LHORIZON : very good reference at arri. Thanx for that link.

Re: smoldering babes, lets just hope the smoldering isn't because you have just spent 4 hours rigging the 30+ lights everywhere while the talent is growing restless :)

As for style. Everything we do is based on our own sense of style. Its almost impossible to totally copy another persons work without adding your personal influences, at which point it will become your style (allthough maybe influenced by another). Thats my personal opinion and i'll stick to it no matter what :)

When you look at the majority of movies, they follow a fairly "standard" way of lighting scenes depending on the mood they wish to convey. Romantic scenes are usually lit in a similar fashion in many (not all) movies. This form of standardized mood lighting could be described as "the rules of lighting dramatically" and there are lots of books about this subject out there.
And then we have the exceptions. Once in a while, it can create a very poweful effect to just go totally bananas to achieve the effect you are looking for. To do this you need to know the rules, to know how to break them. If you dont, and just try to fudge it together, the risks are great that you will miss the intended objective. So don't be afraid to bend or break the rules.. but make very sure you know why you are doing it. Because if it doesnt work, you will definately be asked why :) (Maybe even by smoldering directors and producers :P

This thread is cool... I like being provoked because I am so new to this. Testing, changing, and growing...

Know the structure so you can tear down and break the structure. As an experiment I will take a scene or two and match to the film as close as I can get them with my tools.

DocuWild, you prompted me in the right direction.

Cheers!

Ack, I've been working ugly length days and getting back in here at last means my last post, which Kermie responded to, is buried back in p. 6.

Kermie, you are right, it is actually possible to get a short DOF under certain circumstances at less than telephoto as I originally posited. The macro setting would produce shallow focus wide angle results, assuming your subject was inches from the lens...however, even at wide open on the aperture, a standard wide angle shot with the subject at a few feet away would certainly have a deeper depth of field than can be achieved with a 35mm lens equivalent at its widest aperture.

Also, referring back to the Mini35 clips that I liked at NAB, the ones I remember were gloomy day exterior, long lens and atmospheric. Can't remember much else, but the scene that Chris put up the clip of is unfamiliar to me, although interesting to check out.

"FILM LOOK" Vs. MiniDV
 

Well I know that "FilmLook" is just a process that is acomplished in post to make video look more like film. One way I know of to do this is to use profetional LP mount lenses on your XL1 camera which is possible now, and the equipment is even available for rent if you want it. Yes it takes longer to setup but that is what being a good director is all about. If you want to do it right it might take a little longer just like if you were shooting 35mm film you need to set your focal length and mesuments to the actor as well as an added bonus off your xl1 you can use a refrance monitor to ACUALLY see what you are doing which is nice. Here are the links to the adapter.

http://www.mini35.com

This is the adapter at work. Now you can use all the profetional jibs and crains with your xl1 camera. Here are the people that make the adapter.

http://www.pstechnik.de/pstechnik.htm

That is the information on the 35mm adapter for your xl1 camera. If I had some extra cash or needed to get some equipment I would get that its like $8,000 for the full adapter I think, also you can rent it as well and the sight tells what houses you can rent from. I think this is cool they also have adapters for the biger profetional cameras so you can use your LP lenses on them. I know of a profetional cinnematographer that has all his own equipment that I could utalize this adapter with so that I have 0% proccessing and film cost for the length of my shoot which is awsome. I think this is a real value to productions on a limited budget. You can do ANYTHING IF you just ask the right people. You will be suprised at what cinnematographers will do to help the LOW budget guys for a return promise to use him on a bigger picture in writing. Just a thought. :)

This also addresses profetional style and a more profetional value added look to your movie. I think this is awsome.

One way I know to get the film look is by shooting 16:9 and telling your audience you've made it look just like film. If you tell them this enough they'll believe it. :)

-Vinson

hehe
 

Yea right!! I know this adapter solves the depth of field problem so that your xl1 will act just like a 35mm and be able to use 35mm film lenses like the cook anamorphic lp lens and many other lens mounts as well. Hell it even uses a grounding glass just like a 35mm film camera. I think the images I have seen are impressive.

