A Dozen Useful, Low-Budget Camera-Related Items

As you may have gathered from Ashley's recent post about art department lifesavers we have been doing some filming lately. After several days on set, I've come to deeply appreciate some small, even seemingly minor, accessories and pieces of camera-related equipment -- "kit" in industry parlance. I thought I'd discuss a few of these items, each of which is under $200. We're using a Sony FS100, a Red Rock Micro follow focus and low-rise baseplate, an assortment of Nikon lenses, and a Heliopan variable ND filter, but many of the items listed below would be at home on a DSLR-based shoot or a shoot with a more traditional video camera (Sony EX1, Panasonic HVX200, etc).

Zip tie lens gears. Lenses that were designed for stills, not cinema, lack a gear that allows them to be used with a follow focus. One solution would have been to use the gear rings that we had from Red Rock Micro. These are functional, but they have a number of disadvantages: they're large, they can be time consuming to put on/take off, and at $40 each, they're overpriced. Zip tie lens gears are inexpensive and easy-to-add to every lens you own. Once on your lens, you can forget about them. $40 for 3. 

Wet Erase Markers A good set of wet-erase markers will help you make marks on your follow focus ring. We like wet erase, not dry erase, markers because the dry erase ones will smear. $7.

Filter pouch. Our Heliopan Variable ND filter comes in a less-than-ideal case. It's a very tight fit, to the point of seeming like it could scratch or scuff the glass. We quickly bought a filter pouch to protect our investment. $9.

77mm step up rings and lens caps. We use a 77mm variable ND filter on set, which at that size has the ability to cover all of our lenses when using step-up rings. After a few days of filming with one step-up ring per size needed (e.g., a 52-to-77, a 62-to-77, etc.) we found that we were being slowed down by having to unscrew the step-up rings from lens to lens, particularly when so many of our most-used lenses (e.g., 28, 35, 50) all had a 52mm threading. So we splurged and purchased the necessary step up rings for all of our lenses. Now all of our lenses have a 77mm "face" (and accompanying lens cap). Though step up rings seem like an inexpensive piece of kit, read the reviews and buy a reputable brand like B+W, Heliopan, etc. Lesser step up rings can seize up, making that expensive variable ND filter a big headache! Step-up rings: $25 - $45.  Lens caps: $5.

Lens cleaning tools.  We switch lenses and filters often, which means more chance of dirtying them. We keep our glass clean with: Nikon Lens Pen. $7 Kimwipes. $5 Purosol Lens Cleaner. $8

Lilliput 7" 668GL On-camera HD Monitor In 2010 I read about Lilliput's small, inexpensive HD monitors. At the time, they only seemed to be sold on Ebay. I bought one off almost as a novelty, not expecting much from it since it was so much cheaper than other HD monitors on the market. While its picture is not as vivid or high resolution as that of other portable HD monitors I've used, it works, it's lightweight, and it's far more affordable. The one I bought over a year ago didn't have a battery pack like the new ones they make, so I had to buy an Ikan battery AC/DC adapter plate, which allows me to use Sony batteries with it. The new models, which you can purchase through Amazon, now come with their own battery solution and component inputs. As for its application, I tend not to use it if I'm operating camera myself, but when working with a DP or camera operator I use it as my "director's monitor." It's especially useful when filming in tight spaces (like a car -- see below) where using your camera's LCD monitor or viewfinder isn't an option.  $170.

HDMI Cables It's nice to have different lengths of HDMI cables to use with the Lilliput monitor. I've used these Insignia brand cables on set for a few weeks and haven't had any problems. One's a 9 footer, one's a 3 footer. $10.

FilmTools Gripper 116 XL car mount. Trying to shoot smooth car footage handheld , particularly with a CMOS sensor prone to "jell-o", can be a test of one's patience. This FilmTools car mount affixes to your car's windows or windshield with a large suction cup and will support cameras up to 9 pounds. $110.

Coleman LED Quad Lantern This ingenious LED lantern can be split into four smaller LED sections, which have a functionality similar to micro Litepanels at a fraction of the cost. We've used the "quads" for driving shots by hiding them on the ceiling, in the dashboard, and on the floor. Beyond driving, they're useful for any situation where you might not have access to power and don't need to light a large area. And if you need more light than one puts off, you can gaff tape them together. Though they're not necessarily color corrected like a those designed for video use, they work great if you throw a gel on them or dial in the appropriate color balance setting on your camera. Plus, when you're not filming, the lantern can be used for camping -- you can't say that about a micro Litepanel! $58.

Two-Way Radios Or, as laymen call them, "walkie talkies." I'm usually not working on a set that's so large that we all need to be outfitted with professional two-way radios and headsets. That said, it's nice to have an inexpensive set on hand for those occasions when your cast and/or crew is in different areas. I find them essential when shooting exterior car scenes (i.e., those in which the camera's outside the car, filming actors driving). It's the easiest way I know to cue talent or ask for another take. Roughly $35-$75, depending on features.

Canare breakaway cable For the uninitiated, a breakaway cable consolidates multiple XLR and mini cables into one neat cable, which can be run from a location audio mixer to a camera (or audio recorder). Though it may seem overpriced for what is seemingly a bunch of XLR and mini plug cables wrapped together, if you're using a mixer and feeding that audio into your camera the simplicity, organization, and mobility that a breakaway cable provides is well worth the cost. In addition to feeding your camera two tracks of audio with one cable, a good breakaway cable also give the sound mixer a means to listen to the "return" audio instead of the audio from the sound mixer. This is the best way to monitor the audio being mixed, so for me it's worth the investment. $190.

Rest In Peace, Steve Jobs

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on.

I remember January 6, 1984 like it was yesterday: My dad and sister went to an electronics store and brought home our first VCR. My mom and I went to one of Knoxville's only computer stores and brought home our first computer, an Apple IIe.

Like so many filmmakers, my life been shaped by the fusion, the intermingling, and the collision of the motion picture with the personal computer. That I was introduced to both of these on the same day -- on Epiphany, no less -- is so "poetic" that it'd be a cliche if you read it in a story or saw it in a movie. But that's the way it happened, honest.

More than any other person that I can think of, Steve Jobs is responsible for bringing together motion pictures and the computer. Jobs' influence on both fields would be hard to overstate.

For me personally, Jobs' life work -- that is, the things he made or had a hand in making -- directly led to me pursuing my life's work, work that is, for me, the kind he spoke of in his commencement address at Stanford, quoted above.

So it seems appropriate at this moment -- on the day of his passing -- to say, "Thank you, Mr. Jobs, and rest in peace."

Here's one more quote from that 2005 commencement speech:

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

UFVA 2011 - DIY: Distribute It Yourself

I'm moderating a panel today at the University Film & Video Conference in Boston. The panel's called, "DIY: Distribute It Yourself." My other esteemed panelists are Bart Weiss, Caitlin Horsmon, and Ashley Maynor. As part of the panel, I'm giving a talk on social networking and film distribution. Among other things, my talk suggests that there are (at least) ten questions you should ask of yourself as you start to think about social media with regards to any film project. Instead of asking my audience to remember (or write down) those ten questions, I'm posting them here:

Am I trying to connect with my audience for one film (or issue) or for a body of work?

Who are these audiences?

What makes me/my work distinctive, especially to my audience?

How might I use social media to manage expectations of my work?

Where do my audiences congregate online?

What style/forms of communication does my audience trust?

What modes of communication would be most useful between me and my audience?

What do I want people to do after seeing my work? (e.g., take political action, buy my DVD, change a behavior, etc.)

What and how much do I want to share -- of my project, and of myself?

How much time can I commit to working on promotion and distribution via social media ?

Also, at the end of my talk I'm sharing a few excellent resources with regards to social media and/or film. Here they are:

Think Outside the Box Office -- both the book and the website

Friends, Fans, and Followers by Scott Kirsner

Tribeca Film Social Media Toolkit

Workbook Project

Social Networking Sites and Our Lives - The Pew Internet & American Life Project

Big Boards

Mashable

UPDATE (from Ashley):

The blog post I mentioned in my presentation, by Ted Hope, which is still relevant for those with films without distribution, can be found here. If you want to follow his blog, it's now hosted at Indiewire here.

How to Build a Lens Collection

Today I was reading a camera discussion forum in which someone asked how to build a lens collection on a budget. He was looking for Nikon lenses to use on a Sony NEX-FS100 camera. I could relate -- I was in his position in 2006 when I started to look for Nikon glass to be used on video cameras with a Letus, on the Red One, and so on. I hadn't purchased a lens since my senior year in high school (for my venerable Pentax K-1000), and I knew only the most basic things to look for. Since then I've built up a nice collection of Nikon lenses, which now work on a host of cameras. I love my Nikons and have no regrets!

