Transcription Tools for Mac Audio/Video

Here are two useful transcription tools for Mac users: First, there's Inqscribe, which lets you watch your footage and transcribe it at the same time. No more switching back and forth between applications, or using two computers. Haven't tested it, but it looks promising. Free trial for 30 days, then $69.

The second is Transcriva, which is an audio only transcription tool. Same as above, but no video. I used this to transcribe the Joe Swanberg interview from a few days ago, which I had recorded using my iPod and iMic. It works like a charm. Cost: $20.

Red Round-up

Details on Jim Jannard's Red camera surfaced today. If you don't know about Red, you've probably been off-line for the last few months. It has been -- and continues to be -- developed as a radical, iconoclastic digital cinema camera. Many people are saying this could be the biggest step forward since the DV revolution in the early 90s. Could it be so? Possibly. The camera has yet to be manufactured, so until we see footage, let's keep our socks on. On paper, though, it must be said: Red doesn't look like "a step up." It looks ground-breaking -- from specs to its physical design.

Some people have suggested that because Jannard & Co. haven't been in the day-to-day business of camera manufacturing that this won't work. In fact, the opposite is true. Revolutionary technology usually springs from mavericks and Red is, in essence, a hacker project by a maverick with the DIY spirit. The notable difference, of course, is that Jannard has a ton of resources to put into R&D. Anyway, we're rooting for its success.

Red resources (as of 4/24):

Red - Official Site

DV Info Red Forum

DVXUser Red Forum

Red Camera Wiki

StudioDaily interview with Jim Jannard

DV.com interview with Ted Schilowitz, head of the Red development team

UPDATE:

Red Camera Company Wikipedia article

Shooting Modes on Red (HD for Indies)

"Red Day 1 Report" from HD for Indies

Images from Red announcement (via DVInfo)

The LOL Team: SRF Interview

The biggest joke in LOL, Joe Swanberg's second feature, may be the one that the filmmaker plays on the audience. Neither romantic (though there's plenty of frank sexual content), nor a comedy (though there are many funny moments), LOL feels less like the rom-com that its title suggests and more like a digital age mash-up of Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game and David Cronenberg's Crash "“ on the one hand, a humanistic, if occasionally bitter, social critique disguised as an ensemble comedy and, on the other hand, a chilly, unsentimental look at the ways that our fascination with technology (in this case, cell phones and the internet) keeps us apart when it's meant to bring us together. While Swanberg's lo-fi digital images and casual sense of plotting may not achieve the cinematic heights of either of the aforementioned masterworks, LOL has a charm all its own. Some of that charm, no doubt, is a product of its production history: The whole thing was made by Swanberg and his friends in Chicago without a script for a mere $3000. What's even more impressive, though, is how the movie starts as a comedy of awkwardness and gradually molts into a bleak satire with a mature, dramatic punch. For this, credit goes to the non-professional performers and Swanberg's sharp editing of his improvised source material.

After premiering in March at South by Southwest (where it was very warmly received), LOL had its East Coast premiere at the Philadelphia Film Festival. The night after its first screening in Philly, I had dinner with Swanberg and two of his collaborators, Chris Wells and Kevin Bewersdorf. All three, as actors behind the improv, are credited as "co-writers." (Bewersdorf also composed the soundtrack.) Among other things, we talked about improvisation, choosing one's collaborators, and making a feature on the cheap.

Here's some of that conversation:

Kevin Bewersdorf: The process [of making a film with Joe Swanberg] is basically just maximizing accidents. Make as many accidents happen as possible because the accidents will be genuine. Sometimes it's a technical nightmare because Joe will just be like, "Alright. We step out here. Here's the mic. Let's just start shooting. Let's just go and do it. Let's just do it." And I'll be like "No, wait, Joe, I mean, the light's not enough here. We're not going to be able to hear the mic." And Joe's just, "No, let's just go. Just shoot, just shoot."

Chris Wells: I feel exactly the same way. We did the phone sex scene, before I knew it the camera was rolling and I was already sort of doing it. Joe didn't give me any time to think about it, which is probably better. I think that's how Joe can get performances [as good as those he gets]. People don't think about it.

So: How do you maximize accidents?

Joe Swanberg: Well it's something that I just realized on the first film [Kissing on the Mouth] that I was making. Things started getting knocked over. And I started thinking about how nothing ever gets knocked over in movies. So in my first movie, multiple times, somebody will open up a cupboard and something will fall out of it. Or they'll do something and a thing of laundry detergent will get knocked off of the washing machine. Or I'll accidentally bump the table and a thing will fall over on it. And so then I started thinking, "Why don't things ever fall over in movies?" They do, but then they don't use that take.

Kevin: So it's not really accidental, in that you choose to use the take where the accident occurred. It's deliberate.

