« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 12, 2004
Ebay scam
Police have issued a warning to users of internet auction sites after a teenage fraudster conned eBay customers to fund a luxury lifestyle.
The 17-year-old from Pontypool, south Wales, built up £45,000 in various bank accounts by offering goods for sale that did not exist.
He treated himself to weekends in New York, and hired stretch limousines for nights out with friends.
He also bought designer clothes, expensive gadgets, and a quad bike.
Cwmbran youth court heard that, when police raided his home, they found top-of-the-range computers, hi-fi equipment, and flat-screen TVs.
Gwent Police have now issued a warning to users of internet auction sites to make sure they use make use of security measures to avoid losing their money.
They want buyers to use secure ways of paying and to follow safety advice given by the sites.
Detective Constable Steve Thomas, who led the investigation, said it was sometimes difficult to monitor security on such sites, and some people had not received property for which they had paid.
"Customers must guard against making any payment using an unsafe method like a straight bank transfer," he said. "That's literally just giving money over".
He said it was better to use other methods such as a credit card payment or the site's PayPal scheme.
After he was arrested, the teenager told police he had been "living the good life" with the money he had taken off unwitting customers.
He said he could not stop defrauding his victims because he was addicted to the eBay website, and it "gave him a buzz."
Magistrates heard that the boy - who cannot be named because of his age - used the proceeds of his scam to fly to New York with two friends.
They stayed at a five-star hotel overlooking Times Square and took a helicopter ride over Manhattan.
He was always dressed in expensive designer clothes and loved to buy the latest electronic gadgets.
He could not drive, so he hired stretch limos to take his friends on nights out.
But police were alerted by eBay customers who had been conned by the teenager.
He was arrested and freed on police bail while an investigation was carried out.
The court heard he had advertised mobile phones, computer consoles, cameras, and camcorders for sale - none of which had ever been in his possession.
Prosecutor Peter Moore said: "He set up three bank accounts to handle cash, which he obtained via bank transfer. But he was not content with taking people's money - he later taunted them by e-mailing them with details of how he'd spent it."
The court heard the boy duped more than 100 eBay customers over 13 months. One victim lost £2,500.
The boy admitted 21 charges of fraud amounting to £16,105 and asked for a further 64 offences - amounting to £28,860 - to be taken into consideration.
Magistrates decided they did not have enough power to deal with the boy and he will be sentenced at Newport Crown Court next month.
Posted by robeva at 10:03 PM | Comments (0)
24 Frames per second?
What's all the fuss about 24p? It's been called the "Lingua Franca of the HD World," but it's also generated quite a bit of buzz in the SD world, and even the MiniDV world, since the premiere of Panasonic's AGP-DVX100, the first prosumer camcorder to boast 24p capability, which was a significant leap given the high-level circles where it got its start.
The technique has been controversial among some videographers since its onset, but when you come down to it, 24p is just another creative choice that shares the same frame rate as film, giving video a similar visceral feel. So why the debate?
Perhaps purists simply can't stand the move from chemical film to digital in much the same way that jazz aficionados still prefer their original Blue Note vinyl albums to the clear, crisp, pop-free CD sound. They may point to a loss of fidelity, a sonic richness that can't be reproduced digitally. Similarly, with 24p you can create the same feel, but you lose something tangible with the move to digital, and there are those that argue no matter how much you play around with frame rates, interlacing, and filters, film and digital are and will always remain things apart. Sure, you can add the grain and the dust to make it feel like film, but critics point out that you can't make the camera something it's not, whether you're talking about a $2000 MiniDV model like Panasonic's DVX100 or a Sony CineAlta HD camcorder at the very high-end.
Same goes for the forthcoming 24p-capable JVC HDV camcorder, a $20,000 model that will strike some as the same sort of bundle of contradictions as the DVX100. No matter how sophisticated your implementation of 24p's digital mimicry may be, naysayers say, you can't reproduce the film camera's depth of field. [Figure 1 here]
The JVC camcorder—demo'd in April at NAB 2004—presents a tantalizing array of temptations for videographers in that it offers state-of-the-art approximations of two unattainable "looks," 24p for digitally simulated film and HDV for highly compressed high-definition video. It certainly represents a possible point of entry to both arenas for video producers who have previously found both out of reach (although at $20,000, many will wait for the price to come down first).