So what follows are some very basic tips I've learned on how to build a lens collection. I make a few allusions to Nikons vis-a-vis the NEX-FS100 below, but my advice could just as easily be interpolated for someone buying Canon lenses for the Red Epic or a Panasonic AF-100.

1) Determine your needs. Obviously, you need to think about what kind of coverage you want. Even if you primarily shoot wide angle footage, you probably also want a normal and a telephoto lens in your bag. But only you know your tastes. Likewise, only you know your budget. You're going to be keeping this in mind as you build a list and prioritize your needs.

But beyond these things, there are other considerations:

What cameras now and in the future, might you use these lenses on? Do your lenses need to be full-frame to be future-proof? Must they have aperture rings? I prefer having aperture rings on my lenses because I sometimes have to use "dumb" adapters (i.e., those that can't control aperture).

Since I was working with a very limited budget, for me, the most important question when I began building my collection was whether to go for primes or zooms. I primarily would be using these lenses to shoot narrative work so I opted for primes; if I was shooting a documentary, I'd want a good zoom lens (if I was shooting with the NEX-FS100, would actually just get the Sony kit lens since autofocus is nice to have in a pinch).

The thing to remember about zooms intended for still lenses is that they are often not parfocal, which means that they don't hold focus across the zoom. (Some are. You have to test to find out.) To me, a non-parfocal zoom negates at least part of the purpose of having a zoom, so that's another reason I went with primes.

2) Familiarize yourself with the lenses that are out there. Researching Nikons, I visited sites like Photozone and those by Bjorn Rorslett (go to the LENSES page and then dig deep into his reviews, especially the "Best of" page) or Ken Rockwell. Different people trust different reviewers (some people HATE Ken Rockwell, for example). But the point is this: When all the websites praise a lens, that's a pretty good sign of a winner.

I'm obsessive, so I prefer to make lists and tables of all the lenses I'm considering. It helps me keep track of what I've looked at, the (dis)advantages of each, and the price.

3) Read reviews, but with a grain of salt. Remember that if you're only going to use lenses for video, you don't have to fret about their resolving power nearly as much. A lens intended for full frame negative film or a 16MP digital camera must resolve far more detail than you'll ever get out of HD or even 4K video. For example, many lens testers worry about blurring in the corners; you don't have to worry about this quite as much since using a full frame lens on a Super35 sensor means you're using the sweetest spot of the lens.

Having said all of this, I do think you should buy the best lenses you can afford. Like microphones, and unlike video cameras, they tend to hold their value for much longer. In 20 years we may be shooting with cameras that capture 8K footage… and it's possible I could still be using my Nikons.

4) Test. Try out the lenses you're considering, especially if they're pricey. Assuming you don't have a friend who happens to have all the Nikons ever made, your two best options for testing are a) visit a fantastic photo store in your area and try out the lenses or, if you don't have a great photo store (I don't), b) rent the lenses. I've saved a lot of money by spending a few bucks to rent a bunch of lenses and then buying the one that I actually like. (I have happily used and endorse LensRentals.com. I have received no promotional consideration for that endorsement.)

5) Buy used (if possible) and buy smartly (always).

Start by finding out the going price for a used lenses by visiting KEH and the going rate for a new version on B+H or Adorama.

If KEH has the lens, and you have the money, buy a lens from them -- they grade their lenses very fairly and have a great return policy. (Again, I've received nothing from them for this endorsement.)

If they don't have it, or it's too pricey, go for one on buy on Ebay, keeping the KEH prices in mind. If you're going for AI-S lenses you can get GREAT bargains on Ebay since many photographers, needing autofocus, consider these obsolete lenses. When buying on Ebay all the usual cautions apply. Make sure the seller has fantastic ratings and that the photos clearly show the quality of the lens. Only bid on the lenses that look pristine.

Whatever you do, don't overpay! If a lens on Ebay starts approaching anything close to its price on KEH, just get it on KEH and be done with it. The return policy will be far better than the risks you take with an Ebay seller. Or wait for another auction.

6) Watch for warning signs and, if necessary, seek help. I say this jokingly, but building a lens collection can be addictive fun -- and can distract you from the real purpose of building a collection, which is to go out and film! Don't say you weren't warned.

If you have other tips or disagree with any of the above, share in the comments below.

Adobe, Avid and FCP X: Resources for Switching

If you currently use Final Cut Studio you're going to have to switch to something different at some point. That might mean "upgrading" to FCP X, or moving to a competitor's product, like Adobe Premiere Pro or Avid Media Composer. To aid this, I've included links to demo versions and free/paid tutorials.

Demo SoftwareFinal Cut Pro X Demo download link: No demo version available. A 30-day demo version is now available here. Cost of full application: $299, plus $49 for Compressor and $49 for Motion.

Adobe Creative Suite 5.5: Production Premium Demo download link:Adobe CS 5.5 Production Premium 30-day Trial Version Includes Premiere Pro, Photoshop, After Effects, Encore, Audition, Illustrator, On Location and more. Cost of full application: 50% off ($849.50) thanks to a limited time "switch" promotion! Regularly $1650 for the suite of applications; $440 for the same suite in its "student/teacher" edition. (PremierePro can also be bought separately, but this is not nearly the same value as the bundle, which includes After Effects, Audition, Encore, etc.)

Avid Media Composer Demo download link:Avid Media Composer 5 Free 30-day Trial Cost of full application: $995 thanks to a limited time "switch" promotion. Regularly $2295; $295 for educational edition.

Lightworks Finally, it should be noted that Lightworks -- a professional editing application used to cut such films as Pulp Fiction, The Departed, and The King's Speech -- has gone open source for Windows and is slated for a late-2011 release on the Mac. If you currently have a dual-boot Mac, this is definitely a no-risk option to consider.

TutorialsFinal Cut Pro X

IzzyVideo: Final Cut Pro X Tutorial Cost: Free! Notes: Over 2.5 hours of training videos, plus project files. I don't expect this to go into a ton of detail, but what I've watched so far seems pretty good, and you can't beat the price.

Ripple Training: FCP X Cost: $40 Notes: I've used Ripple Training tutorials for earlier editions of Final Cut Pro, and I find them very efficient ways of getting up to speed on the application. These download to your iPad or computer through the iTunes store.

Larry Jordan: FCP X Cost: $99 for the entire set of tutorials. Or chapters for $15 each. Notes: Larry Jordan's previous FCP tutorials have been very good, but I can't say whether these are worth the extra cost over the Ripple tutorials. Jordan's tutorials have a little more personality than Ripple's, which is a pro or con depending on your taste.

***Adobe Premiere Pro

Adobe: Editing With Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 If You're an Final Cut Pro user Cost: Free! Notes: A PDF that lays it all out -- straight from Adobe. Clearly they are in it to win it.

Adobe: Switching to Adobe Premiere Pro 5 Cost: Free! Notes: Covers same info as above, but in video form. About 80 minutes of tutorials to help you make the switch from FCP to Premiere Pro. Probably not enough to train you completely, but enough to let you reassure you that switching to Adobe would be a simple transition.

Adobe: Adobe TV - Learn Premiere Pro CS5 Cost: Free! Notes: Excerpts from the Lynda.com training listed below. Probably not a solution for advanced training.

Adobe: Learn Premiere Pro CS5 and CS 5.5 Cost: Free! Notes: Mostly text-based tutorials.

Lynda.com: Premiere Pro CS5 Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 5 hours of training videos on Premiere Pro.

Lynda.com: Premiere Pro CS 5.5 New Features Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 27min of tutorials about new features in PP 5.5. You would want to watch this after the tutorials listed above.

Lynda.com: Encore CS 5 - Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 4hrs of tutorials on Adobe's DVD authoring application.

Lynda.com: Audition 3 Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: 6.5 hrs on Adobe's audio editing application. Doesn't appear to be fully up-to-date for CS5.5 version of the application.

Lynda.com: After Effects (various) Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: Hours upon hours of tutorials for Adobe's acclaimed effects and post-production application. Newcomers should start with After Effects Apprentice, which is 14 hours over 7 lessons.

***Avid Media Composer

Avid: Avid Media Composer 5: Getting Started Cost: Free! Notes: 3 hours of tutorials from Avid to get you started on Media Composer.

Lynda.com: Avid Media Composer 5 - Essential Training Cost: $25/month gives you access to all Lynda.com training videos. Notes: Nearly 6 hours of tutorials on Avid. This appears to replicate some of the free training Avid provides, but at twice the length, one assumes it also goes into more depth.

Avid: Avid for FCP Users Cost: $50 Notes: DVD-based tutorial. Does not appear to be available online.

Apple's FCP X FAQ: Reading Between the Lines

Apple today posted a FCP X Answers To Common Questions page in attempts to address some pro editors concerns (read: "do damage control") about the new application. While it brings some much-needed clarity to some questions (about sharing projects, etc.) many of the answers (to their own carefully phrased) questions talk around the issues. Below I've offered my highly-subjective and quite likely wrong translations of some of the more curious Q+A sections of Apple's FAQ. I'm no fortune teller, and if I'm wrong I will be happy to be wrong. But this is a very carefully worded document and, as is often the case with PR statements, what's not said is as important as what is.

Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X? Their answer: Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X. My translation: "No. And do not get your hopes up about this ever working. But it might -- we said might -- be something that works in limited fashion via XML, possibly through a 3rd party plugin, in the future.

Can Final Cut Pro X export XML? Apple's answer: Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X. We will release a set of APIs in the next few weeks so that third-party developers can access the next-generation XML in Final Cut Pro X. My translation: "We're going to enable XML export. And, who knows, maybe XML import... Wait and see." Hey, your guess is as good as mine (probably even better), but it sounds as if they will add the ability to export XML, though the wording is vague enough that one could interpret it to mean that they're going to rely on third parties to develop an XML export plugin. Also, curious is the fact that they say nothing of XML import, particularly since some detective work by others has shown that Apple appears to have been developing XML import capabilities in the program's code. Maybe I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt. (That's something I've not said many times in the last few days.) 

Does Final Cut Pro X support OMF, AAF, and EDLs? Apple's answer: Not yet. When the APIs for XML export are available, third-party developers will be able to create tools to support OMF, AAF, EDL, and other exchange formats. We have already worked with Automatic Duck to allow you to export OMF and AAF from Final Cut Pro X using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/. My translation: "We're outsourcing some of the pro features you used to find in Final Cut Studio. This is one reason we've lowered FCP X's price tag to $299. So we don't have to develop this stuff. So get out your checkbook, but remember that FCP X, Compressor and Motion are under $400. You can spend the money you used to spend on Final Cut Studio to add back the functionality to which you're accustomed. This a la carte approach is a way for us to get advanced hobbyists on board and to try to keep pros."

Can I send my project to a sound editing application such as Pro Tools? Apple's Answer: Yes; you can export your project in OMF or AAF format using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp My translation: "Um, yeah, if it wasn't clear from above, we're outsourcing those pro features."

As I said, I'm quite possibly wrong about these things -- and maybe way off the mark. I'm speculating, but that's because Apple is -- even after releasing a FAQ -- still asking us to speculate.

If I am right, and the new approach is a la carte features, well, I'm not sure that's actually a bad move. Other vendors developing these tools means that things might be better and more quickly developed than they would if Apple was doing them. They are, after all, a consumer electronics company now. Again, assuming this is the case, the big questions are:

What will be the final cost of adding in these various plug-ins, etc.?

Will Final Cut Pro X remain the bargain that Apple's touting it to be?

And, perhaps most importantly, if FCP X lacks professional features without the use of plug-ins, does using plug-ins on a somewhat less-than-fully-pro application trump using something like Avid, Premiere Pro, or Lightworks?

We shall see. Later this week I'll be posting some switching resources... because if you use FCP 7 you're switching, one way or another, to an entirely new edit suite.

EDIT (6.29.11 12:14pm): Made some changes to the XML-related Q+A -- one typo had changed the entire meaning, so I revised my interpretive paragraph.

FCP X User…. or Ex-FCP User? Some thoughts.

For the most part, this is not a review of FCP X. If you must know, I've used FCP X a little bit and I like its sleek interface and speed but, even more, I miss a lot of Final Cut Studio's functionality, particularly Color. If FCP X matures into something more professional (i.e., more robust editor, plus a truly sophisticated color grading tool) I might embrace it. If it doesn't, I will embrace something else. The biggest problem for me, and for many others I suspect, is that I don't know where it's going and what it will become.

What's been most puzzling in the aftermath of the FCP X is that so many people outside the professional production community -- journalists, software developers, consumer video hobbyists, etc. -- have tried to serve as apologists for Apple even though they have little experience editing professionally (i.e., for works that are publicly exhibited in broadcast, theatrical, or home video environments).

So, instead of reviewing the program in depth, I want to add my $0.02 to the ongoing FCP X debate by trying to articulate very clearly why I and others are frustrated with Apple and -- yes -- why we're considering switching.

In the Q+A format below I try to address these (sometime maddening) comments.

Let me point out that the comments to which I'm replying are composites or, at times, actual quotes (marked with asterisks) of comments I've found in news articles, message boards and elsewhere. And if you don't believe me, Google them.

"Editors are stupid if they upgraded on day one. I don’t know any pro I’d hire who jumps into something brand new and gets rid of their old stuff immediately." * I know of no one who threw out FCP 7 and assumed they'd jump straight to FCP X. Indeed, no pro worth her/his salt would ever migrate from one FCP version to a new one in the middle of a project. Final Cut 7 was an aging application that lacked many well-integrated features found in Premiere Pro and Avid. Editors have been begging for a new release of Final Cut for years. It's logical for editors to be excited to try it. If anything, the number of pros that downloaded it on its release date shows a lot of passion for the Final Cut brand!

"How can you expect a brand new product to be fully functioning and have all its features included on Day One?"* Actually, for two reasons: First, because no previous version of Final Cut Pro reduced functionality of its predecessor when it was released. And, secondly, because Final Cut Studio 3 was pulled on the same day, suggesting that the old Final Cut was indeed replaced by FCP X.

Apple can't have it both ways -- FCP X is either:

a) an update -- and hence it can carry the name "Final Cut Pro", and should be reasonably expected to carry over the same feature set, or

b) not an update -- and so can be forgiven for not having the same features as Final Cut Pro, but it should not be named as such.

By using X instead of "10" Apple may be trying to have it both ways… but they can't. It's wrong to claim the "Final Cut" name for marketing purposes, but not own the legacy of expectations associated with the application -- particularly when doing so casts the new version in a bad light.

"Your Final Cut Studio 3 suite of applications still work." "No one is forcing you to upgrade." "I was unaware that we lived in a world where software upgrades were mandatory."* Because FCS3 has been declared end-of-life, at some point -- perhaps soon, maybe in years -- it will no longer work, either because of an OS upgrade, changes in hardware, failure to support a new camera, etc. Transitioning to SOMETHING new is inevitable.

Since FCP X doesn't allow one to open Final Cut Pro 7 projects, FCP7's usefulness is today greatly reduced for the future, assuming one plans to adopt FCP X. As a point of comparison, Adobe Premiere Pro, for example, can open FCP 7 projects. (For an explanation of why opening legacy projects matters, see below.)

Finally, the issue for those of us in the educational community who teach editing is a pressing one. For us, Apple has forced a moment of decision. Beginning in August, when classes begin for most of us, we must decide whether to:

a) teach a "dead" application, which students cannot even purchase for themselves; b) switch to an unfinished application that does not yet include features that are important in any professional's skill set; c) switch to another company's application (e.g., Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro, etc.).

In such a scenario, option "C" begins to look like the most logical solution.

"I haven’t seen a negative review of FCP yet from someone who took 10 minutes to learn about how it was new and then gave it a fair shot. All the bashing I’ve seen has been dishonest, by people who presume that, because something works differently in FCPX than FCP7, it is simply impossible to do."* Clearly, if anyone knows what's possible and what's not possible to do in the application, it is Larry Jordan, one of the leading teachers of Final Cut Pro. Jordan had access to a pre-release version and has been selling FCP X tutorials since Day One. Here is a quote from his blog:

In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.

"The nay-sayers of this application fear change." First, this argument contradicts the earlier argument that "editors are stupid to try to adopt this on Day One." (See above.)

The people that I know that are the most pissed off are, in fact, longtime FCP users who were looking forward to FCP X's release. They were looking forward to the release because they had been waiting for an update to the application for several years. Several features announced in April by Apple about the new FCP X were exciting -- 64 bit support, support for H264 footage, renders being a thing of the past… If these things had been delivered without "taking away" features that many editors use in their day-to-day work, most editors would have raced to adopt and embrace the other, less familiar aspects of the new application (say, the new user interface).

"The FUD from “pros” are not pros at all – they are competitors from Avid, Adobe, and every little editing software maker who are literally QUAKING in their boots at the incredible bargain that FCPX brings. Period."* To account for the backlash against FCP X with this kind of explanation is paranoid. I'm reminded of the quote, sometimes attributed to Twain, "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

"Why the hell should a 7 project open in FCPX? That makes no sense. The entire flippin program has been redesigned. Finish your project in 7 and shut up."* The ability to open old project files is essential to any pro or semi-pro editor. Whether working for clients or for oneself, motion picture project files are often re-opened and tinkered with for years after their initial completion. Reasons for this can include such things as revising a corporate video with a client's new logo, updating a stereo project for surround sound, creating a Blu-ray project for a project that was once released on DVD or even VHS, creating a closed-captioned version to meet new accessibility guidelines, and so on. I could go on for pages about such changes, but I think I've made my point.

"Only a tiny segment of pros actually have a need for OMF, XML, EDL, tape output, etc." You're probably right -- most of us don't use these things on a daily basis. But that's like saying "Most drivers, on a daily basis, don't need airbags."

