What would you like in a new camera?

[trevorbr]

I apologize for seeming so defensive. My previous post was created with as much humor as sarcasm. I've never been a very effective communicator.

I think my primary concerns boil down to two important factors. First and foremost, filmmaking can be an extremely enjoyable and rewarding process. Many budding filmmakers start with super 8 and are often discouraged by the fact that because they know very little in the beginning and are using super 8, no one will take them seriously. It is never fun to be looked down upon, particularly for lack of knowledge. Secondly, better tools will enhance the skills of seasoned filmmakers who wish to make professional quality productions.

I agree with you that all of the money and gadgetry in the world will not compensate for lack of knowledge or skill, however, I believe the world of super 8 can be much more than a teething ground to be forgotten once one moves on to a "pro" gauge. I feel that in order for super 8 to reach its full potential, better tools need to be available. Sadly enough, the only way to truly save super 8 is for the industry/Kodak to support it. Kodak has done more than I thought they ever would in promoting Vision 200T. Lack of flexibility and prohibitive Rank transfer costs will continue to push super 8 aside.


Beyond all of this, shoot film and have fun....otherwise....what's the point.


-t.v.i (formerly know as trevor)

[Matt Pacini]

You guys who keep saying the Canon 1014XL-S is "really quiet", and that it doesn't matter if a S8 camera is quiet or not are either totally into shooting home movies that only your friends are going to see, or you are inexperienced, because camera noise is a huge problem in Super 8 shooting.
And Alex I think said "I'm not afraid of ADR-ing my dialog".
Well, that shows me that you have never done it! Because it's a freakin' nightmare!
It takes longer to ADR one scene, than it does to set up and shoot an entire scene.
I had to loop one scene in my movie (LOST TRIBES), and it took probably a total of 30-40 hours of work, and the results are nowhere near what they are if I could have gotten clean dialog when shooting.
Not to mention that you have to either rent a studio to do this, or have an absolute silent environement, with all the audio and video equipment avaliable to do ADR.
It's quite a complicating factor, and should be avoided like the plaque. You guys who actually plan on doing this are nuts.
Many actors are totally incapable of doing it too. They either have an impossible time saying the lines in sync, or the emotion is completely lacking, or different.
The only S8 camera that is not too noisy for dialog, is the Nizo 6080, and I even barney it, because I want absolute silence.
The Canon's are fantastic cameras, but will you guys quit spreading this myth that they are quiet? I actually bought one, because I kept reading that they were "almost totally silent".
Well, maybe a deaf person would say that, but the Canon 1014 XL-S is about 75% as loud as a Nikon R-10, which sounds like a manual eggbeater 2 feet from your microphone!
And if you say you don't have any use for an orientable viewfinder, then you're one of those dorks shooting everything at standing level, which makes everything just scream "college video project".
Look at any movie, and you will notice that most shots of people are at waist to chest level, which means, without an orientable viewfinder, you need to be sitting in a chair or something, which I have done, but it limits mobility.
Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Matt!

You wrote:

"It takes longer to ADR one scene, than it does to set up and shoot an entire scene. I had to loop one scene in my movie (LOST TRIBES), and it took probably a total of 30-40 hours of work, and the results are nowhere near what they are if I could have gotten clean dialog when shooting. Not to mention that you have to either rent a studio to do this, or have an absolute silent environement, with all the audio and video equipment avaliable to do ADR. It's quite a complicating factor, and should be avoided like the plaque. You guys who actually plan on doing this are nuts. Many actors are totally incapable of doing it too. They either have an impossible time saying the lines in sync, or the emotion is completely lacking, or different."

I can't argue with the specific experiences you had looping a film. However, I respectfully suggest that looping is probably one of the most powerful production tools for any independent film maker in any format.
Here is my opinion as to why:

1) You can use any location anywhere without regard to local noise problems.

