PILGRIM's PROGRESS feature

E

eyemagic

Member
We've just wrapped our first week of principal photography of a contemporary
retelling of John Bunyan's classic tale, PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. This is my first
use of the HVX 200 and it's been an exciting learning experience as I most
often shoot with the Sony CineAlta. We've been struggling with the camera's
limited latitude as most of what we've shot so far in under the forest canopy of
central Virginia. Part of the crew is from North Carolina who have a long back-
ground with film and have been surprised by the similarity to Super 16.

Just uploaded an rough draft of a poster idea using frame grabs from our first
week's footage.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1153151721.jpg


Here are some frame grabs. I did some minor CC and added diffusion in FCP

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1153152347.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1153152787.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1153152860.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1153152926.jpg



I'll add additional posts as the shoot progresses. We've got 6 more weeks of
principal before post begins.

james burgess (on location in central Virginia)
www.eyemagic.biz
 
Looks good. This a great story that should be done right. I was reluctantly a part of one that wasn't shot the way it was suppose to be, always thinking in my mind that someone somewhere will give this story the justice it deserves.

Looks good from the pictures....maybe sometime you can put up a small clip
 
Just a little suggestion RE the temp poster: It feels like there are too many faces on the left. In print: less is more. I like the two characters on the right. Maybe replace all the faces to the left with an image of the main antagonist. - Just some thoughts. :)

Stills look great. Any camera setups, you'd like to share. Also what are your distribution plans?
 
Watch your DETAIL setting, I would put it -2 or -3 if your not using the adapter, it will have a MUCH softer "film" look if you do!
 
Good god you can see every pore in those faces. The compositions work, but I agree with Obin. Dial down that detail setting.
 
Isnt sharp a good thing? i always get confused when it comes to the HVX. Some say they wish it was sharper, while you guys say the detail/sharpness should be toned down, already making a less-sharp camera less sharp.

Film to my eye is very sharp, i imagine its good to capture at the best resolution? or are sharpness and resolution independent? Great stills by the way, the fact that you can see all the pores and skin detail in my mind and eye makes it look very filmic. not the other way around.
 
EverMagic: You cant post footage without keeping up with the comments.. Come on, settings, video clip, or more higher res stills... COME ON!!! :)
 
The hvx is more sharp then film when the detail setting is too high - that doesnt mean it is picking up more information then 35mm film would - it means the edges are enhanced too much by the digital circuitry.

Those stills are very nice - but I too think you need a bit less detail especially in the last grab.
 
We've taken a break to regroup and finalize the schedule for the last two weeks
of principal photography. So I'm posting a few more image grabs as a way to
update you on our progress.

This has been one of the most grueling shoots I can remember. The dust, heat
and humidity of central Virginia -- not to mention the millions of little critters that
are sucking our blood at every opportunity -- have been a major problem and
distraction. I've spent a great deal of time in developing countries documenting
work among some of the the world's poor, but can't remember an environment
more exhausting than this. [ On one occasion we had a crew member pass
out from the heat. ] I've been told they had similar problems during production
of THE NEW\ WORLD. [ also shot in Virginia ] Generally, we've had temperatures
hovering around 100 with humidity in the 90s. Even with courtesy flags, the
cameras and batteries get extremely hot. Internal venting of heat away from the
CCD and electronics doesn't seem to be very efficient -- if operable at all.

Over all, the cameras have held up particularly well considering the harsh environ-
ment. However, I've been plagued by considerable color shifts between what the
Panasonic 17" LCD monitor shows on the set and what we see after the footage is
ingested into FCP. We check bars several times during the day to be somewhat
confident the LCD hasn't drifted or had its knobs bumped. Everything seems to be
correctable, but it's not something the post group is going to appreciate. Has any-
one experienced anything like this? The producer hasn't upgraded to the latest
version of FCP, he's still at 4.5, but I can't imagine that would be the issue.

I've never had an opportunity to work with a Varicam, so I'm not familiar with any
quirks inherent in the PRO HD 100 codec.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156267250.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156267580.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156267767.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156267825.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156268053.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156268595.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156268741.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156268813.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156268898.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156270797.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156271053.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156271125.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156271450.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/8721/1156271748.jpg

Sony FX1 user wrote:
"What's better for you sony cinealta or the hvx 200?"