Shane

Shane--

You bring out the very things I have questioned since I first read about the mini35. Considering everything you said, it appears to defeat one of the primary reasons for investing in the XL1s to begin with--lower cost!

Maybe
 

The camera is a lower cost, but the value of the camera is amplified when you get the mini35. I think that 8-9k is not a bad price since this is in Eouro dollers and that it makes your XL1 perform like a profetional camera. The only thing you could do better is get the camera that lucas is using which is a 200k camera, ouch!! You use the XL1 because its awsome for the price and you rent the mini35 if you want to use it. Hey if you want quality that is what you have to do. Quality comes at a privce. I think its reasonable. Espetially if you want to make something to make people take notice at sundance.

"I think its reasonable. Espetially if you want to make something to make people take notice at sundance."

Or Shane, even better, it may have just the opposite effect at Sundance--they won't take notice of the fact that it's shot on digital, and believe it to be film-originated!

A couple of teeny things--the lens mount is a PL, not LP (might have a hard time sticking record albums in there). And the way that the mini 35 uses a ground glass is very different than on a film camera, in that the mini 35 uses it to capture the image from the lens so that it can be photographed by the video camera, whereas the ground glass on a film camera is only used for viewfinding purposes and has no effect on the image itself (think of what you see when you look into an SLR still camera; that's a groundglass).

"Well I know that "FilmLook" is just a process that is acomplished in post to make video look more like film. One way I know of to do this is to use profetional LP mount lenses on your XL1 camera"

As far as this system vs Filmlook, that's apples and oranges. They both will contribute to a filmic presentation from a video source, the mini 35 by minimizing depth of field and the software/post solutions by altering the image from a temporal and contrast standpoint. However there is no crossover between the types of effects.

"it makes your XL1 perform like a profetional camera. The only thing you could do better is get the camera that lucas is using which is a 200k camera"

I guess this is subjective, but as much as I am a fan of the XL1, there are many cameras inbetween it and the CineAlta which you referenced that are capable of producing a higher resolution, wider dynamic range image. They may cost more than $4K, but certainly less than $200K (the CineAlta doesn't cost that much, incidentally.

I just saw some footage I shot from a Panasonic's 24p DVX100 I tested. I viewed the footage on my friend's TV and I have a great way of getting the film look. Buying this camera.

-Vinson

I feel compelled to interject something about the "film look" issue. ZGC is marketing a product called the P+S Technik Mini35 Digital adapter for the Canon XL1/XL1S (as well as for the Sony PD150). It gives you a "film look," meaning: You no longer are a slave to the 1/3 inch chip which gives you a flat video image. With the ability to use 35mm lenses on a DV camera, you still capture the image on the 1/3 inch CCD, but you're shooting in 35mm which gives you a depth of field you could never get with the camera otherwise. 35mm format allows you to capture images like your eye sees, in-focus subjects with out of focus areas. That more natural look, like the human eye sees is pleasing and comfortable.

The finished product using the Mini35 with the XL1/XL1S is not EXACTLY like capturing the footage using film stock, but it does have a grainy look and DOF, giving you a hybrid between the "glossiness" of video and the pleasing effect of film.

Here's a good example of what the film look can do:

A videographer in Vermont recently shot TV spots for one of three candidates in the governor's race using a Canon Xl1 and the Mini35 adapter. PBS aired a show that ran TV spots from each of the 3 candidates campaigns. His spots looked far better than the others and a as a result, the candidate's campaign got flack for having spent public funds to shoot the spots using expensive film stock. What a great testimonial for the XL1, the Mini35 and the "film look." The videographer, Jim Giberti, also told me that the color saturation was fabulous with the Mini35. I believe he used Nikon 35mm lenses.

Cheers,
Barbara Lowry
ZGC, Inc.
Watchdog Sponsor