) and he has very warm (looking) spotlights mounted on the ceiling that give a WONDERFUL look to the pieces. By using a gold bounce disk, some of the pieces looked great.

I'll post some grabs on my site and provide a link soon. Thanks for the info.

Sounds great Mark! Please do post some images, always nice
to see those.

Rob (or anyone) - I have to shoot some welding this weekend. What type of filter should I use with a GL1 (and GL2)? The artist also has a huge "red screen" that I'm going to get some footage through - just to see how it looks!

But I just need to know which filter (or combo of filters) will best protect the cam. Is any length of time "too long" in terms of camera safety? If I shoot 1/60, by adding filters, do I open it up/take the speed down more?

My inexperience showing! Thanks.

I have no experience with such welding activity but I suggest
you stack as much ND's on there as possible. Also protect your
eyes (more important!).

If you are referring to the color "red": red is one of the most
difficult things to reproduce in a camera and most camera's don't
do it well therefor. Try before you are really gonna shoot with
red! I'm avoiding it with my XL1s.

Thanks for the reply, Rob. I'll do just that!

As for the red - it's a huge red, transparent "shield" that hangs from the ceiling of his studio. It may (or may not) make a good effect, but I'll try it none-the-less!

Thanks again.

Secret of the Hanged man part 3 is the feature of the week!

Impressions (http://zed.cbc.ca/displayContent.do?item_id=42477)

My XL1 worked perfectly at -20 Celcius. I however did not!

Overall: good.

Positives:
- I liked the desaturated look. Fit the starkness of the piece.
- direction was good. You mixed up the 'stalker' footage enough to make the length not seem so long. Your 'steadi footage' was fine. The editing and shot choices were good except where I note below. I'm impressed by the woodfootage.
- I liked the POV shot staring at the guy in the clearing and then it broke off to go deep into the forest. It's the shot right before the guy is led back to his own box.
- I like the FX parts. They were minimal but effective.
- good music

Negatives (or stuff I didn't quite appreciate):
- I think it was slightly too long for the payoff.
- you should have had a closer shot for the noose inside the box.
- more shots of the face of the masked dude. Just two or three close shots on the face to personalize the guy would have made more of a connection to the viewer.
- I'm not sure about the context but you had the gas mask to give the impression of a post-apocalyptic environment? I think the gas mask is a bit of a cliche unless you spend more time on making the mask different. Having the guy take it off for a moment with a closeup shop would also help connect him with the audience.
- didn't like the guy's 'realization' performance at the end. To tell you the truth, I don't get the payoff. I guess that would help me appreciate the length more too.
- the footprints weren't really needed. I know he had to follow something but the big black round footprints looked silly.
- that pan where the guy realizes he's been led back to his box is jerky. You probably could have used a better shot there.

Thanks for the feedback Kieth.

As I mentioned before, it was part 3.

Part 1 was the feature of the week a couple months back.
If you have time, give it a view. It will explain everything you need to know about the hanged man.

http://zed.cbc.ca/displayContent.doitem_id=29017&FILTER_KEY=19878

I agree with you on the footprints, but the director insisted on using them.

-Nori

OOPS!

Looks like Zed removed the previous link... I guess you will never know the secret of the hanged man.

The prolugue is still there though.

The Secret of the Hanged Man (http://zed.cbc.ca/displayContent.do?item_id=29017&FILTER_KEY=19878)

-Nori

I liked the camerawork, the editing, and the music. It went on too long though. Somewhere around the middle I lost interest and started watching Jenny Jones, but I came back for the finish. Agreeing with Keith, it was too long for the payoff, but I also haven't seen the other episodes.

PS. How does someone hang himself inside that little box???

<<PS. How does someone hang himself inside that little box???>>
They watch Jenny Jones and force themselves to choke...

<<<-- Originally posted by Nori Wentworth : OOPS!

The prolugue is still there though.

http://zed.cbc.ca/displayContent.do?item_id=29017&FILTER_KEY=19878 -->>>

I liked the first one for the combination of styles and video effects. I think it is extremely effective use, technically, of DV and the various ways you can affect video. Well done technically. It reminds me of Hideo Nakata (Ringu). I think, creatively and thematically, all the elements could be overdone, though. You have to tread a fine line between oversaturation of all the 'crazy stuff'. Less would be more.