OMF, XML, EDL and other features pros are lamenting are professional, which is to say that many of the programs you see on television, in theaters, at film festivals on on DVD run across the need for these specialized tools at critical junctures in their projects. Not all projects need these tools, and not all projects that need them use them daily. But they are critical.

Speaking personally, I often edit my own projects and my projects often stay on one computer, but even then I will use OMF or XML to share these projects with collaborators (e.g., a sound editor using ProTools or a color grader using a Da Vinci suite). These are essential steps to completing a project.

Ironically, the fact that FCP X has sound editing and color grading features far less robust than Final Cut Studio only heightens the need to be able to share your project with other applications!

"It's released from the app store, so improvements will arrive faster." First, improvements will not arrive faster because of the app store; the speed of the improvements -- if and when they are offered -- will be dictated by the software developers.

Regarding the App Store as a delivery method, I don't understand why the App Store is different from, say, Software Update. But I'm not a programmer, and perhaps there is a good reason for this.

I do find exclusively using the App Store for such a massive piece of software cumbersome and the App Store creates problems for companies and universities that deal with issues like volume licensing and educational sales.

"Be patient. A lot of the features that are missing, like multicam, are on their way." Are they? If they are on their way, when will they arrive? What will be included? What features will never be "restored" to the application? And finally, share with us the source of your information. Please only cite actual quotes from Apple.

In all of my reading on FCP X, I have yet to encounter official statements made directly by Apple regarding what features will or won't be continued. A week after its release, the two closest things we have had to an official communication (as of this writing) are:

a) a few private email exchanges between pro users and Randy Ubillos, the lead software designer on FCP X. In one of these emails Ubillos verified that legacy FCP projects will never open in FCP X;

and

b) a response to a handful of criticisms in a hastily blogged response by David Pogue, a consumer tech journalist for the New York Times. Despite his attempts at helpfulness, Mr. Pogue is not an appropriate or even necessarily a capable messenger for any information that needs to be relayed by Apple to its current user base of Final Cut Studio users. His initial review and subsequent defense -- which showed special access to Apple developers that pro users don't have -- sadly did damage to my respect for him. Though perhaps unintentional, his special access makes him look like Apple's "embedded" reporter at the New York Times.

Final thoughts:

For many of its earliest years, Final Cut Pro was considered non-pro by many in the editing community. Avid reigned supreme, and many editors stuck out their necks by committing to Final Cut Pro. Though it's largely an emotional, not a rational, connection, many editors feel a deep loyalty to Apple for the journey they've taken together as FCP ascended in reputation and market share. Now, to feel as if their needs have been ignored and, worse, replaced by the need to woo a consumer market… well, for many it is a very bitter pill to swallow.

Like any misunderstanding, the way to mend things is via openness and communication. But Apple's lack of communication -- and the other signals it has sent regarding professional applications and tools -- accounts for much of the anger and anxiety many editors are feeling. Unless Apple lets us know otherwise, can we be blamed for interpreting that the "Pro" in Final Cut Pro X may actually mean "pro Consumer", and that the "X" may stand for ex-Pro?

If, as Ubillos suggests, FCP 7 projects will never open in FCP X, then I -- and thousands of others -- will be switching to something new. Here are our options:

FCP X Adobe Premiere Pro Avid Media Composer Lightworks Media 100 Sony Vegas

For nearly a dozen years, I have never considered, or needed to consider another suite of software to edit video. Now, entirely thanks to Apple, I must.

I'm not Steve Jobs, but I must say, it's a curious way to run a business.

On Plex: National Film Board of Canada and Snag Films

I've been setting up a HTPC on a new MacMini. Nothing fancy, it's basically a MacMini running Plex, which (if you're not familiar with it) is a free media server application similar to XBMC and Boxee.

I used Plex about a year and a half ago, when it was in rougher stages. Today, it seems both more robust as an application and also offers more variety in terms of the content available.

In addition to stuff like Netflix, TED, and South Park, there are "channels" from Snag Films and the National Film Board of Canada, which has an amazing library of films online, including works by Michel Brault.

Vimeo's HD channel looks amazing, too -- it looks as good as any HD cable I've seen. So far there's no Mubi support. Hopefully soon.

You don't need Plex to watch these videos, of course. Click the image below to watch Pour la suite du monde (aka Of Whales, the Moon, and Men).

Prepare to Lose Everything: Use SuperDuper and SMARTReporter

As I mentioned in my last post, hard drive failure is a virtual certainty. It's going to happen to every drive, eventually. The trick to not having your day (or your life) ruined by such and event lies in a) having an up-to-date backup and, if possible, b) being as prepared for drive's failure as possible. To this end, here are two resources to help you and me be prepared for the inevitable:

SuperDuper. If you don't know of this application, prepare to meet your new best friend. It clones hard drives. Reliably. A limited version is available for free. For under $30 you can buy the fully featured version, which allows you to schedule backups and does smart updates (i.e., it copies even faster). I've used SuperDuper for years and see no reason to change as long as it works but, as an FYI, Carbon Copy Cloner does similar things and is donationware.

SMARTReporter.  This nifty application checks on the SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology) status of your hard drive to see if it has any problems. It is, as the folks at Corecode note, a kind of "early warning system" to notify you (by email, alert, etc.) of a possibly impending hard drive crash. Useful stuff, particularly if you've not run a backup recently. The one hitch: SMART technology does not work with USB and FireWire drives. All the more reason to schedule backups so they're always up-to-date.

In my experience, I have found that a drive's likelhood to fail is directly proportionate to its need to work on a given day. One example: On the day I was set to drive to 200 miles to a post house to do the final output of Quick Feet Soft Hands for television broadcast my raid, storing all of my Final Cut Pro and Color files failed. Thankfully, I had an exact clone and didn't skip a beat.

Suggestions for further reading:

How Do You Make a Filmmaker Cry?

What to Do When Your Hard Drive Goes Soft

Shopping for Hard Drives? Two helpful resources...

I've been setting up a home file server and HTPC with a MacMini and, in the process, I found myself shopping for hard drives. It's amazing how cheap they are (about $80-100 for 2TB these days) when you consider what they do (i.e., holding all of your precious digital memories).

Unfortunately, other than relying on your own good and bad experiences, making informed decisions about purchasing new hard drives is next to impossible. The most important factor in a drive is reliability, but there's no way to know if the drive you're shipped is going to fail in 6 hours, 6 months, or 6 years. Compounding this is the fact that almost all reviews -- particularly those from customers on retailer websites -- are anecdotal by nature. Read the 1-star reviews on Newegg or Amazon for any hard drive and you'll soon be looking for another model. And then another. And then... they all start looking equally awful.

Two websites to break through this logjam were Storage Review and Mac Performance Guide.

Storage Review takes hard drive reviews seriously. In searching for some reliable, large, and quiet drives, I followed their recommendations. I particularly found their "Leaderboard" of best drives useful and, after a little cross-checking, followed their recommendations.

Mac Performance Guide, on the other hand, is home to a motherlode of tips on optimizing a system. The site, authored by photographer Lloyd Chambers, bills itself as "offer[ing] the web's clearest advice on selecting and configuring a Mac, especially for photographers." That's quite a claim, but I can't refute it. The Articles and Guides section -- which has multiple articles on backup, data safety, and optimizing Mac performance -- is outstanding.

By the way, I ended up purchasing three different drives: a Western Digital Caviar Green, a Seagate Barracuda Green, and a Samsung Spinpoint F4. I bought none of them in confidence, which, I suppose, is the way you should always buy a drive. That's why you have backups.

iPhone to Final Cut Pro

Final Cut Pro does not like video that has been shot with an iPhone 4. I learned this shortly after getting my iPhone and shooting the Karpeles Manuscript Museum video a few weeks ago. I imported my iPhone-shot footage into FCP. I was skeptical I'd be able to do anything with it since it's H264 footage and FCP (still) doesn't handle that footage well. The picture was fine, actually. The problem was the audio -- in the form of a big red render bar, to be precise. What to do?

Thankfully, a benevolent soul (named Jeff Greenberg) has done two things:

First, he's explained the problem and the solution. Not surprisingly, it involves transcoding to ProRes.

Secondly, he's gone a step farther and created an iPhone 4-to-FCP compressor droplet for you.

To edit your iPhone footage in Final Cut Pro, all you have to do is download this file, drop your iPhone movies on the droplet, and import them when they're done rendering.

Perhaps we'll be able to expect better H264 in the new Final Cut Studio. Whenever it's released, that is... Until it's released in June, this is the workaround (or one of them).

Launched: The New Self-Reliant Film.

If you're looking at this website in anything other than an RSS reader you can probably tell that we've completely overhauled the website. Thanks to our wonderful designer friends at Nathanna, we've both expanded and simplified the Self-Reliant Film website.

