Digital Auteur

Finding and Adapting a Development Model

2011-02-27T13:50:00.005-06:00

I have had an idea percolating in the back of my mind for a few weeks now. It is deeply personal, yet I think it holds some universal elements as well. I think it could be a really strong project, if done right.

But that is the problem. When ever I really fall in love with a project, it becomes too precious and I am terrified to move it along, for fear that I ruin my perfect concept. This is obviously unacceptable.

So, I am looking for a new, well any, development model that will help me get over this analysis paralysis and provide a framework for incremental work towards completion.

I have a lot of texts and hands-on experience with production and even writing, and have found them invaluable for accomplishing objectives and completing projects. However, I have never spent much time in the development phase. I have Linda Seger's Making a Good Script Great, which is a great book, but it is fundamentally a book of rewriting, so is obviously light on development.

Where will I find a model that works for me?

Practical Experience Gained from Using My Equipment

2011-02-12T08:38:00.012-06:00

A few months ago I bought new camera equipment: Canon HV40 camcorder, Letus Mini adapter and three old Canon FD lenses. Now that I have used the setup a few times, I have some real world data on usage. This is important because I have building this knowledge as I move towards making "real" movies.

Below are my random list of observations:

The camera isn't great in low-light
But with a little work, you can squeeze manual exposure control out of it (shutter speed, aperture, gain)
The adapter and 35mm lenses eat light.
The combination of the first and third above means that shooting indoors is not advisable if you aren't going to light.
A movie should be lit anyway, even outside
I knew low-light would be an issue going in
A little gain might not be so bad, maybe.
The footage can feel big, expensive. Sticking with 180 degree shutter, shooting at 24p and aiming for the angles of view that Hollywood uses all add a tremendous amount of production value.
The bokeh is great.
HDV, so far, is a pain. My machine is operable, but struggles to cut it, especially with a couple of layers.
My computer is definitely under-powered and is incapable of running pro editing systems. HDV is lightest weight, non-proxy source material that I am going to be dealing with going forward.
I am cutting with Premiere Elements 9. I don't think consumer editing apps will every be comfortable for me after using real Premiere, Avid and Final Cut so much.
Additionally, the "user-friendliness" of Elements means I don't have a lot of control over the capture and preservation of my data. I am not even sure what the real specs are of the captured video.
Color correcting is doable under these conditions given a properly white balanced and exposed scene. However, the heavy compression, color bit depth and lack of even a simple tools (three-way color correction, levels or curves) mean that color grading is complete out of the question.
Still, the image looks pretty damn good, until you start messing with it.
In order to retain maximum control over exposure, especially shutter, I do not use the cinema setting. Also, to try to give myself the most flexibility in post, I use the custom image controls and turn the contrast, saturation and sharpening all the way down. But given that I can't effectively manipulate the image in post anyway, I might start shooting with the image punched up. It at least merits a test.
After three years out of the game, my workflow skills are rusty. Of course, a lot has changed in that time. DV becomes HDV, SD becomes HD, interlaced becomes progressive, 29.97 becomes 23.98, XP becomes windows 7, etc etc. I just realized how few codecs I have on my system.
HDMI Out capture was one of the reasons I bought this camera, though that feature is a lot more common now. I would need a capture device, and to thoroughly test the workflow.
Faster lenses would be awesome, but exacerbate the shallow depth of field issue
Shallow DOF is hard
- following focus is tough on non-cinema lenses (due to focus throw) especially without a follow focus system
- gauging what is in focus is tough without a monitor or assists (e.g. false color). I am trying to use the Peaking assist that baked in, but the haven't found it to be too useful yet.
Shoulder mount rig would be really nice.

Five Movies in 2011

2011-01-23T12:20:00.002-06:00

I am going to make 5 movies in 2011. They may not be large. They may not be great. But they will be made.

On Practice: Wontons and Movies

2010-10-23T15:01:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago was the Chinese Mid-Autumn (aka Moon) Festival. A couple of friends came over and we made dumplings from scratch. A couple pounds of meet, a pound of cabbage and an assortment of traditional ingredients added up to a couple pounds of left over dumpling filling. We froze it, and I have finally worked through it all cranking out a couple hundred wontons along the way. The first few were awful: they were ugly and would come open and the skins split. But eventually I started to figure it out. Now, I happen to be a perfectionist. Most people wouldn't really care about the execution, my friends made a damn tasty filling, so even the ugly split ones tasted fantastic. But I was fairly unhappy about how they turned out until I had cracked out at least a hundred of them, maybe more. Then a funny thing happened; they started to turn out alright.

Even as my knuckles cramped while crimping the last of those little bastards, I was still getting better. Here is the thing: I had to make a bunch of really crappy wontons to get there. I wish I could have made that many movies that quickly.

The thing I think that is most exciting about the dramatically reduced barrier to entry is that you can crank out as many bad movies as you want, and you know, actually get better. At this point, there is really no reason not to make a ton of small projects and really learn the craft. This also gives you an excellent opportunity to hone your storytelling and visual style.

The Masters: Philip Bloom, Part I

2010-10-18T16:41:00.007-05:00

Philip Bloom has become an idol of mine—and a lot of other people too. He seems to have exploded onto the scene via the DSLR video phenomenon. My goal here is to see if I can deconstruct Mr. Bloom's meteoric rise to see what we can learn from him, not just as an artist, but as a new filmmaking icon. Here are my initial thoughts.

I have been following Philip Bloom's blog for almost a year now, coinciding with my rekindled interest in filmmaking. I have been following him on twitter for a few months, and on Vimeo for a couple of months as well. The guy is ridiculously prolific. I haven't seen him comment on the source of his productivity, but I think it has something to do with working non-stop. Perhaps at some point I will be lucky enough to ask him. But whether it is his films, his blog or his tweets, the guy is always posting.

