M D Productions presents: 'Violet'

Kevin, thanks for the reply.

I am surprised that you shot this on the dvx. Weren't you shooting with a diffent camera? (a 900 or something like that?)

That is a very nice dof in those shots. You must have pulled the camera back pretty far to get that, huh?

What does PAR stand for? I am guessing P_______ Aspect Ratio?

Thanks for the kudos on the new banner. Yeah, I am liking it too!

-Ted
 
Hi Ted,

I am using a variety of camera's on "Violet" including the SDX900 (for its awesome low light performance) the DVX (when I can achieve what I need with it) and Super 8mm (for some very specific reasons to do with the story).

Its really an economic issue that causes me to use the DVX on this project. I have a few constraints to consider.

First, my talent is only available on days (or partial days as is often the case) when they are not auditioning or working (I am shooting under a SAG contract that allows for $100 day talent payments) so I have to work around their varying schedules. It is difficult for them to justify shooting with me for a small fraction of their daily rate, so its a time available approach. Most of our days have only been about 3 - 4 hour blocks of time before someone has to wrap to get to another gig.

The second factor is that I own a DVX where I have to rent the SDX. On really short shooting days, such as we have had on Violet due to the reasons that I just mentioned, it is hard for me to justify the rental (in terms of both time and costs) unless I can make great use of it. I know both of these camera's well, so it isn't difficult for me to get them to look alike and just use the SDX when I really need its capabilities (like low light conditions) that I need for some of the scenes. In "Violet" I have two scenes where the SDX really is the best choice for what I want to achieve.

In answer to your other questions, yes, the camera had to be pretty far back to allow for me to get the frame that I wanted with the long end of the lens. This isn't something that works in every situation, but for these scenes where the talent is static and there isn't any real motivation for any camera moves, it works out. I just need the space to get the shot.

PAR is an acronym for Pixel Aspect Ratio. In DV NTSC the choices are either 1.2:1 or .9:1. I use 1.2 for nearly everything. With the DVX sometimes this is with in camera squeeze and sometimes it is with the anamorphic adapter. It really depends upon the situation which I choose. One thing that I do find useful is in really tight situations the anamorphic adapter gives me another 33% wider angle allowing me to get a shot that might not otherwise be possible in a physically tight location. The SDX has a real native 1.2 and .9 capability (not squeeze) so I have more options with that camera.

Hope that explains a few of my choices.

Kevin
 
Yes. That is great info! Again... thanks!

I've heard many pro's and con's about the Panasonic anamorphic adapter... such as, "it is fairly difficult to use." Do you find that true? I am sure that if I owned one, I would learn how to use it but is it worth the $750 or so? It seems that it would be great to have that 33% wider angle... even better to have a camera that is native 16x9.

Finally, is there a post or an address that I can visit to better understand PAR? I am totally clueless when you state, "1.2:1 or .9:1."

Thanks, as always!

I have a FedEx truck pulling up to my house... I think that I have footage from CA!!!

-Ted
 
Hey Ted,

The arrival of the FedEx truck is certainly good news! I hope it contains what you need.

In answer to your questions:

Anamorphic Adapter - some (if not many) do find it difficult to use. There are some very specific requirements to making it work since it has a different focus shifts in the horizontal and vertical axises. If you want to discuss the specifics of this adapter, feel free to contact me and I can give you more information than I can in this thread. Certainly a native 16:9 imager is a better choice, but as I mentioned the wide angle feature can be great in some situations. I find it to be a great tool in specific situations, but its not for everyone. I purchased one long ago and consider it to have been a good investment. With the introduction of the HVX, I suspect that it has gotten even less popular. I do still feel that the DVX has its place and can achieve great results if used properly. I have seen used ones offered for nearer $550 (be careful buying a used one as there are some issues about potential damage to its mounting threads if one doesn't understand how it works).

PAR - let me expand upon this a bit. In SD NTSC all frames are made up of 720 (horizontal) by 480 (vertical) pixels. This is a ratio of 1.5 to 1. Since 1.5 to 1 doesn't match a standard aspect ratio of either standard nor wide screen televisions (1.33:1 or 1.778:1) the pixels need to be non square to achieve the final screen shape. If you multiply 1.5 to 1 by .9 you will get near 1.33:1 a standard screen aspect ratio. If you multiply 1.5 to 1 by 1.2 you will get near 1.778:1 a standard width screen aspect ratio.

