More Christie's Videos

No insight or commentary here - just showing off some other Christie's videos I found.

I really like the style of the auction videos.  The editorial team and producers at Christie's really do their best to inject life and excitement into the videos.  Also, my role is almost always the roaming B-camera.  It's me and one of the producers just running around and getting good content.  I like the freedom and the creativity that particular duty allows and encourages. FWIW, DP on the auction video was Tom Giovanelli and sound was Kenny Chin.

Below the auction video are a couple of interview-heavy videos about specific works.  I shot those alongside DP, Mead Hunt.  Sound was Mark Mandler and John Zecca.

Wait, did I say "no commentary?"  Oops...

Minty

Late last year, while in the middle of work on the Ruth Messinger video I shot for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions, we found ourselves in the middle of a production day with nothing to shoot.  As is always possible with high-profile (or powerful) interviewees, someone on our schedule was called away for something big that couldn't possibly be moved.  So, we had to figure something out.  Check the link out below for the result.

Mint Theater - NYC (Vimeo album)

This was a fun one - we were given a nice, large, interesting space to shoot in (which is becoming a rarity in industrial work these days).  I also had the benefit of controlling the stage lighting, so I set my frame, built my key and adjusted the stage light levels to be about a stop under my key.  My key was a diffused 4bank fluorescent, with bounces for fill and edge.  I also used two 250w Pro Lights to shape the seats in the background.  Sound was recorded by my cohort, Bret Scheinfeld.

A Founder's Vision

If you've been following this blog, you'll remember a certain star-studded video I shot last year for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions and the American Jewish World Service ("And Many Happy Returns...").  In March, Philip and I headed down to Florida to shoot a follow-up piece on one of the founders of AJWS, Larry Phillips (of the Van Heusen apparel company).  It's a simple interview-based piece, like the Ruth Messinger tribute, with a similar style to the previous video.  Enjoy.

Produced, Directed & Edited by Philip Dolin & Molly Bernstein
Cameraman: Me
Sound recordist: Roy Chase
Production Company: Particle Productions

Flip Flop Gorilla

The last few years have been really interesting for me, at least as far as equipment goes.  Regarding DSLR video, I went from they're nice but not video-friendly enough, to basically swearing by them for certain styles of production...

I now am of the camp that HDSLR (Canon, particularly) cameras are among the best options for guerilla and low-profile filmmaking - as long as you know how to focus and expose manually (those out there who are used auto focus, exposure and other auto features as a crutch should stay away).  Here's why:

• In "guerilla" or run and gun filmmaking we often don't have time or permission to light.  The DSLR cams have the ability to shoot at a very high ISO (sensitivity).  And they're so good that the digital noise typically associated with doing this (raising your gain on a conventional video camera) is often hardly noticeable, and rarely distracting.
• Shallow depth of field.  Now this is where I really sound like I'm flip-flopping.  I used to be of the opinion that the shallow DoF was a pain for doc shooting... don't get me wrong, it does make things difficult for those out there who are used to letting the auto focus work.  However, I discovered on a recent shoot that the shallow DoF actually made things easier for a run 'n gun shoot I was on.  I was shooting footage on a nighttime police ride-along (awesome, yes, I know) and much of the interview was done while the officer was on duty, patrolling in the squad-car.  I used the shallow DoF (especially shallow because I needed to be wide open for exposure) to let the world outside of the vehicle get milky.  It let lights and signs blend together for this beautifully milky wash of moving, breathing color in the background.  It really made for a beautiful shot in a pinch.
• They're SMALL.  DSLR cameras are tiny and they look like still cameras.  Ok, fine, they are still cameras.  In the first bullet point, I mentioned lack of permission regarding lighting.  While most of my projects, big and small, are on the up and up as far as permits and permissions go, there's a good 10% that are done on the DL.  On those few projects, there are always any number of valid reasons for going that way, but we're not here to discuss those sorts of things.  Whether you're not supposed to be filming or you've been asked to be inconspicuous, the small form factor of DSLR cameras lets you be just that.  It's not a whole lot more than you just standing there.  In addition to avoiding attention, it also lets you shoot differently than you would with a larger camera.  You can essentially shoot anywhere your body fits - while a large-format camera ads considerable depth to your figure, so you're limited.

