Dave on Twitter

16 March, 2010

A discussion of "format-agnostic"

In my last post, I referred to myself as format-agnostic when discussing the choice of camera for one of the projects I'm currently working on.  For a variety of reasons, lately, I've been thinking a lot about the multitude of cameras and video formats and film stocks available for motion-picture production.  As a note I enjoy shooting both film and video, though the breadth of my recent work has been exclusively some form or another of digital capture.  I am not, however, pro-digital.

So what is "the right format?"  I think every filmmaker has an idea of what is the best format for their project.  To some it's just whatever is the best quality, highest definition they can afford.  To others, it's what looks the most appropriate - a gritty, grainy stock for a post-apocalyptic drama?  Maybe a slick, clean, noise-free format for a romantic comedy?  All these requirements they have are certainly valid, but ultimately for me, the right format is neither of the above.  If I'm hired to shoot a project, I am responsible for delivering the image.  If the production has no money and I insist on shooting 35mm and we run out of money before we're done, I've failed in my job.  If the production blows their money on a RED package I wanted and then skimps on lighting, production design and other stuff that goes in front of the lens, all I'll be able to deliver is high definition crap.  See, there are so many more important look-related elements than just the format we shoot on.  With right stuff in front of the camera, it almost doesn't matter what's inside.  Good lighting, good composition, good production design, and good talent can help even the cheapest camera look great.  That's not to say that a Flip cam is the next wave of filmmaking gear.  But if there's a story to tell and the talent is all there, maybe a handycam could work if that's all the filmmakers can afford.  That said, there is one basic requirement I do have for the format I work with; control - the camera must not be Full AUTO.  I must be able to control iris, focus, shutter speed (at least to lock one down) and whitebalance.  With that, anything can deliver a good look for your film.

In the last 6 months, I have gladly shot the following formats and delivered results that very much pleased my clients with their respected release and exhibition types:

  • Panasonic DVX100 (mini DV, 480/24p).  Webisodes, feature documentary, TV segment.
  • Sony EX1 (XDCam EX, 1080/24p).  Feature documentary, TV segment.
  • Sony EX3 (XDCam EX, 1080/24p).  Wide-release DVD/Blue Ray concert, music video, live multi-cam concert (big screen projection)
  • Sony Z1U (HDV, 1080/24f).  TV segment.
  • Canon 5D MkII (1080/30p).  TV spot, webisodes.
  • Panasonic HMC150 (AVC-HD, 1080/24p).  Feature film.
  • Panasonic HVX200 (DVCPro HD, 720/24p).  TV spot.
  • Sony V1U (HDV, 1080/24p).  Webisodes.
  • Panasonic HDX900 (DVCPro HD, 1080/24p).  TV segment, feature documentary.
  • Samsung Piece-of-Crap-Quicktime-Camcorder.  Viral video for the web.
Again, as a final note, I must reiterate that every format needs good lighting and appropriate visual design like sets, costumes and such.  A cheap handycam with no (or bad) lighting will look terrible.  But the same thing goes with a pro HD cam.  But that very same handycam shooting a well lit scene and exposed right can look really nice - and if that handycam is the only thing you have that will shoot your story, it's the "right" format for you.