I have an FX1 myself and find it's LCD and viewfinder to be significantly better
than the HVX's. Actually, the LCD on the HVX is only really useable for access-
ing the menus. Outside one shoots blind or drags the 17" LCD monitor with
them.

Personally, I like the image quality out of the FX1 better than what we gotten
out of the HVX. I hate the fact it's interlaced. I often wonder what would have
become of the HVX if the FX1 had been a progressive camera.

I've been working on a documentary with my son about a group of American
paragliding pilots that went to Vietnam last year which was shot with the FX1.
We purchased the cameras about two weeks before we flew over, so I didn't
know much about the camera. The images we got --also shot under some
very extreme conditions-- are amazing.

To answer your question, I don't think we could have kept up the pace with
the 900 that we've been working under on PILGRIM. And there is no way the
producer could have afforded to rent two of them for the three months our
schedule is spread across. We've had cameras on a 12' ladder, fig rig,
steadicam, jib, handheld, in the dirt.... and we've got some underwater
sequences planned in our next schedule. Anywhere we could stick a
camera, we put one there. And it's almost always moving -- directorial
decision. One needs to take into consideration the 900's size and weight
and the cost of tape. We've shot over 30hrs of material, so far.
 
looking good, Do you mind telling what the budget is on this project? and do you have it sold? if not how will you sell it?

I love facts like that, as we gear up to start thinking feature work...
 
Thanks for the compilment. I'm only the DP, and the producer is quite secretive, so
I don't have hard numbers. There are 84 speaking roles, 103 characters, multiple
locations and a lot of CGI work. My guess is it'll come in around 200k , or slightly
over. The producer has his own distribution channels and focuses on the direct to
DVD Christian market.

The movie's website is www.pilgrimsprogressthemovie.com
They've just put up a lot of behind the scenes photos, if you're interested.
 
WOW! Thanks so much for the update. This film looks fantastic. I am a HUGE fan of the book, and have read it countless times!
 
I've seen 35mm work with very details, "porus" faces. Hell, look at 35mm still photography. People seem to have such a one size fits all mentality with it comes to cinematography these days.

Sony FX1 user wrote:
Personally, I like the image quality out of the FX1 better than what we gotten
out of the HVX. I hate the fact it's interlaced. I often wonder what would have
become of the HVX if the FX1 had been a progressive camera.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious what kind of images you got out of the FX1 because I find it to be easily worst choice for shooting narrative films. I used it on a documantary about the Katrina devastation in New Orleans (gotta do something when you're school/city sinks), and I hated the thing. Hardly any image controls. Lousy fake 24 fps that loses resolution. Very flat, video looking image. I know it's good for documentary and broadcast for it's great low light work but, to my eye, it definatly produces the worst narrative type image of the under 10k HD cameras. Please let me see some of your stills.
 
Go to my wesite and 'click' on the yellow PRODUCTION UPDATE button.
There are three (3) pages of frame grabs from the doc. Navagation
arrows are at the top of each page.

www.eyemagic.biz

I agree the FX1's fake 24fps is bad and interlace isn't suitable for narrative
work. But for the price, and the fact it was the only affordalbe HD camera
at the time, it served the purpose. Besides, hiking up Vietnamese mountain
sides to film paraglliders jumping out into the void would have been impossible
with a 900 or F27. We had enough problems being told what we could and
couldn't shoot with a 'consumer' camera.

Sadly, I used the FX's cinelook fuction that really only crushes the mid-tones
into the black in an attempt to give one more headroom in the highlights.
Lesson learned, I'll never do that again. However, unlike the CineAlta, the
FX1 seems to produce a better picture when slighly over exposed. IMHO
 
Lesson learned, I'll never do that again. However, unlike the CineAlta, the
FX1 seems to produce a better picture when slighly over exposed. IMHO
Click to expand...

So does the HVX200. Pansonic actually gives a you a bit more lattitude than you realize. You get a cleaner image by overlighting a half stop or so and bringing it down in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top