As we mentioned a few weeks ago, our new look is based on some new directions for the website.

Today, with the launch of the new site you can do a few things that you couldn't do before:

Sign up for the email list. Our new email newsletter will have exclusive content we don't put on the blog. We’ll share tips on great films we’ve recently discovered, we'll provide some extra filmmaking tips, and you’ll get access to see our films for free. The newsletter is only sent once a month, we never sell or share others’ email addresses, and it’s ad-free. Subscribe!

Watch our films: Some folks that visit this site do so because they're fans of our films. Others visit the site because of the blog. If you've not seen our work, or you want to see our films again, or you want to see more of them… we've spelled out all the ways to watch.

The easiest and least expensive way is to sign up for the email list. But there are other ways, too. Find out more here.

Must reads: Look to the sidebar on the left. These are a few of the most popular posts on the site. Check them out if you're new here or if you've not read these. The Declaration of Principles was the first post on the blog, and it's still pretty much as relevant today as it was when it was drafted in November 2005.

Resources: If you click on "Resources" (look to the upper left of this page) you'll see some of the more helpful pages we've assembled for filmmakers (and everyone) since beginning the site. Over the coming weeks we'll be updating and expanding these pages.

Submission guidelines: We've always received emails from readers wanting us to watch and/or review our films. This has been done pretty much catch-as-catch-can in the past. We finally drew up some ideas about how to do this, as seen in the sidebar on the left. We want to review and put a spotlight on great films more than we've been able to recently. This is a way to encourage this. Click on the Submission Guidelines and and let us know if you've got a film you want us to watch.

What hasn't changed?

Our blog still features all the same stuff that we've championed and discussed from the beginning -- DIY, regional, and personal filmmaking. We've moved it to selfreliantfilm.com/blog, so update your bookmarks.

(If you bookmarked an old page from the blog it should automatically redirect to the new permalink structure, but if you encounter a broken link, let us know!)  

Finally, one other thing that hasn't changed: This site is still ad-free.

For us, self-reliance has always gone hand in hand with the idea of simplicity. While filmmaking is a vocation that often resists even our attempts to simplify the process of making movies, we feel the least we can do, sometimes at least, is keep our tiny corner of the internet quiet from flashing banners, pop-ups, and google ads buried within our own reflections. This website, like our films, continues to be a labor of love.

We hope you like the new site, and the things to come. If you do, spread the word by sharing with a friend by using facebook, twitter or, you know, by actually telling someone about it face-to-face.

The Panasonic GH2: Some thoughts.

I have made no secret of my frustration with DSLRs for making motion pictures. I've wanted to love them, sure. In my quest to find a small camera I could love, I've bought and sold (or returned) a Canon 7D, Panasonic GH1, and a Nikon D7000. The Canon and Nikon were each impressive in their own ways, but I gave them both up because I could never fully trust the image that I saw in their LCDs. After being burned a few times by outrageous moire that only appeared once I could view footage on a real monitor, I gave up trying to shoot with those cameras. The GH1, which I tested last summer after my frustrations with the Canon cameras, was more promising, especially with the ballyhooed firmware hack that surfaced last year. That camera didn't have problems with moire or aliasing, and its mirrorless design (the GH1 is not, technically speaking a DSLR at all) opened up the opportunity for using several different types of lenses (PL-mount cine lenses, Nikons, Canons, and many more).

Unfortunately, the camera clearly felt like the product of a "consumer" division of a large electronics company. Parts of the camera felt shoddily put together, there were reports of design issues with the lugs that held the neck strap and, worst of all, the camera exhibited a nasty fixed pattern noise problem that made any dim area in a shot have strange vertical blue streaks. Hacked or not, the camera didn't seem ready for prime time. Hope springs eternal, though. I thought, Panasonic might be onto something if only they would fix some of these glaring problems.

In December, I managed to get my hands on the GH1's successor, the still-hard-to-find Panasonic GH2, shortly after they arrived in the US. A month or so later, here are my thoughts on the camera as a tool for filmmakers.

The GH2 is not a perfect camera -- no such thing exists -- but it does fix a lot of the GH1's problems. As such, I feel like I can finally endorse a DSLR for motion picture use. (And yes, I know, it's not a DSLR. But the term "hybrid camera" just sounds weird.) I think it's the best camera you can buy for under $1000. It might be the best camera you can by for three or four times that. Lest you think this is going to be a rave review, let me lay out my curmudgeonly gripes about this camera:

- Size and build. If you are used to the rugged build quality of a Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D this camera feels like a toy. It's a bit too small for my tastes and the buttons feel a little flimsy. I'd pay $500 more for it to be as rock solid as a Nikon or Canon. Furthermore, the lug nuts that hold the shoulder mount seem to follow the same design as the GH1. There may be improvements on the inside, but simply seeing the same parts and placement doesn't inspire confidence. If you insist on wearing a neck strap, I recommend purchasing a Black Rapid RS7 strap, which screws into the camera's base.

- Lens selection. The Micro 4/3 format lacks the robust catalog of lenses that one finds with APS-C and full frame sensor cameras from Nikon and Canon. As most readers probably know, the M4/3 system effectively renders lenses with a 2x crop factor when compared with 35mm still photography. (M43 is much closer to the size of 35mm motion picture film.) Since a 20mm lens on a GH2 has the field of view of a 40mm lens on something like the Canon 5D Mk II, the question of how wide one can go with the M43 format is a legitimate question. Compounding this issue is the fact that Panasonic's "pro" M43 zooms (14-140 and the 7-14mm) are slow. Olympus makes a great couple of fast zooms (f/2.0!), but they require a 4/3-to-Micro4/3 adapter. Probably the sexiest native lens for the camera is Voigtlander's super fast 25mm f/0.95. Regardless of which of these you choose, you're spending from anywhere near $1000 to $2500 for a lens that won't work on either of the other major camera systems (e.g., Nikon or Canon). If the next great camera that comes down the road isn't a Micro 4/3 system camera, but something with a larger sensor (and this is considerably likely) an investment in M43 glass may not repay long term dividends. That said, there is a solid work-around solution. More on this later...

- Programmability. The programmable function buttons on the GH2 can only be set to engage functions that are fairly useless for filmmakers. The ability to customize the camera's buttons falls far, far short of something like the 7D.

- Power. The battery does not last long, especially if you are using a native M43 lens like the Panasonic 14-140 that ships with some kits. That lens has image stabilization and it drains the battery fast. Even with lenses that don't pull power you'll need to buy at least a couple more batteries. And you'll probably also want a AC/DC power adapter. Panasonic doesn't seem to be making or selling those yet, so chalk that up as yet another (hopefully temporary) frustration associated with the camera.

- Documentation. The acronym RTFM takes on new meaning here, as the manual included is one of the most poorly written technical documents I've ever read. I hope the authors never try their hand at writing the instructions for heart defibrillators or how to perform CPR. Compounding this fact, the American edition is not available as a PDF. I resorted to essentially writing my own translated version of the manual for the camera and threw out the "official" one Panasonic.

- Gamma Shift. The camera has a strange bug in which the gamma shifts after you press the record button. Will this be fixed by a firmware update? Who knows. If it came from Panasonic's pro electronics division, I would expect one. Coming from the consumer division I have less confidence, particularly since releasing firmware could open the camera to another firmware hack. (Don't get me started about the idea that a company wouldn't want its users to tinker with, and better, its products.)

- Recording Media. I'm not crazy about using SD cards. CF cards (like those used by the Canon 7D and 5D Mark II) are are more rugged and they're harder to lose. But the D7000, as well as the Canon 60D, T2i, and even the Panasonic AF-100 use SD cards, so I guess I need to get over this. SD cards are less expensive, I'll give them that.

- Recording standard. Though it may not affect us Yanks, there is no 25P mode for PAL users. I can't understand why Panasonic would be so short sighted as to ignore this feature.

- So-so stills. As a stills camera, the GH2 isn't going to compete with something like a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 7D or 5D Mark II. But this fact doesn't bother me so much. My photography is mainly limited to location scouting, holiday snapshots, and photos around my home, documenting the change of seasons and the comings and goings of friends, family, and animals. The GH2 is enough for me, but if you want a camera for serious, professional photography, you will probably look elsewhere. Personally, if I needed something heftier, a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 7D would suit me fine. Though they are more expensive cameras, they're not that much pricier, and you get what you pay for.

Yet, most these complaints have work arounds, particularly when you consider what the GH2 has going for it over other DSLRs:

+ No more rainbows. Far less -- and far, far less offensive -- moire. It's simply not an issue. I don't worry about it. At all. I actually feel like I can trust the image I see in the LCD or viewfinder. What a concept!

+ Less aliasing. 'Nuff said.

+ No overheating. The camera acts as if it actually wants to stay on and let you continue filming as long as you want.

