Guys like this are the ones that are pulling the camera market down

[shashbugu]

Steve, both you and Shashbagu have given me pause to think, and I appreciate that because if I can't defend your concerns to myself then I need to rethink my approach. And really, all I can do sitting here in front of my keyboard is recall past experience as well as visualize what I think to be true in re: something I haven't tried before.

As I've mentioned, I'll be using available light for the outdoor daylight scenes and in some of the dual character scenes I'll have a camera trained on each one and hopefully get the full dialog in the scene in one good take. These I can position in regard to the light source and throw a little fill for each one as needed.

But you've given me reason to think about the scenes with two angles on the same scene, probably shot as a medium close-up on one camera and the other as a wide shot. Some of that I think I can match with available light through positioning the scene in regard to the position of the sun. Possibly needing to keep camera angles small so the light falls similarly on character in question... as you suggested. That's one good thing about shooting in the wide open spaces... you've got 360 degrees to use.

Still, one scene that comes to mind where Shonell takes a nightly meal up on a slight rise to the young dying fiddle player who is dying from radiation exposure but follows the group in his last attempt to gain fame in an oral history sort of way, will have a 90 degree camera angle between the two cameras. The setting sun will frame the one angle in silhouette and the shadows that are cast will be prominent in the other. Maybe I'm wrong but I am putting my faith in the Dragon sensor to give me all the information I will need from either shot done with available light.

As to the problems with the actors, I'm hoping I have the patience and the wiles to keep them on point. I've purposely written the script so there are 5 main characters in the vanguard with the herd trailing some miles behind. I can shoot the central characters first and since only one of these characters will interact with the herd and the lead character in that setting, I can shoot that separate from the more important part.



There weren't many reviews on Amazon but the ones I saw were mostly positive. Granted, the ones you are referring to are probably written by more experienced sound people. And while I think reviews are helpful, especially if there are a lot of them, I kind of grade them on a curve since (in some cases) I think people put up bad reviews hoping the seller will reduce the price. Should also mention that I suspect the occasional shill for another brand of similar products may post damaging statements about a competitor's product. '-)

I've used a couple of TASCAM DR 40s and under the right circumstances have gotten what seemed to my ears, acceptable sound. The DR60 is supposed to be revamped as a recorder so as to be even better. But I will test to see if it is something I can live with. The sound devices 633 is just way out of my price range.

But you are right about sound and I will not go to war with a rusty sword, so I may end up using something different from the DR 60D.

its often twice as hard to control light when you shoot outdoors than it is indoors, especially with camera sensors that are extremely sensitive to light. Every time theres any type of cloud cover, or as the the sun continuously moves every hour it becomes challenging to match shots. its okay in an interview or a TV commercial where you only needs six seconds per take, but for a continuous narrative you going to need some sort of large sources whether bounce or HMIs to ensure continuity. A camera with sixteen stops dr will register exposure changes continuously. Off course you can fix some stuff in post. Many movies, TVC's etc are shot with available light these days, thanks to high DR sensors like the Alexa and Epic, but they use a lot more nets, silks, bounces and other rags. no need for big genies and globes.
As for sound really look to spend $8000 on Pro gear tried and tested, you won't regret it. Always invest in what will show up on screen.

 

[shashbugu]

500 indy screenings - maybe more- politely attended - I think I'm way broad enough. Crap is crap.

https://soundcloud.com/thompsononhollywood/steven-soderbergh-sfiff56

Smaller, lighter, faster

 

[Elsie N]

its often twice as hard to control light when you shoot outdoors than it is indoors, especially with camera sensors that are extremely sensitive to light. Every time theres any type of cloud cover, or as the the sun continuously moves every hour it becomes challenging to match shots. its okay in an interview or a TV commercial where you only needs six seconds per take, but for a continuous narrative you going to need some sort of large sources whether bounce or HMIs to ensure continuity. A camera with sixteen stops dr will register exposure changes continuously. Off course you can fix some stuff in post. Many movies, TVC's etc are shot with available light these days, thanks to high DR sensors like the Alexa and Epic, but they use a lot more nets, silks, bounces and other rags. no need for big genies and globes.
As for sound really look to spend $8000 on Pro gear tried and tested, you won't regret it. Always invest in what will show up on screen.

If budget grows to allow these luxuries I will of course employ them. But I have to plan for a basic shoot until something changes.

