[John Sharaf]

Hi Vic,

Needless to say, this topic has been discussed before here and a thorough search of the archives will reveal many threads on topic, but I’ll try to review the subject for you.

When the cinema made the transition from silent to sound the frame rate changed from 16fps to 24fps in order for the audio to have sufficient quality in playback. As a result movie audiences for almost a hundred years now have become accustomed to the motion and temporal quality of film projected at this rate in the cinema.

When George Lucas asked Sony to build a video camera that he could use for a Star Wars film, he specified 24fps because he knew that “filming out” and the common 60i video format would create all kinds of motion blur and artifacts. Thus began the adaptation of video to film, which has (now) ultimately been called “Digital Cinema”.

There have been other attempts to try different frame rates, notably Dalton Trumble’s “Showscan” which I actually had the please to see in a theater in Westwood Village maybe 30 years ago. the simple truth is that it looked like bigger than life television (60p).

There is quite a movement afoot now to shoot 3D at 48 fps in an attempt to keep the accustomed motion but increase the brightness that the 3D takes away.

When you say TV shows have been shot at 30p you’re not really correct. If they had been originated on film (like many have)it was always shot at 24fps and transferred to video using a 3:2 pulldown, maintaining much of the filmic look (yet creating it’s own particular motion effect). If originated in video (until recently) it would have been 60i (which is technically 29.97fps with each frame made up of two fields which split the 1/30th of a second. Some news and documentaries shot only for TV distribution often use 30p, such as 60 Minutes and 20/20. They do so to distinguish their “look” from that of the live news programs on their same network.

At the end of the day, shoot frame rates you have, knowing the purpose of each rate and intelligently choosing one that’s most appropriate for both your topic and exhibition scheme. But know that if you aspire to show your “film” in a cinema by projection on film you almost have to go 24p (really 23.97 if with sound).

JS

[John Sharaf]

That’s plenty of money. Use fabric instead of paper; it’ll last longer, less subject to damage and wont fade, and rig it in a frame set, 8×8 (but you’ll have to chop a few inches off the verticals to fit).

I’d recommend Kino Flo’s; 4’Two Banks left and right for green screen and a 2’Fourbank for key and two 2’Twobanks for fill and backlight.

Half a dozen complete c-stands, as they have smaller footprint than conventional; tripod stands and obviously real estate is at a premium in your small “stage”.

JS

[John Sharaf]

I agree, it’s an LED thing. I’ve noticed it myself on both F3 and PDW700/800’s, especially with blues and purples. In my case it was LED lighting on a wall in a club behind my interview subjects, and I was able to adjust the color to something that worked; I understand that when filming an event you might not have that much control.

My suspicion is that in color modes these LED are not continuous light sources but spike in the purple spectrum.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Jason,

What you say actually reinforces my statement that experienced and long serving technicians will be displaced by disposable cameras like the DSLR’s you mention.

Camera people at TV news operations have spent years honing their skills in photography, sound, editing and storytelling, only to be replaced by newbies with cheap cameras for “smart business” reasons.

This is the same phenomenon that is occurring in many industries, where bean counters and anti-union management seek downsizing and cutbacks that seem like “smart business” but in the long term mostly destroy the business and reform it as something else.

Getting back to the point of this discussion, it’s easy to make pictures with fuzzy background with oversized imagers like those found in DSLR’s (especially full sized like 5d’s) but it takes skill to use them with a purpose in propelling the story telling.

JMHO,

JS

[John Sharaf]

I have to say that the use of DSLR’s in the broadcast environment is very limited and I believe the “fad” is almost over, especially because of cameras like the F3 and NEX-FS100 which offer more complete and compatible feature sets to previous broadcast cameras than the DSLR’s could ever do.

The F3 in particular is easily matched to ENG cameras like the PDW700/800’s, as I often do using RMB750 CCU’s and have camera and recorder formats that are in daily use at the networks, including Standard Def DVCAM and 720/30 and 60. It even does 720/24 which the PDW’s will not.

I would strongly advise against DSLR’s for news and magazine work except of course where their “stealth” factor allows their use in situations where any other video camera would be impossible. Otherwise the implicit limitations in sound recording, focus, monitoring, etc. disqualify them from everyday news and broadcast use.

Finally, the company moving to DSLR’s supports the position that anyone can shoot video and further weakens what is left of our contractual job security; this alone is enough to draw the battle lines.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Hi David,

While I shoot many interviews for ABC including those with Diane, Barbara and the rest of the cast, I did not shoot nor see the one you’re referring to.

I do often use my F3’s either for all three cameras, or more likely just for the wide shot(s). I do this primarily to fuzz up the background like (although probably not to the extent that) you describe.

We are able to fuzz up the backgrounds plenty in the closeups with 2/3″ cameras (PDW700/800’s) especially if there is some distance to the background. What I hope to accomplish with my F3’s is to fuzz up the bg’s in the wider shots to match, and in the process create a better continuity to the look and soften the cuts.

When we do soften the backgrounds in the closeups to the extent that you describe, hopefully the wide shots (and the DV camera b-roll) establishes the location or setting of the interview to the extent necessary to ground the pictures in reality.

Recent examples of my work like this (2/3″ on CU’s and F3 on wide shots) are the Tim Allen piece on 20/20, The Clint Eastwood/ Leonardo Decaprio, James Cameron, Jane Fonda interviews on Nightline, JD Martinez on the Katie Couric Special and Janet Jackson on GMA and Nightline (just last week). You can see all these pieces on the ABC News website.

JS

JS

[John Sharaf]

Flare should not change with ND filters, Panasonic offers you a different AWB setting with each ND filter, Sony makes this optional to one AWB setting for all filters or as Panasonic does; I prefer one setting it’s more foolproof!

JS

JS

[John Sharaf]

Patrick,

Use waveform monitor in RGB mode, turn exposure up to about 1-2 stops over exposed and line up proper black on a cavity chart to zero IRE.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Cory,

You must be shooting at 23.97/24 FPS and DF setting. At this speed there is no DF so TC defaults to NDF.

Color bars are independent of frame rate.

Tell the editor to ignore the color bars and start digitizing on the picture, and in the future forget about shooting bars and tone, as with digital signal there is no level control on playback; it’s considered “nominal” level.

It’s a good idea though to fast forward a few seconds into the tape to get away from dirt at the head.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Ask ten people and get ten different answers, but I think the ARRI line of LED’s is the best. Both the Locaster and their new L7 line. They’re expensive, but all the top LED lights are as well and have plus and minus green adjustment as well as color adjustment and dimming. Don’t buy anything without trying them out!

JS