Testing the 5D’s dynamic range, and assessing the 60D

For technical geeks, the debate rages about the video quality of DSLRs. What seemed gained in sharpness and low-light performance seemed lost in such negative effects as shutter Jell-O, moire and aliasing.

But ProVideo Coalition has done a more definitive test on the Canon EOS 5D Mk II’s dynamic range, the ability to find detail over a number of f-stops.

The testing shows the $2,500 EOS 5D to cover 11 stops of dynamic range. In comparison, the $6,000 Sony EX1 has 10 stops, the $30,000 RED One is said to have 11.3 stops, the $150,000 Sony F23 has 13, and the $70,000 Arri Alexa about 13. Kodak claims 15 stops for its color negative film stock.

These studies only further what we know. That these DSLRs, despite their limitations, have been game-changers that have allowed more people to even think about doing film. Ten years ago, video cameras such as the Canon XL1 had only about 7 stops of dynamic range, which meant you had to light carefully and evenly. You would never have put a subject in front of a black background (such as in the clip at the bottom of this post, from Nathaniel Hansen’s “The Elders”) because the camera would have converted those blacks into noisy artifacts and blown out the whites on the other end. But the gap between video and film has grown so much smaller, newer filmmakers don’t even have to worry about such considerations (and may laugh at older films with very flat lighting).

Meanwhile, the EOS 60D has hit the market at $1,100, filling the gap between Canon’s $1,700 EOS 7D and the $900 T2i.

Philip Bloom posts about the 60D, and the Wired’s Gadget Lab calls the 60D “Frankencam,” cobbled together out of lower- and higher-end stuff:

It’s clearly the season for new camera gear, and today it’s Canon’s turn in the spotlight. Along with a few new lenses comes the EOS 60D, a “replacement” for the two-year-old 50D. Those looking to upgrade from their 50D should look elsewhere, though, perhaps to the 7D, as this new camera is more for consumers than enthusiastic amateurs.

The magnesium body of the 50D is now plastic, and the 60D uses SD-cards instead of Compact Flash. It also gets a slew of gimmicky image processing features (Toy Camera, anyone?) and the obligatory video capabilities.

One 60D feature that is getting praise is the articulating screen.

Coach from Nathaniel Hansen on Vimeo.

Just don’t forget that tape doesn’t suck

Amid all the craziness about DSLRs and shallow depth of field, it’s important to remember that the budget-minded documentary filmmaker can pick up some real deals by going against the grain and picking up a Mini-DV-tape-based camcorder. They’re selling on Amazon for $750 new. Five years ago, this technology would have cost you four to five times that.

The HV40, in our opinion, is a gem. Real 24p, great color, and with a Beachtek adapter, able to do a lot. HV40 users who gain “higher powers” by learning the “cell-phone trick” can control gain and depth-of-field.

Here’s a video plucked off Vimeo to make a simple point:

Canon HV40 footage from Orcun Jenan on Vimeo.

‘Editing is the only aspect of filmmaking that has no similarity to earlier art forms’

There’s a thoughtful post in Mediajock about “iterations,” in which Daniel McGuire examines that word as used by “Speaking in Tongues” editor Ken Schneider.

Schneider uses the word to describe the process not of “revisions,” but of new versions. McGuire says,

An iterative approach to editing allows one to re-order scenes and experiment with different openings and various endings. Luck comes into play, serendipity, when you try butting two shots together that yields an unexpectedly exciting result. The word also connotes the possibility that sheer chance plays a role. Sometimes whole scenes can be re-ordered easily, more often than not a new order requires multiple small tweaks – like when a variable change in a spreadsheet has an unforeseen cascading effect that completely alters the filmmaker’s perception of the material.

McGuire notes that,

Editing is the only aspect of filmmaking that has no similarity to earlier art forms. Writing a screenplay is similar to writing a play. Directing on a set is comparable to directing for the stage.  Editing a film, and in this case, editing a documentary, isn’t like anything else that ever came before in human history. In a sense you are writing, or creating a narrative, a story, but from images and sounds of real events.  You can cut a scene many different ways, and get a completely different effect. But the individual scenes serve a larger narrative that must have coherence. It needs to be more than the sum of its parts. It is also a temporal experience, like music, but with images, like a mosaic that you view one tile at a time. When it is over, you stand back, and see the entire picture as a thing, in your memory.