Joe: Yeah. Right. But I specifically set up a scene with enough misinformation that people are going to have to invent things that aren't there. I'll explain a scene to a point, but then I'll leave crucial information out so that the actor will have to actually be thinking while they're in the scene. They can't just go through it [pre-rehearsed]. As Kevin was saying [at the LOL Q+A at the Philadelphia premiere], the second or third time [you do the scene] then you start to react to what you did the first time. But the first time there's gotta be stuff that both of the people don't know so that they have to be on the spot and think of it. For instance, I put Kevin and Tipper [Newton, who plays a girl named Walter] on the porch and I said, "Tipper your parents live in St. Louis and, Kevin, you're trying to get to St. Louis. Now go!"

Kevin: Or, for example, in the scene where I'm going to film Tipper making noises, you didn't tell Tipper that's what I was going to do. You said to Tipper, "He's going to ask you to do something. Do it. And Kevin will film it." So it's about keeping people in the dark just enough.

Joe: ...enough that they're comfortable, but not enough that they know what they're going to do before hand.

Because if all you say is, "He's going to ask you to do something," then she might say, "no" in the scene. Instead, she knows she's gotta say "yes", but she doesn't know what she's saying "yes" to. And that keeps the way she says it fresh.

Joe: That's a good point. If you leave it totally up to chance, it could go horribly wrong.

Kevin: You have to have the skeleton set up. But you don't know how anything hangs on it. Chris: I feel like with my [scenes] it was interesting because I kind of knew the direction the scenes were going to go, but Greta [Gerwig, Chris' co-star] didn't. And I was really talking to her on the phone. So I would just call her up in the middle of her day and she'd start talking to me and I would know where the scene was going to go and she wouldn't, but it would have to go in a different direction because I was reacting to her lack of knowledge. So what I thought the scene would be would end up being something completely different than what I expected.

Joe: But she always knew we were filming. Otherwise, that's exploitation, and that's not what I'm interested in. I want everybody to be aware of the process and aware that it's happening, but unaware of certain crucial information.

Kevin: The other important thing is that Joe's whole style as a director is to be completely invisible. He gives NO direction. His direction is either "Yes it was fine" or "No, do it again." No other direction at all of any kind. Not "do this in this way." Or "More feeling." Or "Slower." Or anything. It's either working or it's not working, and if it's not working we continue to do it. And if it is, then it's fine. And that's why, for some people, it's awful.

Joe: Well, for professionals, it is.

Kevin: And that's why you can't use professional actors. Because unless they're being told what to do they don't know how to feel, they don't know what to do. Because they have all these little tricks and techniques in this little bag of tricks that they've learned. I mean I have great respect for actors, but with non-professionals you can't tell them what to do because then they'll be acting, and then they'll be bad actors. If you have non-professionals and you tell them nothing, then they won't be acting.

Joe: I like professional actors, just not in my movies.

Does it not strike you as unusual that you've found people that are willing to work so hard for you? Joe: No, because it's a backwards process. I cast people who... I found the people and then we found the movie. I didn't have the movie in my head and then I found the people. So really, had I been working with Chris and had he not been in that relationship with Greta that was like that, then the movie would be different because his character would be different. To me it seems perfectly natural that the movie ends up the way it is because I cast the people first and then we all make the movies together. LOL is the only way LOL could end up being. It's these specific people, at these specific points in their life, and this specific point in time, with this technology. There's no vision before it starts.

But on a bigger level, you found people that for six months are saying, "I'm coming along for the ride. And I don't know where it's going. And I'm going to do this." That is what is amazing. This is not something to take for granted. Joe: I don't know. I'm lucky I guess. I can't answer because I have no technique or method other than saying, "Please help me" and then people help me.

Chris: Joe's movies are all so fun for because he's making them out of your own pocket, with his own money.

Joe: I think that is a nice level to it. I'm losing money [making films]. I'm not making money on it. There's a different vibe to everything that happens.

Kevin: People know that Joe is not profiting, that Joe's not just using us. No one feels used because everyone knows that Joe isn't like some Hollywood dude saying, "Hey want to make me a million dollars and be in my movie for free, Trix?"

Chris: There's a huge level of comfort of working for someone who knows he's going to lose money -- he's taking the hit for it -- and just wants to do it because he really, really wants to do it.

It almost has this sort of innocence of those movies from the Thirties where the characters are like, "Hey, let's put on a show!" Because you're all going to do this, you're doing it because you want to tell a story. And you don't even know which story.

Chris: We all start out with friendships I think. Joe knew Kevin from high school. Joe and I have known each other for the last couple of years, and while Joe didn't know Tipper that well, everyone becomes friends through the process of making the movie.

Kevin: I thought LOL would suck. Even until I saw the rough cut. I thought LOL would be terrible. I still did it just because it would be fun to do. I'd get to hang out with these other people. It was like a sport, almost. Like hunting.

Joe: And if your team loses at the end of the day then.

Kevin: . it's a fun game. I didn't feel like I had that much to lose. And being skeptical in the whole thing from the beginning, felt like, if it was bad, well, I was skeptical all along. so I was right. (laughs)

Chris: The movie was made almost like [writing a] paper. There were a lot of different drafts of it. It wasn't like a traditional movie where to go back and to do re-shoots is a big deal, or costs a lot of money or is really difficult. Because for Joe it's no more difficult than anything else he ever shot.