If you don't mind feedback from a novice, then my favorite aspect of the short was the sound. The sound was great, went well with the movie, and I think it was very effective. You must have spent a lot of time concentrating on that. It seemed that a few edits could have been shortened by a few frames, I noticed this when the stalking camera would approach the bulkhead or actor. I don't really have an opinion on anything else, so I'll finish by saying I admire the work, and would be extremely happy if I ever could make something of such quality!

According to someone on the Fox Searchlight forum (http://forum.foxsearchlight.com/viewtopic.php?t=827), Danny Boyle's new film 28 Days Later was shot on a Canon XL1s. Has anyone heard/read anything confirming this? I haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailer is online (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/28_days_later/) and the photography looks amazing (even more so if it was actually shot on MiniDV).

It's old news on this forum Andreas. There is a post dedicated to this very topic. Type in 28 days in the search window and it will show up.

It's true, it's true!

Great movie, saw it a few months ago. Check out the old thread.

Here's a trailer for one of the paintball videos I've done recently.
http://www.badlandspaintball.com/home/foolscup/foolscup2k3movie.html
I know the quality of the clip sucks, sorry in advance.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Here's a trailer for one of the paintball videos I've done recently.
http://www.badlandspaintball.com/home/foolscup/foolscup2k3movie.html
I know the quality of the clip sucks, sorry in advance. -->>>

Great job Dylan! So how many welts did you get while shooting?

Looks like you shot in 16:9. Did you use electronic or anamorphic?

Great luck catching that head shot.

shocked is a rather subpar short. Exposure i think looks homevideo-ish, i almost dozzed off watching it. Sorry, but I'm telling the truth.

Hey, just thought I'd share my crowning achievment in high school with you guys. "Switch" is a short film based off of Guy Ritchie's "Snatch", and could be loosely described as that movie in a high school setting. We filmed it in about six weeks using Canon Opturas and XL1s, and used FCP on our school's G3 systems to edit.

Switch Website (http://charlie.mg2.org/switch/switch.html) - Movie is in DivX.

A few months ago, I put together my own PC NLE system, mainly consisting of an Athlon 2000+ and a Matrox RTX100. Having nothing to do because community college classes aren't particularly captivating, I decided to test out my new system by making a music video using Switch footage. I set it to Jimmy Eat World's song "Get It Faster", since it's one of my favorite songs with hard chords you can set cuts to.

Get It Faster Website (http://charlie.mg2.org/switch/getitfaster.html) - Also in DivX.

Just wanted to share with you guys what high school kids are still capable of. Love the community, and the talent I've seen just browsing for the past few hours is incredible.

Nathan, 16:9 was done in post, I framed with that in mind when I shot it.

Paul, I can't remember off hand, it was a few months ago. I got shot in the family jewels from 30ft while shooting a tournament last year. It dropped me to the ground, but I kept the camera out of the mud.

Dylan,

How have sales been? (You don't have to give specifics if you don't want to...just wondering if something like this brings in a reasonable profit for the effort)

Cool stuff

that must have been a blast to make.
I really liked the Split screen scene.
The audio needed to be a bit louder, the conversation in the begining was hard to hear.

The video was nice too, but i would have tried to mix up the footage in the video, but thats just me.

Ok, go do Fight Club now

wow, that was excellent! I watched it this morning at an internet cafe and these people sitting beside me started watching it too... that was a lot of fun to watch! I wish I was part of that team! you have *got* to post more stuff up :)

John, this video was for a local tournament, about 30 teams. So far the store that hosted the tourney has sold somewhere between 30 and 50 copies. Glad you brought it up, I think they probably owe me some money!
I only make $15cdn per tape as a wholesale price, and have about $3 in duplication costs per tape. I spent a 10 hour day shooting, and 12 hours or so editing it, so when you add it up, it's not really worth the money. The larger annual local tournament I did last year sold alot more copies, so was almost worth it.
However, to help make it worth my while, the paintball store that hosts the tourney takes care of most of my paintball gear and paint costs, and gives me wholesale prices on guns, which usualy saves me a couple grand a year that I'd otherwise spend (being addicted to paintball is almost as expensive as video production).

