[P. j. Severtson]

Hi Ryan,

Those are excellent questions:

1st, why is it important to warm the camera up?

Back focus is only an issue with interchangable lenses where there is a back focus adjustment. Cameras with fixed lenses (Sony VX-2000 and PD-150) have no back focus adjustment.

The reason to let the camera warm up is so that it comes up to operating temperature and the distance between the rear lens element and the imagers reaches its normal distance and isn’t going to change. Heat expands and cold contracts. This may not be an issue with your camera with 1/3 inch imagers and greater deplth of field, but can be with larger professional cameras with 2/3 inch imagers and shallower depth of field.

2nd, What do you mean by a lens that “breath?”

Here is a nice definition from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_(lens)

Hope this helps and good luck,

P. J.

[P. j. Severtson]

With the XL-1 you need (of course) to keep everything in manual (focus and iris). You’ll have to ride the iris throughout your dance recital. Your venue will not light for the camera and if you go to gain, you may also get video noise. If you can, test the camera in the venue after the lighting has been set.

When the camera has been fully warmed up (30 minutes or more) adjust the back focus using a back focus chart, so that you have focus the entire length of the zoom. If your focus goes out after that has been done, or if your lens breaths, you may need to get the lens serviced. Professional lenses don’t breath.

Matte suggests you use a VX-2100 or PD170. While those cameras have nice low light gathering capabilities, they have those little iris wheelies thingies on the side of the camera which adjust the iris in steps and can be a nightmare to use in the dark.

An XL-1 is probably your best choice in prosumer gear, but you’re limited to Mini-DV, unless you can get the producer to pop for professional gear rental, if it is available where you live.

If you can get the production designer to up the ambient light level so that you can get an image, you’ve gotten lucky. In more than 7 years of doing weekly events, I’ve always had to negotiate with the lighting designer about the light. If the producer really wants a good video and plans to release it, you may get some sway. If, on the other hand, it’s for mom and pop video copies, you still may have a chance, depending on the politics involved.

Since you asked about why pro shoots look so good, here is a short run-down. The images you see on TV are better because they use full size professional cameras with real lenses that have real controls on the lens, which prosumer cameras don’t usually have. Also, they don’t shoot on mini-DV.

Just for comparison,if you care to know, professional cameras use professional formats such as Digital Beta Cam or Beta SP (not miniDV), leaving HD aside. Even DVCam is a better format than miniDV.

These formats have 4:2:2 sampling rates with 2:1 compression and 2/3 inch imagers, not the 1/3 inch imagaers with 5:1 compression and 4:1:1 sampling rates,that the prosumer cameras have. So they have much more image information on a format that is much less compressed. Their data rates are at least twice that of miniDV. They use full size 1/2 inch tapes, not mini DV tapes. They can go to gain and have still have a nice image, but frequently luminance is boosted up in post as needed where there is much more control.

They also use professional lenses ($6,000) that cost more than an entire XL-1 camara and don’t have focus or breathing problems.

They use professional tripods that cost more than $6,000 and are frequently in studio configuration with an on-camera monitor with zoom and focus controls on the pan handles.

When I shoot a pro gig, the camera has an external “paint box” in a “video village” and large pro monitors. Color, gain and iris are operated by an engineer with a video switcher to switch between cameras. All the camera operator adjusts are zoom and focus, in addition to composition of his shot. This will not be the case with a dance recital.

This is why their images look so good. It’s a whole different world from mini-DV on a prosumer camera. Hope this helps.

Good luck.

PJ

[P. j. Severtson]

I have been told the same thing…just use a TV, but they tend to be a bit blue and as you say differ from unit to unit.

I have two NTSC Ikegami color reference monitors; a TM-10 for field use and a (1988 vintage)CDA-20 1HN for my editing bay, that I just got from a friend. Its old, but it produces GREAT color and came out of a DI suite.