Below are some grabs from a recent run 'n gun shoot on a police ride-along - this shoot was the motivation for writing this post.  I basically encountered all of the above advantages over the course of that night.  This was footage for a segment in a PBS-bound documentary, "Small Matters," directed by Matt Wechsler.  It's a film about a young man with Tourette's Syndrome who's become an advocate for TS awareness with this segment showing some "success stories" of people who grew up with TS and made something of themselves in spite of the hardships and setbacks.  The producer wanted a very intimate feel, with the interview segment being shot inside the car with Brian (the officer).  Also, since I was working with Brian while he was on-duty, it was a huge advantage for me to be able to maintain a low profile.  Add to that shooting at night (LOW LIGHT) in an active police car and having absolutely ZERO control over anything... Thank heavens for the DSLR...

As I've said in previous posts, I'm not an advocate of any do-all camera or format, but the current crop of DSLR cameras, in particular, are certainly establishing a solid footing in professional video production.

New Doc Reel

Here's the new doc reel, a montage of clips from various projects through June 2011.

The Interview

One of the staples of documentary filmmaking is the interview.  It's a useful device for providing exposition, transitions and so much more.  Ken Burns's films, which are largely based around archival material, rely heavily on interviews for coherence.  Errol Morris's works, use them as the main narrative - and his use of the Interrotron (a contraption designed to allow the subject to comfortably address the camera directly) provides an amazing intimacy.  "The Office" (I know, it's not a real documentary), uses them to deliver joke setups and often, punch lines.  "District 9" (another fake documentary) uses them as a setup to the mystery/story at hand.  However they're used, shooting interviews well is an important skill any good documentary cameraman has to master.

If you look to your local news for an example of good interview shooting, stop a second, go jump in the shower (use COLD water), then dry up, come back and never do that again.  The News, which is VERY dependent on interviews, does only one thing good - it delivers content quickly.  The camera and lighting setups are designed to be quick.  In the lamest of news interviews, the cameraperson will turn on the on-camera light, set the subject much too close to the wall and roll.  The result is a nasty, flat - albeit properly-exposed - shot.  Got the job done, though... delivered the content about as quickly as it's happening.

The next step up is the news magazine - your "20/20" or "60 Minutes" programs.  Better?  Yes.  Cookie cutter?  Hell yes.  Soft, pleasing, almost frontal key light.  Add some fill to flatten the faces out.  Then a hair light and edge.  Then put some sort of element in the background that has something to do with the story.  Usually books.  Light those with some colored light.  Usually blue and frequently gobo'ed.  Done.  Sure, this is pleasing.  The subjects look nice, there's some nice modeling going on, and they're separated from their background.  Sometimes this setup is the very best setup for the sake of the story, but not always and not often.

The good documentary cameraman goes into a project without preconceived ideas for how to light the interviews.  Different projects will call for different styles.  Sometimes, there's a look to the piece.  Perhaps all the interviews need to be dramatic and contrasty, or maybe they need to look natural or bright or whatever.  Sometimes, there are protagonists and antagonists (like in fiction), and the good guys should be more modeled and bright, and the bad guys, more low-key.  It depends on the film.

Here's a piece I shot recently for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions/Circle Terrific Media.  It's almost a narrative of interviews.  I'm quite pleased with how they came out.



For this piece, Philip and I decided that all of the interviews needed to be bright and pretty but of course, throughout it all, not flat or over-lit.  My approach to the lighting was to make all non-key lighting elements subtle and based on reality.  That is, I was never going to just setup a kicker and work in a hard edge for the hell of it.  I wasn't going to just throw a light up on the background.  It's got to flow.  See below for an example.

In this setup, the subject, Joy Levitt, is somewhat of an academic and the bookcases were something the producer definitely wanted to include.  The room was DARK.  I started with a large key, a 4 bank fluorescent through a 40" square diffusion frame.  I used an unbleached muslin bounce for a warm, soft fill.  For the rear bookcase, I bounced a small 250w fixture off of the column you see in the shot.  It was a nice, soft, subtle illumination that gave me what I wanted without drawing attention to itself.  Lastly, I knew I needed further separation for the subject so I added an edge light.  My first choice for an edge is always a bounced one.  It's much more subtle a touch.  Typically, it's a small gold/silver stipple flexfill reflecting the key.  In this particular situation, having such a soft key with limited throw (positioned high to avoid reflections in the subject's glasses), I had to do something a little different.  My edge for this shot was another 250w fixture shot into a 22" white flexfill, bounced back onto the subject.  You can see how nicely it plays over the subject, separating her from the background in a nice, subtle way.