Some people believe that digital in general and 24p in particular lower the cost of entry into the filmmaking field, making it easier for just about anyone to get into the game, which (the argument goes) in turn waters down the filmmaking profession. Others brush this criticism aside as an ongoing phenomenon of modern technology development, no different from the evolution of software non-linear editors like Premiere and Final Cut Pro—both of which have recently added 24p support. These tools brought video editing to the masses but didn't make everyone good at it.
People used to working with film point out that what 24p adds to their art is, in the main, instant gratification, and wonder if that's really a move forward. No longer do you have to hand over your precious film and wait for the development process. Instead, you have instant access to your work from the moment you get your shot, and what's more you can produce a DVD at any time. Is that tension of waiting for the film to come back an integral part of the process—and part of what makes it so great—or is it simply a vestige of a bygone era that some people can't let go? Or is the value of the film process inherent in the result, which no digital technology can match? And what does this mean to videographers with deadlines to meet, work to distinguish from their peers', and clients' expectations to satisfy that are determined by popular entertainment, be it television or film itself? Does the mere suggestion of film—without necessarily the technique and craft that makes good film resonate—elevate event video with hints of celluloid artistry? The answer depends on who you ask.
24p production is certainly cheaper than film, and for some that means the difference between producing a film or not. Yet it's not completely fair or accurate to say that 24p (at least for those who plan to distribute a film, rather than produce an event video) is really cheaper. Ultimately, according to the experts, it just delays the costs, but for a young and hungry artist, that delay may make it possible to complete the project. So the controversy continues.
This article explores some of these issues through the eyes of several professional videographers/filmmakers. It's not meant to be comprehensive overview of 24p, so much as a meaningful discussion from the perspective of professionals who have been working in the field for a long time, and an exploration of the place of 24p in commercial videography today.
A Creative Choice and Nothing More
24p is really just a color in your artistic palette, much like the myriad other choices you make in your job.
Michael Phillips is an Avid employee who developed the Avid Film Composer, has worked as film editor, and has cowritten the book Digital Filmmaking: The Changing Art Form of Making Movies published by Focal Press. Phillips identifies four processes in filmmaking: frame rate, aspect ratio, progressive or interlace, and resolution.
"Resolution is an easier choice—higher resolution produces a better picture. This choice falls under budget. Aspect ratio falls in the creative bucket. Progressive vs. interlace is about picture quality with progressive generating better quality. Frame rate is a creative choice," Phillips says.
Kevin Weyl, who owns Atlantic Video in Amherst, Massachusetts and specializes in corporate videography, agrees, but wonders if it's such a good choice. "Part of the craft is understanding the intricacies of the process. Working in film requires a different understanding of lighting and depth of field. People who know how to use film, know how to make movies. Others let the technology do it for them, which is too bad because it diminishes the craft," Weyl says.
Award-winning event videographer David Robin of Boulevard Video Productions in Los Angeles says he likes 24p, but in measured doses. "The bottom line is it's another tool in the arsenal. It's great, but I don't want to overuse it. I wouldn't want to shoot the entire thing in 24p," Robin says.
Marya Read is creative director for People Productions in Boulder, Colorado, a video production company that produces commercials, training, and corporate video. She also sees 24p as one choice among many. "For our purposes, in certain situations, I think it's awesome. The key is thinking it through and using it where it is appropriate. If you think how you use a tool based on budget, I think it's a great addition to the toolbox of film and video makers, but it's not everything. It's not panacea," Read says.
Michael Kolowich, president of DigiNovations of Concord, Massachusetts, a firm that works about 75 percent in corporate videos with the remainder wedding, family histories, school events, and the like, thinks it's all about the perception of the viewer and how we have been conditioned to watch film and video. "I think it is an artistic choice between two ways that human beings have been conditioned over a long period of time to look at the medium of television and how they look at the medium of film," Kolowich says. "We all have positive and powerful associations with experiencing things in the film medium and those associations tend to be more associated with the right side of brain, about emotions and stimulating fantasy and storytelling and the like."
Money Changes Everything
Film is certainly expensive, at least on the front-end. Shooting on film requires more up-front capital to get a working print. With 24p, you can produce a DVD at any time in the process, and if you don't intend to make a film, like most event videographers, then it is a cheaper option. Whether you save money or not depends on your final output. "It could be true or not" that 24p is cheaper, says Michael Phillips. "If your ultimate goal is about playing in a movie theater, you get to delay costs until you have something to show."
