DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/)
-   -   My First XL2 Short... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/34606-my-first-xl2-short.html)

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 10:57 AM

My First XL2 Short...
 
Ok it's my first short of any kind. _I bought a light kit and decided to try lighting in sort of a Film Noir style. _Sometimes I succeeded sometimes I failed. _Please let me know what you think.

For background I was the only crew on this as well as acting in it so most of the camera shots are static. I did do a rack focus from a carafe to a glass but I don't know if you can see it. Also I did a slight zoom in one scene where only my girlfriend was in it. I shot this B&W in 24p with a shutter speed of 48. It was all lit with a Lowel DV Creator 55 light kit. I wrote the orchestral music. The jazz song is one that was written by Oliver Nelson and it is called Stolen Moments, I'm playing sax (poorly). This really wasn't meant to be seen - to be honest it wasn't meant to be a short - just an exercise in lighting - but one scene led to another and I decided to use it as an exercise in editing as well.

This is the first "movie" type thing I've ever made so I expect to have made many mistakes and would like whatever criticism you can muster. I've already received some feedback that my pacing is a little off in some places so I'm going to work on that.

You can download the file from here:
http://homepage.mac.com/matthewjcher...0the%20Gig.mp4

Kevin Gilvear November 7th, 2004 01:54 PM

I think that's a really good first effort. You're totally aware of your limitations by keeping things static and it works quite well I think. I didn't like that quick cut between camera positions when you see the girl on the bed (which I presume is just a test anyway) but overall I think there's some good compositions there.

I'll look forward to seeing more of your work, keep it up.

I'll be looking at doing some of my own short films over the next couple of months on the XL2 and its great to see some good footage from it.

Did you light specifically for black and white?

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 02:03 PM

Thank you for the kind words. Yeah, that cut is a mistake. Actually, the cut isn't a mistake but it exists only to cover a continuity mistake (open/closed bathroom door). I should probably rethink that.

Yes I set the camera for B&W and lit the film by looking through the camera to see if I liked it.

Matt

Kevin Gilvear November 7th, 2004 02:10 PM

By the way I quite liked the music and thought it was more jarring when it stopped. Maybe if it had played a little more quietly in the background it would have worked better but the beggining and end sounded good to me.

David Lach November 7th, 2004 02:36 PM

Good job Matthew, I can say my first short pales in comparison.

I think the comment on pacing is dead on, and the most important one. I suggest you go back to the editing room and try to create a bit more rhythm between the cuts. The eye doesn't need to see that full glass, that key turning in the lock, that empty space or that door closing for that long to understand and "feel" what's going on. This is the most common mistake when starting out, and I'm guilty of that too, to hold every shot just a bit too long. It breaks the continuity and flow.

Also, be aware that if, like in the room with the girl on the bed, you cut back and forth from close to medium shot, it will create a jump cut if you don't shoot off axis slightly, meaning you should reposition the camera about 30° to the side for the wider shot to eliminate that "jump forward/backward" impression it creates (it can be a good thing sometimes, especially when you're trying to scare the viewer, but I don't think it was justified here).

Finally , work on the quality of the light. For example, in the shot where you see blinds creating shadows, the shadows in the back are too harsh if the idea was to simulate moonlight (where the moon is essentially a huge reflector that creates smooth even light). That light would need to be softer than that. Now we really get the feeling there's an open face behind a cookie lighting the scene.

That being said, those are details. I must say I'm really impressed by your attention to create texture, shape and variation in the lighting, film-noir like. Don't be afraid to create even more contrast (less fill) on the actor's faces, particularly in the scene with the blinds, or whenever you want to add to that mistery look.

I really like the shot with the girl lying on the bed in the foreground when you first enter the room. This is great composition and excellent lighting where we really get a sense of depth as well as multiple visual informations for the eye. It is really pleasant to look at. On the other hand, maybe it's just the girl ;-)

Overall, I think this looks better than many film students' shorts I studied with so keep it up, you're ahead of the pack if this is indeed your first short.