Joe: I was editing as we went anyway.

Chris: Yeah, exactly. I got a copy of the movie in November and I watched it through as it was, and I was like, "Well, my character needs a scene here and here and here, and this is what these scenes need to be." And then we could go back and weave that into the story and just make sure the continuity matches, and then its like we intended that from the beginning.

Joe, one thing you mentioned at the Q+A at the Philadelphia premiere was that while shooting the film is a collaborative process, ultimately the process ends with you, in your bedroom, editing alone.

Joe: That's the one aspect where I'm not really looking for collaboration. I show the movie to Kevin and Chris along the way so that they can tell me what's working and what's not.... I'll always do the first pass without showing it or asking anything like that. And I feel like that's where the director credit comes in. Technically, LOL will always say a film by the three of us, but I think my editing is where I'm doing my directing. Not on set.... Editing is really fun for me. It's the part of the process that I'm most passionate about.

Talk about the technology you used to make the movie.

Joe: We made the movie with one camera and two microphones.

Kevin: And the microphone was hooked up to a pole by a rubber band.

Joe: We didn't have a boom operator. We just had a 3-legged music stand with a rubber band holding a shotgun mic and a 25-foot XLR cable.

Chris: And you ended up buying a new wireless mic, which was one one-sixth of our budget.

Joe: The most in the budget was the wireless microphone. I bought the wireless microphone, I have a Sony PD-150, and there's 30 DVCAM tapes, and there's a 25-foot XLR cable, and there's the shotgun mic that comes with the PD150.

Kevin: And [we weren't even] shooting progressive. Just shooting interlaced.

Joe: Standard 30 frame interlaced. That's the entire package. And then I have a single clamp light with a dimmer switch, just in case, that I usually carry with me. In two hands I can hold everything use to make both my feature films. But that's the way that allows me to walk to somebody's house and shoot and then walk back home and edit that footage 5 minutes later. I don't need to mobilize the troops to shoot a scene. I just need to take my camera case, take my mic pole, and walk somewhere and shoot. I need to be mobile because as soon as it takes two people to transport my stuff somewhere then I need to plan it a day beforehand, and as soon as I need to plan it a day beforehand I'm thinking too much about it. It's not going to happen spontaneously anymore.

So the stuff with Tipper, where Kevin's playing the music at her house, I said, " I know this girl Ann Wells, and I want this girl to play Tipper's roommate, because I know what she looks like and I kind of know how she acts and aesthetically I want that. So I called this girl, Ann Wells -- and it's such a throwaway role, but I knew I wanted that girl to be that throwaway role -- so I called her and she was like, "I don't know if I can do it." and so I said, "Tell me an hour that you have free, and she said "Ok, if we can do it between four o'clock and five o'clock then we can do it." So I said to Kevin, be at Tipper's house at four o'clock. I'm going to be there at 4. We got there at 4:00. We shot from to 4:00 to 4:45.

Kevin: I held out my t-shirt and he white balanced on it. And then we started shooting.

Joe: As soon as we got there. I was rolling as Kevin was unpacking. And then at 4:45 I drove Ann to where she needed to be. And that was the scene. We even shot two scenes.

Kevin: That's another way, going back to maximizing accidents: If you have that kind of restriction on time. Joe could have said, "I want to take my time. Let's not use Ann Wells. We'll use someone else, and take our time and shoot it." Instead, Joe was like, "If we just go and shoot it, then maybe some things will happen.

And if it doesn't work out, you've only lost 45 minutes.

Joe: Absolutely.

Kevin: That's the whole philosophy of the movie. Instead of investing $100,000 to do it you invest $3000.

Joe: If I''m funding something with my own money, like, even when it started to climb up to multiple thousands I was feeling like "Ok, it's time to wrap it up." The financial aspect is becoming too large. The failure rate is so high: No movies get distribution anymore, so many are made, and stuff like that. If I spend $3000 hopefully it can make some money and I can split it with everybody. But if it doesn't, then I've only lost $3000. As soon as the money gets into $10,000 and $15,000" then you're playing the lottery and your odds get less and less with each $5000 increment.

Chris: Especially when you can make [the film] for $3000!

Joe: But that goes back to what you were saying earlier: I need to find people like Kevin and Chris to make it for $3000.

Kevin: The only reason that I did it was because I knew that his last film was in a festival and I was thinking that if this did get into festivals, that I'd get to go for free, and stay at hotels and chill out and drink.

And you're living the dream now.

Kevin: And that's what I'm doing.

DVX-100 modification for uncompressed video

Rob Travis has alerted me to the Andromeda Data Acquistion System, which modifies a Panasonic DVX-100 to allow for capture of "4:4:4 10bit RGB Uncompressed output." Assuming you already own a DVX-100, it costs $3000, which includes the software needed to do the capture. You can read more about it at the Reel Stream website. Andromeda says they're considering offering this modification for other cameras. Needless to say, such a thing for the HVX-200 could be outstanding. Imagine: True 24P 4:4:4 10bit RGB Uncompressed HD.... for less than $10K....