Noah Kadner, president of High Road Productions, a film company that works in 24p, sometimes says it can make a huge difference for him, especially in terms of up-front savings. "The nice part about 24p is that all those costs are back-loaded as opposed to front-loaded. If I want to have a copy of my film to show on DVD, I have to go from start to finish. With 24p, I can pop a DVD any time I want and not spend a dime. If I do want to go out to film and have a real release, somebody else can pay for that like a distributor. For a modest up-front investment, I get a finished product with something to show. Those expenses still come, but it's a matter of where they come in the process and who pays for them," Kadner says.
Watering Down the Medium?
The real debate is whether 24p waters down the medium and on this question, the professionals interviewed for this article had strong opinions. Most felt, however, that in the long run, regardless of the tool you use, you still need to understand the craft to be a good filmmaker.
Kevin Weyl thinks it lessens the medium, and suggests that using a digital video technology that presents a poor approximation of film may end up selling both media short. "The people who have created the technology are geniuses," he says, "but people who use it aren't, and the culture suffers from the automatic nature of the process. I don't think it's as good. If you can provide a process for video that approximates film, that will diminish people's desire to use film and all of the requisite ability that goes with it."
People Productions' Marya Read says that you still have to practice the art and earn your stripes regardless of how you go about shooting your project. "Every hack out there may pick up a camera, but it doesn't make them good," she says. "It's a lot like desktop publishing in the eighties. Just because you could work Quark didn't make you a good graphic designer. You still have to practice your scales to be good at your craft, regardless of the tools available. If they don't know how to do it," Read concludes, the final product "is not going to be any good."
In the end, David Robin believes that it takes a great business acumen as well as an artistic one to succeed; simply having access to equipment—like a 24p-capable camcorder—that gives you an ostensible leg up on the competition is not going to make it any easier to break into the event video field. "[Having a 24p camera] wouldn't put you in the game sooner. Getting in the game for a newbie in this climate would be pretty tough. It's not just based on what equipment you own, but how a good a schmoozer and networker you are, how creative you are. It's not just the quality of your work. You don't need just a great product, you also need people skills," Robin says.
Marya Read says the pendulum is shifting back from ease of use to skill and creativity. "It's starting to shift it back to creative talent, knowing how to use the tools and being a powerful storyteller both visually and verbally, rather than just access to a tool," Read says.
Deciding to Take the Plunge
Michael Kolowich of DigiNovations hasn't made the plunge into 24p yet, but he plans to do so in the next 18 months or so. He's hoping to cut the cost of new equipment by waiting for a good HD camera that includes 24p capability (JVC displayed a three-CCD HDV model at NAB that had 24p capability, but the camcorder may list for as much as $20,000 when it's released). Kolowich's NLE of choice, Premiere Pro, only added support for 24p in its most recent version (1.5), and he's willing to wait for it to shake out a bit more.
"I would not call the demand for it from client side overwhelming. And generally the things we want to achieve with a 24p camera can be achieved in a large measure in post production right now for our market. That may change in 18 months, and the prices may come down. There'll be more devices to choose from and a lot of stuff will change, and chances are at that point we'll buy one. The first ones are creeping onto market, but I want to see more options and more capability before I jump in," Kolowich says.
For now, Kolowich is content to add 24p-like effects in post-production. "I've had videos, particularly in the wedding market, where I've changed effective rate to 24 frames per second, added grain, and added film glow to make it look more like film. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether that is better done in the camera or in post.
"We can get a good part of the way there towards creating the impression that something was shot on film or triggering the same kind of recognition in post-production with tools such as FilmFX and the like. We have, on occasion, taken our traditionally shot video at 30fps and made it look like film by changing the effect of the frame rate—the perceived rate—by introducing film grain and color timing such as one would see in film. But we don't have the call for that often enough to go out and invest in a 24p camera," Kolowich says.
Atlantic Video's Kevin Weyl is more of a purist. In an age when most videographers are shooting digital, Weyl continues to shoot the majority of his projects using Betacam. Weyl is certainly open to new techniques and technologies, but he feels that film, when properly shot, results in better quality than digital video.
Weyl says he is not against 24p or any new technology, but, like Kolowich, he wants to see the technology mature a bit before he takes the 24p plunge.
"I'm always interested in learning new stuff. Would I go out and buy equipment to satisfy that, or would I hire somebody who knows the camera? Absolutely, but I want to see what it can do before I make an investment. You could get it on the job, and it doesn't do it or it takes so long that it just isn't cost effective," he continues. "I want to make sure I'm not working on the first or second version, to make sure it's almost bullet proof."
Weyl remembers a time when everyone was screaming about Betamax. "If I had invested in a Betamax package I would be dead right now," Weyl says.