The final thought is simple, but true especially of skills such as editing: “Whatever your personality as an editor, success will probably come down to what it has always come down to – what carpenters call ‘time on tools’.”

SPEAKING IN TONGUES TRAILER from PatchWorks Films on Vimeo.

Nikon’s D3100 brings disappointment for serious video users

The Nikon D3100 is out, with 1080p, but the shortcomings of the camera are bringing about disappointment for Nikon fans hoping for their company to catch up with Canon.

Nikon has yet to introduce a 1080p camera with a full-frame sensor. The D3100 apparently has no audio input jack. The codec is questionable. And while the D3100 has a low price point, the sensor is 14 megapixels.

DPReview says the D3100’s screen is a “slight disappointment,” with lower resolution than hoped for.

EOSHD notes that the camera does not seem to be able to go fully manual for shooting video.

After the disappointment of Sony’s new DSLRs, the A55 and A580, this is not really what we need. According to HDSLR shooter Nino Leitner, Nikon’s German press office have said that the D3100 will not have the option for manual controls in video mode.

The general stance of Japanese DSLR manufacturers seems to be that customer research has told them their cameras need to be easy to use. At least the entry to mid-range consumer DSLRs.

Slashcam notes,

We have held consultations with Nikon’s press agency and wanted to know if the Nikon D3100 has fully manual video features: the unfortunately does not seem to be the case.

Knight News21: journalism students produce short documentaries for multimedia projects

NPR has a blog piece on “News21,” the Knight Foundation initiative that funds eight “incubator” university programs in multimedia journalism.

And if you didn’t think that there’s a bit of a revolution going on, look at the video “Spilling Over,” from students at the University of North Carolina, to see how lower-cost equipment and laptop editing has created the ability to do very good work.

Such effects as shallow depth of field and rich color were, only a few years ago, what separated the pros from the wannabes – not necessarily because the pros had superlative talent, but rather because they had equipment that could do that stuff was prohibitively expensive.

Now, the equipment allows everyone to be in the game, and to be less concerned about technical stuff and more about subject.

According to NPR,

Their documentary takes viewers deep into the heart of a community, showing how the national disaster has deeply affected people on a local level. Kindra Arnesen and her husband, David, are presented grappling with a decision about sending their children away from Venice to escape possible health risks from the spill. The scene is played out on a split screen as they talk on the phone, and the emotional impact of the moment is punctuated when Kindra and the kids leave David behind to work for BP cleaning up the oil.

“The biggest thing I learned was not just how to be a photographer or a videographer on a story, but how to be a reporter,” said producer Lauren Frohne. “We were worried that some people would end up pushing us away. But for the most part, because of the rapport we built with people, a lot of them were OK with it, and that was a new experience for all of us.”

Spilling Over from Powering a Nation on Vimeo.

One man’s take on Kickstarter, and another’s

Joey Daoud at Coffee and Celluloid writes about his experience trying to raise funds on Kickstarter, with the basic thought being “People don’t want to pledge money on something that isn’t a sure thing.”

He was planning a documentary on high-school students making robots for a competition, and set a goal amount of $9,000. He didn’t get the money.

His post lays out some wise advice: Build a fan base first through social media, create a high-profile blog and (most importantly) set a reasonable goal amount.

It’s also harder to build a fan base and raise money in the early stages of a project, before you have something to show and spread. That’s why there’s so many finishing grants – they want to put their money on something that has a high chance of seeing completion.

But he doesn’t address what is probably the key to trying to crowdfund: Have an absolutely brilliant idea that someone else can’t steal.

That’s nearly impossible. Imagine putting out into the ether an idea that is so obviously good that funders can’t help but want to put money toward it. Now imagine someone out there seeing that and thinking, “That’s something I could probably do better than this person.”

When you lay out your idea on Kickstarter, you’re depending on someone saying “that project could really work!” in all the right ways. Ideas aren’t copyrightable, nor should they be. So here are some added observations on approaching Kickstarter.

