Yet more thoughts on the Mini 35, DoF, film look...
 

I have just finished watching a short film that was made for the workshop version of Instant Films, this being the first Instant Film made using a Mini 35 on an XL1 with Zeiss lenses.

The DP opted not to use Frame mode or post software, shooting in good ol' 60i. The film was all shot using interiors.

The shallow depth of field is just what one would expect from the setup. The texture of the ground glass was visible in a few of the shots.

In the ongoing battle of "which is more integral to emulating a film look/feel: shallow DoF or frame rate", I've always been in the frame rate camp. This short only reinforced my position. Having the background out of focus didn't make me feel like I was watching film rather than video. In the fact, the look was almost strange, like an ill-fated marriage! This was not necessarily due to poor lighting (although I had my issues with the choices) but based on the effect of shallow focus combined with the "soap opera" feel of narrative storytelling in a 60i medium.

I then watched another short also made on the XL1, in Frame mode. Unquestionably more cinematic looking/feeling. It didn't bother me that the focus wasn't shallow.

I know this debate will rage on and on (as it has here in the past over countless threads--I couldn't even figure out which one to attach this to, so I gave up and started anew, sorry Chris!).

My vote, between shallow DoF and frame rate (30/24 vs 60): having both is a killer combo. But having to make a choice, I pick frame rate.

I'm with Charles. Even knowing the whole thing is psychological, I still agree.

I agree with Charles that both would be desirable. I don't see any reason to pick between the two really, Frame Mode IMHO just does not degrade the image enough to warrant NOT using it.

- don

I don't understand, gramatically, your comment. All I meant was, when I see something in 30p or 24p, with well composed shots and decent lighting, but deep or infinite depth of field, I still think more highly of it than something shot in 60i, with the lighting and composition, but shallow depth of field.

Like I said, it's all psychological.

Every time I watch a 'pro' film on DVD, I notice there are some shots with shallow DOF, and some with deep DOF. But they all have that film motion quality that must come from the progressive frame rate. The shots with the deep DOF still look like a 'film'.

The one thing I wonder about: I converted some footage from 60i to 24p in Vegas4, and it has a real stuttery look, like old school 8mm or 16mm documentaries/films. How do the 'pro' films shoot in 24p and keep things so smooth?

[bac]

I finally caught up with the dvd of "Personal Velocity," the other night. Here is a project that was photographed on a PD150, that certainly did not have shallow depth of field, but, transfered to film, and picking up those film characteristics sure made it, well, filmic. As Charles said, no need for shallow depth of field, because the Director of Photography, Ellen Kuras, just put the pedal to the metal and went for it. I am in awe of her talent. And please don't interject any niggling criticisims about the clipping in the highlights. We're not talking about technical nicities here; this is damn the topedoes filmmaking taking advantage of the mobility the small camera offers to your project. I was blown away by the coverage she was able to get, and the unusual perspectives. It's hard for me to believe she didn't use a second camera.

I hate to keep carping on it, but shallow depth of field is just not worth the trouble when there is so much more that the small format cameras can bring to the table. Pay attention to the things that really count, and in the end remember, its all about the lighting.

And what powerful stories and great perfomances. "Personal Velocity" makes "Erin Brockavitch" look like "Cinderella."

I gotta check that out, thanks for the recommendation Wayne.

What really spurned this thread was thinking about how much folks have to pay to rent a Mini 35 setup with a set of primes plus mattebox and follow focus (and really, don't think about doing this without the above, especially the follow focus. Shooting wide open on 35mm lenses is a whole new can of worms if you are used to pulling your own focus on video--unless you like soft shots). It's a great look when combined with 24 or 30p but a lot of time, effort and money, especially compared to the frame rates which come free if you have a camera that offers them. I applaud those who have dug in such as Justin Chin, I would love to have the Mini 35 setup myself but I can't justify it economically.

Feature film work not paying you enough these days?

Believe it or not, Josh, not as much as it used to! Runaway production is taking its toll on most of us--thanks a lot, NAFTA.

Anyway, I was just saying I couldn't justify it. For that kind of $ I could get into that new Panasonic DVCPro50 24P camera and make some SERIOUS pictures, if I was so inclined (but I'm not). I'm not a fan of buying into high-end video gear, it doesn't hold its value long enough for me.

Charles do you own any 16 or 35 mm camera's with the whole
stuff that goes with it? (just wondering)

Rob,

I own a highly modified Arri 2c that I bought from one of the top Steadicam guys, it was the prototype of a ultra-lightweight camera that I used on American History X and fell in love with. I'm actually looking to sell it as I'm not doing the type of jobs I need it for anymore, and owning a film camera is not the best investment these days.