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 03:10 PM

Wow.

David thank you so much, I just learned what a "jump cut" is - cool! Yes, this is my first short. I actually came to doing this through music, which at this stage of my life is just a hobby. My company bought an XL2 to do some training videos with and I decided to buy a cheap light kit to make them look better. Well, they were all sitting in my living room and I thought I should learn how to use the stuff. I chose B&W because I figured it would be less to worry about - although I think I may have been mistaken in that. All that said, I've been watching movies for over thirty years so I guess I had a lot of time to look at stuff!

I'll try shooting some other footage and see what I can do with it. The shot with the blinds was indeed done as you suggest - I shot a light through some blinds I had hanging from a microphone boom stand. I suppose I should extend the music some more too, but to be honest I was going to stop working on this as it was just a quick tutorial for myself.

Matt

David Lach November 7th, 2004 03:33 PM

Shooting B&W is indeed an art. You can use color to fool the eye and create easy emotional effects, but B&W brings it all back to the one essential tool for a DOP, light and shadow.

There's truly no better way to master shooting and lighting than experimenting by yourself. You can read all the books you want, in the end, it'll be when you see it with your own eyes that you'll truly grasp the theories behind the results.

Mathieu Ghekiere November 7th, 2004 03:40 PM

Hey Matthew, I saw your short and I thought your lightning was great in the bedroom with your girlfriend and in the living room at the end. Could you share me some details in the lighting proces, because I don't know a lot about lightning and for my upcoming project I also want to create a black and white noir style, so any hints or/and tips are useful to me.
Thanks, and congratulations with the short!

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 03:57 PM

Thanks Mathieu!

I wish I could be more help to you but really I lit all of this by eye. If I were to do it over again, I would shoot for much more contrast. But that said, here's what I did:

I basically just set up the camera for the shot I wanted, like the bedroom, and then I lit each part until I liked the effect in the viewfinder. So for the bedroom scene I first lit the girl, then I through a splash of light onto the wall by the dresser. I played with the barndoors a lot until I got a look I liked and then I checked the zebra pattern and set the iris. I spent an awful lot of time doing this, but I was alone at night and it was fun. There is probably a better way to do this, but I don't know what it is yet. I would probably advise practicing first at home alone. While I have no idea how I would light certain scenes that are in my head, I feel confident I could light the scenes from my short again pretty quickly in a variety of settings.

For the some scenes I added lights that you really cant see but you see the effect. Like when I walked into the apartment I have a small spot (in this case a Lowel Pro) hitting the candlestick. It doesn't really "light it up" but it just makes it sparkle. I also did this with the carafe and ashtray.

If I were to do this again, I would fist invest in some stands and flags, even if they were homemade. This would have allowed me to not only place light on the walls but to better place shadows as well. Also, we bought the Lowel kit primarily because we would be using it for interviews and like its small size. Also I think it is pretty versatile, however if I were going to shoot something like this for real, I think I would want more fresnel type lights to throw harder light and create more shadows.

Kevin Gilvear November 7th, 2004 03:59 PM

So you filmed it all in one night?

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 04:03 PM

Oh God no....

Let's see I filmed all of the parts without Wendy in about three nights and then one night with her. I spent a night editing it and about one weekend (all day Sat and Sun) writing the music and one night working on the audio.

Matt

David Lach November 7th, 2004 04:07 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Cherry :

if I were going to shoot something like this for real, I think I would want more fresnel type lights to throw harder light and create more shadows. -->>>

I think lots of DOPs would advise against harsh lights for interior lighting. The lights in an appartment or office often come from naturally diffused sources, like a stand lamp with the light bouncing off the wall, or a plain table lamp. The sun will create crisp contours on shadows, but only if the light enters the room directly (like in the morning, if your windows face East) and on sunny days, without clouds.

You can create more contrast and still use soft lighting. The idea is to create a sense of modeling around the objects. So you can put a softbox on one side of an actor's face and leave the other side completely unlit if this is what you're looking for.