24p at Work
Marya Read used 24p as part of a recent project she completed for the Boulder Community Hospital. Being a small community hospital, the client only had a limited budget for a pair of commercials. They wanted to shoot in film and include patient testimonials and a lot of healthy living footage. Read knew from the get-go that shooting interviews on film would be prohibitively expensive for her client, so she decided to shoot the lifestyle footage in film and the interviews in 24p, then mix the two in post production.
"We shot the man running at sun rise or the woman in the antique store on film, but we were able to shoot 30, 40-minute interviews with ‘real people'—rather than actors—cost-effectively in 24p. We wouldn't have been able to shoot those at all had we been required to shoot on film," Read says.
Further, Read says they did a lot of pre-production homework to make sure that the 24p material and the film integrated well together when they got to post-production. "We didn't just shoot willy-nilly and say, ‘Cool, it looks like film.' We looked at how 24p integrated with film and did pre-production homework with our colorist. We went in with a well thought-out plan," Read says.
She adds that the final result was stunning. When you saw the mixed film and 24p video, you could not tell the difference beyond the absence of grain. "When we edited it together, other than that there wasn't a presence of grain, you couldn't tell the difference, and when you saw it on air, it looked seamless," Read says.
Final Word
So the debate goes on, but in the end it seems that 24p is going to be with us for awhile, and the convergence of faux film and compressed HD around 24p and HDV will enhance its accessibility—and likely its appeal—for those in the videography space.
Noah Kadner says at some point digital quality will exceed 35mm film and at that point, the balance will shift. "I know that these things take forever to change. It's going to require another generation of cameras. The one thing about film is that it is totally fixed as a medium—35mm is what you get. With digital, the sky is really the limit. Eventually, digital quality will exceed film. Then the studios will ask, ‘What's the point?' It's better quality and it's cheaper," Kadner says.
For now, videographers may debate the merits of digital video and 24p, but like it or not, it's here to stay. In the end, it's up the videographers and filmmakers to make sure that the artistry and creativity remain firmly fixed even while filmmaking technology moves forward.
Posted by robeva at 09:51 AM | Comments (1)
October 10, 2004
Disc takers
This is the movie that Jack made. This is the family down by the sea, that Jack camcordered on MiniDV, then edited down on a modern PC, then burned overnight to a blank DVD, then carried downstairs and showed on TV, so family and friends could finally see the wonderful movie that Jack made.
If your video has ever made that exhausting journey from camcorder to DVD, then you already know about the Faustian bargain of the MiniDV cassette format. The blessing is that you can edit your movies on a Mac or PC without losing any of their spectacular quality. The curse is that you can't distribute your masterpieces without a lot of hassle. Why, oh, why (ask millions of armchair inventors) can't a camcorder record directly on to a DVD?
Actually, DVD camcorders made their debut a few years ago - but they were big, expensive freaks. Things have changed, though.
First, you have more choices, including the new Sony DCR-DVD101 and 201, Panasonic VDR-M50 and 70, and Hitachi DZ-MV550 and 580. Second, the latest models are no larger than MiniDV camcorders. The Sony measures 5 x 8.9 x 13.7 centimetres (2 x 3.5 x 5.4 inches); the Panasonic and Hitachi are only a hair larger (6.3 x 8.9 x 14.5 cm). The prices are still dearer than comparably equipped MiniDV camcorders but at least they're out of nosebleed territory.
Finally, all DVD camcorders accept the same miniature eight-centimetre blank DVDs, sold as mini DVD-R discs. They cost about the same as MiniDV tapes. The biggest benefit is, of course, compatibility: You can pop recorded discs directly into any standard DVD player, or send them to relatives so that they can do the popping. The minidiscs fit neatly into the inner ring moulded right into the DVD player's tray. Most slot-loading players slurp in the discs equally happily.
There are other perks. You never wait to rewind. Ever. Each camcorder shows a "table of contents" screen of thumbnail images; a tiny joystick lets you select one to play back, instantly. (This will be the disc's main menu when played on a TV.) Better yet, these machines do not permit recording overprevious material. This is a safety feature of life-changing, marriage-saving proportions.
Yet there are disappointments, too. Those minidiscs may be awfully cute but they fill up after only 30 minutes of best-quality video. (Lower-quality settings give you as much as 60 minutes per disc, but the result is so blocky it's hardly worth mentioning.)