So, if the imager in the camera is a wide screen one, it still needs to be able to comply with the formats pixel requirements and hence must use a PAR of 1.2 (rounded). The same is true for a camera with a standard width imager, it must also use the correct (.9) PAR to fit the requirements.

With the DVX100A and later, the squeeze feature allows the camera to do a vertical expansion of the letterbox size frame to fit the whole allocated pixel space (not just recording black bars as in the case of letter-boxed footage). To be correct for use in the NLE, it needs to be unsqueezed in post (handled without intervention in most NLEs). The anamorphic adapter is different and you typically need to inform the NLE of the optical difference and the resulting PAR (here the camera will flag the footage as having a PAR of .9 when it should be 1.2, this happens since the camera does not know that you have the adapter installed). The term used in Premiere is to "conform" the footage (or interpret) to a different PAR than how it is flagged. I know that you are a FCP user so I think you have to modify one of the standard setups to make this work out. How you would handle mixed PARs in FCP is something that I have never worked out. Since I do often mix PARs this would be an issue for me, but not for many others.

In film anamorphic footage is even more squeezed than in DV land. Here the ratio is 2:1 (as opposed to 1.33:1 in video). Using the full 1.33:1 gate, you would get a 2.66:1 final result. Typically, 1.85:1 is flat field, 2:35 and above are anamorphic. Now with DIs being so common, there are even more possible combinations and options than in the days of optical printing and projection.

Best,

Kevin
 
Man, you had me until "DIs!!!" I was understanding everything and I was thinking, "great info... I don't even need to write Kevin back and ask him anything." Then you typed... "Now with DIs being so common..."

What the heck is a DI? I am guessing Digital Inverter.

As for the info on PAR, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to write that. It answers a lot of my questions. I will have to go back and re-read that several times to fully grasp it, but it totally makes sense. Thanks!

I won't even tackle this one... "since it has a different focus shifts in the horizontal and vertical axises." I don't plan on getting that adapter right now but if I do.... I am coming to you!

And finally, YES!!!! The footage is here! (though I now hear that Mark just shot a p/u shot yesterday! dang. I hope it is a small enough file to get over the internet!

Well, back to deciphering Mark's Sharpied chicken scratch messages on all of these dvds!

-Ted
 
DI is an acronym for digital intermediate. It is when a project is shot on film and is scanned into a digital form for editing, color correction/changes, VFX, etc and then is later either output as a digital project or printed back to film for projection. The word intermediate comes into play as it is in the middle of the process, between shooting (acquiring) and final (projection) output.

One of the first films to make heavy use of this was "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" where they wanted a dust bowl look but had to work with locations that were much "greener". Normally optical printing techniques couldn't make all the color shifts that they wanted to get their look. Now DIs are used for similar and other reasons. Now you can shoot S16 and go through a DI process and print back to 35 without the normal loss of resolution that an optical process would involve. DIs are quickly becoming the norm for a lot of theatrical and even some episodic projects.
 
While this isn't going to be done in time for DramaFest, it is still an ongoing production. We were out today and Kevin got some beautiful tracking shots.
 
I really should have taken a photo of the setup. It had more than its fair share of bungee cords, but worked out surprisingly well! I'll try and post some grabs this evening.
 
Hey Kevin! Thanks man. I took my wife to see DREAMGIRLS and while we watched the credits roll, I saw "DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE" and I knew what it meant!!!

Thanks for the lessons that you teach... this is the most educational thread thanks to your willingness to teach and share!

Best to you!

Ted
 
No problem at all. Happy to share a bit of information.

As for finishing Violet, if all goes well, we should get our lost location back on February 10th, so we can shoot this crucial scene. Once done with that one, just a few more exteriors and then on to the remaining interiors. At this rate, we should miss the festival deadline by about a full month! Oh well, that is the way things often go.
 
I am sitting here at 11:10 PM PST and trying to decide if I am going to upload the cut that I completed today, or if I am going to self host and just put a link in this thread, or if I am not going to show anything until it is actually finished.

I expect a final decision once I can find a three headed coin to toss.
 
Any sense if I would piss anyone off if I just decided to self host it and place a link in this thread? I am already non compete since I can't allow it to end up on the DVD (it would cost me a fortune with SAG if I did) so I feel kinda bad using up other's bandwidth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top