The only odd thing about it is that the resolution is much lower when compared to my TM-10 that is newer, when viewed at the same distance, which is about 3 feet. If I recall correctly, isn’t optimum viewing distance different (farther away) for larger screens, generally speaking, than smaller?
When viewed from 6 feet away, it looks better.

If this would not account for courser resolution,perhaps I should have the monitor serviced?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, P. J.

[P. j. Severtson]

Hi Carlos,

The tools you use depend on what you’re shooting. Since this is a cinematography forum, perhaps you’re doing set-up shots with the camera on sticks? If so, have you tried DV Rack?

DV Rack has been purchased by Adobe, but it doesn’t appear to be on their product list. They do appear to have some support for it, however.

DV Rack can be purchased from Videoguys.com https://www.videoguys.com/dvrack.html

Here’s a link to a great review of DV Rack by Tim Kolb of the Creative Cow:
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/kolb_tim/hdv_dv_rack.php

Here’s another from Event DV:
https://www.eventdv.net/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=12543

Light Meters: Light meters are quite useful for videographers who know what to do with them.

Here’s a link to an informative tutorial by Kendal Miller on calibrating a light meter in digital cinematography:
https://www.freshdv.com/2007/07/calibrating-a-light-meter-for-digital-video.html

Here is another article on using a light meter in videography:
https://www.simvideo.com/downloads/UsingaLightMeter.pdf

Another interesting article is from digitalContentproducer.com:
https://digitalcontentproducer.com/fieldprod/revfeat/video_check_meter/

Yes, an external monitor is also needed, but is a different tool; mainly used for composition and overall exposure. It is not a spot meter and cannot tell you what your f stop is for specific areas of your image. For that you need a light meter. Refer back to DV Rack. Those little flip out thingies also can be very misleading. I’ve never seen one that is accurate for composition.

An external monitor usually takes the signal from a composite output and is pre-format and pre-compression. It doesn’t tell what you’ll wind up with at the end of the day after editing
and making a DVD. For this, you need to do tests and see what the dynamic range and ASA rating are of your camera.

Hope this is of some assistance.

Good shooting,

P. J. in Hollywood

[P. j. Severtson]

Hi Bob,

Here are some answers to your questions on sources for make up and mattifiers:

The mattifier I’m referring to is by Neutrogena. It’s “Pore Refining Matttifier” Shine control Gel. It’s available from many suppliers. Read various reviews posted on the Web for the pros and cons, then test it for your self.
Amazon.com carries it:
https://www.advertising.com/index.php

Pancake is the traditional name for a water based foundation made by several manufacturers, and invented by Max Factor. Ben Nye Makeup carries a nice line called Color Cake Foundation. Check out bennye.com catalog:
https://www.bennye.com/image/06_BNC_Catalog.pdf
Take some time and study the catalog. You might find it fun.

Here’s a link to the BebNye home page:https://www.bennye.com/

Ben Nye Color Cake Foundations are recommended for performers with oily or sensitive skin. There are also Matte Foundations.
Check out the neutralizers and concealers at BenNye for five o’clock shadow. Mellow Yellow has been a standard for years.

Your corner drug store will probably not have professional make-up, unless you live in a city with an active film industry.

BenNye also has an excellent line of professional brushes. Their Powder Brush (PA-1)works well.

By the way. I don’t work for Ben Nye. Another source is Max Factor. Max Factor invented “Pan-Cake Water-Activated Foundation”. Here’s a link to Pan Cake: https://www.maxfactor.com/user/get/product_details.do?lookupId=face_found_compact_pancake
Here’s Max Factor’s home page for more information.
https://www.maxfactor.com/user/post/global_landing.do

Have fun researching. Shortly you’ll be saying: “Shine? No problem!” There are also books and on-line make up courses you can study at your own pace. I hope this gives you some resources.

Best of luck,

P. J. in Hollywood

[P. j. Severtson]

Hi Bob,

You’ve hit on a subject all videographers experience but few do their homework and deal with; make-up.

Shine comes from mainly extra oily skin or perspiration. The trick is to identify which it is.