I decided to go back to the beginning. I started with the first post in his archive. What I have learned is that from day 1—or at least day 1 of his blog—that:

He knows his stuff (technical proficiency)
He has a great eye and is a damn good filmmaker
He is well-established (his first post mentions an upcoming project for the BBC)
He is an engaging personality
He is already looking for ways to shoot good looking images more efficiently and inexpensively

We will learn later what a brilliant self-marketer he is—and believe me this is not a negative; while that statement might make some cringe, self-marketing is important, especially for an artist looking to be self-sufficient.

I will continue with Part II after I do more research.

Lucky

2010-10-11T19:01:00.004-05:00

In a very unneeded turn of events, our place was robbed this weekend while we away. This leads to a lot of different emotions, most of which are probably better channeled in to screenplays than blog posts. However, there is one thing that I can't help but feel: Lucky. Sounds weird, but it is true. It happened while we were away—probably because we were away. There was a lot of valuable stuff that was not taken. The total value of things lost was not that high, in monetary terms—though my wife is pretty upset about the sentimental value of her lost jewelry. Other than my papers (passport, social security card, birth and marriage certificates) my only positions lifted were my old video camera and some peripheral A/V stuff: a couple of cheap lav mics, various audio cables and the like.

Personally, it could have been much worse. On a last minute whim, I packed up my new camera, tripod, 35mm lens adapter and lenses and hauled them a few hours away with only the slight hope of using them in a jam-packed weekend. Well, I did use them. I forced myself to break the rig out and spend some time capturing my daughter playing in the yard. It felt wonderful. And, it saved me a from a devastating loss.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, this would not have been a huge monetary loss. But buying that stuff represented a shift in my direction, my focus, my life. Using it this weekend, despite the inconvenience, took a dedication to this change. If I had lost that "stuff", it would have meant a lot more to me than the couple of thousand dollars that the renters insurance would have comped me for it. And for that, I can't help but feel lucky that I spent Sunday shooting instead of lamenting.

Emmulating 35mm FOV with Letus Mini

2010-10-06T14:31:00.014-05:00

I will continue the manual controls topic soon. In the meantime, I am going to go in a different direction. I spend my research and review time split between the philosophical micro-budget sphere and the technical geeky side of production. Over the last few days I have spent some time studying up on field of view—first prompted by Stu Maschwitz's tweet about Abel Cine's field of view "comparator", then reviewing a couple of Barry Green/DVXUser/DVInfo comments about the 35mm adapter field of view. Something that had not dawned on me is the angle/field of view difference between Super35 film and the full 35mm frame. Shape alone should have made it obvious, but it never dawned on me, mostly because I was focused on depth of field. But after review—and testing—it is true that the field of view is different and that my Letus Mini can be "calibrated" to either. I decided to test out my gear and write up the results. The following will be quick and dirty (again) because I discovered some cropping issues after I shot some test images. Also, I did not light for this, using only available indoor light and did not post on the images.

Calibration and Error

First, I set my up my camera and adapter by using Barry Green's math for a 35mm movie frame: at 2 feet with a 50mm lens, you should have a horizontal field of view of approximately 10.5 inches. I used a piece of paper with a mark drawn 10.5 inches from one edge, then lined this up in my viewfinder. Unfortunately, the still I took was wider:

Good to know that the viewfinder is cropped. At first I was disappointed, but if this frame is in anyway consistent with the HDV frame, I can deduce that the viewfinder by 10%, and should be able to reproduce and correct this test in the future by drawing my mark 9.5 inches from the edge instead. So, even though this test is not perfect, at least it provides a rough baseline. Keep this in mind as you review the rest of the images. I know I will keep in mind when i compose my images in the future (and when prioritizing an external HD monitor for my rig.)

Emulated Super35 Frame

This handsome fellow is me being disgruntled about being the subject of the most uninteresting image of all time. Next time I may put some thought into composition, lighting, etc. This time I just locked the camera, chair and focus at 5 feet. I did this for two reasons: to create a lazy but repeatable setup (I didn't have to move my tripod, just pan from the calibration wall 2' away from the focal plane and my happy subject 5' away) and because I wanted to test my lens focus barrel settings—I adjusted the back-focus on my FD mount a couple weeks back; it was obviously better, but I wanted a more accurate test. More on that in a later post.

You can see here that I have a decent medium shot with my normal lens. White balance is set to incandescent for my living room ceiling lights; the daylight coming through the shades is very blue. Also, hello vignetting. More on that later too.

Emulating "Full-frame" 35mm Framing

Next I used some online calculators to setup my full-frame calibration (no image.) The result:
Lo, it is wider! Yeah, this should be expected. Also, hello worse vignetting. Again, not surprising. Finally:

Frame While Attempting to Mitigate Vignetting

Here I zoomed all the way in on the adapter trying to frame out the vignetting:

Well, less, vignetting—note that it is not NO vignetting. Also, notice how the subject is more disgruntled as he is now in a closeup that emphasizes the uninterestingness and poor lighting of this composition—or perhaps due to the extreme deviation from the wonderful normal feel of the "real" normal framings.

Bonus: No Adapter 50mm Approximation

Here I removed the adapter and guesstimated the full-frame equivalent of a 50mm normal lens:

Not bad for mental math + eyeballing the zoom readout, though not great either. It is certainly wider. However, look at that infinite depth of field! Damn 1/3 inch sensor! And I still had the focus locked at about 3 inches for the adapter's ground glass! Gasp you should! This is of course, the real reason I opted for the adapter in the first place: Bokeh.