Another example of my favorite setup for a natural-looking interview setup can be seen in this grab from our interview with Elie Wiesel.  Simple key from the fluorescent, bounce fill and bounce edge.  As you can see in the still, it's modeled, all the necessary separation is there, but it doesn't look "lit."  In my opinion, that's the best lighting - when the technical work doesn't draw attention to itself and lets the subject matter take the leading role.  You can view the setup in the still below (featuring my frequent collaborated, sound mixer Bret Scheinfeld).

So all this lighting stuff is well and good when you've actually got lights and power, but what about outside?  On a project with a large budget, I'd bring on some big HMIs and a load of grip (and a big crew to help manage it all).  In doc work, though, we're often working on as small a budget as possible.  So what if it's just you and natural light?  Well, there's a way for that, too.  A good example of that from this specific piece with Philip was our interview with Mia Farrow at her home.


As you can see, the modeled lighting present in the rest of the interviews certainly carries over, even though I was working with just the sun.  The first step is deciding how to use the sun.  Diffuse it and use it as a key?  Sometimes, that's the best way to go.  For Ms. Farrow, though, I decided the best use for the light as we had it was as a backlight (which also let me shoot the direction you see with the very nice background).  For Ms. Farrow's key, I used a large white flexfill to bounce the sun back on the far side and then used my trusty unbleached muslin flexfill for some fill.  And that was it.  As you can see, it looks natural and Ms. Farrow looks good.

So you've got the lighting aspect down.  Great!  Now what?  It's a shame, but so many up-and-coming camerapeople tend to light their subjects beautifully in front of boring or oddly-composed backgrounds.  Blank walls of various colors, weird architectural lines, or dead on flat with some sort of background element...  Yuck.  Us doc guys are usually stuck with whatever space we're thrown into.  No production designer, no set dresser, nothing.  We have to be able to look at a space cinematically and find the one great angle in an otherwise-crappy location (there is always one somewhere).  Find interesting lines and use them well.  Take this grab below, of our interview with NY Times columnist, Nicholas Kristoff.

Look at the lines in the background.  This is an example of using lines in your composition.  The floor, the walls, the vertical windows are getting smaller and smaller.  They lead your eye to Nick.  What if we had left our cameras where they were, but flipped nick and the lighting setup.  Well, A) the key light is less motivated, but B) the lines don't lead anywhere.  They're just there.  They don't do anything.

Beyond lines, you should also look at elements.  As mentioned with the interview with Joy Levitt, the bookcases were an important element of the shot (and by the way, the lines also work to our advantage in that shot).  Sometimes in the "20/20" stuff, it's a flag or a poster or some other prop.  My favorite personal use of relevant background elements is in an interview I shot with video artist, Bill Viola.

This was for a short documentary on an installation of his.  The piece was a deeply personal expression for Bill, an exploration of memory and the subconscious.  I suggested to the producer that we integrate him into the piece for the interview.  As you can see, we incorporated part of a screen into the shot.  Even moreso, though, I positioned him in such a way that the actual projection would play over the fill side of Bill's face.  His key side is exposed properly and modeled and I bounced some back for an edge to pop him out from the black on screen-right.  But the fill is all projection.  It's subtle but what I loved about it was that it only plays out in that left-most (screen left, that is) part of his face.  I lit the key side bright enough that the projection doesn't interfere with it, but only reads in the deepest of the shadows.  It plays over much better in the video as the projection moves, but you can still see a bit of the effect in the stills above.

And then you have projects where there is no background - the black void interview (or the Apple-style white limbo).  These types of setups are hardly my favorite, but sometimes they're necessary.  Perhaps the production intends to put text or graphics in the blank space.  While it is simpler to not have to worry about lighting or composing a background, there are a number of commonly overlooked elements.  You start with your subject and light them (again, you can do any number of things and light them for beauty or for drama).  Now what?  Just put up a black cloth and shoot?  Uh... no (see the photo above - there's a lot going on, lighting-wise).  One of the most frequent problems folks have shooting black void stuff is noise in the blacks or, heaven forbid, detail (a wrinkle or fold of the background, or maybe even a shadow).  The key for keeping the black black is separation.  First, like with most other backgrounds, put as much distance as you can between the subject and the back.  A shallow depth of field will take care of all but the worst wrinkles and other sorts of imperfections in the background.  Also, the distance will make it easier for you to control your light and keep it from spilling all over your clean black void.  Use flags and blackwrap liberally.  Lastly another frequent issue - and this is specific to the black void interviews - is lack of separation.  Most of the time, you won't want the subject's shape to just melt into the background.  To prevent this, you'll want some sort of edge or kicker or hairlight.  Framing is also pretty crucial.  If you've got a void that won't have graphics or text laid in (see below, left), you want to play your shots on the closer end.  This rings more true for shooting 16x9 or wider.  If you pull back too wide, you will have a ton of negative space on the eye-side of the frame.  When shooting 4:3, it's less of a problem because there's less horizontal frame space, but it's still something to remember.