Sorry. Back to reality. Some quick thoughts:

- $6000 ($3000 for Andromeda + $3000 for DVX100B at street prices) gets you uncompressed 4:4:4 24p in standard def. (See comments.)

- $6000 can get you a Panasonic HVX200 without P2 cards. No P2 cards means you're just using the HVX as a standard def camera. But you can invest down the road in P2 to get HD in true 24p.

- $9000 gets you a Canon XL-H1, which is HD. It can do uncompressed 4:2:2 via its HD-SDI output.... but it doesn't have true 24p.

The question for a lot of owners of the DVX-100 will be: Do I spend the cash on modifying my camera, or do I move up to something else?

Personally, if I had a DVX-100, I'd at least consider the Andromeda upgrade. All of the currently available under-$10K HD cameras are a mixed bag (at best), plus delivery of HD content is a big question mark (what with the HD vs. Blu-ray format war) anyway. Making a small upgrade investment in SD in the interim could be a smart move. Then again, I'm saying all of this speculatively since I've not seen anything except the tests on Andromeda's website.

Sony HVR-Z1U: First impressions

I've been traveling a lot lately. More on this later. But to get the posts started up again, here's a quickie summary of my first impressions of the Sony HVR-Z1U, which I did some shooting with last week (documentary footage of homing pigeons).

Remember, these are first impressions. I had about three hours to prep on it without a manual, and then I spent about four hours shooting with it. I would have liked to prep with a manual, but Sony doesn't have a manual posted on its resource site. I'm open to hearing defenses of the camera, but don't blame me for knocking it when Sony doesn't even share documentation with potential users of its cameras. I searched for more than a couple of hours on Sony sites and discussion boards for a manual, to no avail. But one is online, apparently. Good to know. See comments section for more on this.

Frame modes:

Cineframe: This is the "fake 24p" mode. It looks ok on a small screen, but the same images projected ranged from fair to embarrassingly unusable, depending on the amount of motion. I would avoid this mode. I've since talked with some other filmmakers that have used this camera -- their first impressions matched mine.

30: This is a simulation of 30 progressive frames. As far as the look, like true 30p, it kind of splits the difference between the "video" look of 60i and the cineframe mode -- not too "filmy" not too "video-y". It has that HD "smear" that everyone discusses. There are ways to get rid of this (jacking up the shutter speed), but if you're in low light situations (I wasn't) I imagine this might be a problem. Some people have told me, also, that looking at this stuff on an HD monitor solves some of the smear problem. Can't testify to that (yet), but the fact remains that people will be watching things on standard def TVs for some time to come. For what it's worth, I chose to shoot in this mode, and in broad daylight I got pleasing results.

60i: This is probably, on first glance, everyone's least favorite mode since it has the "video" look that most filmmakers (or "make-video-look-like-film-filmmakers") despise. In truth, this is the mode that I trusted the most. It says it's 60i, and that's what it really is. It's like a PD-150, but in HD resolution, which is to say that, for what it is, it's great.

Menus: Definitely passable. At times they're intuitive, at times not.

Sound quality: Good quality when recording from XLR. The downside is that you must choose between using either the XLR or on the board mic, which is dumb. Why can't you split one and one? Also, I didn't like the XLR inputs being on the right side of the camera. It makes more sense when they're centered so that the sound person can be on either side of the camera without getting into a tangle with cords.

Colors: Really terrific. This is where I saw the biggest positive difference between HDV and DV.

Focus: As many a person has pointed out, HD focus is critical since you're dealing with more resolution. Unfortunately, your viewfinder isn't really as helpful as when shooting SD because it's so hard to judge focus this critical on a tiny flip out viewscreen. You really want to judge focus on an external monitor. This fact makes an HD or HDV camcorder more suited to shooting in situations that are controllable (e.g., narrative and documentary interviews) instead of uncontrollable ones (e.g., observational documentary and improvised narrative).

Conclusions: This brings me to the central dilemma of this camera: This camera's best mode is 60i, which most people associate with documentary. Yet, unless you're shooting in broad daylight where you have nearly unlimited depth of field (as I was), focus could be tough -- I would not want to be shooting run-and-gun in low-light with this thing. Alternately, a monitor's no problem in a controlled environment like a narrative shoot, but I probably wouldn't use the cineframe mode, no matter what. So I don't know when I would choose to use this camera over some other ones out on the market right now.

All of this should be taken with a grain of salt. As I said, I was working without a manual, and these are first impressions. But I blame Sony for some of this as they don't have a manual of the Z1U online and I think that's pretty inexcusable. If you want people to use a sophisticated piece of technology to the best advantage, you have to help them know what it can do.