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Hey Elsie, It seems like you have a solid plan. I look forward to hearing how your shoot goes. When do you begin production?
Joe

 

[Elsie N]

Hey Elsie, It seems like you have a solid plan. I look forward to hearing how your shoot goes. When do you begin production?
Joe

Target date is late spring. Still have quite a few things to nail down between now and then but if everything goes some 90% as planned, I should be able to do that. But really, anytime in 2014 is acceptable.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Elsie, more food for thought;

Much of editing, particularly when working with less seasoned on-camera talent, involves crafting performances. With one camera every take of every angle is unique and that will give your editor 2x the variety to choose from while crafting that performance than he/she would have if you shot the same amount of material with 2-cams.

Also, if your plan is to rely upon intercutting multiple angles of the same take to recreate your scene you may inadvertently be blinding yourself, your editor to possibilities that exist when mixing takes and angles. In my experience, what tends to happen is that you spend far too much time and effort on the timing of the cut, leaving less time and energy for mix and match auditioning of takes. It takes a lot of discipline on the part of the director and the editor to really work the process to it's best advantage.

Best wishes,
Scott

 

[Nick Morrison]

Elsie, more food for thought;

Much of editing, particularly when working with less seasoned on-camera talent, involves crafting performances. With one camera every take of every angle is unique and that will give your editor 2x the variety to choose from while crafting that performance than he/she would have if you shot the same amount of material with 2-cams.

Also, if your plan is to rely upon intercutting multiple angles of the same take to recreate your scene you may inadvertently be blinding yourself, your editor to possibilities that exist when mixing takes and angles. In my experience, what tends to happen is that you spend far too much time and effort on the timing of the cut, leaving less time and energy for mix and match auditioning of takes. It takes a lot of discipline on the part of the director and the editor to really work the process to it's best advantage.

Best wishes,
Scott

I agree 100%. I work with unseasoned actors pretty regularly (ie reality stars, young comedians, etc)...and have been saved regularly by multicam. Not to pimp my own work, but this trailer was shot with an entire cast of reality "experts" and it couldn't have been done w/out Multicam. Every expert has tailored coverage, yes, but the multitude of angles let us "cut around" the inevitable lags in performance and bring out the best in each performer. This has THREE cameras going at once (two Epics, and one Scarlet):

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie, more food for thought;

Much of editing, particularly when working with less seasoned on-camera talent, involves crafting performances. With one camera every take of every angle is unique and that will give your editor 2x the variety to choose from while crafting that performance than he/she would have if you shot the same amount of material with 2-cams.

Also, if your plan is to rely upon intercutting multiple angles of the same take to recreate your scene you may inadvertently be blinding yourself, your editor to possibilities that exist when mixing takes and angles. In my experience, what tends to happen is that you spend far too much time and effort on the timing of the cut, leaving less time and energy for mix and match auditioning of takes. It takes a lot of discipline on the part of the director and the editor to really work the process to it's best advantage.

Best wishes,
Scott

Good points Scott. As Director I plan to work closely with the editor. And as Editor, I plan to work very closely with the Director. '-)

What I'm saying is I agree with you. And I think the timing of the cut between two takes is important and using the same take from both cameras should give me the feeling of continuity I seek. I've seen scenes where the cut was from a completely different setup and felt they were just moving me, jumping me around the action. The scene I described in a previous post where I will setup the two cameras at a 90 degree angle... for that scene I will use a movie transition between the two angles that hopefully will have the viewer comfortable with the change. There is one more scene with about an 80 degree angle between the two setups where I will use a jump cut from a medium close-up to an extreme close-up on the face of the girl being violated. This is the Rosetta stone scene that both creates and eventually, solves the chaos affecting the entire storyline. It HAS to engender rage among the audience and as Director and Editor I will be shooting to reach that goal.

In all seriousness, even if the budget should grow to levels that afforded for an editor, I would still edit as long as I had control. If a distributor wanted a re-edit, that's on the distributor. Even then I would want to retain the rights to a Director's Cut.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Elsie N]

I agree 100%. I work with unseasoned actors pretty regularly (ie reality stars, young comedians, etc)...and have been saved regularly by multicam. Not to pimp my own work, but this trailer was shot with an entire cast of reality "experts" and it couldn't have been done w/out Multicam. Every expert has tailored coverage, yes, but the multitude of angles let us "cut around" the inevitable lags in performance and bring out the best in each performer. This has THREE cameras going at once (two Epics, and one Scarlet):

Nick, great job of grabbing attention and creating a sense of tension with cuts and audio.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I must not have been too clear, as it seems you are reading the opposite of what I meant. For some things I like shooting and cutting multi cam, but for narrative material not so much.