1) I have an idea that is sufficiently broad that it will attract both funders and a wide audience. Funders mathematically represent a very tiny subgroup of all the people who’d want to see this film. Projects that involve a very narrow topic might attract a smaller, deeper cohort, but now you need luck working for you. For Joey’s project, I’d guess not that many people are that interested in robot building – or at least think they’d be that interested -  but if you can get the idea to that rich tech guy who remembers fondly building his own robot in high school… but then you’re probably back to looking for individual backers.

2) I have a project in which I am the only person who can do it properly. What gives you, the filmmaker, a monopoly on this idea? Why can’t someone else do it better? Hollywood is in the idea-stealing business, to a large degree, and we assume documentary filmmakers are more… pure. Ask Regina Kimbell about that. So to crowdfund without giving away the store, it can either be that you’re in a highly unusual position (“I’m living in the Amazon with an indigenous group of natives who have never before seen an outsider and have come to trust me”), or it can be that you’re a unique talent with a serious track record (“I’ve won major awards for my uniquely insightful approach to stories and my tireless work to realize it on film”). Roko Belic crowdfunded $36,000 for his new documentary “Happy,” which is a great idea. He also was an Academy Award nominee for his film “Genghis Blues,” in which he traveled to Mongolia to document a blind American participating in a Tuvan throatsinging competition, shot on Hi-8, and lived over an auto repair shop to afford to make the film. That’s a fundable guy.

3) This idea fills a gap that people want to see filled. As much as it seems like there is no stone unturned in the current documentary climate, there are always gaps in topic areas you’d think would have been done. Don’t try to crowdfund a documentary about the environment, the current darling topic of film festivals everywhere, try to find something where when you say, “No one’s ever done a film on this,” the response is “Really? You’re kidding.” That kind of film may not appeal to Sundance and The Academy, but it will appeal to the audience who’d like to see that as-yet-nonexistent film.

4) I will finish this film no matter what, but your money will help make it better. Kickstarter has no way of knowing how many people, when they don’t reach their funding goal, just give up, but that’s the last person I’d want to fund. Show me no one can stop you. Show me you already figured out how you’ll sacrifice and fight through adversity before you ask me to give money to a stranger. Make me, in essence, part of a cause, a story of triumph over adversity – not only in the film, but in the story of making of the film. A trailer will help a lot in showing this.

5) I’m not greedy. Remember “It’s a Wonderful Life,” when there’s a bank run, and everyone’s trying to cash out? George Bailey asks people, “what will it take to get you by for now?” Meek little Miss Davis says, “Can I have $17.50?” When you’re crowdfunding, you’re Miss Davis. You will get by on the least amount possible. You will ask for nothing more than you need. And how much do you really need? I once met a couple of guys who wanted to do a documentary on gerrymandering in Texas politics. They lived in Boston. So their funding needs involved airfare, hotels and so on. With Joey, I presume the high school where they’re doing the robot building is very close by (so he can be there all the time at no expense), that he’ll work the project after his regular job he uses to afford his own living expenses, and that he’ll choose equipment that is the minimum to do his project correctly – REDs need not apply. But a crowdfunder, IMHO, is wise not to let me presume that, but to be clear on that. With grants, you’re obligated to report back your expenditures and sign a legal document saying you’re telling the truth. Crowdfunding is all about trust.

Finally, and most importantly, some of the best documentaries ever would not have been crowdfundable. “Grey Gardens,” “Hoop Dreams” and “The Thin Blue Line” were likely too dependent on luck and serendipity to have drawn donations. So for Joey and other unsuccessful crowdfunders, what may happen in that outcome that you can’t guarantee may be the very thing that makes the film wonderful…

Will the DIY movement encourage more grants for documentaries?

The New York Women in Film & Television are offering a $7,500 grant for a film by a woman with a disability, or by a woman on the subject of disability. The Loreen Arbus Disability Awareness Grant deadline is September 8.

Grants have never been as numerous for documentary filmmakers, and even more scarce for makers of fiction/feature films. The reasons have always been simple: Even a decade ago, $7,500 was a drop in the bucket given the costs and challenges of making a film that would ever see the light of day.