Fresnels IMO are best used to create accent or simulate a harsh source of light like direct sunlight.

Kevin Gilvear November 7th, 2004 04:07 PM

AH well three nights is still damn good. Nice one

Kevin Gilvear November 7th, 2004 04:10 PM

I'd liek some advice on contrast. I'd want solid blacks as much as possible so how do you go about making the contrast work. If its too high the blacks become worse right, less solid?

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 04:12 PM

Point taken David, but in my mind I was seeing a real Noir type of thing like from the 30's where hard lighting was (I think) used more. Very artificial yes, but still that's what I was seeing and had a hard time achieving. I used a soft box (Riffa 55) quite a bit but still had trouble controlling shadows. Again, maybe I should have used some flags?

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 04:14 PM

The XL2 allows you to press the blacks (I can't remember if I did that or not, but I'll check) That might help. For the most part I think it's just about controlling the light, although as I said, I'm just learning. I try to set the key, how I want it and then throw light and shadows around that. But again, there is probably a better way.

Mathieu Ghekiere November 7th, 2004 04:15 PM

Thank you Matthew for some of your insights.

David, is harsh lightning not one of the aspects of the true film noir? I could be wrong though, but I thought it was, with harsh contrasts, and big shadows...

I like the harsh look actually. I don't like it when a black and white movie is grey and black most of the time :-)
Look at that look in Schindler's list, I absolutely loved it!
(but that's also because I'm a big sucker for Spielberg, I just love him, but you've got to give credit to Janusz Kaminski, his DOP since Schindler's List)

David Lach November 7th, 2004 04:16 PM

Flags are an essential tool if you're using soft lighting that will spill all over the place. An other great tool for softboxes is an egg crate (man I swear gaffers and DOPs come up with weird names for their gear).

This is a 3 dimentional grid that you place over the softbox. It allows to preserve the soft quality of the light while eliminating a lot of the spill from photons bouncing uncontrolably all over the place.

David Lach November 7th, 2004 04:20 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mathieu Ghekiere : Thank you Matthew for some of your insights.

David, is harsh lightning not one of the aspects of the true film noir? I could be wrong though, but I thought it was, with harsh contrasts, and big shadows...

I like the harsh look actually. I don't like it when a black and white movie is grey and black most of the time :-)
Look at that look in Schindler's list, I absolutely loved it!
(but that's also because I'm a big sucker for Spielberg, I just love him, but you've got to give credit to Janusz Kaminski, his DOP since Schindler's List) -->>>

Yes, techniques and mentalities have evolved since then, but if you'd want to completely recreate the noir look, where shadows and lit areas would be very harshly seperated, in this case yes, even though artificial looking, you'd want to go with that sort of setups.

I like myself to combine contrast and soft light. Nothing prevents using one with the other. I despise high key lighting, but I love the soft quality of a light.

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 04:26 PM

I've seen those egg crate things, they even make one for my Riffa, I just never imagined that they did much. Looks like I'll have to get one and play with it - Thanks for all the tips!!

Roger Moore November 7th, 2004 04:37 PM

A bit off.topic, but how does one get a mac homepage? I don't own a mac but i could use an account that hosts files this big and moves them out that quickly.

David Lach November 7th, 2004 04:45 PM

Matthew, if you lack money are have time on your hands (or both), you might consider recreating some of those tools guerilla style for a fraction of the cost. Lots of tools commercially available out there can be built without too much trouble, like cranes, flags, gobos, stabilizer system, etc.

I just finnished building my very own matte box, all made of aluminum, with a pretty clever (I think) french flag system that allows me to fine tune my matte box frame no matter the aspect ratio or focal length selected.

Some of that gear is very expensive and it often seems the cost isn't really justified (an egg crate is one example of that).