On the production side I really dislike the lighting limitations. I work almost exclusively so far on practical locations and that makes it all the harder. For me it is only worth the effort in two circumstances (maybe more); 1. The scene calls for a lot of overlapping dialogue and we want to keep it as organic as possible for the players, and/or 2. Our players are so good that we want to be sure and recreate their interactions as faithfully as possible, with a minimum of post production performance manipulation.

If I have green players I prefer to get a maximum number of discrete takes in the can. The repetition helps us all to get into a groove, and it provides me with the most raw material to sculpt in the editing room.

Again, I find that I experiment more with performances when I am working from single camera source material, and that may be due in part to my software of choice. In the past, FCP did not handle multiclips very reliably. Mixing multiclips in a single timeline caused a multitude of errors and crashes. That may have something to do with the fact that I, when cutting multi-cam, tend not to mix and match disparate takes as often as I feel I should.

So it may be my own particular bias, but I personally feel that I am much more hands on with performances and get the most variety that my actors are capable of giving, when I shoot narrative with one camera. It is a very personal choice that can depend on many external variables.

 

[Elsie N]

I must not have been too clear, as it seems you are reading the opposite of what I meant. For some things I like shooting and cutting multi cam, but for narrative material not so much.

On the production side I really dislike the lighting limitations. I work almost exclusively so far on practical locations and that makes it all the harder. For me it is only worth the effort in two circumstances (maybe more); 1. The scene calls for a lot of overlapping dialogue and we want to keep it as organic as possible for the players, and/or 2. Our players are so good that we want to be sure and recreate their interactions as faithfully as possible, with a minimum of post production performance manipulation.

If I have green players I prefer to get a maximum number of discrete takes in the can. The repetition helps us all to get into a groove, and it provides me with the most raw material to sculpt in the editing room.

Again, I find that I experiment more with performances when I am working from single camera source material, and that may be due in part to my software of choice. In the past, FCP did not handle multiclips very reliably. Mixing multiclips in a single timeline caused a multitude of errors and crashes. That may have something to do with the fact that I, when cutting multi-cam, tend not to mix and match disparate takes as often as I feel I should.

So it may be my own particular bias, but I personally feel that I am much more hands on with performances and get the most variety that my actors are capable of giving, when I shoot narrative with one camera. It is a very personal choice that can depend on many external variables.

Ahhhh! Yes, I did miss your point.

As you say, it is a personal choice and unlike you, I feel handicapped without more than one camera angle. While I won't likely do this in a movie (maybe, but I doubt it) I often end up with two camera views of something happening all at once at the same place on the timeline, each at 50% opacity. I use Adobe Premiere and have always had the ability to use multiple video channels to edit between.

If I had the wherewithal, I would own a third camera and shoot 3 camera takes. But that's just me. '-)

 

[Scott Crawley]

As you say, it is a personal choice and unlike you, I feel handicapped without more than one camera angle. ... But that's just me. '-)

I respect that, but I encourage you to resist it. Get outside of your comfort zone. When all you do is intercut angles, the performance remains completely in the actor's hands. Take as much responsibility for the performances as they do. Get inside the scene and work it. Make editing more than just a technical exercise.

 

[Elsie N]

I respect that, but I encourage you to resist it. Get outside of your comfort zone. When all you do is intercut angles, the performance remains completely in the actor's hands. Take as much responsibility for the performances as they do. Get inside the scene and work it. Make editing more than just a technical exercise.

Technical exercise? Interesting comment.

Being Writer, Director, cameraman, editor, sound guy, etc., I have to know the characters and the scenes from the inside out. And I've already allocated a lot of emotion and brain time to the project.

Still, if the actors were seasoned professionals I wouldn't mind putting the performance in the actor's hands to give me what I want... or surprising me by giving me something I didn't know I wanted. But with no expectation of using seasoned actors, I do expect to be fully engaged with the actors and working with them to connect the actor/director link allowing the establishment of a co-responsibility for the performance.

 

[Steve Das]

...Make editing more than just a technical exercise.

Technical exercise? Interesting comment.
Being Writer, Director, cameraman, editor, sound guy, etc., I have to know the characters and the scenes from the inside out. And I've already allocated a lot of emotion and brain time to the project.

Elsie he is referring to your editing/shooting as technical not the movie as a whole.