Grantsmakers always needed to justify their disbursements, and films were always a bad bet. The number of $1 million-budget films (most fictional features) I know that were made in the 1990s that are still sitting on dusty shelves is staggering; the filmmakers (and some of these films are very good) not only had to contend with the costs of film and equipment, of expensive editing facilities, and of pricey delivery formats, but then they hit the bottlenecks of both the traditional forms of getting visibility – film festivals – and of indifferent distributors. Investing in a film was a longshot wager, and grant agencies tend not to be reckless gamblers.

What would the Arbus grant get you ten years ago? Some 35mm film and processing? (Note Albert Maysles comparison of film vs. video here.) Some time at a postproduction facility that bills $300 an hour? The expensive prospect of paying for DVDs to be authored from glass masters at a replication facility?

Now it can fund a good deal of your film. Shooting on a DSLR and editing on a MacBook Pro, you could do something good. And more importantly, with digital platforms for delivery, the film festivals have become more of a vehicle for publicity (and fun) than to ensure your film gets to a larger audience.

That’s especially true for documentaries, which find their audiences in ways that fiction films never will. Your doc may not go to Sundance and be up for an Oscar, but well-chosen topics have audiences, and distributors aren’t really about connecting to them in the way DIY does now, be it Facebook, a website, or getting the right coverage in sometimes not-so-obvious places. (My own current project already has 30 paid theatrical and university screenings set up for 2010 and 2011, largely based on publicity we got on a variety of blogs and from one article on the project in Publisher’s Weekly, all this before we even sent the completed film to a festival. We’ll make all our money back, and a good deal more, before even selling DVDs or determining digital distribution. Being in a festival doesn’t really seem that important at this point, although it would be enjoyable. I’ll post more on that process later this year. And of course, all this will be made known to the granting agency who helped fund the film when we apply for another grant from them).

I suspect that grantmaking agencies that see their funds result in a definable outcome, and who see it done mostly on their money, are going to start feeling good. Whomever gets the Arbus grant has a better chance to complete a film that goes to a meaningful audience than ever before. While it’s my opinion that fictional films remain the longshot bet they always were, documentaries may find more funding with organizations that traditionally avoided funding films.

Trailer: ‘Freakonomics’

‘Life in a Day’ gets 80,000 videos submitted

Ridley Scott and Kevin MacDonald wanted video, and they got video.

The New York Times reports that for their crowdsourcing project that will tell the story of one day, July 24, the filmmakers have received 80,000 video submissions totaling 4,600 hours. If the filmmakers spent 8 hours a day reviewing it, that would take a year and a half to watch (525 days, to be exact).

The Times notes that Scott and Macdonald

have assembled 20 editors and researchers to log and vet the footage. “It’s a mountain, but we’re eager to climb it,” Mr. Macdonald said. The team will winnow the videos, which came from 197 countries, down to 100 hours and begin sharing some results at youtube.com/lifeinaday, in September. The final film will have its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival and on YouTube in January.

A look at DIY: ‘The Way We Get By’

Truly Free Film has a first-person account of the making of “The Way We Get By,” a film by Gita Pullapilly and Aron Gaudet. The account, written by Gita, will be in five short parts.

A synopsis of the film: “The Way We Get By” is an intimate look at three of these greeters as they confront the universal losses that come with aging and rediscover their reason for living. Bill Knight, Jerry Mundy and Joan Gaudet find the strength to overcome their personal battles and transform their lives through service. This inspirational and surprising story shatters the stereotypes of today’s senior citizens as the greeters redefine the meaning of community.

Gita notes that while the filmmakers thought they had a good project, getting support early on nearly made them thing they were wrong.

We wanted to make a quality film and get it in front of an audience, but we also wanted to establish our careers as filmmakers. This meant some of our choices would be made because it was the best move for our film, and some would be made to help our careers.

But all of it was a moot point if no one else thought our film had potential. We knew we had to find someone to help champion our film.  So for three years, we had applied to grants and fellowships and we were rejected from everything. Our confidence in us—and the film—were starting to diminish.

They did eventually get selected at “filmmakers in residence” at WGBH, and the project moved forward. Part 2 continues the story…

Next Page »