<<<-- Originally posted by John Locke :
You know the one thing I don't like about a lot of indie productions is when someones suburbia house is used for the location when it doesn't fit the theme of the movie. This type of story needs a scary old house or building. Somehow, seeing the evil woman framed by a modern bare spackled wall and vertical blinds and shag carpeting kind of takes the oomph out of it. -->>>

Behind the aliminium siding, all of suburbia's a freakshow... that's the true horror of it. Just check out a Todd Solondz film if you don't believe me

On the trailer:

I only saw the first one, Relentless, because I'm on dialup right now, so I can't comment on the second one. I would have to partially agree with John's critique though - the suburban bits don't look very real and neither does the 'scary' bits... but it all comes off as being suspensful, which is what any horror/thriller film aims for.

I think it's kind of weird how you go from suspense to 'scary' scene (for lack of a better name) and then back to a 'normal' scene, as opposed to just making it one big suspensul road to a climax that never lets up (as most movie trailers do).

On a side note, congrats on the sound - it's really well edited; I'm impressed :)

haha, that's great. I'm also going to do a paintball vid to help promote my brother's online store, should be fun.

One thing I'm investing in however, is a jockstrap/cup. :P I used to play a lot myself, but this video hobby's pricey!

What mic set up did you use Dylan?

Bah, I used to play with a jockstrap when I started out in paintball. Now I just take the pain like a man... I drop to my knees and cry... :)
I've only taken two bad hits there in the last couple years anyway.

I think I used the Senneheiser MKE-300, but possibly just the stock XL1 mic, I can't remember.

I watched the short film Switch.

I liked the idea of letting the actors face expressions do the talking in many cases. I guess that's a Guy Richie/Snatch thing but you did it well.

While the picture was very video like there were many cool shoting angles and neat cuts that made it easy to look past that.

I wish I had been doing stuff like this in high school. :)

I just watched it.

Very enjoyable, someone has a nice eye for visuals, editing could have been tighter, and more varied some instances.

2 things though.

1. That was the WORST and i mean WORST english/northern london accent i have ever heard. Seriously consider if you can't get an actual english person to do it, or someone who can really do accents, then do your own spin next time, and maybe have a hardcore new yorker do it, with that slang to give it your own slant.

2. Check your audio levels while you are editing, it varied all over the place and i found myself going up and down with the volume all the time, watch out for that.

But good job.

Zac

Thanks for the compliments and criticisms all of ya, they're well appreciated.

About the accent: blargh, don't get me started. David was convinced he could pull a decent one so we let him, and kinda just went with it.

Funny story, when we got our score sheets from the student film festival, most of them were in the 8-10 range (out of 10) with positive comments. However, one sheet just said: "Accent doesn't work" with a score of 4.

At any rate, I'm well aware of the film's problems, having watched it roughly forty thousand times. In my opinion, the largest one would be my (severe lack of) acting skill, but hey, that's just me.

it seems a bit amateurish, but that just makes it all the more worthwhile when it has a polished professional finish. Go back, reshoot, work on the sound, acting, visuals - the whole deal. And then do it again. And again. - you'll learn a great deal. trust me :)

Staying positve as an amateur film maker myself, I'd say rethink the effect you want to portray to the audience and reshoot. I can see how you went for the one shot long take effect but I think that with some subtle shot changes that went in closer and better framing, you subject and short overall could have much more dramatic impact.

The other thread can be found here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6445). With that
I'm closing this thread.

Hey Kids,

The second feature I D.O.P.'d, Brothers Assassin, will be showing at the Camp Rewind 2003!

For more Info go to:

Camp Rewind 2003 (http://www.rewindvideo.com/Camp/)

-Nori

I wanted to invite you to watch my new DV short film CELL PHONES & ACTION FIGURES on www.ifilm.com.

Here's the link:
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2458986

A cell phone salesman writes a dirty book in an effort to buy an engagement ring for his girlfriend. His world is turned upside down when an eccentric action figure enthusiast steals his car with the books inside.

The film recently played at The New England Film & Video Festival and on The Independent Film Channel. Check out the story on me in IMAGINE NEWS MONTHLY:
http://imaginenews.com/Archive/2003/FEB_2003/01_FEATURES/18A_JOSH_MITCHELL.html

Please let me know what you think.

-JOSH MITCHELL
http://wickidpissaboston.iuma.com

Just wondering if there will be a "Lady X Season 1"-DVD
containing all episodes in high quality after the release of the
final episode? Would be very grrreat!

Hi.

Our short thriller "Siamese Connecition" was screened on Canada's Movieola (specialty short film channel) and talking to the founder/owner of the channel, they got Nielsen rating numbers and he confirms about 70,000 viewers caught our film during its premiere at 9pm EST on May 9,2003.