I used to own a Bolex but sold that about 6 years ago after the Bolex craze in commercials/music videos faded out.

I do own a fair amount of support gear starting with the Steadicam, through the Hot Gears, and other gee-gaws like the O'Connor Ultimate head, Chrosziel mattebox and follow focus, onboard monitor etc. The last set of stuff goes on rental at Scrubs as we have two Super 16 packages on that show full time. The nice thing about all that type of gear is that it is mostly non-format dependent and can work in a variety of situations, be they film or digital.

I had considered buying a set of Zeiss primes when I bought the 2c but in retrospect, I'm glad I didn't. It would have been hard to make my money back on those. My guess is that if I did, however, the Mini 35 would have been much more tempting when it came around, especially since I would most likely have been able to make my mattebox and follow focus work with the setup also.

Interesting Charles! Indeed, such lenses together with a
min35 and your mattebox and follow focus would have made
for an impressive system. Althought as you've said earlier,
the mini35 isn't the only thing....

What do you think regarding 24 vs. 25 fps (PAL)?

Rob, I've never shot in PAL so I can't really comment, I've just read what others have said about it. What are your thoughts?

I have shot with pal (25p) AND 16mm film, and the motion characteriscs are exactly (perceivable) the same.

There is a couple differences to be take care of, PAL is quite easy to kill its colours, as i mean, you can go to 0 ire up to around 109, but you will see its colours fly out the window a little bit before clipping the image. It is interesting but i am sure it just has to do with the way it compresses them.

But the other difference i have noticed, from using ntsc gear, is that pal holds a far more uniformed look through its exposure range, where as ntsc does skew it's colours a lot more.

Also 25p with the 2/2 pulldown was smoother wwith sideward movement than ntsc with the 3/2 but that is obvious.

Charles i am assure you that using 24fps to 25fps is practially no difference.

Zac

We got hired to shoot this gallery opening for a BBC documentary and had no control over the lights or pretty much anything but we shot with my XL1S in frame mode at 1/30 and I have to say I was amazed at the "filmic" look of the footage.

It really showed me what the camera can do and how frame mode really works for you.

Yes, frame mode is a wonderful thing.

Charles: I think 25 vs. 24 fps is a non-issue. I can't see how any-
one could see the difference between that purely on framerates.
Ofcourse a lot of other things might be different, but if that is
the only one I don't think it is a visible difference....

Rob, the nature of PAL and NTSC does show a world of difference to the trained eye. (if we talking dv cameras)

One thing is the way colour and chroma is displayed just has a different look to it, also the pull down is huge for people who are used to pal.

In my opinion, PAL is a superiour system, but everything comes down to quality of source. If you have a kick ass clean NTSC source and handle it correctly it is going to look fantastic regardless if it was NTSC.

Zac

P.s ohh and the 50hz thing has become a bit of a non issue, around 70% of tv's here, well anything not stupid cheap, runs at 100hz now, because the pulldown is 2/2, they just convert it to 4/4, smooth as glass.

I agree with you Zac. I wasn't trying to compare PAL & NTSC,
just frame rate differences (NTSC isn't 24 fps ofcourse). Like
if you were able to switch my 25 fps PAL camera to a 24 fps
PAL camera, would I see the difference? I don't think so...

Well, Charles knows where I stand. I am glad he posted his opinions. I do agree, that last bit of "strobe" in a 180 degree shutter is very desirable. I'm going to see if a PAL XL1s and a standard NTSC XL1s might do the trick. Frame and No Frame. Still trying to find the best of both worlds. I'll keep everyone updated as soon as I can. Right now I'm putting all my time into the Varicam and a Pro35.

BUT I'm more of a fan of the DOF. It makes shooting a lot easier, no need to compensate for the sharpness of a video image. And the areas that are in focus on the mini35 are VERY SHARP.

Personal Velocity made extensive use of a fog machine. I recomend all video shooters to have one in their kit. It helps greatly with interiors. Better than using a pro mist IMHO.

Mmm, the fog machine can indeed be a good tool. I used one on one of my Instant Films (Hollywood & Valentine, I'm too lazy to post the specific link!!) and I mostly liked the results.

The only thing I have to say is that a little goes a long way--the most effective atmosphere is created by well-dispersed fog that is heavier in the background than the foreground, and just squirting a fogger from nearby camera won't necessarily net you this result. You need to waft it, keep an eye on the density and make sure it matches from shot to shot, otherwise you will be doing a big dance in post to equalize the look. We didn't have a skilled fog wrangler on the abovementioned short, and even though I loved the look for certain shots, it's too much in others & I was too busy with other details to notice at the time.