I guess the point of this post is to illustrate the importance of versatility in the documentary cameraman.  This is important for your work that is seen on screen (being able to produce different types of lighting for different situations) and off screen (using your tools effectively).  Going into situations with little to no information (which happens all too often in doc) also means being prepared and being experienced enough to know what will work before you even get a chance to set it up.  For instance, I know for a natural-looking interview, my key-bounce-bounce interview setup is a good place to start - that saves a lot of time on the first setup.  I always remember that physical separation between subject and background helps A LOT.  Through and through, though, I'm always ready to break my rules if it fits the story or the goals of the film.  So get out there and light.  The more you do it, the more you understand it.  You'll discover what works and what doesn't, you'll figure out creative solutions to common problems.  Take your girlfriend/boyfriend/mother/father/
brother/sister/whatever, sit them down, and light them.  See what happens...

Russian Invasion!

A few weeks ago I traveled to Nürburg, Germany with Kinetic Fin to shoot material for a documentary series on Jim Glickenhaus and his Ferrari P 4/5 Competizione, a remarkable one-off supercar.  In June, the car will compete in the 24 Hours Nürburgring endurance race.  Last week was qualifying and testing.

Going into this first trip (we'll be going again for the 24H, and possibly one more time before), very few details were known by the crew.  Where were we to stage?  Where could we shoot from?  What exactly is the schedule for the race?  We knew the car, we knew what it set out to do in Nürburg, but we were in the dark as far as logistics went.  So we considered this trip somewhat of a scout and just went into it open-minded, ready to adapt.

I knew that even if there were prime press areas to shoot from, I'd need a lens on the long end to get great shots of the car and the action.  I already had an 80-300mm zoom in my arsenal, but it's a long and thin beast and can get a bit wobbly on occasion.  Ideally, I'd use that on rods with a lens support but with Kinetic Fin, we like to roll light and scaled back as much as possible.  Also, I wanted closer than 300mm.  Enter the Russian-made Zenit 3M-5CA 500mm f/8 lens...

This beast is a reflex lens, that is, it accomplishes its focal length with the use of mirrors in the lens, rather than the traditional design.  This allows it to be lighter and -let's not dance around it- cheaper than comparable-length telephotos.  The problems with reflex lenses are that you usually sacrifice some contrast and the bokeh is ellipsoidal.  The bokeh thing was not a problem for me.  I don't mind interesting stuff going on back there.  The contrast issue, however, was a concern.  So I researched and researched and stumbled upon the Zenit.  A few videos later and I was sold.  A quick search found me a mint one for a reasonable price and a week later, I had the lens in my hand...

As you can see from the video, it holds up nicely.  Being on the longer end, there is considerable "jello" (DSLR sensor-related wobble) but while following fast cars or completely locked off, that is hardly an issue.  The biggest problem I found was that the lens is a fixed-aperture lens.  It's f/8 and f/8 only.  Normally, I would've loved to stop down on a long lens like this and increase my DoF.  But of course, compromises must be made if you want to save literally thousands of dollars on a telephoto lens like this.  So I had to rack focus.  Luckily there was time to practice - if I had to roll live, this would not have been the ideal lens, but shooting to edit leaves room to rehearse your shots and practice your racks... let me tell you, maintaining focus on cars going this fast towards and then past you is no easy task.

Anyway, I managed and got what I needed for the job.  I'm definitely looking forward to shooting with this bad boy again in June.  Here are some selects using this lens (there's a lot more good stuff on this lens but until the film comes out, I'm limited to what I can show).

Versatility (a quickie)

Part of what I love about DSLR for video is the versatility of the cameras.  They can be built up to the size of a full-size cinema camera or used in a very simple, compact configuration.

