Film Quality

Jan_Crittenden

Jan_Crittenden

Veteran
Hi Everyone,

Writing from Sundance between screenings.

One of the things that I have found that gives the format of the film away is the variance of quality within the body of the film. I have now seen about 10 films, some from 35mm projection, some from HDCam, and only one DV based film kept me guessing so far. The Film based films were no brainers, easy to pick out. The Digital based films, you could tell, I won't name the films.

The very thing that I noticed about the film generated films was a constancy in quality. The film I just saw, had me trying to guess if it was DV, GL-1, or DVCAM, or HD-Cam, HDW700 as it was for sure interlaced to start. Their quality was all over the map, and I can't explain why, and since their cinematographer was not at the screening, I still don't know why. They barely knew what format it was shot in, "HDCAM shot on a DSR-570." Well we know that that is not true.

So why am I writing this? I am reflecting back to when I saw November on the big screen last year. Never once did the quality of the shots vary, it was just like the films I saw last year and the ones generated on film this year. Every frame had the same texture, quality, and resolution. The backgrounds and focus pulls were perfect, the pans didn't stutter. (Those of you shooting in 60i, take note here as you won't be able to tell that you have a stutter until you make the 24P transition in post.) During the screening of November, I sat in the audience, I knew at least part of it was shot on the DVX, but wasn't sure that all of it was, and I swear some shots made me wonder if the DVX wasn't just B-roll on a key scene.

You could sit in the audience and not pay attention to why things keep flipping out, focus wise, color wise, framing wise, or have little anomalies like a field reversal problem. You didn't have the technical stuff that is inherent in working with a digital acquisition medium getting in the way. And why was that? Nancy Schreiber knew that if she let any of that through to the final edit, it would be short-changed into being just another DV based film. No one would look at her work as a filmmaker/storyteller, but would be distracted by the medium she had been hired to work within.

So I offer this up to you guys and gals that are working to create films and have the dream of seeing your work on the big screen someday; get control over the image and don't let the camera/medium make your choices. Make consistancy between all shots the same, they should all be excellent. You make the choices; make the camera do it or get a camera/medium that will, at least for those shots that prove to be the most difficult.

As an example, there were slow motion done in this one film I saw, and it was so bad, I can't begin to describe how awful it looked. It was an SD interlace original, and then projected from film so how they got from 60i, did the slo-mo and then out to film is a mystery, but if I knew what they did, I would post it right here and now, and say, don't do it this way. I might be just too critical, but I don't think so.

This can be a thread like is the DVX Broadcast Quality? Frame it so "can the DVX be used for Film Quality work?" I say yes, I have seen examples of that, anybody have something to add for helpful hints.

Just trying to get a conversation going. There are so many posts that come on here and want the magic settings that will make the DVX look like film. While the camera has a part, the DP has a bigger part, me thinks.

So, any thoughts to add?

My .02,

Jan
 
Re: Film Quality

Hi Jan,
I have the same feelings about the whole digital revolution - people forget the rules of filmmaking. I dont know all the information about November, but I would imagine that they picked a f-stop and stuck with that through the whole production - this would give some consistency to the film and with the knowledge gained from traditional film DP work, only adds to the benefit of digital. Watching a film shot on DV projected in a theater just lacks resolution. Now, watch a film shot on a HD cam with the same care as a 35mm, and you will have trouble distinguishing. Enjoy Sundance, whish I could have gone. >:(
 
Re: Film Quality

I hear you on the film quality issue.

Going to most film festivals is really very much like sitting through the "American Idol" auditions: a few are so good you're amazed that the filmmakers (or singers, as the case may be) aren't already famous. And many are so jaw-droppingly bad that you wonder how on earth these people don't know just how bad their product is (whether their film or their singing).

Making a good film is incredibly difficult. Many people think that just finishing something is an accomplishment, and I guess in a way it is, but... the best thing in the world that a filmmaker could do is screen their work for strangers, as part of a "marketing survey" or whatever you want to call it. Showing it to friends & family & the cast guarantees you'll get rave reviews... but show it to strangers who don't know you're involved in the project, and they'll let you know whether it's actually good or bad.

And it can hurt, oh man can the truth hurt, I could quote some reviews my early work got, but -- so what? If it's bad, better you know about it now, right? Would you rather go through your whole wedding reception with a big gnarly hunk of parsley stuck on your front tooth, and nobody tell you, because they don't want to "spoil your big day"?

I agree totally with what Jan's saying here. I think the thing that surprises me the most is that with all these problems, those films *still* got into Sundance! There were something like 2600 submissions, and something like 120 films got in... and those that got in were likely much better than those that didn't, even with their problems. That's amazing, and it does give one hope that if you work hard enough, you could make something good enough to get in.

Jan's basically saying the same thing as I usually say, which is: learn the craft. Learn the craft. People have been making movies for over 100 years now, and they've learned a few things along the way. Learn from them. Study. Shoot and study what you've shot. Your first film is going to be horrible, I can guarantee it... just like a baby who's trying to walk... babies do an awful job of walking, just awful, they fall and stagger around, hit their heads, etc... but... if they keep at it, they eventually get the hang of it, and sometimes 11 years later they can be world-class gymnasts. But it takes years of dedicated work and study and work and work and study and work. Filmmaking's the same way -- if you want to compete at that level, you've got to work just as hard as the aspiring gymnast.

