[John Sharaf]

Don’t forget to set shutter on and to 1/48 or 180 degrees to emulated film motion.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Robin,

Yes, all good points, but according to Moore’s Law which predicts price decrease for such a product it will take so many years for that equation of $40 for 40 minutes to occur that there will certainly be other cheaper faster and more capable storage systems (holographic?) in use by then.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Gents,

This is a great discussion, and one unfortunately that the manufacturers needed to hear long ago, but alas, despite the pro forma meetings they did sponsor with end users (I’ve been to some) they rarely listen.

There is no dispute that we as freelancers have to buy into the cameras and formats that our clients dictate (mostly net news clients) and the recent history of that segment has shown that they’re the laggards in this area and the freelancers have had to stake out their own territory as many of us have done with the F900’s and Varicams.

I’m still pissed at Panasonic for dividing the Varicam business with the X900; they should have just lowered the price of the Varicam to $25K and then introduced a 1920×1080 Varicam 2, but despite all the “advances” in technology, apparently this was not possible. I agree with Erich and others about the disservive that continues to the freelancers with the two current P2 Varicams and told everyone I knew at Panasonic last April on the floor of NAB when I first saw what they had in mind. I told them they’d never sell any of these cameras I believe that I’ve been proven correct. I understand that they’ve “given” units to Panavision and other rental companies. This is not to say that the 3700 is not a great camera, it is, but cameras/formats must be client driven not determined by the marketing department, despite recent successes with that formula.

I know this is a Panasonic forum, but I do find it interesting that there has been no mention of the new 2/3″ HD XDCAM from S**Y. It’s propriatary media is cheap, permanent (50 years) and can be screened/digitized with a $3K reader. The camera itself benefits from the mature chipset and DSP from their best OB camera (HDC1500) and shoots 1080, 720 and SD at all speeds including PAL (with the final addition of 24p with software option soon) and has already been adopted by CBS and I expect will be by NBC and ABC as well (I understand that ABC has bought five already to supplement their need for more SD XDCAMS because they realize how ill-advised it is to buy more SD cameras). I own three of these cameras already myself and am very happy with them. I know that the MPEG2 422 GOP format is “stunted” and no rival for AVC-I or DVCPRO100 for that matter, but it is perfectly fine for television (and obviously lesser uses like the internet) and at least eliminates the horizontal down sampling that even the mighty F900R does in recording to HDCAM.

I would suggest what several others have eluded to in this discussion, that P2 is likely to go the way of the dodo (M2) precisely because of the cost of the media and the need to process it for use and archiving.
Furthermore the PDW700’s lower cost (than Varicam and F900) will stimulate it’s acceptance, and despite the difficulty in actually getting delivery of the camera Sony has somehow managed to produce almost 4000 units worldwide already (see release notes for version 1.24 software). This is probably the reason that they’re so hard to get; users throughout the world, notably broadcasters in Italy, Germany, Japan and elsewhere have jumped on this camera for the two reasons that I find it so attractive – low price, permanent/cheap media. P2 and tape for that matter, step aside or get rolled over in the deluge.

JMHO,

JS

[John Sharaf]

Lithium Ion batteries have a much shorter life cycle than NiCads, I believe about 300. My experience has been they last a day longer than their warranty in regular use.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Typically a NiCad battery is rated at 1000 cycles, but how can you know how many cycles it’s had? In general, I frown on buying used batteries, I think it’s false economy.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Ryan,

FYI, I provided my video facility (four Varicams, Telecast Fibe Systems, Canon HD Lenses, eCinema Monitors, Panasonic Switcher/Multiviewer, Evertz Frameset and DVCPRO100 decks) for the Hathaway and Rourke interviews in LA. I was also the “A” camera operator and provided the rest of the crew. I also went to Dallas to be the “A” operator and video consultant for the Jonas Bros shoot.