+ Sharper. I've not shot any charts, but to my eyes the image looks sharper than that of the Canons and Nikon, particularly on wide shots.

+ Adjustable LCD. Like the GH1 before it (and like the Canon 60D), an adjustable LCD means you can put your camera in tight spaces and continue to watch the footage. Plus, you can see your footage in bright daylight; there is no need to purchase a Z-finder (or similar).

+ ETC mode. The camera's 2X crop "ETC mode" gives you, in effect, two lenses for every one you own. I find it only somewhat usable because of the increased noise, but no other camera (that I'm aware of) even has such a feature and it's far better than any digital zoom.

+ 24p filming. This is an improvement on the GH1, in that cinema mode filming isn't contained in an interlaced wrapper. It's true progressive.

+ No fixed pattern noise. This is the GH2's biggest improvement over the GH1. There's no need to try to use voodoo on your camera to make the noise go away.

Also, for those that want it, the GH2 has autofocus in video mode when using native M43 lenses. I don't care about AF and I've found it to be slower than advertised. But it does work.

As I see it, these are all very big gains over most other DSLRs.

Finally, let me address two issues others have raised about the Micro 4/3 format:

One complaint is that the sensor is too small to get shallow depth of field. Eh, this is not much of an issue to me. First, you can get shallow DoF with the camera. It's far more than you're used to with any 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. Can you get razor thin DoF like on the Canon 5D Mk II? No. That's a VistaVision sized sensor, there's no comparison. But having your subject in focus is, these days, a somewhat underrated concept. Micro4/3 strikes a nice balance between allowing you to render backgrounds out of focus and allowing your performers room to move.

As for the complaint about lenses -- which I myself made above -- so far I have found that the best price/performance option is to purchase manual focus Nikon glass (say, a 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a 105mm) along with a Nikon-to-Micro4/3 adapter. You can even get an adapter for Nikon G-series lenses (i.e., lenses without an aperture ring), which would be most useful with something like a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens. Users of Canon glass are limited to something like a Kipon adapter, which fakes an aperture, only somewhat successfully. The great thing about Nikon glass is that it's usable on Canon cameras, too, as well as, of course, Nikons. Should either of those manufacturers step up and invent the next great HDSLR, you won't miss a beat.

In the end, I would say the GH2 is a step forward for DSLR filmmaking. Even if I can't help but feeling at times like it succeeds in spite of itself (or, more accurately, in spite of its manufacturer) I like the camera and the image it produces. But, it's just a camera. If you've been making films with the 7D or the T2i -- or whatever camera -- and you love it, well, use that. There is no need to switch if something is working for you. If, however, you're a filmmaker that, like me, has longed to work with DSLRs because of their small form factor, but you've been put off by their frustrations, the GH2 is worth a look.

DSLRs, "Democratic Technology" and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 2

This is the second of two posts considering the rewards and challenges of using DSLRs for cinema work. If you've not read the first post, start there. At the end of the last post we had assembled a Canon 7D camera, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens with Image Stabilizer, a Zoom H4N audio recorder, and PluralEyes software to help us sync the picture and sound in Final Cut Pro. The cost: $3230. I hesitate to call this a "bare bones" package since it doesn't even include a tripod or microphones. It does, however, get you picture and sound.

But you get picture and sound with a pixelvision camera. My intention with these posts is to compare DSLRs to a more traditional prosumer camcorder. And we still have a ways to go before it's a fair comparison. So let's continue...

For starters, the Sony and Panasonic cameras have ND filters built into their cameras. And while there may be some optional kit with the Canon DSLR rigs, ND is not one of them. Not, at least, if you want that creamy shallow DoF cinema look, which is probably the reason you bought the Canon in the first place.

Some people, including Philip Bloom, swear by the FaderND, which cuts out between 2 and 8 stops of light. If you find it on Ebay you'll pay around $125. Very cool!

Others, though, argue that the FaderND can make color correction a problem later on. Indeed, the quality of your lens is reduced if you put inexpensive glass in front of it. (Or, as Shane Hurlbut warns, "beware the reaper of cheap glass"!) So if you do want to be careful, you would need to budget between $275 and $450 for a set of high quality Tiffen "Water White" IR ND filters.

If you've got multiple lenses with different filter ring sizes you'll need to purchase step-down rings. But for now, we're assuming we only have one lens.

Let's throw caution to the wind and go with the Fader ND. That puts us at $3355.

We also need to power the camera and record to something. So we need some CF cards and we need some batteries.

We would obviously need batteries if were were going with a more all-in-one solution (i.e., an actual video camera) like Sony or Panasonic. But in my experience the batteries supplied by these manufacturers last about 2x as long as those supplied by Canon, in part because the Canons weren't really built for, you know, constant video footage. And, a manufacturer like Sony or Panasonic supplies an AC adapter so you can run your camera off wall power. Canon does no such thing. So to be fair, we'll add the cost of two batteries ($156), even though you'll actually need four or five to shoot a day's worth of footage.

As far as CF cards are concerned, for a starter package, we'll figure you need 32GB of CF memory. That's about $77. Hurlbut makes a compelling argument that you should use lots of 8GB cards instead, but we'll stick with one card, which gives you about the same recording time as the 16GB SxS card that comes supplied with the Sony Ex1R (roughly an 1 hour).

What are we up to now? $3588.

Finally, in my experience, I've found you need some sort of way to monitor your footage. The on camera LCD focusing system is not large enough to accurately focus on the fly. And it is often impossible to use in broad daylight.

The focusing issue is, for some, a real deal breaker, and for good reason: Everyone I know that has used this camera has shot footage that appeared to be in focus but, upon later inspection on an actual monitor, learned that the take was a bust. You have to be very careful about monitoring your footage, and you need to check every shot on a large monitor (Hurlbut recommends a 24" LCD) before you move on to the next setup.

I'm not going to include the cost of the 24" LCD. We're going bare bones here. So we're going to use a Zacuto Z-Finder ($395), which magnifies the camera's LCD viewfinder.

Another option is to use an external monitor while shooting. The advantage is, obviously, a larger viewing area to judge focus. The disadvantage is that once you add an external monitor (with battery pack, HDMI cable, and hardware) you lose the small, stealthy DSLR form-factor. Good monitors are expensive, too, often averaging around $800-$1000. The cheapest possible monitor option, however, gives the Zacuto Z-finder a run for its money. That monitor is the Lilliput 669GL.

The Lilliput is only $220, but you'll need a battery solution. I recommend the Ikan 107S or P ($68) depending on whether you already might have some Sony or Panasonic batteries. And you'll need a special MiniHDMI-to-HDMI cable ($12). And you'll need an arm (Ikan's MA206 is the cheapest somewhat decent solution at $70) to mount the monitor to your camera.

The total cost of the Lilliput option as I've described it is around $350. If you need Sony or Panasonic batteries to power it (and a charger to charge the batteries) then your total will exceed that of the Z-finder. So let's just add $395 for the Z-finder and be done with it.

By the way, I've not been tallying shipping costs on these items, but lots of places like Amazon, B+H, and Adorama offer free shipping on certain items, so you might get lucky.

I think this does it for a bare bones kit. Remember, my estimates do not include the things you'll need to actually shoot for an entire day -- things like extra batteries, multiple CF cards, a camera bag or case(s), a shoulder mount, or a tripod. Nor does it include things like quick release plates for your tripod and shoulder mount. Nor does it include any sort of rod system or a follow focus, which you may want since the whole purpose behind using these cameras is to have that all-important shallow depth of field.

The final total? $3983.

That's twelve dollars cheaper than Panasonic's HPX-170.

So the question is, which do you want?

Traditional low-level professional camcorder: - not a stills camera - less cinematic depth of field - fixed lens - somewhat video-ish handling of light + actual HD resolution + accurate focusing + less pronounced jell-o problems + single-system sound with XLR inputs +/- all in one build (pros: it's meant to be used this way; cons: looks like a video camera) + solid HD codec + stability/durability as a camera intended for video

Canon DSLR: + great stills camera + cinematic shallow depth of field + option of interchangeable lenses + beautiful handling of light - difficult-to-edit codec with "reversal film" (i.e., limited) flexibility - less-than-HD resolution - issues obtaining accurate focus - aliasing and moiré problems - jell-o problems - double system sound with separate sound recorder +/- modular build (pros: pick what you need; cons: you're only a strong as your weakest link) - some overheating problems*

* Did I mention that there have been some issues with overheating since video on these DSLR's is so demanding? If the camera overheats, it may not work for a while. One solution is to have another camera body on hand (+ $1700).

***

Look, I'm not advocating one camera over another. And I am not trying to diss on the DSLR revolution. I'm just trying to cut through the hype to talk realistically about the choices that exist for a low-budget filmmaker.

Cameras -- like life, art, and love -- are full of compromises. The question is, what are the compromises you can deal with, and what are the deal breakers?