In this case the vignetting is caused by leaving the adapter's threaded attachment on the camera; this is the inside of the attachment's barrel. Also, please note HOW MUCH BRIGHTER this shot is than the others. I have avoided this subject on purpose, but it is obvious how bad this rig is in low-light. Not all the blame falls to my f/1.8 lens and half-stop eating Letus: this camera is not good in low-light, and my apartment is dark as hell. This further emphasizes the need to consider lighting when shooting. That brings me to:

VIGNETTING!!!

Some people—Philip Bloom, I am looking at you—love vignetting. I will admit, it can be nice. However, I will let you in on a secret: the best vignetting is added in post, and then, only when it feels right. I am already wondering if I can create a post workflow for brightening my corners with gradient masks. On the other hand, I am not freaking out at the moment. I have only really shot in awfully dark conditions, which makes the vignetting worse, I think. And I did nothing to help with the exposure, in fact, the opposite, since I was taking stills using the video settings. Hopefully I can actually test this outdoors again soon and see if I can minimize the vignetting with bright lighting. Actually, I kind of already did this:

Mike is Cinematic from Mitch McLachlan on Vimeo.

However, this was my very first try with this rig, so I have no idea how far I zoomed into the ground glass, but I would like to think it was close to the Super35 frame, likely zoomed in a little further to fight the vignetting. But, I also used two lenses that are a full 2 stops slower than today's test lens. Either way, that isn't nearly as bad as saw in my tests.

Wrap Up

You may be wondering why I care about this at all. To be honest, I had never even considered this until very recently—I opted for this setup for 35mm bokeh and nothing else. But I think that Barry Green (and Stu Maschwitz) have a point. Taking advantage of the traditional Hollywood frame further enhances the production value of the shot. If a cine 50mm lens equates to a still 50mm lens on my rig, then I am really happy. I may be cropping my still lens a bit—making my 50mm lens a still 72.5mm equivalent, my 28mm a 40mm equivalent and my 135mm a 200mm equivalent—but that is okay if I am able to get one step closer to the big budget feel.

For now I will opt for emulating Barry's Super35 frame while keeping a close eye on the vignetting. But This has inspired me and I will be doing some more testing and shooting soon.

Manual Camera Control, Part I

2010-10-03T14:01:00.014-05:00

Author's Note: This will be a short post that will hopefully lead to lot more text down the line. Blogger keeps crashing, so I have resorted to IE; everything is holding together for the moment. Also, I am a little scatter-brained at the moment, making a long post difficult, but I promised myself I would work through it anyway.

I follow a lot of micro-budget film geeks. Each has their own shtick. Kent Nichols demands control of creative direction and distribution. Frugal Filmmaker wants to spend no money. Philip Bloom, a very visual artist, loves using HDDSLRs to imitate much more expensive cameras. Stu Maschwitz is probably my closest philosophical cohort; his aim is to create a cheap production environment that sets the stage for Hollywood-style post. I am on board with all of these points of view, but have my own flavor of shtick as well.

One of the things about micro-budget production that drives me crazy is a lack of manual camera control. Manufactures are really helping us out with the HD handicam spec arms race—1080p60 (for true in-camera slo-mo) is even available for under a grand. However, one thing that separates the consumer and prosumer cameras from those used for cable TV production (or indie movies, etc) is the availability and ease of manual controls: gain, audio, white balance, aperture, shutter, gamma. Sometimes a few of these options can be set in a priority mode that means the rest are dictated by the camera's brain. This is not ideal.

One of the reasons that I opted for the Canon HV40 was "the cellphone trick". Essentially, this procedure puts a repeatable light source in front of the camera to consistantly calibrate the cameras AE lock and exposure adjust function. I have undertaken the procedure, but have an additional variable—my Letus mini 35mm lens adapter. The adapter and various lenses eat light, thus making the procedure more difficult. Additionally, setting up the adapter—attaching it to the camera, etc, is a bit of a process on its own, so I needed to find a repeatable way to calibrate the AE lock + adjustment for shooting with and without the adapter.

I will cover exactly how I achieved this in my next post in this series.

Now What?

2010-09-29T19:57:00.005-05:00

So here I am, settled in to a new domicile. I have a new camera rig, something I have wanted for a very long time. I lost my edit machine, but after a painful hiatus, I have a wee little laptop that allows me to write and manipulate images (and hopefully, at some point proxy edit some video.) I am standing at the precipice of a major life change. Now what?

To be honest, I don't really know. I know sort of vaguely, that it is time. It is time to take the bull by the horns and take charge of my creative output. I do not entirely know what that will look like, and that is scary. Overcoming the hump and getting off your creative ass is scary, but not nearly as scary as the sudden realization that you are careening towards a lifetime of phoning it in. I have read this phrased a number of ways over the last couple of months, each a reflection of the voice conveying it—all I can do is it put it in my own words—if you don't get off your ass and live your life now, one day you will wake up and realize everything that you have thrown away for the sake of the empty safety that comes from never having put yourself out there. Now that is a petrifying thought.

Today I woke up at 5am and finished a stupid little photoshop job. I haven't felt so good at 7am in over a year. I am exhausted at 8pm, but I am writing the first text over a couple hundred words in weeks. I will get up at 5am again tomorrow and work some more. I am going to be punching the clock, putting in the time. To what ends? I am not sure yet, but I am not going to wait long to figure it out. I don't know what the output will look like in 12 months, or even in 12 hours. But I do know that just taking the first steps, pushing pixels and increasing word counts, is the best therapy I have had in a very long time. I can't guarantee it will be the only therapy I need, but is the one I need most right now.

There is a little voice in the back of my head screaming right now. It demands that now is the time for some profound statement, an elegant turn to tie these ramblings together. But that little bastard is the reason I am in this position in the first place. Sorry, nothing profound right now. Now, it is time to grind it out.