I agree with your comments about the opening “standups”, but I think the problem was basically what I spoke about in the previous post, that the selection of the location affects the success more than any other one factor. In this case, the empty restaurant really had no relationship to the rest of the show or to the Oscars themselves. When BW was in LA there was not enough time on her schedule to do these pages then, so they were picked up in New York, as was the Jackman interview.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Ryan,

Thank you for watching the show.

Actually the lighting design for these shows is done by Chuck Lofthause who has been BW’s Lighting Director for many years and does not change from a specific plan.

As with all multicam interview setups it starts with boom arms (sometimes called menace arms by movie grips) which dangle the key light, backlight and sometimes setlights where a stand would otherwise be seen by the crossing cameras. This method puts the lights in the place where the two subjects (or more) are looking at the other person(s).

In a daylight setting the keylights would be 800 watt Jokers and in a low light day of night scene would be either Joker Black Jacks or 1K Babies. In bother cases a snoot made of foam core (with the black side in) is attached to control the spill off of the other person. Inside the snoot, the light will have white diffusion in various density based on the situation. At the end of the snoot there’s often black wrap “bottomers” to further control the spill.

Fill lights are some soft source, usually a 2K zip with Eggcrate or in daylight a 400w Joker with Chimera and louvers and a solid flag to the off camera side to again control the spill off of the unintended subject.

Finally the set itself is lit with source fours, Joker pars and even 4K, 6K or 12K HMI’s through windows, etc. Often with colored gels and shadow makers like gobos, cookies or actual bushes. Sometimes as many as 20-25 lighting units come into play, because great care is used in choosing extravagant and large sets, except when they’re forced into small hotel suites (like the Hugh Jackman interview in NY).

Now to your observations about the chin shadows; because the lighting is completely complimentary (the same on both people) the chin shadows should look the same. The Anne Hathaway interview was obviously a night interior and the room ambiance was less than the daytime sets, thus the shadow is more noticeable. Her key might have been less head-on that BW’s which would also accentuate the shaddow.

When I design the lighting I rarely use such hard light keys. My preference is to key with a 800 or 400 Joker in a Chimera, backlight with a 400 or 200 Joker in a Chimera and fill with a 400 or 200 Joker in Chimera if necessary. To me this creates a more natural, less theatrical looking scene, especially as regards the otherwise hard chin shaddows. This method also minimizes hand shadows if people “talk with their hands”. A lot of network shooters use Divas on boom arms in a similar plot. This is what makes horse races and any of the above schemes can look great with careful execution!

The determining factor in the successful lighting of these type interviews usually comes down to the choice of the set, the larger and more three dimensional the better. Perhaps some of you watching identified the location of the Anne Hathaway and Mickey Rourke interviews to be the Doheny Mansion in Beverly Hills, which was the original home of the American Film Institute (AFI) and is now actually a park owned by the City of BH and used in many movies, TV shows and commercials.

[John Sharaf]

Chris,

One must resort to the more traditional methods of controlling depth of field with lenses designed for 2/3″ imager cameras when used on 2/3″ cameras (like the SDX900); namely shooting with iris wide open, staging action fairly close to the camera and having as much depth as possible behind the subject. While it may take a little care and consideration it is not impossible to create shots with nice “fuzzy” backgrounds that draw your attention to the foreground subject.

Using the highest quality lenses, like those I’ve recommended, additionally have the effect of making the foreground subject as sharp as possible and enhancing the contrast between a sharp foreground and a soft background.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Do yourself and the client a favor and use Cine-style Canon or Fujinon zooms or if you’re prepared to spend a little more and they’re available use Zeiss Digizooms.

Depending on your shots you might need both short and long version of both. Again cost will be significant but certainly less than P&S and Cine lens rental and advantages in functionality and lens stop are great.

I’m always in favor of keeping things as simple as possible and using the best tool for the job. In this case excellent video lenses seem most appropriate.

You will definitely see the difference between SD ENG lenses and HD Cine style zooms even on your SDX900 in terms of both sharpness, contrast and minimized chromatic aberration.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Yeah Todd, great minds think alike! While I have never seen the 3D error you describe, that was exactly the physiology that I was imagining with “out of sync” cameras.

JS