One of the first lessons a beginning make up artist learns is to identify which type of skin the subject has; normal, dry or oily. Normal is ideal. Dry requires moisturizers to correct so that the skin doesn’t absorb too much make-up. Oily skin requires astringents, such as Witch Hazel, to remove excess oil. Fail to remove excess oil, and you’ll be fighting shine.

This of course is done prior to putting any make-up on at all, and is probably beyond your activities. You probably deal with female talent that comes with make-up already applied (or) male talent with none at all.

Here are some tips you may find of use:

Make-up already applied: If the tallant has very oily skin, short of starting over, there are “mattifiers” made by many make-up companies to take the sine off. This is the easiest and quickest by far. They usually don’t effect the make-up she already has on.

If there is too much oil on the skin for mattifiers, powder also works, but can be messy. Carry several shades of powder beginning with translucent powder and a bit darker. You’ll need a bag of puffs so you never have to use the same puff for two people. You’re right about being inunsanitary(and)unprofessional.

Practice shaking nearly all of the powder off before gently rolling the powder onto the talent’s face with the puff as in a blotting motion. Don’t rub it on or you may smear other make-up. You’ll also need a powder brush to brush off any extra powder. Don’t skimp on quality. Buy a really good professional one and your talent will notice the difference. My wife loves hers that I paid $40 for, 12 years ago.

Protect the talent’s cloths: I carry a barber’s cover-up to cover the interviewee’s cloths before applying powder. Other types may due, but they need to fit around the neck.

If your subject is male, he will usually not show up with make-up. For this, I have found the easiest is to use good old fashioned Pan Cake make-up, which is water based applies with a damp sea sponge, purchased from a make-up supply house.

I have used it for television shows when I had 40 choir members to make-up in just a short time. It drys with a mat finish and evens out the skin color a bit. It is also water based and doesn’t require cold cream to remove.

Carry several shades for different skin colors and test it on the person’s arm to see if the color works. Perhaps it’s not fashionable, but I’ve used it successfully for years. I always carry some in my “shine kit” that I take on all video shoots.

PERSPIRATION: This is another problem. Try to keep your talent cool and you’ll deal with much of it. If the problem persists, try tissues to blot and power to absorb excess moisture. A simple fan aimed at your talent can work wonders, but you’ll need to make sure he is correctly mic’d so that the fan noise doesn’t interfere with the audio.

Hope this is of at least some assistance. You’ll find what works for you and evermore carry your “shine kit” to handle the problem.

Best of luck and good shooting.

P. J. in Hollywood

[P. j. Severtson]

You are asking the million dollar question that requires a lot of study in order to understand. Once again, its all down to basics. Remember, however, as stated before, the capture medium is only a small part of it. One must understand the entire field of motion picture production and story telling. Don’t get stuck on the “film look” to the exclusion of the rest.

In order to begin to understand a bit about the two different mediums, you must study their characteristics.

Motion picture negative film has many times the exposure latitude that video as well as other different characteristics. Each film is different from the other in many ways.

Trying to get the elusive “film look” is dealing with many factors such as, but not limited to: exposure latitude, gamma curve and much more.

Here is a link to the Kodak web site technical data for Kodak Vision 2250T motion picture film, just as an example:

https://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/curves/c5218.jhtml

The oft discussed depth of field issue has to do with the size of the film (16mm or 35mm) or the imaging chip (1/3″, 1/2″, 2/3″, etc.) and the lens selection in conjunction with lens aperture; another field of study oft neglected by videographers. Many people think of a shallow dept of field as the “film look”.

Beyond that is contrast and lots more. Each film has different factors. How the film is exposed and developed also has an effect on the film look, not to mention what is done to in editing.

There is lots of data you can study; e.g. Characteristic curves-camera stops. Once you understand the film’s characteristics, study video.

Pick your video camera of choice, go to the manufacturer’s web site and down load the technical data on that video camera. Compare that with the characteristics of film.