A Cinvate rig

My 550D mini setup

Case in point, my normal bag (below, left) comes with me with all my lenses, the Hoodloupe, battery grip, charger, cards, cables and more.  Today, however, I'm heading out to shoot some Second Unit stuff for a feature (getting NYC establishing shots and more) and I want to stay very light, so I packed a tiny camera case with just the camera body, 24mm, 58mm, and 100mm lenses, cards and 3 charged batteries.  This package is less than half the size of the usual kit and will work perfectly for my needs today.  Love it :)

 

The DSLR Arsenal

I'd like to introduce my DSLR kit.

The Canon EOS 550D/T2i built with a Yashica 28-50mm f/3.5 and Hoodman loupe

The wides.  (L to R) Pentax 24mm f/2.8, Nikon 35mm f/2.5

The 50's.  (L to R) Rikkenon 50mm f/2, Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 58mm f/2

The lone tele, Nikon 100mm f/2.8

The slow, but awesome 80-300mm f/5

Adapting

Just to get it out of the way, the title is somewhat of a pun.  This post covers improvisation in filmmaking and lenses (and adapters).

One of the most taught lessons in film school is about preparation.  Preproduction sets the pace for everything else.  For our various projects, we had to submit tons of prep material for approval - scripts, script breakdowns, shot lists, storyboards and so on.  Typically by the time we got around to shooting, the film was already made on paper.  For college kids who were new to the process, this was totally valuable work but teaching it like it was the unbreakable law was a bit much.

I've learned in my years working predominantly in documentary, that forethought is great but unexpected things always happen.  In doc, you don't have the time to worry about the last minute changes or complain.  You have to adapt or you don't make your day.  So you go into these shoots with ideas of sequences, shots you want to get and other hopefuls but you always remain open to change, even looking out for it.  Surprisingly, in my own recent fiction endeavors, this way of thinking has come in handy and produced some good results.

This recently came up in a discussion with a good friend and colleague of mine, Bret the Sound Guy.  He had recently worked on a short with another D.P. and we were talking about the project.  The director and D.P. had come up with the idea that as the film progressed, they would shoot with wider and wider lenses (to support the themes of the film).  I made a joke about over-thinking the process and Bret and I got into a bit of a debate.  The thing I kept coming back to was the idea of organic filmmaking.  I've discovered a real joy in improvising on set and going with the flow.  Using mistakes to your advantage, finding little gems in what, at first, appears to be a problem.

Beyond the storytelling aspect, I've found that I like to carry these ideas over into the technical aspects of production like lighting and composition.  In a lot of documentary work - particularly in verité work - the camera is a part of the story.  The perspective and movement of the camera become character traits and there is no pretending that the camera isn't there.  Contrary to the modern belief that in doc the cameraman just gets whatever it can, there's a method to good doc shooting and this depends on the part the camera plays in the story.  I often like to carry that over into narrative work (when applicable).  This often shows itself in subtle punctuated reframing (à la "Boston Legal" - though not quite as frequent).  Today I saw rough cuts of scenes we shot Sunday for "Director's Cut."  Whether by accident or necessity, two shots where I had employed this sort of camera technique made it into the rough cut and they worked quite well.  Another sequence where three characters start arguing was completely shot this way and it really helped the tension.  Having seen the cuts so far, I can anticipate a lot of upcoming scenes where this style of shooting will really work.  And though it's not exactly how Elana first pictured the style, she's very open to the idea and willing to adapt her vision.

Now that was a good segue.  So I recently bought a Canon 550D to test the waters on the DSLR filmmaking revolution.  I knew early on I wanted to go with an APS-C sized sensor instead of full-frame because the former is almost identical to motion picture 35mm film.  Full-frame 35mm is wider and therefore has a much shallower DoF.  That sort of razor-thin focal plane can be problematic with my style of shooting and the fact that I don't often have the luxury of a focus-puller or setting marks or measuring at all.  In the recent Gevalia shoots that really turned me on to DSLRs for video, I had a great time but man, I wish I had more wiggle room than the full-frame 5D allowed.  I was constantly pulling focus because the slightest moves (like sitting up straight or an even smaller forward/backward motion) would have made the subject go completely soft.  So knowing APS-C was my choice, I had a decision to make between the 7D and the 550D.  As far as video goes, the two are basically identical.  The differences that allow for the almost double price tag of the 7D are all about the stills capabilities.  So, knowing that I would rarely be doing stills work, I went with the 550D.  So I tracked one down (one of the last in stock in the greater NY area) and picked it up.  Nobody, and I mean nobody had the body-only kits so for $100 more I got a kit with a very crappy zoom lens.  Piece of junk.  I decided to pick up a Nikon to Canon lens adapter and see how my old 70s Nikkors would fare mounted on this modern digicam.  And the verdict was... wow...  I haven't used the kit lens since.  I went and picked up more adapters (one for each lens) and began a search for other vintage lenses with character.  Got a couple of leads on some Russian primes that, from stills and footage I've seen online, seem to be very interesting.  Cool bokeh, nice contrast and consistency throughout all the stops.  Sharp enough, but subtly soft when it should be.  I'll be posting stills very soon with the Nikkors and whatever else I'm able to pick up.