Pete Bauer November 7th, 2004 07:20 PM

Matthew,

As someone who hasn't yet posted a short, I can tell you I enjoyed it very much, as well as congratulate you on your work and the bravery to lay bare your artistic soul to this wolf-like pack! ;-)

I have more of a technical question. In watching the movie on a PC monitor, I could swear I saw interlace artifact: 60i jaggies along contrasty edges that were in motion. But you said you shot in 24p...do others see this as well, and if so, is this some kind of QT artifact then? Perhaps inter-frame issues? Or a function of the pull-down method?

Cheers, and congrats again!

Mathieu Ghekiere November 7th, 2004 07:29 PM

Yes, I have to say I saw that also...

Matthew Cherry November 7th, 2004 08:24 PM

Pete,

I wish I could explain that for you, but I really have no idea, nor am I sure I know exactly what it is you're referring to - but I think so.

The only thing I can tell you is what I did. I had the camera set to 24p but the simple one (no pulldown) and imported it via firewire to Final Cut Pro. Which captured it but the FCP file is 29.whatever. I edited it in FCP and exported it using Compressor to make an mp4 file. I'm still not to sure about compression and how best to do it, so maybe I screwed something up, any advice would be appreciated.

Roger,

When I purchased the mac there was a starter kit that allowed me to get a .mac account. Not sure how you would do it otherwise. Check Apples homepage?

Best,

Matt

Kevin Gilvear November 8th, 2004 06:18 AM

I noticed the interlacing also but to be honest this is frequent on most NTSC transfers, I see it a lot when reviewing dvds and taking screen caps. If it was placed on DVD then I'm sure it wouldn't be noticed when played through a tv. This sort of stuff looks much worse on a PC than in would on television.

David Lach November 8th, 2004 07:44 AM

If you shoot 24p with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown option and then edit in a 24p timeline, you won't see any interlacing artifacts whatsoever, as there will be no interlacing involved in the acquisition and the final render, granted you export it in a QuickTime 24p file. The interlacing will usually be added in the 3:2 pulldown process, and if you shot with that method and edited in 29.97fps, this is likely the reason you can see interlacing artifacts.

Matthew Cherry November 8th, 2004 09:16 AM

Uh, ok.... I apparently need to do some more reading. Let me ask you this. Is there anyway to shoot 24p and make a DVD that does not have artifacts? As far as web delivery goes, what's the best method of shooting/compression?

Thanks

Matt

Pete Bauer November 8th, 2004 12:08 PM

Matthew , I'm at work now, but with your permission I'd be happy to do a still capture and post an example of the artifact on my little personal web site this evening for you and our online friends to take a look at.

Kevin's right that on a TV, interlace artifact would not be apparent because TV screens display interlaced fields by design. But if a video file is encoded as interlaced, you can see the artifacts on a computer screen because it is a progressive scan display device; both fields are displayed at once and if they aren't identical, the jaggies show where there's motion. This should be true for both PAL and NTSC files.

I use a PC and Adobe software, so can't speak to what happens in FCP...perhaps some of the FCP experts can chime in here. But since you captured to a 29.97 timeline (usually just rounded to 30fps in casual discussion), I suspect that David has hit on the answer. At least in Premiere, going from 24p on tape to a 30fps timeline would cause some adjacent frames to each contribute one field to an additional frame the software generates to have 30 frames each second, rather than just the 24 fps. If I was shooting 24p, I'd just capture to a 24fps timeline, but I can also capture to a 30fps timeline, and the software will create those extra frames using either 3:2 or 2:3:3:2. BTW, did you have the XL2 set on 3:2 or 2:3:3:2?

Being at work, I can't check your mp4 file now to see if it was encoded at 24fps or 30fps. I should've thought to check that last evening! If this is what happened and FCP supports 24p natively, you could either plug your project into a 24p timeline and make sure to encode it to a 24fps file, or use the proper 24p pull-down (either 3:2 or 2:3:3:2) while encoding so any "extra" interlaced fields on a 30fps timeline are stripped away while creating the final exported file.

If you find it confusing, don't feel bad. I find it confusing, too. I never paid any notice at all to 24p...until I got my XL2 and suddenly had 24p to play with! I'm very definitely still struggling to learn the basics of 24p edited on a computer!