2) You don't have to hold up production waiting for a jet to go over or traffic to pass. In fact, you can even call out specific directions to your actors without worry about contaminating the sound track!

3) Any scene that is shot for looping will take twice as long to shoot if you are committed to Hollywood quality sound and not just documentary quality sound where you take what you get.

4) If the sound guy is treated with the same respect as the camera operator, then the scene will have to be reshot if he says,"Sorry, we had a problem with that take and I didn't get it." (never happens on a low budget shoot that I've seen)

5) Reasons 3 and 4 mean that the shooting ratio will go up.

6) The crew will have extra personel to accomodate sound monitoring and recording.

7) There will be at least two more mouths to feed. (the boom operator and the recordist)

8) Reasons 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 mean that the budget will go up tremendously because an entire crew must be on the set longer just to accomodate the needs of getting a good take on the sound for even one person's close up, IF you are committed to getting Hollywood quality sound and not just documentary quality sound.

9) Most low budget features use actors with little or no film experience that are not used to shooting scenes and cuts out of sequence. They may be talented, but this invariable leads to uneven performances where the master is shot at 10 in the morning when they're fresh and a corresponding close up is shot at 3 in the afternoon when they're either all out of energy or have lost track of the emotional state of their character or both. I have never seen an actor like this, yet, whose performance couldn't actually be improved with a second shot at the dialog. Most importantly, looping after the scene has been cut together, using location reference sound, means they can play the scene chronologically from beginning to end which helps the inexperiened actor build their emotions at a natural pace that matches the needs of the scene.

10) No special equipment or enviroment needs to be used to loop any feature. In fact the biggest mistake even experienced directors make the first time they face looping is saying,"Well, if I must loop, then I'm going to have the best sound in the world." Then they loop in a studio which A) costs too much money that they don't have and B) where the accoustics are nothing like the sheetrocked or paneled wall in the scene they are looping. More often than not, when an audience notices something is looped, it isn't the lips being out of synch. It's the character of the sound that tips them off that something isn't right. THEN they look to the lips for confirmation of what they suspected. A finished sound design using looping should have all the unavoidable trash and accoustical problems that are evident in the best location sound, otherwise it will sound fake.

It is like the difference between the RKO jungle used in movies from the 30s and 40s and the jungle set seen in Tarzan with Christopher Lambert. The trees and foilage are the same, but the Ponderosa style lighting on the RKO set called out "fake"; everything was too perfect. The Tarzan set, while also totally indoors, looked realistic because the DP wasn't afraid to light it like the sun, with a single point source light. This made certain areas plummet into darkness and other areas look totally burned out; just as it would if he were on location in Africa shooting by available light.

11) IF you are lucky enough to get a distribution deal, the first thing the fat guy with the cigar will say is, "I like your stuff, kid. You got an M&E track for this?"

You better say,"Yes" and mean it or the deal is likely to come undone. "M&E" stands for music and effects. Most distributors for independent films make little money on the domestic release. Their big money is made selling to foreign territories where they pick up a big flat fee for each border crossed. As such, they need a premixed music and sound effects track with no voice present so it can be looped with each language required for each territory.

Shooting with location sound complicates this issue if you aren't prepared for it financially. Many film makers that thought,"I'll be really smart and save money getting all my sound, including dialog, sound effects like footsteps, doors, etc as part of the master location soundtrack." find, to their horror, they have to re-invent their soundtrack to make the distribution deal. Not only will this cost extra money, but inevitably their foreign sound track ends up sounding better than their domestic release because of the sheer control one has creating a soundtrack in post. Too bad no one here will ever see it.

In the end, some directors look at looping as a form of defeat and say,"Well, we'll shoot with location sound, and if it doesn't work, then we'll loop it later." That's like saying,"Well shoot it in color and just drop it out to black and white later if we want." In my opinion, that is a formula for disaster. Looping is a valid, creative production tool that should be embraced totally or avoided completely. Embracing it means that you benefit from all the points I mention above. Avoiding it means a serious committment to getting good location sound and the time it will take to do it right.