ADDENDUM: See Nick's comments below -- Sony does have a manual online. Don't know when this was posted (I was looking for it on March 3 or so).

FresHDV's Oakhurst Interview

Matt at FresHDV has been running a two-part interview this week with indie film/postproduction techie blogger Josh Oakhurst. Josh's from-the-hip style suggests what might happen if you crossed that Mad Money guy on CNBC with a video engineer. This is my way of saying Josh's energy can make some otherwise somniferous subjects (say, differences in video codecs) interesting.

Josh, if you're reading, I do have two bones to pick with you:

Small point: I'm not convinced when you argue that Panasonic's P2 technology is ready for the trash heap. (For what it's worth, I have no allegiances in the HD/HDV format wars and I own none of those competing cameras.) I think it hurts your argument when you compare P2 to Panasonic's other failed/non-adopted formats, but you don't do the same for Sony (which it sounds like you use). Remember, Sony is the originator of Betamax. Shouldn't the same logic apply to HDV? Anyway, like I said, the logic didn't seem strong. Plus, a lot of people I've talked to that have used P2 say that a) it's getting cheaper and b) once you use it you never want to go back to using tape. My $0.02.

Bigger point: I think taking punches at "film school" kids is too easy. Sure, there are lots of spoiled rich kids making movies. (As a big-time indie producer once confided to me at the Rotterdam Film Festival, "They call it independent film because you have to be independently wealthy.") But film school kids and the crowd you're griping about aren't one and the same. For my part, I went to school before the DV revolution. It was the only way for a guy growing up in East Tennessee to get his hands on the tools of production. I went, I learned, and because of teaching assistantships I incurred very little debt. I have no regrets.

Likewise, the students I have taught at Temple and University of Tennessee (as well as the students that I've met in my travels) weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths. In fact, most have pretty heavy work schedules just to pay their state-school tuitions and the rent. They've come to film school to meet fellow-travelers, to have access to computers and good cameras they couldn't afford otherwise, and maybe, just maybe, to learn some ways to challenge the system that produces the television crap that you and I both hate. Like you, they are hungry to make films, that's all.

Anyway, other than that, I liked the interview. Keep up the good work with your blog.

Celtx!

Tomorrow I am giving a lecture on screenplay formatting in the screenwriting course I'm teaching this semester at Temple University. It's a fairly straightforward topic; you can go over the basics in about an hour or so. The problem in the past when I've taught this stuff to college students and in workshops is that most beginning writers only have access to Microsoft Word, which can be a real chore to use as screenwriting software. Of course, they could invest in software like Final Draft or Movie Magic Screenwriter, but those are pricey (around $180) -- not a wise investment unless you know you're going to be pursuing screenwriting as a career. (As a side note, universities do sometimes invest in this software -- Temple has it in some of their computer labs -- but writing a screenplay in bits and pieces in various computer labs during their free hours is problematic for students that work, etc. I've found the software gets used intermittently at best.)

Anyway, this brings me to Celtx, which is an open source (i.e., free) screenwriting and pre-production tool. I tested it out last fall and it didn’t seem quite ready for use. Today, I downloaded a new version of it (0.9.5.1). Now it's got my attention.

After a few hours of toying with it, here are my jotted-down impressions:

1. I'm not crazy about the weird splash screen interface at the beginning, but maybe I can grow to appreciate it.

2. Once you get into the actual application the interface is clean, well-organized. Celtx appears to do what it aims to if you're writing from scratch.

3. It can be a little finicky at times when you’re quickly moving from one format to another (say, dialogue to action). In that sense it's kind of like Final Draft when it was in 3.0 or 4.0 mode.

4. "More" and "continued" either don't exist or aren't working. This needs to be fixed before being ready for prime-time.

5. Column for moving scenes around is appreciated and it works. Unfortunately, moving groups of scenes (like a sequence) can't be done at once. That would be useful.

6. I love being able to move via tabs from the main window to the title page to "Scene Details"and "Character" pages that help you keep your thoughts organized.

7. Importing from Final Draft (sorry, I don't have MMS) is not flawless. You save in FD as a txt file and then import. But importing doesn't retain breaks between different paragraphs of action/description. RTF importing isn't supported.

8. Not sure I understand (or like) the internet features. Why should I use this instead of a regular browser? And I don't want to upload my work to the world. These efforts seem to be an effort to distance itself from the competitors, but I wonder if this is an unproductive detour?

9. Haven't tried out the breakdown and scheduling features. More on this later, perhaps. Could make it a killer pre-production app.

I wouldn't say I've run the thing through its paces, but for someone that in his earliest days wrote screenplays using Microsoft Word (and before that Bank Street Writer on an Apple ][e !), I have to say this program is an absolute must for students, beginners, and anyone else that doesn't want to shell out the money for FD or MMS. And that goes double for an application that's not even reached its 1.0 release. This is VERY promising stuff.

I do not recommend it yet for those sending out their scripts to people/production companies for financing. I think "more" and "continued" have got to be fixed before it’s ready for that. But my guess is that it won't be long before this and the other bugs listed above are fixed.