Observations: HV40, Letus Mini and Canon FD Lenses

2010-08-03T16:26:00.005-05:00

At some point I hope to run through the equipment I just bought and explain why I chose the route that I did. At the moment I am too busy to do much beyond traveling for work and moving. But I do have some quick observations from the 20 minutes of footage I have been able to shoot on the Canon HV40 and some playing with the Letus Mini 35mm lens adapter and Canon FD lenses.

Canon HV40: It is tiny, which in general, is bad. It is cheap in a lot of ways, some bad (manual controls), some good (got it for a third off). It has a slightly bigger chip than I am used to (1/2.7 vs 1/3). I don’t love that it is CMOS rather than CCD, but so I am not too worried about the rolling shutter at the moment.

The biggest issues are going to be squeezing out manual control of the image and getting enough light on the sensor. There are options and hacks for tricking the camera into giving you some control: lock exposure on something friendly, then adjust up or down until you arrive at amicable shutter, aperture, and gain settings; at this point you have to hope that you still have a decent exposure. I am willing to play this game for a $650 camera.

I had a really tough time lighting a setup with practicals. Granted, my adapter and lenses ate some light, but the camera struggled without the extra glass in my living room at night. I will have a new living room in a week and a half, so I will try again. However, like the manual control issues, this is a limitation I was prepared to deal with before I purchased the camera. The point of buying equipment was to make real movies, which means real planning and real lighting. Cheap home depot worklights and Ikea china lamps are in my future.

There are a couple of things that I am happy about: native 24p HD shooting and a cine gamma setting. I haven’t actually edited or corrected any footage yet, but have been able to capture 24p footage. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the HV “Cinema” setting does. It looks like it prevents the in-camera consumer image processing (over-saturating, over-detailing and killing your dynamic range.) There appears to be some concern that recoverable detail in this neutral image is destroyed by the HDV compression. I can believe this, but I am not convinced that this will be an issue. I think that if a scene is properly lit, and properly exposed (that means using and preserving the 100-110% exposure range) that everything will be okay, but I plan on testing this soon.

For me, I will use this camera for one of two things, which will determine its use. First, I will make movies with it; this means carefully constructing and shooting the mise-en-scene for the most post-production latitude. I would like to think that all my footage would be treated with care and color-corrected, but that probably isn’t going to happen. This leads me to the second use for this camera: capturing little moments of my family. This means I am going to need to be as flexible as possible to record my hyperactive three-year-old. At that point, there will probably be as little post as possible.

Letus Mini: Got a like-new buddle at about a 50% discount. It is heavy and I am glad that there are rails. I haven’t gotten a chance to shoot much proper test footage, so the jury is still out, but what little I have done is really exciting. I can’t wait to play more. Again, using this things is going to remove a lot of flexibility, but I knew that going in AND it is totally worth it.

Canon FD Lenses: My Letus came with an EOS mount, which I assumed would be the norm. I was dismayed to realize that EOS lenses have electronic aperture only, so I would not be able to control the iris. However, Canon’s old FD lenses have manual aperture AND the lenses are “antiques” or “collectibles” since the lenses only work with film SLRs (at least without an adapter). I was able to pick up 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2.8 lenses for about $100 shipped. I still need to pick up a couple of rear caps, but the lenses seem to be in good shape and fast enough.

Overall, I am really excited for this setup. I am hoping to have some downtime while I am in San Francisco for work to shoot some footage with a couple of friends.

I Bought a Rig

2010-07-22T22:47:00.001-05:00

There are a million things I want to write about at the moment. However, I just bought a rig and I am busy setting it up and learning. I hope to get a lot of material to write about.

Production Value, Cheaply

2010-07-06T21:32:00.005-05:00

Production value is a tough thing to nail down. It is one of those things that you "know when you see". Camera movement brings a very expensive feel to a film. I found these two tutorials today for cheap camera movers that bring a big look to your shots. Check out these two video tutorials for dolies and rails that cost less than $20 each in parts.

Filmmaking is Storytelling, Nothing More

2010-07-06T16:55:00.002-05:00

As usually happens, when I think about making movies, I tend to focus on gear. It isn't just me. One reason that some folks decide to be self-proclaimed DPs or Cinematographers or Filmmakers is to justify buying tons of cool equipment. But at the end of the day, the equipment is simply a tool to tell stories. Until you can tell a good story, you have no place making movies. This can be done in any manner, even vocally. When you can tell a good story, figure out how to tell it visually. You don't need a Viper or CineAlta to do that. You can do it with pen and paper, or flash, or a cell phone. Any time you spend "filmmaking" that isn't spent learning to tell a story visually is a waste. Use what you got on hand and learn to tell killer stories visually. Then cash that knowledge in when you can get your hands on better equipment. Taking the time to get the chops increases your ability to get your hands on the means of production.

Cameras for Movies

2010-07-02T11:56:00.016-05:00

WARNING: Sprawling post written over several days ahead. Generally I would edit extensively, but the sprawling accurately represents what I am feeling about this issue. Also, linking needed. This is really a brain-dump.

After a very long hiatus from reading every piece of camera literature I could get my hands on, I am off the wagon. It has been at least a couple of years since I spent anytime looking at the latest and greatest for making real cinematic images with birthday party cameras. Back then, the HV20 + 35mm lens adapters were displacing the DVX100s and HVX200s as the talk of indie lore. The former was a rig that combined one of the first consumer HD camcorders with a middle-layer interface for the 35mm SLR lenses. The latter were the first affordable—~$3k to $6k—video cameras to shoot 24p, though tethered to decent but non-interchangeable zoom lenses and small imagers. Each of these routes have their super-pros coupled with super-cons. Lest we forget the Red camera that everyone was dieing for. Guess what, everyone is still dieing for it. And while it puts MAJOR MOTION PICTURE cameras in more hands, it still does it for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. This is not an option for me or others like me.