Also to come are screen grabs from "Director's Cut."  Day 5 is Thursday and we're basically shooting every day (weekends off) through May 21st.  Reports and stills from the set to come...

I'm sold...

My recent work with Kinetic Fin has really turned me around on the whole DSLR for video thing, especially the Canon models.  The first two shoots I did with them, I saw the 5D, tweaked and tinkered with it and lit for it as the A cam, but ultimately the camera was confined to sticks or operated by the director (while I operated C cam - my trusty DVX).  I knew that the cam was getting really good results, but the experience was far from hands-on.  However, on the Gevalia shoot two weeks ago and another one yesterday for parent company, Kraft, I actually got the chance to operate a 5D in a doc setting.  This was something I had many reservations about - mainly form-factor and stability.  I had seen videos online of handheld DSLR video and it's not too great on it's own.  The shape and size just do not allow for smooth handheld work and stuff gets jittery very easily.  So, knowing about this issue, I brought my Tiffen Steadystick aboard both of these recent DSLR shoots.  (Just as a side note, I picked up that contraption so that I could operate hanheld cameras like the DVX and others in a way similar to shoulder-mount cameras.)  The stability it affords is fantastic.  And based on my recent experiences, it really helps DSLR shooting.  I was able to get really nice handheld stuff on the 5D and I am told by Kinetic Fin editor and shooter extraordinaire, Gene, that the footage from the 5D I operated was smooth, stable, and looked great.  With the setup I used, I was able to operate in a very familiar way and get really great results.

So that's that.  DSLR video can be really great.  And especially for Kinetic Fin's very intimate and honest style of filmmaking, shooting with a DSLR is the perfect combination of small, unobtrusive form and unbelievable cinematic quality.  As there appears to be a lot more work with them in the very near future, and since I now know I can operate the way I like to, I will be investing in a DSLR for video very soon.  Until then, though, here's a pic from the Gevalia 5D shoot.  You can tell even in just a picture of the screen of the cam, it takes some great video.  (And yes, those are my hands on there).

photo by Michael Lussos

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.

Testing, testing...

"Hi, my name is Dave, and I don't own an HD camera." "Welcome, Dave. We're all here to help."

(from a Cinematographers Who Haven't Made the Jump to HD Anonymous meeting)

I've shot HD before and it sure is lovely. I've actually used just about every different HD format currently available - they're all great. But they're not for me. I must admit, I'm wary to make an investment. Things are just shifting so rapidly, that I don't think I can safely make an investment that will pay out over time. If I always had my way regarding shooting format, I could get something, but for most of my for-hire shoots, the production decides. What if they want to use a different camera?!

That said, I think the time may be fast approaching when I should buy an HD camera - so, what to do? There are a plethora of options. If I wanted to spend more than ten grand, the decision is easier, but frankly, that's not what I want.

One of the current trends is HDSLR cameras - small cameras intended for still photography that are also quite capable hidef beauties. So, lately, I've been researching the different cameras out there - particularly the Canon 7D and 5D, and the Panasonic GH1. Number one research method is searching online for sample footage. So, I go on www.vimeo.com and search "7D." Results come up - countless videos titled "7D test." Great. Someone did the work for me. Click, open, load the video... WTF?!

By now, I've seen hundreds of shaky, out of focus, poorly lit, crappily composed, unstable footage set to great music. This tells me nothing. Just like when 35mm lens adapters were coming out, none of the videos online help me at all. What I need is real world film-style testing. Good composition, good lighting, appropriate camera movement - stuff that reflects what I'll be doing with the camera. Among the thousands of 7D videos online, but a few dozen are appropriate for my research, and they're damned hard to find.

So that's it for this post. Sorry it's just a rant, but that's what I felt like today. Tomorrow I'm shooting some product work for Gevalia coffee - I think I'll have a nice amount of freedom to do my thing, so I'm looking forward to it. If I remember, I'll take stills and finally have some shots to share.