Matthew Cherry November 8th, 2004 12:38 PM

Ok I admit it, I'm lost... Well sort of.

So, if I shoot in 24p (3:2) which is what I did, and I capture it to a 24p timeline, wont I still have to conver it to 30fps to watch it on a tv (in the States)?

[EDIT: And yes, of course you have my permission to do that.]

Pete Bauer November 8th, 2004 01:33 PM

Yes, there'll be a pull-up (or is it a pull-down...I get confused!) to 60i for TV when you play a 24p DVD, but it will not show interlace artifact because each field is shown by itself during it's 1/60th of a second...a smooth stream of images created by each field. Caveat: I guess newer TVs are coming up with increasingly sophisticated ways of handling various content so a fancy new HDTV might handle things differently.

Encoded to a 24p computer file, you'll still have true 24p for computer viewing (or film conversion, if you use 2:3:3:2, as I understand it). For interlaced, most multimedia file player software will mix 2 fields from a 60i file -- whether they originally "belonged together" in the original 24p miniDV footage or not -- into one full frame. No individual fields are displayed. That's why using the correct pull-down method for your purposes is important.

I think some of the newer software players like MS Media Player may be able to display each field as a 1/2 resolution frame at 60fps to give a smoother appearance like TVs do, but I'm not sure about that. I used a QT player to look at your file; I'll try Media Player when I get home and see if the artifacting still is visible.

If I've gone off track or missed an important point, all you 24p filmmakers out there feel free to put it right!

David Lach November 8th, 2004 01:53 PM

Matthew, you don't want to shoot 24p 3:2 if you'll be editing in a 24p timeline.

Here's a kind of visual explanation of both 24p shooting methods, in which every letter represents a field of video, and every group of 2 letters represents a frame of two combined fields. In both cases, the camcorder captures a AA BB CC DD sequence in progressive mode. What changes is the way the camcorder brings it to 60i video for exporting as a regular DV format file:

3:2

AA AB BC CC DD

Here, as you can see, the XL2 creates a pattern of 3 frames / 2 frames, hence the 3:2 definition. As you can tell, in post, if you want to bring back the sequence to the original AA BB CC DD progressive sequence, there is just no way to recreate the BB frame without recompression. Looking at this, you'll see that if you edit in a 29.97fps timeline, you'll have 2 out of every 5 frames that will be interlaced. If you want to bring it back to 24p, the software will need to decompress and recompress in order to recreate the BB frame, which will cause a lost in resolution.

2:3:3:2

AA BB BC CC DD

Here, you can see that the extra frame the XL2 has created to bring the sequence from 24fps to 30fps is the BC one. This method is strickly intended to edit in a 24p timeline, because it does not look very smooth to the eye when watched without removing the extra frame. But, to edit this sequence in a 24p timeline, no recompression is involved, you just remove the fake extra BC frame and you're left with the intact original AA BB CC DD sequence to edit with.

If you plan on shooting in 24p for Web Delivery, you'll definitelly want to use the 2:3:3:2 option. If you plan on editing in a 24p timeline, same thing. 2:3:3:2 again for film transfer or any kind of big screen projection. If you want to create a 24p DVD, this option as well.

The only reason to use the 3:2 method is if you plan on editing in a 29.97fps timeline or deliver it to a regular NTSC TV. TVs show the video as interlaced, one field at a time instead of one frame at a time, so you will never see those interlacing artifacts on a regular TV set. Only when you show it on a progressive capable monitor (computer screen or big screen).

To sum up: 3:2 method to edit in a 29.97 timeline, 2:3:3:2 method to edit in a 24p timeline, regardless of final output. The 3:2 method looks better to the eye unprocessed and left as is to view on a TV set, but the 2:3:3:2 is intended for removing the fake frame and working with the true 24p footage. If you want to output your 24p sequence to TV, you just render a sequence in 60i with a 3:2 pulldown.