Seems like you are thinking of assembling the edit and the shoot as a technical puzzle like a engineer
or architiect would. But in fact you need to think much more like a Magician in terms of
what information you present to the audience and what you can get away with.

Really there is no need to shoot dialogue with multiple angles to match actions because
no-one can tell the difference even though...you...the magician might. The magician
is not authentic or literal...he is manipulative..and that is what the audience is there for.

The only reason to shoot multiple angles at one time is just to get additional coverage and save time.
The problem is you have to sacrifice some lighting possibilities. Which is why people don't always do it.

In other words you have to sacrifice lighting Quality to get an extra Quantity of footage doing it that way.
Dp's will not sacrifice this...if the angle is important you just light and frame it....move camera and roll again.

...and in some of the dual character scenes I'll have a camera trained on each one
and hopefully get the full dialog in the scene in one good take.

The problem with this is that you only have one set of eyes...so how can you watch 2 close-ups of 2 different
actors at the same time and know you got good takes and can move on.

...If I had the wherewithal, I would own a third camera and shoot 3 camera takes. But that's just me. '-)

He..he..he...again you only have one set of eyes to watch one camera.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Elsie he is referring to your editing/shooting as technical not the movie as a whole.

Seems like you are thinking of assembling the edit and the shoot as a technical puzzle like a engineer
or architiect would. But in fact you need to think much more like a Magician in terms of
what information you present to the audience and what you can get away with.

Really there is no need to shoot dialogue with multiple angles to match actions because
no-one can tell the difference even though...you...the magician might. The magician
is not authentic or literal...he is manipulative..and that is what the audience is there for.

The only reason to shoot multiple angles at one time is just to get additional coverage and save time.
The problem is you have to sacrifice some lighting possibilities. Which is why people don't always do it.

In other words you have to sacrifice lighting Quality to get an extra Quantity of footage doing it that way.
Dp's will not sacrifice this...if the angle is important you just light and frame it....move camera and roll again.



The problem with this is that you only have one set of eyes...so how can you watch 2 close-ups of 2 different
actors at the same time and know you got good takes and can move on.



He..he..he...again you only have one set of eyes to watch one camera.

I think multi camera setups has increased and will do so even more as there is no real cost involved, an also not so often the DOP holds on to the camera anyway as there is cranes, steadycams, dollies, mocos etc etc that are operated by operators. People sometimes forget that "DOP" actually mean "director of photography" it does not mean "I held on to and aimed the camera and also set all the lights my self" it's actually very much the opposite.

We shot a football commercial down in Joburg this thursday and we tossed a second camera on the job with synced TC just to be able to have nice cut aways that would match, not to easy to have 2x11 players in the field and make them do the same play every take... In retrospect I think we would have saved time and money and got a better film if we had even more cameras. As the cost for adding an operator and a scarlet to an already existing camera crew does not cost more than having 10 extras or so and the gain is huge, so nice to be able to cut to a closeup that is in perfect sync with background and everything... If we where rolling film, well then it would be different...

 

[Steve Das]

I think multi camera setups has increased and will do so even more as there is no real cost involved...

No Doubt...but while cameras can be cheap...but once you figure out the cost of matteboxes and filters and lenses...cost can kind of jump up on you.

...We shot a football commercial down in Joburg this thursday and we tossed a second camera on the job with synced TC just to be able to have nice cut aways that would match, not to easy to have 2x11 players in the field and make them do the same play every take............so nice to be able to cut to a closeup that is in perfect sync with background and everything...

Agreed Bjorn...but an action commercial....and the History channel promo up above is a very different animal than any film...especially an indie film where you are
really going against the odds and everything else. In order to keep morale up and make progress and keep momentum and finish the film you have to have
a very exact idea of how the performances and script are evolving as you shoot each day so that you can make adjustments as the shoot goes on. By throwing a
bunch of cameras out there..well..the sheer volume of footage raises the chance that you may in fact not even know what you are getting each day.

Synching backgrounds seems not really an issue in indie movies as often there are no action/stunts but for Need For Speed seems like Shane Hurlbut had David Newman
and gopro come up with a 12 stop firmware and new exposrure system and less wide angle distortion so that they were able to attach the go-pros to the actor's helmets
for footage. No CGI anywhere..all real cameras..all practical stunts and some of the gopro shots go for 4-6 seconds long. Curious to see if any actors had close-ups on the gopros.

 

[Björn Benckert]

No Doubt...but while cameras can be cheap...but once you figure out the cost of matteboxes and filters and lenses...cost can kind of jump up on you.