Our film's gotten some good press and there is some talk of a local reviewer piecing together an article about new emerging Canadian filmmakers that we're supposed to be a part of...

for more info, visit us: www.kubatfilms.com

For those interested, we shot with "old" XL1 (NTSC) with regular zoom lens as well as with wide adaptor and Canon EOS adaptor (and lots of step down rings/adaptors!) on some shots. We shot 4:3 to preserve quality and did letterboxing via "pan-and-scan" type method in post, as well as a bullet-time like deinterlace in after-effects to give it a film-look.

I have buddies from film-school days who look at the film and would bet all their money it was shot on super 16mm.

great forum here!

sincerely,
M.K.

That's good to hear. Got any clips on your site? I couldn't find any.

thanks for your interest!

are you really a pilot?

saw your site - neat stuff.

No. Not a pilot :)

Mark, Congratulations!

I haven't seen the project but since you've mentioned the filmic look of your project would you care to discuss what FilmLook techniques you used?

Any chance of getting a clip or two up somewhere?

Mark, I'm in London, perhaps we can hook up some time, even if it's just to observe :)

okay, I went to film school and used 16 mm a lot so I knew a thing or two about what I wanted to go for.

Best place to start is light like you're lighting for film. An understanding of film set lighting style is critical as some videographers don't appreciate there's a difference :)

to preserve quality, we shot full screen and then letterboxed in post - a letterbox look immediately suggests "film" to the casual audience goer.

the biggest step was deinterlacing the footage - it's been referred here before in these forums - do a search for "deinterlace blend" and you'll get an article from some L.A. film school which talks about how it was done in Premiere.

Okay, okay - I post the quote here:

"Deinterlace Blend
A variety of methods may be used in deinterlacing a video image in order to resolve the temporal differences between video fields and create a complete image. This method requires duplicating a video clip in a non-linear editor (I used Final Cut Pro) such that you have two of the same clip on top of each other. Using a deinterlace filter, apply the effect to the lower fields in one layer and to the upper fields in the other layer. Reduce the opacity of the top layer to 50%.
PROS: Simple technique. Deinterlace filter included with Final Cut Pro (not sure about other NLE's, but it's a standard effect).
CONS: You gotta render.
RENDER TIME: 26 mins., 42 secs. [Final Cut Pro 3]
EDIT BLENDS: No
JAGGIES: 5 - As smooth as 60i.
COMMENTS: A nice, smooth, simple effect. Similar to frame mode and the DVFilm utility, but with slightly more motion blur on the edges. Not quite as filmy looking as some of the other techniques, but darn close. Experimentation may yield varying results: For example, try deinterlacing the bottom clip while leaving the top clip alone, but changing its opacity to 30%. Resolution chart exhibited slight loss of perceptible resolution. Fine edges rendered smoothly."

I've now gotten to try magic bullet and find the deinterlace blend method works just as well - it actually renders faster than magic bullet does so in most cases I'd probably go that way outlined above. As the above recipe indicates, you layer your footage so you get a more saturated final clip that you might need to colour correct/adjust brightness & contrast on but it's still worth the effort.

Did I add grain? no. the dv footage is raw enough - plus the cinelook filters etc. are tell-tale signs the stuff was manipulated.

Everyone's been asking for clips for me to post - all I can say is I will certainly make them available soon but really the effect works best on ntsc monitor on DVD or on DV tape - I think the way computer monitors work somehow the effect is not as impressive.
I edit in Vegas video and when I edit the film-look footage on my computer monitor it's hardly apparent - but when I plug out through video card to tv monitor or through firewire to camcorder to tv for "live" editing on tv monitor, it looks so filmic...

I know magic bullet does this too - you have to have faith and actually watch it on tv to appreciate how well it works - the computer monitor doesn't do it justice.

One last but very critical point - the time slur thing has been fixed in DV to get it filmic with magic bullet, 24 p cams, etc. But the common complaint still is the big depth of field. I use After Effects to touch-up shots where I want to do cool depth of field stuff or rack focus - it's simple: duplicate your layers, keep them in perfect synch, animate a mask around actor in foreground, do a fast blur on "background" and voila, instant depth of field. There are pricey filters out there you can use but the nice thing about doing it manually is you have total control. It's not needed all the time either since a lot of shots in films even have big depth of field as a style (like Star Wars).

(Deep depth of field) ...don't forget Citizen Kane.

that would be very cool.