The moral is--it's a solid, usefull tool but I wouldn't recommend going nuts with it, or you'll end up with something that looks like a cheesy 80's music video.

Agreed, Charles. As always a handywork of an artist and a good eye can make a huge difference.

I recommended this in another post and at the risk of being tedious I'll do it again. If you haven't rented the DVD of Personal Velocity run, don't walk to your local video rental store. The scene by scene commentary by the DP, Ellas Kuras, and the gaffer, John Nadeau is great. Watching the movie is optional.

Kuras has lots of experience in film as well as DV. She was Spike Lee's DP on Bamboozled which was shot with TRV900s and VX1000s. For Personal Velocity they decided early on to use a lot of close-ups. It fit the sensibility of script but also the limitations of DV. Kuras found that wide shots in Bamboozled just didn't hold up when transfered to film. By zooming in she could also get shallower DOFs. She said that she always shot with some sort of diffusion filter on the lens and did use smoke to add depth to several scenes. The movie was shot with two cameras, so they had to work to block the shots so that they didn't run into each other or shoot the lights. Using two cameras and DV let them shoot longer and let the actors give all they had to a scene. The second and third takes tended to be mostly shooting cut-aways and "riskier" shots once they got what they needed on the first take or so. They shot the entire movie in seventeen days, often at three or four locations a day.

The most interesting thing that I came away with after listening to the commentary was the sense that DV is a flexible and capable medium. It can do things that you cannot do on film. DV also has significant limitations. The trick is to focus on doing what DV does really well and shoot to minimize its limitations. Of course that is what directors and DPs have been doing with film for the last hundred or so years.

OK, I'll stop blathering now. The DV is definately worth renting.

Here is an online interview with Ellen:

http://www.uemedia.com/CPC/article_6007.shtml

Justin, THANKS for that article.

I had heard a couple of other folks (might have been you) mention the film but I haven't had a chance to get to see it.

I just ordered it on-line (www.deepdiscountdvd.com seems to have the best price-- unless one of DV Info's sponsors sell it ) and I'm heading out in a little while to rent it and check it out.

The stuff she talks about in the article are things we talk about all the time and some ideas it sounds like she's taken a little further.

great stuff. thanks again!


OH, and the link to the trailer from the article is kinda clunky--- here's the link to the nice, large Quicktime one:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/pe...ity/large.html

I think I am in love with Ellen Kuras.


Well, OK, maybe not. Sounds like a fascinating lady.

She's been on that "Up-and-coming" list among DPs for a while now with her work on BLOW and SUMMER OF SAM.

She really pushes the limits with stuff liek cross-process, different silver retentions in film stocks, desaturation process and other amazing techniques...

I sent the link for the trailer over to my DP who knew all about her.

I laughed when I read that this was the third time she had won "Best Cinematography" at Sundance. A very savy lady indeed.

I've had a bad week and have been swamped with work so I've had very little time to watch PERSONAL VELOCITY but I did watch the entire Parker Posey (#2 GRETA) story and have listened to the commentary. (Hey, I like Parker Posey and once met her... yes, she's even cutier in person.. I made sure the three were independent of each other before jumping in and to be honest that scene at the dining table that pretty much starts off the first story left me ready for something else)

WOW... they use a hell of a lot of background diffusion. The opening master shot in this story is interesting when they are in the kitchen and beyond the stove is diffused but the stove and foreground is sharp.

I can see that they used an assortment of filters on the footage but from what I've seen and from what I'm gathering they DID NOT do a lot of Post Production 'film look' work on the footage.

I'm going to go back tonight and watch it through from stem to stern and then start over again with the commentary.

Thanks again, Jus for pointing this out to us.

Justin Chin wrote: "Personal Velocity made extensive use of a fog machine. I recomend all video shooters to have one in their kit. It helps greatly with interiors. Better than using a pro mist IMHO."

Yes. A cracker can help a lot. I shot this using a 16x9 converter on a 16x9 faux PD150. I would say the smoke brings an illusion of short DoF that is really not there in the optics.
http://www.campslaughter.com/images2/6b.jpg
http://www.campslaughter.com/images2/7b.jpg

I would agree, although fog machines are not expensive in the big scheme of things , they are not really that cheap.

Fairly reasonable rental, though.

The time/mental consuming factor with using fog is keeping a consistent density throughout the day without seeing "billows" unless they are intentional. It takes practice, and it helps to assign someone to specifically operate the fogger. Wafting is key!