I've previously written that "an inexpensive... tool that doesn't get the job done is less of a bargain than an overpriced mass-produced tool that does get the job done." It's a beautiful thing, though, when the open source developers prove the opposite is true.

My guess is that when the developers fix its few shortcomings Celtx will surpass Final Draft and Movie Magic Screenwriter in the same way that Firefox has surpassed Internet Explorer and (for me, at least) Safari.

Anyone else tried it out?

HD Camera Comparison: A different perspective

DV.com has recently posted Adam Wilt's coverage of a shoot-out between the big (at the moment) four prosumer HD camcorders: Canon XL H1, JVC GY-HD100U, Panasonic AG-HVX200 and the Sony HVR-Z1U. The test has been getting a lot of attention on the blogs I read and respect: FresHDV, HDforIndies, and DVGuru. The article in question is definitely worth a read, especially if you're in the market for a camera or interested in the advances in the latest prosumer video technology. Adam Wilt knows his stuff and is a superb writer on tech/video issues. Whenever I see an article by him, I read it. This one's no exception.

Having said all of this this, I'd like to offer a somewhat different (dissenting? contraraian?) perspective about this and other camera shoot-outs.

Point #1: Video is not film.

When I read discussion boards about video cameras I feel like there's an implicit subtext to why everyone reads about these shootouts -- in fact, it's often explicit:

    i) People want to find out which camera produces the most "film-like" image. ii) People want to find out which camera will produce the best images for film blow-up. iii) People want to find out which one they should purchase.

Here's the problem with (i): "Film-like" video can only go so far. As anyone who understands both technologies can tell you, there are several differences between video and film. The four biggest differences have, until recently, been:

a) resolution: Film has more resolution than video. b) motion rendering: Film runs at 24 fps. NTSC video has, until recently, always and only been 60 interlaced frames. c) aspect ratio: 35mm film, though actually 4:3, is traditionally projected at 1.85. Standard definition camcorders have 4:3 image sensors. d) acquisition: Film captures on unique individual frames, video with a CCD.

What excites people these days is that "B" and "C" aren't as much of an issue now with the advent of HD. Don't get me wrong, I think it's exciting too, largely because, like so many other people, I love the look of film. And, while video running at 24fps doesn't look exactly the same as film, it sure goes a long way towards getting rid of the "video look" that many filmmakers despise.

The thing is, "A" and "D" stubbornly remain.

35mm film has much more resolution than even the best HD cameras on the market. And it blows things like the camcorders recently tested out of the water. End of story. And of "indie" formats, Super-16's resolution is better, in fact, than video. In fact, as much as people complain about the costs of shooting film, shooting on a CineAlta or a Varicam can cost about the same as Super-16.

How the image is acquired, though, is the biggest factor. You can change everything else -- aspect ratio, FPS, even resolution -- to that of film, but video, by definition, will acquire images in a different way than film. The difference defines the formats. Every frame of film has a different makeup of silver halide crystals, which gives film its grain (as I've said before, think snowflakes). And it's the dance of that grain that makes film seem to have a "soul." Video's acquisition via a CCD works more like a scanner. No grain.

In sum, film is film. Video -- even the most uncompressed HD -- is video. That doesn't make video bad. Camcorders can produce amazing images when care is taken with the lighting. (Heck, the DVX100 produces amazing looking stuff, and it's not HD.) But it does make film and video different.

As for (ii) , the blow-up issue is, I think, a non-issue. In my opinion, the only -- and I repeat only -- reason to blow up a video to film these days is if you have a theatrical release secured. Film festivals are not a reason anymore. Period. Two of the last festivals in the US to hold out on screening work on video -- Sundance and the Ann Arbor Film Festival -- started screening work on high-quality video projectors years ago. (I would even argue that it is pointless for filmmakers to finish their 35mm and Super16 films on film unless they have theatrical distribution secured. But that's another story.) If you have made a film that is considered "good enough" or "commerical enough" for theatrical distribution, it will be blown up, no matter the camera (cf. The Blair Witch Project).

Finally, regarding (iii), I agree: Wanting to learn more about cameras because you're in the market for one is a legitimate and good reason to be interested in tests like these. Absolutely.

Unfortunately....

Point #2: Tests like this are always subjective.

Adam Wilt says it better than I ever could:

Camera comparisons are incredibly difficult to perform, to judge objectively, and to quantify. By their nature, they are open to errors of omission and commission, and to accusations of bias. At their best, they illuminate aspects of performance, but they can never completely encapsulate the entire scope of how a camera behaves and how it renders a scene, because there are simply too many variables to control.

(Note: This is why I like and trust Adam Wilt's writing.)

Now, I ask you: If what Adam Wilt says is true (I believe it is), why would you trust anything other than what you can ultimately see with your own eyes?