As Matt pointed out, looping isn't any walk in the park. But getting good location sound isn't either. The only difference is: Do you spend the extra time with a whole crew on the clock or without them? Even if they're working for free, there is a price to be paid for their time. For the record, I prefer location sound IF the budget and schedule will allow it. But the biggest mistake any film maker can make, in my opinion, is pretending that their problems are solved simply because they have a DAT recorder and a shotgun mic at a good deal. Location sound is one of the most pervasive line items in any film budget. If affects crew size, length of shoot, catering, location choices, transportation issues, shooting ratio and on and on and on.

Matt is experienced enough that I am sure he had valid reasons for needing to loop. However, with respect to his experiences, I provide looping services all the time for clients and use it my self quite often for all the reasons mentioned above. Is it difficult? Yes it can be difficult, if you've never done is before. There is a "knack" to looping as an actor as well as coaching their looping as a director. But one does not approach looping any more casually than one should approach location sound.

Can people always tell if something is looped? Obviously, no. Italian films aside, a HUGE chunk of any given Hollywood movie or TV movie is looped and no one is ever the wiser. The only time looping is noticed is when it is done incorrectly, just as bad lighting or a bad special effect will call attention to itself. Make the same committment to the looping process as one does to good lighting or a realistic special effect and the audience will go along for the ride, blissfully unaware of anything. Looping simply becomes one of many technical lies they are watching that adds up to an asthetic truth.

My two cents, anyway.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 06, 2001).]

[Alex]

Ironies of ironies....I'm currently working on syncing up over a dozen hours of footage that was recorded on a a-synchronous audio-cassette....

When I lock up a scene perfectly, to the frame, it rocks, when it drifts just a frame or two, it looks funny, and less powerful.

I also notice looped scenes never seem to sound as real as the real scene sound....like it's almost too pure.

So, it definitely can save on production time when shooting....but man....stay on good terms with your actors....cuz usually by the end of a movie......at least one actor is mad at another actor....and suddenly they're not available for looping.....

I know it sounds childish, but it happens.

-Alex



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 12, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

This time I have to agree with Alex!
Moviestuff, you make some convincing arguments, if one does not inspect them carefully.
Here are some flaws in your reasoning:
1. I did not "insist on Hollywood quality". In fact, I did my ADR in my basement, but you can't just toss a microphone in your actors face, hand him a script, and say "read". You have to have your film already RANK'd, and digitized into the computer, (you need something to see, to be able to say the lines in sync with the original), and you have to have audio equipment to record the new dialog. This is at bare minimum.
2. You keep saying how much extra time on the set you take up by being concerned with time, how many man hours it takes, etc. as if it's not any extra time spent having the actors come in to do the dubbing. And Alex is right, low paid, or no paid actors are doing it for the excitement of it, but there is nothing exciting about sitting around for six hours with headphones on, dubbing a scene.
3. I didn't try to record my foley on my shoots, I did that later, but that also takes lots of time.
4. You have contradictory logic, on the one hand, you're saying that if you try to get production dialog, instead of ADR'ing, you're going overboard trying to be "Hollywood" or whatever, but then you admit (correctly) that most Hollywoood movies do tons of ADR. Therefore, I think that if you plan on your ADR scenario, it is in fact YOU who are trying to mimick big Hollywood production value needlessly.
The fact is, big budget films do both; they try to get the best production dialog they can, because they recognize its the real deal, and under good conditions, is always preferable, then they ADR when conditions are not ideal, which is what I did. You're right, it is more time and work to try to get good sound, but the total time spent is much, much greater, when you have to ADR. You're completely discounting that it takes any time at all to go back & loop scenes.
I spent like 30 hours looping a scene that took 6 hours to set up and shoot, and it just doesn't feel right, like Alex said.
Sure, some actors have no problem at this, but mostly those are the kind of pro's that we can't afford in our productions. We're dealing with people that have never done looping, and for your scenario, you have to then factor in the extra cost of hiring experienced SAG actors, which far outweighs the cost of recording sound on set. (If you're planning on having actors that will have no problem looping).