Agreed Bjorn...but an action commercial....and the History channel promo up above is a very different animal than any film...especially an indie film where you are
really going against the odds and everything else. In order to keep morale up and make progress and keep momentum and finish the film you have to have
a very exact idea of how the performances and script are evolving as you shoot each day so that you can make adjustments as the shoot goes on. By throwing a
bunch of cameras out there..well..the sheer volume of footage raises the chance that you may in fact not even know what you are getting each day.

Synching backgrounds seems not really an issue in indie movies as often there are no action/stunts but for Need For Speed seems like Shane Hurlbut had David Newman
and gopro come up with a 12 stop firmware and new exposrure system and less wide angle distortion so that they were able to attach the go-pros to the actor's helmets
for footage. No CGI anywhere..all real cameras..all practical stunts and some of the gopro shots go for 4-6 seconds long. Curious to see if any actors had close-ups on the gopros.

Dont know but as prices decline soon a scarlet will be cheaper to rent than a good lens and normally you got a full set of lenses, so then adding a few camera bodies seams like a natural step for just about any production, especially indy films where you can not always control the background and need to move fast, just saying it's a really nice thing to know that for any given situation you have a cut away option, i.e a b cam on a longer lens that might cover your ass for those little moments when things did not move along as planed really is wonderful thing, even if you have to add a second matte box, or actually even if you add nothing but one of the lenses in the case and a spear mag battery and EVF, it really makes sleeping easier. At least it does so for me pretty much no matter what we shoot, even those times when we had nobody else than a PA or me holding that second camera still some of those shots alway makes it into the edit.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie he is referring to your editing/shooting as technical not the movie as a whole.

Seems like you are thinking of assembling the edit and the shoot as a technical puzzle like a engineer
or architiect would. But in fact you need to think much more like a Magician in terms of
what information you present to the audience and what you can get away with.

Yes, I get that's what he was referring to but I was trying to convey that I am not coldly technical in my approach. Plus, I have an onset monitor easily connected to either camera via HDMI, so I can review footage easily enough to determine if I got the right "feel" in the scene as a way of pre-editing on set.

Really there is no need to shoot dialogue with multiple angles to match actions because
no-one can tell the difference even though...you...the magician might. The magician
is not authentic or literal...he is manipulative..and that is what the audience is there for.

I disagree with that. I want sound for each camera viewpoint. If I've got one camera shooting the back of a scene for instance, I want sound to sound like it's coming from the back of a scene. Not only am I going to shoot available light, but I want available sound, to some degree. I believe that lends to an immersive experience.

The only reason to shoot multiple angles at one time is just to get additional coverage and save time.
The problem is you have to sacrifice some lighting possibilities. Which is why people don't always do it.

In other words you have to sacrifice lighting Quality to get an extra Quantity of footage doing it that way.
Dp's will not sacrifice this...if the angle is important you just light and frame it....move camera and roll again.

Yes to getting additional coverage and saving time... and ways to make a more interesting scene.

The problem with this is that you only have one set of eyes...so how can you watch 2 close-ups of 2 different
actors at the same time and know you got good takes and can move on...

I'll actually shoot my close-ups with enough area on the screen to crop the image to the desired part. That's why 6k is so important. But even so I have a product called Nyrius that wirelessly will send the image from the unattended camera to a 7" display that I can view to see what the other camera is recording. Off and on with the Redmote.

As for the 3rd camera, if that ever becomes affordable, so will the hiring of another pair of eyes. '-)

 

[Scott Crawley]

For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that you were. (I use a collective "you" a lot.) I hope you didn't make that inference. Thank you for your graciousness in spite of the way it may have appeared. :beer:

Yes, I get that's what he was referring to but I was trying to convey that I am not coldly technical in my approach.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie he is referring to your editing/shooting as technical not the movie as a whole.

Seems like you are thinking of assembling the edit and the shoot as a technical puzzle like a engineer
or architiect would. But in fact you need to think much more like a Magician in terms of
what information you present to the audience and what you can get away with.

...

For the record, I didn't mean to suggest that you were. I hope you didn't make that inference. Thank you for your graciousness in spite of the way it may have appeared. :beer:

Scott, I was probably reacting more to Steve's wording rather than yours. But no worries whatever your meaning. Having your methods challenged is a great gift when done by knowledgeable people like you and Steve. I've found our back and forth a useful exercise.

Thank you both.