Sometimes it seems like people are so excited that they have a finished product, and they rush to have people watch it (like, "hey everybody! The baby's walking!") Nobody other than the immediate family will care to watch a baby's first steps... however, world-class gymnastics gets broadcast in prime-time to a worldwide audience.

Learn the craft.
 
Re: Film Quality

I've seen DV filmout that looks beautiful...it was at a lab, and of course they demo the good stuff. I know it can look good, so what has gone wrong and how do we correct it?

What are the elements for consistency?

1. Focus...(Nancy Schreiber in an article spoke about the DVX being difficult to focus, I agree. Hopefully newer DVX versions will give better LCDs for focusing. This is something that MUST be improved.

2. Exposure: finding 18% grey, shot by shot for consistent zone 5 grey is a challenge given the chip acts differently for differing level (fc) of light. Also, we all know that highlights, 95 IRE & up, cause blow outs & are dead video look give aways. This is what I'm hearing the Sundance films are having difficulty with.

So ND material on ext. windows, scrim down lights to proper exposure levels and dull highlights, std. film production techniques are mandatory, video requires even greater quality control (sorry)

3. Camera Movement: ASC reference manual has a table for pan speeds for 24fps. Stutter can be avoided.

4. Film has a few benefits from a long tradition: A Director & DP will sit down and go over before hand the look of the film, how it changes in the film (if it does) and other looks, i.e., themes of yellow or red during a sequence (see "The Last Emperor"). They then plan and prepare to shoot. Once the look is determined and tests are completed the team has a high degree of confidence in the final outcome. Watch the "Visons of Light" DVD for a taste of the serious nature of this work. Do these DVX productions do this serious level of testing and homework prior to the shoot? Maybe this would have made a difference.
 
Re: Film Quality

Jan, from what you've seen so far, how are the audiences and industry people reacting to the movies you've seen that were shot on the DVX? Are those films getting anywhere near the same amount of respect as the movies shot on film (the ones that don't contain stars, that is)?
Nathan
 
Re: Film Quality

Good question 'thejessicastar'

I gotta think we have to shoot every frame likes it our last. FOrget about the format and shoot it like you mean it.
 
Re: Film Quality

I agree with Jan when she says the DP has a bigger part. I've seen so many people buy a DVX in hopes it would magiaclly make them a filmaker. They have no knowledge of any technical aspect of video or film in general but they good great equipment. The low cost of this generation of cameras have brought out the good and the bad filmakers out of the woodwork, and into our local Blockbusters and film festivals. Indy film now is like anybody with 5000 bucks, a bad script and a dream.
 
Re: Film Quality

[quote author=soarprod link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#1 date=01/23/05 at 15:37:53]  I dont know all the information about November, but I would imagine that they picked a f-stop and stuck with that through the whole production - this would give some consistency to the film  >:([/quote]

Perhaps if the whole production took place on the same set with the same lighting, a consistent f-stop would be logical; other than that, this could actually be a liability (if one were shooting under varying levels of daylight, it is s.o.p to adjust the aperture before each take to ENSURE consistency).
 
Re: Film Quality

[quote author=thejessicastar1 link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#4 date=01/23/05 at 17:04:16]Jan, from what you've seen so far, how are the audiences and industry people reacting to the movies you've seen that were shot on the DVX? Are those films getting anywhere near the same amount of respect as the movies shot on film (the ones that don't contain stars, that is)?
Nathan[/quote]

Absolutely, the audiences are reacting with the films, and at no time did I say that any of these were bad films, I only said that people shooting them are not giving the viewfinder or rather monitor a critical enough eye. And maybe in some cases, it is because they are new or it is a run and gun scenario.

The thing I have learned about the filmmaker that most solidly contrasts with the guy coming out of the video profession, and that is, that the best ones have nothing happening in the frame of which, they are not aware.

Phil Parmet who shot Lonesome Jim, said the hardest thing he had to do was to keep the picture within the framework of what the camera could do, without tipping his hand. They did a very nice job. It was a tough movie to watch, for me, almost as uncomfortable as "What's Eating with Gilbert Grape." Steve Bucemi did an incredible job with the direction. But you couldn't walk out without reacting to it. You couldn't come out neutral.

All of the films got the audience involved, even the one that had all of the switching qualities.

FWIW,

Jan
 
Re: Film Quality

I think the first, and most important step, is being able to see everything, and I mean everything, that's going on in the frames you are shooting. Ideally, there should never be any surprises in post...
 
Re: Film Quality

[quote author=soarprod link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#1 date=01/23/05 at 15:37:53] I would imagine that they picked a f-stop and stuck with that through the whole production [/quote]
I immediately thought this is the same thing while reading Jan's post. One of the DPs interviewed in "Masters of Light: Conversations With Contemporary Cinematographers" made this choice of a sole f-stop. Probably definately worth a re-read for me.