Here is a link to a site that may give you general information on video vs. film characteristics. https://www.myvtp.com/htm/vidfilm.htm

For product-specific information on a high-end product (Sony BVW-F900), here is a link to an article entitled “Sony HDCAM:EXPOSURE LATITUDE – ISSUES OF DYNAMIC RANGE” by Laurence J. Thorpe. I know that this ($100,000 camera) is beyond the scope of most videographers, but perhaps the data may be of at least some use to you.

https://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/production/productsite/files/24PTechnicalSeminar3.pdf

Ultimately, one must understand each medium and make one’s decisions.

Hope this gives you a start in your journey.

PJ

[P. j. Severtson]

You couldn’t be more right, Tony.

Guys with their video cameras (with three lights) and their NLEs trying to get that “film look” should learn that lesson. Successful DPs have spent years learning their kraft in a collaborative study.

All would do well to study the basics of art, lighting, composition, etc. After all, basics are basics for a reason.

I believe in lots of study, practice and mentoring…especially mentoring. Even then, it takes years or hard work to become an artist.

Even after all of that, the arts of sound design and story telling are other chapters altogether.

Best wishes,

P J

[P. j. Severtson]

Yes, there are many variables. Just for something to compare your project to, a producer friend just completed principal photography on a low budget Indi feature.

They are allowing 10 weeks for the off line edit, rough assembly, before the exec producer sees it and makes any changes. After that, any changes can be made. As the executive producer, if he doesn’t like what he sees, he can recut the film entirely or make any changes he wishes.

Note: This particular film was shot on 35mm with “down and dirty dailies” done to DV Cam for a low rez off line edit, so as to save money for the DI which is being done at Technicolor.

Whether or not you want to go to the expense of an on line finish (in a DaVinci suite, etc.)depends on your ultimate product release and budget. For a film-out theatrical release, you may want to up-rez for a 2K output and on-line finishing. Some festivals will accept digital cinema. Others require film.

Any way, when picture lock is achieved, the project goes into the DI suite for on-line color conforming and dropping any opticals into the project, as well as head and tail credits.

With a 2K color conformed file and a Digi-Beta copy, its time for the sound track. The music will be composed and recorded as well as ADR, Foly and SFX done and laid in. This process takes a few weeks more. Sound design is its own subject, as you probably know.

Next,its time for audience testing and any changes that need to be made so it plays as well as possible. Sometimes alternate endings are shown in order to see which one plays best. Those alternate endings are frequently included in the DVD.

When all this is done, its over to the distributors and to the executives do the festival thing. That’s a whole other game.

This is for a low budget indi feature, a comedy that is non-CG intensive. Yours may be different.

Hope that this gives you some idea of the process and what to expect for a simple off-line edit on a non-CG type of comedy. If you are only going out to DVD (not a theatrical release), you can probably complete the whole thing in your NLE. DVD authoring is another topic.

Best of luck,

PJ

[P. j. Severtson]

Todd is right. There’s no substitute for on-the-job training, while at the same time studying one’s basics. Don’t skimp on the basics.

Also, get a copy of the Mathews Studio Equipment product catalog or go on line to https://www.msegrip.com/ and learn their product line backwards and forwards. Calling a Mafer clamp a “thingamajiggy” is not the way to impress your mentor.

Also, learn the Mole-Richardson lighting catalog so that you know what fixtures are used and what they are called: https://www.mole.com/

As for mentoring, you can contact your local film commission to find out who is shooting where in your area. They might be accepting volunteers or (better yet) apprentices.

You can contact your local union representative (I.A.T.S.E.) to see if they are accepting any apprentices. Ask the film commission how to contact the union. Each location usually has its own chapter. As an example, here is a link to Local 728, in Hollywood. https://www.iatse728.org/

Good luck. Lighing is 1/2 of the film and takes a life time study, as I’m sure you know. The third “1/2” is sound, but that’s another chapter in another book.

PJ in Hollywood