You wouldn't read Consumer Reports or Car and Driver and then purchase one car over another without test driving a few of them yourself would you? No. Now, you might read the review and say, "Well, I think I want a Prius or a Camry. But I definitely don't want a Hummer." But you still need to go test the cars yourself.

The analogy to camcorders may not be perfect, but c'mon: If you want to have an opinion about a video camera you have to see footage shot by the camera with your own eyes. That's all there is to it. And if you're in the market for a camera, you're going to have to do some shooting with any models you're considering if for no other reason than to check the ergonomics.

Camera tests are incredibly useful, but they're subjective. Tests are most useful if you do them yourself. Let the subjectivity be yours, not someone else's.

Point #3: In the end, remember: No one cares what camera you use.

I read those articles about camera shoot-outs closely just like anyone, but thinking about this stuff too much can divert my attention from the bigger picture. I know I'm probably not the only one. Let's take a step back. Consider:

Bennett Miller, Oscar-nominated director of Capote, shot his first movie (The Cruise) on Mini-DV. Craig Brewer, director of Hustle and Flow (two Sundance awards and two Oscar nominations) shot his first feature (The Poor and Hungry) on Digi8. Let me repeat that: Digi8. And beyond mainstream film, people like Sadie Benning and Michael Almereyda have made outstanding stuff using a Fisher-Price pixelvision camera. Meanwhile these films were shot on 35mm film. To overstate the obvious: It's not about the camera.

The great Walker Evans knew the score. In a fine essay by Ken Rockwell, Evans is quoted as having once said:

    People always ask me what camera I use. It's not the camera, it's -- ........and he tapped his temple with his index finger.

Now that's something worth meditating on.

Mac Widgets for Filmmakers

Some people using Macs love this new Dashboard thing in OS 10.4, but others (like myself) are agnostic about its usefulness. In an attempt at self-conversion I went searching around the internet looking for some (hopefully) useful widgets for filmmakers. So, Mac-based filmmakers, here they are...

Two caveats: First, I'e only tested some of these. If something doesn't work, post a comment. Secondly, this list (probably) isn't comprehensive. If you know of one I should add, post a comment or email me. I'll add it and maintain it on a permanent page on this site (found in the right hand column, under "Pages").

By the way, if you're using a Mac with 10.3.9 you don't have to feel left out. Get Amnesty Widget Browser, which lets you partake in the Dashboard experience.

Film Tools:

    Depth of Field: Seems a little buggy to me, but this one will be nice to have if I can get it to work. 

    Sol: A sunrise and sunset calculator.

    TimeCalc: A timecode calculator.

    TV Safe: Shows TV-safe areas on QuickTime movies.

    VLC Widget: This widget controls the ever-useful VLC media player when in fullscreen mode.

    Carpenter's Level: Let's you use PowerBooks with motion-sensor detection as a level. I'm sure someone can think of a way to use this.

Film-related News:

    OnSuper8: News about Super-8 film stuff. Cool!

DVD and Moviegoing:

    Dashflix: Netflix widget. Comes in two sizes. 

    Tuesday's Coming: A DVD release widget. I've not tested this, so I don't know if it covers anything off the beaten path.

    Movie Trailers: Lets you view stuff from the Apple QuickTime Movie Trailers site.

Research:

    IMDB: Searches for films, people, etc. on Internet Movie Database. 

    Wikipedia Search: Just like it says. Useful for researching.

    Google Search: Again, self-explanatory.

Generally useful:

    PackageTracker: Self explanatory. 

    WikityWidget: Described as "sticky notes on steroids." Useful for note-taking.

    MakeZine: If, like a lot of people, you first discovered this blog through Make Magazine's blog, this widget is for you.

    Einstein: Searches for the nearest Apple support center near you. Mariposa Software, the developer, also offers a widget called MacGyverisms. Not the most useful widget you'll find, but pretty amusing.

Last of all, if you're interested in developing some widgets, this article is a good place to start.

DIY Film Projects: Six Thoughts

A reader of this blog recently emailed me about a DIY steadicam he had seen online. Though I'm still suspicious of a steadicam without a gimble (i.e., the little ring that's used to control pans and tilts), the sample footage on the site looked okay, all things considered. Anyway, this got me thinking about how the internet abounds with DIY projects. Most of them are variations on one of the following:

a. skateboard dolly: 1, 2, 3

b. home-made steadicams: 1, 2, 3, 4

c. jib arm / crane: 1, 2

d. car mount: 1, 2, 3

e. the aforementioned Depth of Field reducer

f. other: 1, 2, 3

I'm not necessarily advocating any of these projects, much less one plan over another. I just thought I'd post links to a few and people can explore them (or not). Besides these links, those that are interested should check out Nuts and Bolts Filmmaking by Dan Rahmel, which has a lot of DIY projects, as well as other useful information.

A few thoughts:

1) Pros that pooh-pooh DIY equipment would do well to remember that many now-standard pieces of film equipment (boompole, steadicam, etc.) were handmade innovations before they became mass-produced professional tools.