At some point, maybe a year ago, video-capable Digital SLRs stormed the indie world. These cameras have HUGE imagers (well, compared to prosumer video cameras) AND interchangeable lenses to make cinematic progressive images. I think the DSLR cult is far more zealous than the previous two (but not the Red). Not to be upstaged, Panasonic—mother of the DVX and HVX cameras—recently announced a video camera with a DSLR imager and interchangeable lenses. Rumored price is $6k.

Honestly, I would love to jump on the new Panasonic camera, but I know full well that $6k may get you a body and nothing else. That doesn't take into account the waiting; this thing is still months away and workflow issues are never far behind the latest and greatest. Cult-wise, I am still stuck in 2008, with a lot of interest in palmcorder as video body plus lense adapter. An entire rig still costs less than the functional minimum HVX200. As for reality, I am stuck in 2004. My camera on hand was the first consumer 3-CCD Panasonic GS400. Less glass, slight manual control and some progressive faking functions.

All of my research comes down to features. Some of which are mandatory (for me), the rest are a trade off of ideal versus affordable. Here are the options:

The ability to obtain shallow depth of field. This is a must. Stu Maschwitz demands 24p, I demand tiny focus envelops. I know that lots of movies, even major ones, use infinite DOF. So do billions of home movies. Come hell or high water, I will have a means to shoot with shallow DOF.
Compression. This is a digital world, and true HD (or even SD) is expensive with respect to data. If you want to do any sort of effects, you need as much of that data as possible. I think this is undervalued in this sphere of filmmaking, but if you don't believe me, think back to the last time you photoshopped a point-and-shoot JPG. Without thousands of dollars of external recording mediums, we are going to have to rely on what the manufacturer provides us.
- HDV: MPEG-2, options up to 25Mbps
- AVCHD: MPEG-4 (H.264) up to 21Mbps, if you are lucky
I have been a vocal hater of MPEG-2, so it may surprise that I actually prefer it in this instance. MPEG-2 requires more data for the same "quality" as H.264. While this is true for delivery, acquisition is a whole other issue. More compression is bad.
Recording medium. Since the dawn of consumer video cameras, footage has been captured to tapes—physical things that could be stored and saved and transferred to computers at real-time. One hour of footage can be captured in one hour. As far as I know, there is only one tape-based camera still being made. The rest use flash memory of one flavor or another that can be transferred instead of captured, a much faster process—unless the footage has to be transcoded. Guess what, most things (except Premiere CS5) can't natively handle AVCHD, and all flash-based cameras use AVCHD. While I wouldn't mind going tapeless, doing so at the expense of HDV is worrisome. Also, I like having a physical archive.
Imager technology. Back in the day, the CCD was king—by default, there was nothing else to choose from. They have draw backs, but we understood them. Along comes CMOS, and Mysterium and probably others. New chip technology that makes new things possible has been developed. CMOS is the new king of the camcorder and HDDSLR hill. For all I remember, CMOS may make all this hand-held HD possible, or at least for under thousands of dollars. The problem is that CMOS using a rolling shutter, something that rips blades off propellers and makes a lot of visual effects impossible. Also, the huge pixel count on DSLRs lead to crazy aliasing. Ideally we would opt for something CCD based, but there is really only one option for that left.
Cost. I want this to be as cheap as possible. Movies might be fake, but economics are real.

After weighing these factors, I am still firmly in the HV20 (or 30 or 40) plus 35mm lens adapter camp. The HV40 is the only tape-based, HDV camera out there. And it is on sale for $650. And people are hacking these things to flip the signal to compensate for the upside-down/backwards image the adapters create. And aliasing is totally unacceptable to me and video cameras compensate well for it. Given the exodus to DSLRs, second-hand rigs are flooding the market. This makes economics happy.

Gear is not a tool, it is an addiction. I have equipment to make something now. With a lot of post, it could even look a little movie-like, at least with respect to frame rates. Huge focus envelops are unavoidable. I have started to check eBay and Craigslist. My camera seems to be selling on eBay for $700. The third generation of the Canon HV line, the HV40, can be had for new for about the same. Older generations, minus native 24p, are available from the auctions for a $300-$1000 with some of the same "accessories" I would be looking to add. Lens adapters run, well, you can spend as much as you want—used for a few hundred and upwards of a couple grand plus follow-focus/rails/etc/etc. This DOES NOT include glass, which, will always be the most expensive component. However, the palmcorder cult has had a couple years to hammer out workflow and squeezing real manual control out.

But, if "no more excuses" is going to a be mantra, then I should just get off my ass and use my current camera. In the end, filmmaking is storytelling; the camera is just a tool. Hell, this weekend I made flipbooks with my toddler: I made "movies" without any camera. Also, my camera has the same sized lense as the HV20,30,40. So if I invested in a DOF adapter, I could use it now and "upgrade" to the HD palmcorder later. That would satisfy my gear lust and DP prejudice at the same time.

Very Quick Review: Julie and Julia

2010-06-14T11:50:00.000-05:00

Charming. Excellent movie.

Quick Review: The COMPLETE Metropolis

2010-06-14T11:14:00.003-05:00

Fritz Lang's Metropolis is oft considered one of the greatest movies of all time, despite having the picture butchered again and again by distribution edits. Cuts took the movie from 150+ minutes to 90. Sequences were tightened and entire subplots were cut. Most of this loss was thought to be permanent, but the last 80+ years have seen a number of restoration attempts. Finally, in 2008, a badly beaten 16mm dup neg was discovered in Argentina with an additional 30 minutes of footage. Painstaking care has been spent to restore the entire story, despite the battered footage. There are many excellent resources out there documenting this story, so I won't waste the pixels.