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#2 date=01/23/05 at 16:29:05]There were something like 2600 submissions, and something like 120 films got in... and those that got in were likely much better than those that didn't, even with their problems.[/quote]
I used to volunteer at Sundance in the mid-80s just after Redford "acquired" what used to be the U.S. Film Festival. (These days I hear you have to "be" or at least "know" someone to volunteer.) The films were overall pretty bad back then, so not much has changed except the $$, the hype and I imagine the number of pretenders in attendance. ;)

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#2 date=01/23/05 at 16:29:05]Learn the craft.[/quote]
In his interviews and his autobiography, Akira Kurasowa always amazed me by repeating how very little he knew about filmmaking, that he was still just beginning to learn the craft of cinema.He spoke this often just  just a few years before and probably right up until his death and I don't believe he was being modest or insincere.

What a board.

Moe
 
Re: Film Quality

moe snod gras...i do like that name. I'm sure Akira was being humble because as one gets better, smarter etc... you realize how much you don't know, and how big it all is...meaning...everything! Most guru level pros will tell anyone they are only an apprentice.

It's usually the idiots who know it all.

I once worked with a very famous elderly man who was well known in his field after decades of success. One day he said, after all this time I only know one thing, but I really do know it, and proceeded to explain. Then he said, if you want someone who knows everything, hire the young guys, they know it all ;)
 
Re: Film Quality

When I was younger an employer of mine said (to someone else), "I think there are only two kinds of people. The ones that are so stupid they think they are smart, and the ones that are smart enough to know how stupid they are".
The older I get the more I think he was right, ...oh, and I am really stupid. ;D
 
Re: Film Quality

Jan,
I want to thank you for taking the time to jot that down. I imagine things are insane there. Not only are your comments spot-on, but I feel priveleged that you would take the time out of your busy day to pass them on.
 
Re: Film Quality

[quote author=10s link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=0#11 date=01/24/05 at 21:58:32]It's usually the idiots who know it all.[/quote]
Intelligent people ask questions. Idiots try to answer them.

This doesn't apply to this forum, of course. ;D

Jan, great reporting from Sundance. In a way, it's encouraging, because if all people want is to excel, and they work on it, eventually they will.

Now... going back to my camera. Need to learn the craft. ;)
 
Re: Film Quality

It's interesting about using a sole f-stop. I myself try to use f 5.6, and only adjust a few points higher or lower in extreme cases. I try to use ND filters and scrims to compensate so I can stay in that 5.6 range.

Not sure if I'm nuts, but I had the impression from reading a certain book, that 5.6 was the best resolution on the DVX with the least amount of noise. Am i crazy?
 
Re: Film Quality

[quote author=mickeloaf link=board=Events;num=1106521999;start=15#16 date=01/26/05 at 19:07:52]

Not sure if I'm nuts, but I had the impression from reading a certain book, that 5.6 was the best resolution on the DVX with the least amount of noise.  Am i crazy?[/quote]

I don't know as I have not done extensive shooting with the camera, only a lot of looking and testing, what happens when, that sort of thing. Have not tested this. I will have to take a look. Barry?

However I have to say in looking at all of this footage at Sundance, a couple of films seem to have had their DVX working in a mode that made them seem less noisy in the dark areas as described it the three way test. To the extent that when the scene came up, I was looking for the noise as it was a dark scene, or appeared to be. Perhaps this was the trick that Phil Parmet used in Lonesome Jim. Pretty low noise, less that that in the 3-way by a bunch but with the appearance of same light level, does that ake sense.

On a more interesting note, looks like Murderball, is potentially going to land a distribution deal. Everybody say a collective, "Yes, let it happen!" I know when you guys see this film you will go nuts. They did so many cool things.

Found out yet another film at Sundance was done with a DVX, 9 Songs. Didnt see it, unfortunately. Looking for the review.

Anyhow keep up the good work folks.

Later,

Jan
 
Re: Film Quality

i am loving this thread, can we continue the line of discussion of what film and film school people know that we don't?

i am reading every cinematography book i can get and especially listening to the directors tracks on dvd's

i'd like to hear more about the continuity of look from scene to scene on both the f stop and similar topics.

the speed you can pan was something that i never knew there was a formula for until barry brought it up. i think its in his book as well.

matthew
 
Re: Film Quality

but I had the impression from reading a certain book, that 5.6 was the best resolution on the DVX with the least amount of noise
Click to expand...
I did test for resolution/sharpness throughout the aperture scale. 5.6 is right in the middle and is probably the sharpest, but really you get very, very little variation anywhere from about f/2.8 down to f/14. More wide-open than f/2.8 and sharpness drops off a little, don't remember offhand but it was maybe as much as 10% total. On the other end of the scale, there are a couple of iris-wheel clicks down below f/16 where sharpness drops completely off and the footage looks awful... that's right before the iris closes. So stay between f/2.8 and f/14 for the sharpest footage, and expect just a little softening if you open up more than about f/2.8. Not very much softening, but there is some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top