Just how badly do you want that bokeh?

Are you willing to sacrifice reliability?

Are you willing to risk losing half a day's worth of work?

Are you willing to endure slow-downs because you have to re-shoot footage?

If so, how much?

I don't have the answers. At the beginning of this series I said I was ambivalent. And I meant it. I haven't made up my mind about these cameras. I doubt I will. It will be a case-by-case, project-by-project thing.

I think there will be some times where these cameras are appropriate for me to use. They're great for clandestine filming. I like them for filming in/with/around cars. I like the way they handle close-ups. If I was single-handedly making a shot-for-shot remake of The Passion of Joan of Arc, this would be my camera. (Hmm…)

But if I had to choose only one camera to own, a DSLR would probably not be it. I won't even consider it for documentary, or documentary style, filming because of the shallow focus and overheating issues, never mind the moire and jello.

Do I think DSLRs are game-changing technology? Only sorta. These cameras have been handicapped by the corporation that produces them. Whether intentionally or not, it doesn't matter. Either way, it's the same old corporate routine. Call it the corporate camera cha-cha: One step forward, one step back. What has people intrigued about DSLRs is that the steps forward and back are not the ones we're used to.

With time maybe I'll come around to love these cameras whole-heartedly, but even if that happens I will not argue that DSLRs have "democratized" filmmaking in any meaningful way:

First, as I think I've demonstrated, at their current price point these cameras aren't that much cheaper than other things on the market. When we talk about "democratized technology" we must be talking, on one level, about cost. And on this score, they do not pass the test. (The T2i makes a somewhat better case, but it's also the most handicapped of the bunch.)

Secondly, DSLRs -- as they are currently designed -- actually require more know-how to use effectively than other cameras that can be used for filmmaking. In this sense, DSLRs are actually less "democratic" than other existing movie-making technologies.

Finally, even if -- especially if -- I allow that these DSLRs are getting more people to make movies, let me address a bigger point:

"Democratized" technology serves little purpose if it isn't being used in the service of stories that otherwise couldn't be told. Otherwise, what's the point of democratizing it?

Put another way, if you have the means to make a movie, and you only use that technology (not to mention your time and talent) to make another frigging zombie movie, well, pardon me for not caring. If the storytelling is out of focus, who cares how beautiful the bokeh is?

DSLRs, Democratic Technology and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 1

DSLR filmmaking has been much ballyhooed in the last year or so. Cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D have been hailed as the lastest in a long line of "democratizing" motion picture technology -- inexpensive cameras that produce cinematic, shallow depth of field images that seem to rival the look produced by cameras costing many times more. There were two reasons I was didn't jump on the DSLR filmmaking bandwagon from the start. For one thing, in the last year I have been working on a lot of other projects, none of which involved needing to worry about how to use a new camera (finishing up a documentary and two DVD releases, raising money for a feature, and writing a script). Another reason was, frankly, I was skeptical. I saw photos of filmmakers dressing the cameras like this:

If that's what you had to do to get it to work, I wasn't interested.

As I mentioned in my previous post, though, I did recently decide to experiment with these cameras. And my uninformed skepticism has developed into experience-grounded ambivalence.

After a few months of wrestling with the cameras (especially the Canon 7D), I find them as frustrating as they are inspiring. Yes, I love the way they handle light. I love the lens interchangeability. I love their form factor, (at least initially).

But, as has been well documented elsewhere, these cameras have serious issues. Focus can be a challenge with their small LCDs. They're prone to the "jello" effect. They shoot on a codec that is a challenge to edit and even more challenging to color grade. And, most frustratingly, they have major issues with aliasing, particularly moire, which is often not even observable while shooting.

Sure, I've had busted takes with other cameras -- under-exposed shots on film that didn't come out, shots that were a little soft in HD, or whatever. But DSLRs are built (or not built) for movie-making in such a way that you can very conceivably shoot for a significant period of time only to later discover that all of your footage is unusable. Not "disappointing" -- unusable. Or perhaps you find something like this acceptable. (Note: I did not shoot this.)

To put it bluntly, these cameras have more red flags than a month's worth of World Cup games. They carry a lot of risk for any serious project.

Because there are some undeniably awesome uses for these cameras, though, I have educated myself -- by reading, by watching, by shooting -- to find ways of working around their many, many problems. And I've learned to produce some nice footage.

But many of the techniques I've used to mitigate the problems involve spending more money, making the cameras bigger, and so on.

Fixing the problems often means taking away the very properties that make these DSLR cameras so seductive for filmmaking in the first place.

So in this post and the next I want to deal honestly with the basic costs of DSLR filmmaking and to consider whether these costs are worth the benefits.

It's possible some DSLR acolytes will disagree with, or even have their feathers ruffled, by my writings about this technology.

That's fine. These are my opinions alone and no camera is right for every person, at every time, for every project. But I think that by now this blog has established my credentials as a champion of smaller, less expensive, and simpler technology for movie-making. If I'm being critical, it's probably for good reason.

So, today's post will begin to consider the "cost of bokeh", since their shallow depth of field is often touted as the leading reason for using these cameras.

My next post will finish pricing out the camera and accessories. I'll also offer some thoughts on the notion of this technology as a "democratizing" force.

But enough prelude. What do we need to shoot motion pictures effectively with a DSLR?

Let's start by going with a Canon 7D since it sits in the middle of Canon's DSLR line, with the T2i at the bottom and the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV at the top. The 7D averages around $1700. That sounds like a bargain when you put it next to a traditional prosumer camcorder like the Sony EX-1R ($6300) or the Panasonic HPX170 ($3995).

(By the way, if you want to consider the costs with a 5D Mark II, which has an even larger sensor, add about $800 to our totals.)

Then you need a lens. If you want to want to get that shallow DoF then you need a lens that opens wide. And since many people have had good experiences using Canon's Image Stabilized lenses, which seem to reduce some of the jello effect, we'll go with Canon’s 17-55 IS f/2.8 lens. It's been well reviewed and costs about $1100.

Since we're trying to do this inexpensively, we're only going to use one lens. If you want to take advantage of the Canon's interchangeability (with, say, a cool Tokina 11-16MM), those are additional costs.

Some DIY filmmakers looking to get by on the cheap blanch at paying $1100 for a lens, but that's nothing compared to a cine lens. In fact, just because you spent $1100 on that 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't mean it'll necessarily look sharp on the big screen. Shane Hurlbut, ASC argues that the only lenses Canon makes that are sharp enough for big screen work are their L-series primes. (Expect to pay $1300 or so for each prime and only the longer range lenses have Image Stabilization.) But we're going to trust others' reviews of the 17-55, which say it's one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes.

(As a side note, you could go with Nikon AI-series still lenses. They're both cheaper and are said to be sharper. But in my experience, you'll need to buy a good Fotodiox Pro adapter [$70 each] to use them effectively. Plus, when you want to use your Canon DSLR as a stills camera, you'll have no autofocus or auto exposure control, so I'm leaving them out of the conversation for now.)

We're doing good so far, but sound, as they say, is half the picture.

While, technically speaking, one may record sound with the Canon, its sound capabilities are far from what you'd get with a prosumer camcorder (e.g., no XLR inputs, no level control, etc.). There is lots of work on Vimeo featuring beautiful shallow-focus images of flowers and so on, much of it set to cool music. But if you want to make movies, you know, where people talk and stuff, you've got to upgrade your sound.

I'm not going to count the cost of XLR cables, microphones, etc. since you would need that stuff with a traditional camcorder. Instead, we'll just look at adding an adequate sound recording device. A lot of people using the Canon for DSLR cinema use the Zoom H4n recorder. It's about $280. (If I were buying, I'd spend the extra $250 and get the Marantz PMD661 because it's easier to use. But that's just me.) An alternative is to use something like a Beachtek or JuicedLink adapter, but I don't like the idea of all my location sound hinging on a single mini plug going into something that was primarily designed as a stills camera.

With the Zoom recorder (or similar) remember, you're shooting double system. As such, you'll need to slate your shots and spend lots of time in post syncing up your slates. (Or, if you don't, reading peoples' lips.) A time-saving solution is PluralEyes, which syncs your double system footage for you. Your time is worth something; PluralEyes has valued it at $150.

What's the tally so far? $3230.

Oh. But we're ready to make movies, right?

Yes and no. We may have picture and sound, but it may not be useable yet. But we'll save that discussion for the next post.

My Two Favorite Resources on DSLR Filmmaking

My absence for the past few months has been due to the fact that I've been woodshedding, as folks in the Jazz world would say. One of the things I've been doing is writing. When I'm writing, I find this blog takes a back seat. Sorry, dear readers. That's the way it goes. As for what I've been writing, well, maybe one day you'll see…

In my spare time, though, I've spent a lot of time playing with these newfangled DSLR cameras. Though I've bought one (a Canon 7D), I'm not sold on them. I know I'm late to the party in discussing them, but better late than never. I'll post my thoughts in a few days.