However, the restored version is making the rounds and I was lucky enough to catch a screening, so I will say one thing: Holy shit, it is awesome. I have seen various cuts of the film a number of times. Even these hampered versions can attest to how massive the production was, and how controling Lang was. However, the epic nature of the story and storytelling were sacrificed for ticket sales. This new version demonstrates how modern of a film Metropilis was. Even though it is silent, the visual storytelling is so strong that it is accessible to everyone. The story is cheesy, but no more so than The Blind Side or its ilk. See it.

Roger Ebert has an excellent write-up.

Quick Review: Maus Haus

2010-06-14T10:52:00.004-05:00

My friend's band, Maus Haus, was in town on Saturday. Their sound is unique, though I have to divulge that I am not as versed in music as other topics. Driving, poppy, electronicy. Excellent, well honed stage show that is an excellent performance of their recordings—which is an accomplishment for how produced the sound is. Just wrapped up their mid-west mini-tour, but catch them if you can while in San Francisco or surrounding area.

My Review: Radiohead and Philosophy

2010-06-14T10:47:00.002-05:00

A friend asked me to review Radiohead and Philosophy.

Review: Steven Pressfield's "The War of Art"

2009-08-13T20:59:00.002-05:00

I have had this book on my 'to read' list for a couple of years now. Thankfully I finally have a library that has nearly any book I could ever want. But this is a book I might just purchase.

I have never really considered myself a creative person, so it is strange that I have picked up a couple of "unblocking your inner artist" books this year. I was a math and science oriented person for the first 20 or so years of my life. I played several instruments and even wrote a few songs, but my strength was always "technical proficiency." Even in film school I was consumed with the technical side of productions. How do lenses work, or how do different film stocks compare? While classmates ran on about Goddard I was studying depth of field charts. My screenwriting class was a disaster. I was told that every good writer is at worst an amateur psychologist. As I always considered psychology a soft art at best, and at worst, one step above new age religion. As I struggled to craft a coherent, character driven story, I resolved myself to leaving the creativity to others. Luckily, I got to work on enough student films to persuade me away from running off to be a Hollywood cable puller. The only difference between my material and most of the other stuff I read was that I knew my writing sucked.

Earlier this year a friend loaned me Julie Cameron's "The Artist's Way." It is a type of workbook for unleashing your inner creative spirit. As I have slowly tried to undertake more creative endeavors, I have come to feel the frustration of a frustrated artist, though likely in a less painful and debilitating way than many of Ms. Cameron's other readers. The book is a quick read, which is almost detrimental considering that you only read a few pages weekly during a 3 month process. She describes the process of growth eloquently and accessibly. However, her AA style reliance on a higher power was not something I could ever really get behind. I am, above all else, a humanist. Cameron insists that her method is just as effective for people who refuse to accept a higher power and suggest that such readers feel free to think of said power as the subconscious while unceasingly referring to it as God. However, she always externalizes this force, making that task difficult. Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell are far more convincing in internalizing this power within the subconscious than Cameron is in externalizing it in God. The other knock I have with "The Artist's Way" is that, at least early on, I felt it was forcing me to turn out garbage and preventing me from focusing on work that I was already very excited about. Perhaps I was not quite blocked enough to dive into this book.

While it seems as though I am reviewing "The Artist's Way" instead of "The War of Art", it is important for me to frame my remarks by Cameron's work. I was very excited to finally get my hands on "War of Art" and started reading it immediately. To my dismay, the introduction was written by Robert McKee (famously lampooned in Charlie Kaufman's 'Adaptation'.) I decided that poor association would not be enough to ruin the book for me, so I dove in anyway.

I as quickly stopped in my tracks. McKee praises Pressfield heavily and actually convinced me to add a lot of Pressfield's non-golf related books to my queue. He further praises the first two sections (or 'books') of "War of Art" as being spot on. McKee has been around, and if he feels Pressfield has his finger on the pulse of creative blockage, I am at least willing to listen. Then McKee droped a bomb. He criticizes the 3rd section for externalizing inspiration, clinging to muses and angles. I immediately had visions of "Artist's Way." McKee then jolted me back to earth by saying he felt inspiration and creativity were internal stimuli. The fact that this heavy language actually made it into the book made me hope that perhaps I could at least read the book without offending my sensibilities.

But McKee was not done there. He goes on to say that he personally believes that creative talent is no different than basketball talent. You can't teach seven foot tall; it is genetic and you have either got it, or you don't. I am not sure who McKee is writing that sentence too. Perhaps himself or the millions at stake for him as a screenwriting yogi. But the juxtaposition created in the span of a few sentences created a crack. Perhaps there was some middle ground between Julia Cameron's creative father figure and McKee's raging ego. Perhaps that middle ground was Pressfield.

Once I actually got to Pressfield's text, I could not have been happier. The book is an incredibly fast read. It is written in short observational essays that describe Pressfield's outlook on blockage, the solution and philosophy. Pressfield is careful to not push "artist" down our throat, and frequently includes references to a would-be "plumbing supply venture" that could benefit from his insight. I think this is wise because his observations are so universal. You don't need to aspire to be the next Goethe to get something out of this book.

To me, the nuts and bolts of the book is the middle section, which espouses Professionalism as the cure for Resistance. His outlook is very rational, very pragmatic, and I hope, very applicable. I think a combination of "War of Art" and "Getting Things Done" could unblock nearly anyone creatively.

I really think that McKee gets it wrong as well. Yes, Pressfield is infatuated with the iconography of Homer's muses and medieval angels. However, I think he describes his vision of a transcendent artistic plane that could exist anywhere: heaven, nature or subconscious. He states that he believes in God, but is far more convincing that his outlook allows for many different world views.