I can only conclude that you haven't actually had to ADR one of your films (if you've done any), because I have yet to meet anyone who shoots the way you are suggesting on anthing but their FIRST feature!
In other words, (like many other things I hear on various boards), it sounds like a great idea, until you actually do it!

Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

On the contrary, Matt!

I looped "Jet Benny" (which we purposely dropped out of synch for effect), "Forever Evil", "Manny Roach" and half a dozen other low budget features I've done over the years. We've had as many as 35 actors that we processed for looping in one week. Worked out fine. I also use looping on commercials and industrials all the time. This is a definite situation where I practice what I preach.

But my logic isn't contradictory at all just because Hollywood films use both looping and location sound. You have to keep in mind that their budgets are HUGE and looping is just a minor convenience. For people like you and me, it's a major production descision! Because of that importance, that is why I said that sound can be one of the most pervasive and influential line items in a low budget film. Again, I prefer location sound for the same reason I'm sure you do; more natural responses, ease on the actors, etc. However, my position is simply that there is a price to pay for location sound that is generally more than a typical low budget film can handle, IF you want "feature film" sound quality and not documentary sound quality.
And, finally, I don't think I ever intimated that looping was easy. It's just as hard as location sound in many ways. It's just that looping requires less of a crew for the process and there are certain benefits to both looping and location sound. Therefore, I think looping is a valid creative production tool and not just a "fix", as so many directors see it.

I don't think we're really on such a different wavelength about this issue. We both prefer location sound. I've just gotten used to looping and probably use it more often out of habit in situations where I probably COULD use location sound. Guess I'm getting lazy in my old age!

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Matt also wrote:

"...because I have yet to meet anyone who shoots the way you are suggesting on anything but their FIRST feature!"

Then I respectfully suggest you check out "Deliverance", "Excaliber" "Emerald Forest" or any of John Borman's other films. He loops virtually everything he does.

Also, why you would say "if I've done any" when you know I've made other films. Seems a bit on the offensive, don't you think? Kind of like when you claimed that I inferred 12mm was fisheye on a Super 8 camera; never said any such thing. Maybe you read my posts too fast or I should type slower.

Roger

[jocko]

You mean that all those kung-fu movies I've watched over the years..didn't use location sound ..Roger was your FEATURE FILM..FOREVER EVIL shot in 16mm?..how many FEATURES have you directed?

Neil
JOCKO FILMS

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Jocko!

Yes, Forever Evil was shot in 16mm on an R16 Beaulieu.

I've directed three low budget features, (Jet Benny, Manny Roach, Forever Evil) and have been AD, DP or special effects head for a half a dozen others. I produced and directed a half hour childrens' animation pilot for Mattel (Rescue Robots), two awarding winning shorts, over 200 commercials for the Houston area, including work on national spots for Compaq Computers, 12 documentaries for companies like Penzoil, countless industrials and training films and videos for national corporations like Compaq and CRS Sirrine, have provided special effects for other high tech companies like BMC Software, and I currently restore classic films like "Sundown" with Gene Tierney and Bruce Cabot as well as all the Cisco Kid series (which involved quite a bit of looping) as well as many others. I'm an old fart (mid 40s), have been through the patent process a couple of times for effects equipment I've designed and I've been around the block a few times.

I shoot Super 8, 16mm, 35mm and video. I enjoy horseback riding, doing volunteer work and believe in the concept of world peace. And if I win the Miss Universe title, I'll donate all of my earnings to the Super 8 Relief Fund.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 12, 2001).]

[Alex]

So, I guess we all agree, a silent Super-8 camera would be a good thing!

-Alex