Matthew Cherry November 8th, 2004 03:35 PM

Ok, I got, mostly. The only thing I'm still confused on is making a DVD. If the DVD is going to be shown on an NTSC TV, wouldn't you have to edit it in a 29.97 timeline? OR are you saying that you would do it all in 24p advanced pull down, editing in a 24p timeline and then allow your compression software to take care of the conversion when making the .mp2 file?

Marty Hudzik November 8th, 2004 03:47 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Cherry : Ok, I got, mostly. The only thing I'm still confused on is making a DVD. If the DVD is going to be shown on an NTSC TV, wouldn't you have to edit it in a 29.97 timeline? OR are you saying that you would do it all in 24p advanced pull down, editing in a 24p timeline and then allow your compression software to take care of the conversion when making the .mp2 file? -->>>

You are correct. Most mpg encoders will allow you to encode a 24P stream and they will simply flag the appropriate frames that need duplicated. The DVD player sees this flag and adds the 3:2 pulldown on the fly in hardware. In addition the fact that you are actually only encoding 24 frames instead of 60 fields saves you space and can actually increase the picture quality.

Another advantage of this is that if you play it on a PC or MAC it will not add the 3:2 pulldown but just play the original 24p stream. I would guess that on HDTV that are progressive this may happen also but I am not sure.

Good Luck!

Pete Bauer November 8th, 2004 09:18 PM

Ok, I posted three screen captures that showed the artifacts as I saw them in my PC's Quicktime 6 Player:

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

I was NOT able to open the mp4 file in Windows Media Player, v10 (the most current version), nor in Premiere Pro 1.5 on my PC.

Based on all the nice explanations by David and Marty, it sounds like it wouldn't matter for plain ol' TV, but any 24p output might be problematic now because of the 3:2. You've got those pesky 60i "AB" and "BC" frames in there splitting up your original 24p "BB" frame...no easy way to delete a 60i frame and recover a pure "BB" frame for 24p output. There's probably a work-around but I don't know what it is.

FWIW, I've read many recent posts -- most of them more than once -- about the two pulldown methods and it just didn't quite all gel in my brain. But digging into this little artifact issue on your project has helped a bunch...hopefully for you, too. Thanks for being willing to share your work, which I'll say again I find to be superb!

Rob Lohman November 9th, 2004 01:41 PM

Excellent Work Matthew!

Richard Alvarez November 9th, 2004 03:26 PM

Nice work Mathew. I think you've got a fair handle on "noir". Check out our trailer at www.nu-classicfilms.com "After Twilight" was shot on 35mm, but we were going for the classic noir look

Tony Roulston November 10th, 2004 11:48 AM

Great Film.
 
I have say how much I admired your short.

I am not quaified to provide critical comment, you have enough of that in this thread, but I want to let you know that I found your short great.

TR

Matthew Cherry November 14th, 2004 08:39 PM

Ok, I've decided to expand on this short to make it more of a narrative. I think we've developed a good film noir script and I'm getting excited about doing this. Here's my question.

If I decide to do this, should I reshoot everything so far in 24p advanced pulldown to avoid getting any artifacts? The reason I'm asking is because I might want to try enter and enter the finished short in some small festivals. Nothing major just some local ones.

What would you reccomend?

Matt

Pete Bauer November 14th, 2004 09:43 PM

My understanding is that you won't be able to get the 3:2 footage to look right transferred to film without a lot of fiddling around, if at all. (Those pesky frames with mixed "A" and "B" fields again!) So unless someone has a trick up their sleeve, you might end up having to re-shoot using 2:3:3:2.

I actually have a similar problem with a lot of old home Reg 8mm films that I had converted to miniDV. Hopefully someone knows of a practical way to split the fields back into their original progressive frames -- I sure don't! It has been driving me crazy!

If nobody has a good answer in the meantime, I'll give our similar problems more research and thought later in the week. My wife leaves on a trip in a couple days so I can let the Honey-Do list slide a little! (Hope she doesn't read this!) ;-)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:32 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network