After reading this book, I am inspired to get to work and churn out "art." You have got to punch in, and pay your dues. And that is what I am doing right now.

Filmmaking Career Path

2009-01-30T07:28:00.013-06:00

I am reading Mike Curtis at HD for Indies flipping out (via Kent Nichols) right now. It is long, and, well, ranty. But his 'anecdote' regarding career development piqued my interest:

"Anecdote - it used to be that the hot new movie directing talent came up through commercials and music videos - think David Fincher. McG is, I think, the last name I can think of that came up that route that has achieved commercial success. Anybody else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? There was a list of top 50 hot talent something or other. Nobody under 30. Where’s the new talent coming from? Not from music videos anymore - there’s barely a market, and certainly no real money, in that anymore."

The reason this jumped out at me is because I had just seen another one of those "win a marginal amount of money for creating our viral ad campaign for us" contests. I have been generally down on this type of thing in the past, mainly because you really are guaranteed to forfeit all ownership and rights to your work upon submission, with only a small chance of any compensation. Further, most of said contest yield so much garbage, even the lucky winner.

However, with the supposed decline of one development path for filmmaking talent, and no end in sight for theses contests, could the latter serve as a possible replacement for the former, at least in a very small way? Probably not, but if a young/student filmmaker were to scour the web for contests that suited his interests, deconstructed the judging criteria, product in question and marketing strategies, and use these elements as real world exercises for honing their craft, it might pay off. Call it the Lazlo Hollyfeld film school.

Horror As a Model for Indie Film

2009-01-28T22:07:00.006-06:00

Some people theorize (citation needed...) that the horror genre gives us an embodiment and outlet for our amorphous and repressed fears. There are corollaries about the rise of horror revenues during times of socioeconomic tumult and war. Horror, the theories go, allows us to release these emotions vicariously, in small doses, and within the safe confines of genre. Cinema has an arc, a structure, and most importantly a resolution. We do not have to explore our own psychological demons introspectively, without a net. Instead, we can sit back, blow off some steam and know that in 90 minutes all will be right in the world again. It grants catharsis and control to the conscious, and spear points to keep the darkest recesses of our minds at bay.

Bias warning: I personally am not a fan of the horror genre. I have a variety of personality traits that prevent me from getting much enjoyment horror movies. Mostly I prefer to be in control of as much as possible at all times. Perhaps I am just not able to let go of this, and thus the idea of impending doom actually creates more anxiety for me rather than releasing it. Regardless, my general ambivalence to the genre has prevented me from studying it too closely. However, the above theories are very intriguing to me as a filmmaker.
It seems there are hundreds, if not more, awful horror flicks made each year. Most of the movies made by my casual acquaintances and friends of friends are horror movies. These movies are poorly written and made, but never seem to lack for cast or crew, or strangely audience. Perhaps the genre itself is able to ignite enough passion to perpetuate itself, even in spite of the fact that so many works lack the quality that other films and filmmakers strive for.

If this is true, and also, if there is any merit to the theories of vicarious catharsis, horror might serve as a perfect case study for what indie filmmaking can achieve. Horror tackles deep psychological ailments of the masses. It has a built-in audience (though this is a characteristic of all genres), and it is able to inspire people to sweat the unglamorous parts of production with little to no hope of money or recognition. If a filmmaker were to explore complex and universal elements of the human psyche and to write and produce to pre-existing communities united by a common passion, they might be able to repackage the success of the horror genre to further their own unique point-of-view. I am not advocating using the horror genre as a veil for any theme that may inspire you. But, if you were to truly study why horror works and deconstruct it, you might be able to harness the potential that keeps Hollywood churning out slasher films. Further, the tumultuous times within which horror thrives, times like the one I am writing in, present ample opportunity for art to raise a voice. Whether by tackling political issues (Frost|Nixon, Good Night and Good Luck) or the precious and precarious balance of security and justice/freedom (Bourne Ultimatum, The Dark Knight), indie filmmakers can couple the unique contexts of their time and space with the lessons of the horror genre, and perhaps carve a place for themselves in the public consciousness.

Polymathism and Indie Film

2009-01-27T20:15:00.026-06:00

On one hand, some of the most important intellectual work of our civilization was done by great, creative thinkers not bound to one area of specialization. Da Vinci was "a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer"; Newton a "physicist, mathematician, astronomer, theologian, natural philosopher". Modern society is built upon work by polymaths.

On the other hand, one of the most oft cited (and very valid) criticisms to auteur theory is that filmmaking is a collaborative process. However, I have already discussed how current economic conditions now allow for the entire industrial side of filmmaking to be executed by teams as small as one. So how could a creative, intelligent individual perfectly execute every step in the filmmaking workflow to create a film of unified vision, high art and quality?
Yes, filmmaking is a very industrial process. It has many integral parts that must be executed at a high level to achieve a certain amount of quality. Writing, directing, editing are just some of the more sexy rolls that must be strong to make a movie good, but there is many subtle things that must happen in between too. I believe if one was creative, talented and systematic enough, they could hone skills across the filmmaking workflow and create a tight, cohesive and quality movie worthy of auteur study.

Shane Carruth and Robert Rodriguez may one day achieve this modern day Renaissance Man/Auteur/indie status. Carruth's very first movie won two awards at Sundance. Rodriguez's first picked up one prize at Sundance. Not bad for ~$10K in productions costs, combined.