In the meantime, there have been several resources for DSLR filmmaking that, time and time again, I've consulted as I've been experimenting with these cameras. I want to give a special shout out to two of them:

The first is Ryan Koo's fantastic DSLR Cinematography Guide. I always enjoyed Ryan's writings on the now-defunct DVGuru blog, and this reminded me of that. Ryan has done the legwork for novices, compiling information from all over the 'net. If you are new to DSLR filmmaking and have time to read only one thing, read this. It's free, but if you send him a donation you'll get a PDF of the whole thing. I did.

The second resource is Shane Hurlbut, ASC's invaluable blog. I knew Hurlbut was a champion of the Canon DSLR cameras since at least last summer. What I didn't know until recently, though, was how generous of blogger this guy is. How does a guy in the ASC have time to write as much as he does while I'm making my first post in, what, three months?

Both Ryan's and Shane's willingness to share their knowledge and mistakes so freely (as in "openly" and as in "without compensation") has rekindled my love of internet.

But for now, it's back to the writing room.

By the way, for more on woodshedding, check this out.

Tape is dead! Long live tape!

It struck me today that For Memories' Sake will probably be the last movie I'm involved with that uses videotape. Ashley began shooting the documentary with the venerable DVX-100 in 2006 and, for consistency's sake, we stuck with that camera through production. All the new projects that I have on the horizon will be shot with a tapeless cinema camera, whether it's made by Panasonic, Sony, or Red. So tape is dead to me. Or is it?

One of the issues, of course, about shooting tapeless formats is what you do with the data. While editing with tapeless footage, of course, I keep lots of backups on drives in different locations. But after the project is completed, using hard drives to archive the footage is not a reliable solution. Of course, I'll confess that this is what I've done in the past. But as my hard drives age, and as I amass more footage that I'll want to hang onto, I know I need to find another solution. Most pros will tell you that solution is (wait for it).... tape. Specifically, LTO or "Linear Tape Open."

Luckily, for us Mac users out there, Helmut Kobler recently did us all a service by summarizing how to get started with LTO4 tape archiving on a Mac. Kobler estimates the low-end price tag for a Mac-compatible LTO system as $3300.

That figure may seem like a lot to independent filmmakers. (I wonder how many fewer Panasonic HVX200s or Sony EX-1s would have been sold if this cost was factored into the purchase price?)

In the end, whether to spend this kind of money amounts to questions about risk and value: How much do you value your data? And how much risk are you willing to take that your data might be lost forever?

For me, that $3300 is starting to look like a decent value. Long live tape!

Final Cut Pro tips: Here Comes Mr. Jordan

I started noodling with Final Cut Pro soon after it came out (ten years ago!) and taught myself how to use it. By taught, I mean that I learned to hack my way around and accomplish what I needed. But it wasn't pretty or fast. After a few years, I really started feeling the limitations of my abilities, so I decided to dig into some tutorials. For whatever reason -- probably because I'd seen a few for free online -- I chose Larry Jordan's Lynda.com video tutorials. These helped me immensely with everything from media management tips to techniques that greatly reduced the time I'd spend fumbling through FCP's interface.

Even if you don't need to teach (or re-teach) yourself Final Cut Studio, I highly recommend that you check out Larry's free Monthly Newsletter. Among the tips this month:

Startup Mode Selector, a free application that helps Snow Leopard users learn more about, and harness, 64-bit technology without use of the terminal...

Ken Stone's excellent iChat Theatre tutorial...

and Apple's substantial (40pages) white paper on Customizing Final Cut Studio Blu-Ray Disc Templates.

Enjoy.

For Memories' Sake, pt. 3: Organizing Content

Once I had completed the most basic research and transferred Angela's movies to video, I had to figure out how to keep track of the content of her collection. Though I only later learned about the importance of metadata and the availability of online archivist classes, I began simply and naively with a system that has served me well. I created a basic Filemaker Pro database with screengrabs from the home movies and just enough data to let me quickly find movies by persons featured, keywords, and/or their location on specific film reels or transfer tapes. I think this screen grab is somewhat self-explanatory:

As you can imagine, the keywords tend to be most useful. The beauty of using Filemaker Pro (as opposed to a library-designed data management software or, even worse, paper-based finding aid system) is that I can create ways to look for and quickly find what I want in a way that make sense to me. It's also one of the most affordable solutions I've found.

Of course, I quickly discovered I would need hard drives and backups of those hard drives for all the data and the video files, and when you're dealing with hundreds of hours of footage, it's quite an investment. I've found this brand to be especially reliable and affordable. As part of the "best practices" I've adopted, I always keep one copy of master tapes and hard drives with data in a separate, secure, climate-controlled location (e.g. not in a basement, attic, or anywhere subject to big temparture fluctuations or humidity). I also set alarms to remind myself to power up and spin the heads on the harddrives at least once every six months. Failing to do so can mean a total loss of data.

**

Even for filmmakers who aren't interesting in shooting small format or working with family archives, home movies have a lot to offer. As opposed to much archival footage that comes with hefty fees (my searches online yielded rates ranging from $25 per second to $350/second and up), home movies often come free for the taking (with attribution) or for a song at garage and rummage sales. More than that, I believe there's something inexplicably beautiful in these smaller than life versions of everyday scenes. Maybe it's because small things distill life to its essence...or maybe it's because the world seems so big and wonderful when things appear so small. Whatever the reason, if you come across orphan or neglected home movies, I hope you'll consider preserving and using these beautiful artifacts or donating them to an archive near you.

In the next making of For Memories' Sake post, I'll share how I scanned and catalogued 30,000+ photographs without taking too many years off my life.

For Memories' Sake, pt. 2: A Smattering of Super-8 Resources

Paul Harrill here. What follows below is Ashley Maynor's second post about For Memories' Sake, her forthcoming documentary. (I am the film's producer.) If you missed Ashley's first post, you can catch up with it here.

As you might guess if you read my first post, I soon found myself overwhelmed with the task of caring for Angela Singer's massive and chaotic collection. While this preservation project has finally come together in the form of a movie (more than three years since it began), I had to first learn to work with and care for her diverse and problematic assemblage of photos, films, and video. As a first generation college student, I majored in the not-so-versatile area of French Literature. I came to filmmaking late in my academic career, so it was without any formal photography training and during my first year of film school that I set out to learn best archival practices, digitization techniques, and the ins and outs of small format filmmaking.

While there's no substitute for learning hands-on through trial, error and frustration as I did, the following is a collection of websites and online resources that most helped me as I stumbled through the first phase of preservation:

Working with Home Movies

General Interest & Footage Sources

Home & Amateur - A blog about home movies and amateur film, whose contributors hail from the Center for Home Movies.

Lost in Light - The documentation of a (now complete) free home movie transfer project, including home movies, categorized by topic, many of them available for Creative Commons remixing.

Prelinger Archives/Archive.Org - A collection of home movies includes amateur films and videotapes from the collections of the Center for Home Movies, the Prelinger archives, other home movie aficionados. Many of the movies are public domain or available for use under Creative Commons guidelines.

Supplies & Small Format Filmmaking Resources

Film Shooting - A great online source for news about all things home movies and small format filmmaking based in Norway. Given that two major print publications (Super8Today and SmallFormat) have shut down their presses in the last year, this online news pool is essential.

On Super 8 - This site bills itself as "impartial and comprehensive resources for today's Super 8 and 8mm small gauge film makers." It's all that and more; based in the UK.

Pro8mm- The only movie house I know of in the US that specifically specializes in Super-8 film stocks and transfers. In 2008, they added a Milliennium II Scanner with daVinci 2K color corrector to their transfer menu, capable of SD or HD scans. It's the premier scanning system for small  gauge film.

Super 8 Site - A German Super8 site. The "links and addresses" page is worth a look.

Urbanski Film - Though the website screams 1990s, I've ordered and been very pleased with film cleaning supplies, projector bulbs, and other hard-to-find small format equipment.

And though it goes without saying, eBay is an immense (if risky) resource for finding old Super 8 cameras and projectors, as well as professional VHS decks for digitizing old videocasettes.  Before purchasing the unknown, I've found the folks on the AMIA Small Gauge/Amateur Film Interest Group listserve to be incredibly helpful and willing to share their expertise.

Preservation & Care Information

Brodsky & Treadway -The transfer house for rare, valuable, and fragile home movies. Their companion site, Little Film, contains detailed, downloadable tips and instructions for caring for home movies.

Home Movie Day - A major project of the Center for Home Movies, Home Movie Day is an international celebration of home movies. The site contains lots of information about film handling and care as well as links to home movie day events across the country and the globe. Home Movie Day also keeps a running list of home movie transfer houses.

National Film Preservation Foundation - A clearinghouse of film care basics and resources for more advanced users. Be sure to download their extensive film preservation guide.