2) Sometimes building DIY projects is not more cost effective than spending the money on a professional tool. Example: A new C-stand costs less than $200. The amount of time and money it would take for me to build some inferior imitation out of pipe I bought at Home Depot simply isn't worth it in the final cost-benefit analysis.

3) An inexpensive homemade tool that doesn't get the job done is less of a bargain than an overpriced mass-produced tool that does get the job done.

4) Conversely, it's simply ridiculous what some companies charge (and what some people will pay) for the most simple tools that could just as easily be homemade. If you know how to use a sewing machine, or know someone who does, you should not be paying $50 for a sandbag.

5) Judging from some of the projects I've seen made with DIY tools, the time spent building the tools would have been better spent working on the script. Of course, the same could be said of many Hollywood products produced with the best tools money can buy. As Agnes Varda once said, "The technical [aspects] and the frames are only a means to go through what has to be felt."

6) Often, the biggest advantage to making homemade tools is not the savings in money -- it's that you can tailor the tools to your project's specific needs. (Cf. the Crafter's Manifesto.) And as long as making your own tools doesn't distract from the real work -- making films -- the peripheral benefit of DIY is that the geeky fun had in making something is often, as Mastercard would say, priceless.

Camera Maintenance with Bernie O'Doherty

I've just returned from Boothbay, Maine, where two other filmmakers and I trekked to take a one-day workshop in camera maintenance and repair with by Bernie O'Doherty of Super 16, Inc. Saying Bernie knows some things about motion picture cameras is like saying Jacques Cousteau (whose cameras Bernie serviced) liked to make little movies of the fishies in the sea. Bernie's not just a renovator that repairs all sorts of movie cameras and converts standard 16's (like my Eclair ACL) to Super-16; he's an innovator. The guy developed a viewfinder brightening process that was nominated for an Academy Award.

It would be unfair to Bernie's business for me to share all his tricks on this blog, but I can say that his workshop covered everything from how to realign whacked viewfinder diopters to how to do a film scratch biopsy. For me the highlight was learning how to fully disassemble, clean from the inside out, and then reassemble my own camera's magazines. Suffice to say that eight hours, several disassembled cameras, and one lobster feast later, Bernie looked to us less like an engineer and more like a guru, a sensei, a jedi master of the movie camera.

Make no mistake: There are plenty of things (say, collimating a lens) that I would never, ever attempt to do myself. But the workshop aimed to give each of us a much higher level of ownership, confidence and control over the tools we already use, and it did that in spades. Knowing that, if I absolutely had to, I could take apart my camera on a shoot and diagnose a problem is a great feeling. That feeling is, in fact, part of what this blog is all about.

Bernie and his wife Julie were uncommonly warm and generous hosts, too, and that made the workshop all the more fun. My two fellow-travelers and I left for Philadelphia glowing not just from the empowering knowledge we'd gained, but also because we felt like we'd made some new friends. It was a great start for the new year.

Obviously, if your camera needs some work or, in a more self-reliant vein, if you want to do a workshop similar to the one we did, give Bernie and Julie a shout.

Wikipedia's Movie Making Manual

If one of your New Year's resolutions is to cut down the time you spend on the internet you should probably steer clear of Wikipedia's open-content textbooks. The "books" cover everything from How to Build a Computer to learning Mandarin to Monopoly strategy. Like everything else on Wikipedia, the content is entirely user-contributed. Considering Wikipedia's communal spirit, it's fitting that one of the few readable articles in the otherwise undeveloped Movie Making Manual is a brief but interesting section on film equipment timeshares. The article discusses the pros and cons of owning equipment and includes a draft of a sample timeshare agreement. And, yes, even this is a work-in-progress, but then isn't everything on the 'net?

DIY video depth-of-field contraption

Here are some interesting, DIY plans for a depth of field reducer for video cameras courtesy of the always-great Make Blog.

One claim on the site is that it will help your video "look like film." In a way, yes: Shallow depth of field is more common with film than video, generally speaking. Newbies should keep in mind, however, that film and video work entirely differently: a video CCD is essentially like a scanner, while film is a series of unique frames, each with a different pattern of silver halide crystals (think: snowflakes). It's because of this fundamental difference that video (as long as it continues to work the way it does now) will never completely look like film.

Anyway, I would be interested to see how footage using this thingamajig looks, especially in comparison with something like the P+S Mini35, which is a more professional version of the same thing. (The Mini35 is $7500, the DIY thing would probably run you 1/100 of that.) Some guys tested the Mini35 with a JVC GY-HD100 -- I was impressed with the close-ups, but not the night shots.

UPDATE: It looks like the Mini35 will have some competition soon from an outfit called Cinemek. The demos -- particularly the one that begins with the cat -- look good. And they say they're working on one for the HVX-200. Stay tuned.

UPDATE #2: A reader of this blog alerted me to two other commercial options for shallow DOF. One is the M2 -- AKA the Micro35 -- from RedRock. Another is from Dan Diaconu.

UPDATE #3: Yet another one... this time with instructions in PDF format.