Carruth reversed engineered the process of filmmaking, keeping costs down by doing as much himself as possible (writer, director, producer, actor, editor, composer. Does this list remind you of anything?). Rodriguez has spent most of his life honing every facet of production. If one day either of these filmmakers has the body of work to study in the context of auteur theory, it would be interesting to see what the effects of the "one man crew" method might have on the subject. Additionally, the free/powerful animation tool Blender, putting Pixar (circa 1994) power in the hands of every potential auteur, making possible things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPcimeiqLE

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPcimeiqLE

In the mean time, I believe this approach to filmmaking could produce some of the most original work in decades, and would be the perfect laboratory for developing a modern day auteur school.

Now a Filmmaker

2008-08-25T07:37:00.006-05:00

As of now, I am a practicing filmmaker (again). Only this time I have plan. In the past I bought a camera, found a screenplay macro for Word, and made my friends parade around in my "comedies". Back then I had a very specific goal, to work out the digital workflow, then master each part of the indie process: write, direct, edit. But I forgot one part: producing. Sure, someone called all those friends and twisted their arms, someone forced me to write something, someone screened those works. Again it was me, but the really bad indie producer me made really bad producer decisions that led writer me to write junk, director me to suck and left distributor me with nothing to show for all the effort. Eventually writer, director me took his camera and went home.What went wrong? My goal was to workout the digital, no-budget workflow. And I did that, at least somewhat. But making awful movies for the sake of production kills your creative drive. Every time I locked the edit of another bad movie, I had a little less desire to write the next one.

Now, I am a producer first and foremost. Soon I may post about why every filmmaker should think of themselves as a producer first and director when it is necessary, instead of the other way around. Producers do a lot more than make some calls and pick up best picture Oscars. But they are often misunderstood and often mistrusted (rightfully so, in some cases.) However, you need to learn to be a fantastic producer for you own work, or you are not going to understand why it sucks.

So my new plan: Be a producer first. I will still work out workflows to optimize my product and post. But the producer in me will use every tool available, like modified classical film theory and market research, to do things right this time.

My plan as a producer is as follows: find ways to make production as economically viable as possible (minimize production, distribution and marketing costs), develop the ideas that have the best chances of making a good movie and finding an audience, and getting the most out of the other roles by having a clear vision of each project, so that while I am writing, directing, editing, etc, I am making one cohesive picture that is the best that it can be.

The Promise of Auteur Theory

2008-08-24T20:26:00.003-05:00

The critical thought behind Auteur Theory led to real changes in regional cinemas, even if for short periods. The French Cahiers critics used their critical work to launch their own filmmaking careers. However, that impact was short lived.

Because, like many critical studies, the politique des auteurs ignored the contexts that helped shape it, once social and economic conditions changed, the framework as practiced by the New Wave filmmakers was too rigid to adapt and survive.
It should be reinforced that very real conditions were responsible for the formation of the framework: production became cheaper, smaller budget films had some financial success in distribution, an influx of products from the Hollywood studio system, the marginalized voice of a political movement. These conditions allowed the New Wave filmmakers to make new and personal films with a new message, using a new cinematic language. This is a fine development, but as conditions changed, the theory did not change with it. New Wave filmmakers stuck with a framework that was tied to no longer existing contexts, and eventually the movement was choked out.

Modern critical studies, especially those practiced by filmmakers, should learn from this lesson. Recognize your context, develop a framework that tackles your current conditions, but be willing to tweak or even reinvent your framework at anytime, even your height, if the conditions dictate it.

Critique of Criticism

2008-08-22T13:14:00.007-05:00

Before I begin, I should state what my purpose is here. I am studying classic film theory to see if and how relevant it can be to a practicing independent filmmaker today and in the future. My judgments are not qualitative, but are based on this perspective. I have thus far, and will continue to key on very specific parts of Auteur Theory that can be useful within this context. Here, however, I will detail why I reject other aspects of criticism in general, as they pertain to the criteria I have laid out.

I have observed the large role played by the critic in critical studies. Of course this should be obvious, but the critic commands too large a role and can directly cancel out some parts of his or her framework. The hierarchy of importance in most studies appears to be:

Critic, who imposes meaning on films after the fact
Director, whose work has no meaning without the critic revealing to the masses, even if the director himself had an explicit purpose
Audience, who must rely on the critic to filter and value movies

I should note that two and three above might be switched, depending on the school of thought, if required by the theory.

The role of critic as filter is certainly important, as are all filters. However, because we are concerned with the filmmaker’s perspective, unless a producer is specifically targeting the loyal following audience of one particular critic, which in most cases would not be productive, focusing on a critic’s perspective would be harmful noise in the creative process.

Critics also tend to completely ignore context and conditions. The usefulness of this practice is important; if a critic's work can be marginalized tomorrow by changing conditions, then what inherent value does that work possess? In many cases, the results of film study must be beyond context in order to have any longevity or legacy. However, this will eventually limit the effectiveness or credibility of the work. For example, the outlook of some British theorists on authorship resembled that of the Cahier critics. However, because both devalued context, they had very different opinions on Hollywood. The French New Wave critics, who were completely deprived of American films, romanticized Hollywood once access was restored. Their British counterparts, who felt over run by American cinema, completely rejected it. This rejection of context is of little use to a filmmaker. If I make a film that could be a critical success 5 years after I make it, and perhaps achieve a real following even later, it is likely that that work will never be of much value to me. In order to see any return at all I am likely to take a very unfavorable deal, lose all rights completely or, the work itself could become orphaned, lost to the world completely. If instead I am able to apply the knowledge of the critic to my present or likely future conditions, there is a greater chance for me to be able to profit from that knowledge.

It seems that criticism, in general, is not self-aware enough to be useful for filmmakers. By ignoring the privileged place of the critic, and the present conditions within which the observations are made, criticism is quickly devalued. If instead we can apply this observation and theory to the context of any time or place, we then have a framework that can be helpful for the production of new artistic works.