C100: UK Broadcast Industry Info film: shot on a C100

B

bengiles

Well-known member
Thought I'd share this with you all.

I think it's an interesting insight into how the broadcast industry grapples with issues that many of us with our smaller and more agile businesses take for granted.

This is about the switchover from delivering on tape (yes, HDCAM SR is still the main delivery format) to MXF file-based delivery, taking place this year. The film was commissioned to try and calm nerves across the industry and debunk a few myths.

All shot on C100 AVCHD (except for the Holby City BTS scenes, shot on an AF101 - eughhh.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/technology/article/art20140416102447779

Ben.
 
Everything done professional, but I would use the different camera.. At least BMPCC .. I don't like that particular C100 look :(
 
Really nice (it is not movie, there is no need for any movie look .-) ).

What gamma and iso did you use at 4:40? Thanks for answer.
 
leteeci said:
Everything done professional, but I would use the different camera.. At least BMPCC .. I don't like that particular C100 look :(
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I think it looks great. I think the BMPCC would've struggle, as it seems there was not much available light in some of the shots. Correct me if I'm wrong Ben.
 
Looks great, Ben. Can you give us some insight into your workflow? Lenses, camera profiles, grading if you did that. GIVE US ALL YOUR SECRETS, MAN!
 
Pave1 said:
Really nice (it is not movie, there is no need for any movie look .-) ).

What gamma and iso did you use at 4:40? Thanks for answer.
Click to expand...

Cheers - all shot on WDR, iso was quite high - 3200-4000ish, as we couldn't add to or modify the grading suite lighting.

Ben.
 
Doug_EX said:
Are you serious? I think it looks great. I think the BMPCC would've struggle, as it seems there was not much available light in some of the shots. Correct me if I'm wrong Ben.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha - yes, that made me chuckle. Those BBC and ITV locations are an absolute nightmare - always at least 3 different light temperatures going on, with a mix of daylight, greenish fluoros and intense halogen downlighters - pick one and cross your fingers. Plus people who hate being filmed and lots of programme prevention officers and safety nazis wandering about. These shoots require large reserves of humour, the flexibility to chuck all planned notions out of the window - and a camera that will work in low available light.

The interviews are shot with a Kino Diva key plus a half silver Lastolite and Dedo DHL4 rimlight - nothing too fancy. The one interview that makes me cringe is the one where I foolishly thought I could do something nice with the Thames in the background, an incredibly noisy meeting room and a 1 hour window in which to light, set up, calm nerves and get the words. I live and learn to fight another day...

Ben.
 
bengiles said:
Cheers - all shot on WDR, iso was quite high - 3200-4000ish, as we couldn't add to or modify the grading suite lighting.

Ben.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for answer. WDR in 25i mode at 4:40? I think that yes, because at 25p mode (with NR) is WDR a visible less noisier.
I like your work, editing, camera moving, etc. Only this one place is a little more noisier.
 
Ben - dude, great work. I've had similar projects with Auntie (a long time ago) so can understand the, erm, interesting politics. LOL.

On a more direct thought, that whole broadcast legalisation process on tape - yes, it could easily become a four day process. But it does seem to be a case of 'same mess, different carpet' - we'll still put it out, we'll still have to pay a specialist.
 
The more cynical think that the broadcasters are just shifting the mess onto the production company carpets - making them pay for their own QCs.

I think there are some additional subtleties - digital post production is not as finicky as analogue. There's so much more headroom, no blanking errors (unless you buy a Ninja Blade ha ha), no "blowing up" transmitters and, as long as you stick to decent shooting bitrates and native workflows, it just isn't as difficult as delivering a quality signal used to be. This shift also re-establishes the contractual relationship between broadcaster and supplier - "it's your film, we're paying you for it, don't send us stuff and leave it for us to tell you it passes quality standards."

Like with most things, I think there's a middle ground. I remember how nervous I felt about the idea of moving from tape to solid state cards. When you come from a world where your cock is on the block for a 50K shoot, you want something tangible at the end of it, regardless of the fact that it's a fragile thin moving stretchy piece of magnetic tape/celluloid.

Once I'd made that mindset shift to shooting on cards, I never looked back (except with pity) - and I think, once producers settle in, they'll start buying all of this kit in and doing it themselves and sending the files via the internet. There are huge vested interests from the engineers who like everything to look too difficult for "ordinary people" and lots of big egos flying around. I've stood on the sidelines and watched it all change dramatically over the past 5 years.

I think what we're doing with our little "wedding video cameras" (no disrespect meant towards wedding videographers by the way - it's a pejorative term used by my old BBC buddies), our workflows, our agile way of producing the same quality for literally a tenth of the price, is where it's going to be at very soon.

BUT - and I'll add this in response to an earlier interesting question asking what the secret is - I think there are 2 crucial areas in which this new wave of democratised technology is worryingly deficient: sound and editing.

This is a camera forum, right? We don't need to worry about sound. Wrong, I think.

That old cliche, sound being 90% of the picture, is a cliche because it's essentially true. Watching pretty pictures to a piece of music is like eating fast food - it's not ultimately satisfying.

McFilms.

Sound makes or kills a cut. The picture cuts are more often happy accidents. When I edit (and I've been doing it for 25 years - 20 of those at an international high-end level), I'm really editing sound, finding the pace and the narrative arc and then massaging the pictures in.

Why am I saying this? Dunno really - I guess, because I think we - many of us on these big chip prosumer camera forums who do this to earn a living - to pay a mortgage - need to be able to do so much more than shoot pretty pics, as the economics don't otherwise stack up. We need to be able to capture high quality low-noise sound and we then need to cut it all together in a compelling way.

On the other hand, I'm rapidly becoming an old fart and prone to spouting drivel. What do you guys think?

Ben.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top