Note, too, that when a disc is full, you can't play it outside the camcorder until you finalise it using the on-screen menus - a sort of software shrink-wrap. The Panasonic and Hitachi camcorders must be plugged in during this process, which took an agonising 24 minutes for the same amount of video that the Sony processed in only eight. Using battery power is OK, although kiss your movies goodbye if the power fails halfway through.
All these camcorders, which are surprisingly alike, are aimed at technophobes and hassle-haters, but Sony preserves some of the features that make its tape camcorders so popular. For example, the screen tells you exactly how many minutes are left on your battery. You also get Sony's famous NightShot modes, which let you record in near or total darkness - a feature that comes in handy more often than you might think. The Sony is also much faster at locking focus, especially in dim light.
There are other nuances, too, such as a sharper, brighter screen and an AC adapter that powers the camera even while the battery is still in place. (The Panasonic/Hitachi camcorder is useless while you recharge, because the battery goes into an external charger.) You can insert a naked, shivering disc directly into the Sony, too, without having to fuss with the removable plastic disc holder required by the Panasonic/Hitachi.
Finally, the Sony's eyepiece viewfinder slides both outward and upward so that you can shoot from lower angles. (An unusual Record/Stop button on the edge of the flip-out screen makes such shots even easier.) The Panasonic/Hitachi viewfinder doesn't swivel, and it doesn't even extend past the edge of the twohour battery. Expect your relatives to ask how you got the callous on your cheekbone.
On the other hand, the Panasonic/Hitachi camcorders offer a memorycard slot for storing still photos. The Sony stores its photos only on the DVD, which you'll have a hard time slipping into, say, a Palm organiser for viewing.
Now, DVD-R discs play in millions of DVD players but they're incredibly stubborn; once you've recorded something, you can't erase it, edit it or resequence the scenes. Therefore, these camcorders also accommodate a secondary disc format that can be edited, erased and reused hundreds of times. Panasonic/Hitachi chose something called DVD-RAM; Sony went with DVD-RW. (The mini versions of both formats are hard to find, even online.)
DVD-RAM is a simpler and more flexible format for editing (if you call pushing tiny buttons and working on a 2.5-inch screen "simple"). Unfortunately, these discs don't play back in standard DVD players, apart from a few Panasonic and Hitachi models. They're for camcorder use only.
Sony's choice, DVD-RW, is more confusing because it entails learning about two subformats (called VR mode and Video mode), each with its own flexibilitycompatibility trade-off. VR mode, like DVDRAM, is infinitely editable in the camera but incompatible with most DVD players. Videomode discs are less flexible - you can't, for example, erase just one scene - but play in most DVD players, and you can erase and reuse the entire disc when you want.
Now, if all you ever do is play back your movies on TV exactly as recorded, then this business of secondary formats is irrelevant. In that case, you won't care about this detail either: none of these camcorders have FireWire jacks for connecting to a computer. That means you can forget about editing your videos on a Mac or PC using software such as iMovie, Final Cut, Movie Maker or Adobe Premiere. Your only option is to transfer your video to a Windows PC using a USB cable, and edit it using the crude software that Sony, Panasonic and Hitachi provide in the box.
That's yet another bit of proof that DVD camcorders are designed for people who prefer simplicity to power. These machines don't deliver the features, the flexibility or even the video quality you get from a MiniDV camcorder.
But if your enthusiasm is still unquenched, consider the Panasonic M50 for pure economy, or the Sony DVD201 for low-light video quality and superior features. For straight shooters who stick to the Record and Play buttons, these are satisfying machines that give "direct to DVD" a whole new meaning.
Posted by robeva at 10:28 AM | Comments (0)
Interview :: Tami Reiker
It feels like Tami Reiker's year. Pieces of April, the low-budget indie film that she shot with a Sony PD150 garnered as much attention for her deft use of DV as for Patricia Clarkson's Oscar-nominated performance.
Later in the year, the cinematographer was again turning heads for the Dust Bowl period look she'd given the 35mm pilot of HBO's Carnivale. Her fellow cinematographers honored her work on the show, which has been called 'Twin Peaks meets Freak,' with an ASC Award for the best cable pilot, miniseries, or MOW. Reiker shows extraordinary range as she moves from video to 35mm and from commercials, hundreds of them, to features such as The Love Letter, Disappearing Acts and High Art which won her an Independent Spirit Award in 1998.
How did you choose and pursue cinematography as a career path?
I did still photography since I was 10 or 12. I decided to go to NYU, initially for still photography. But once there, I decided I could do that on my own and went after film. I’d always loved movies and found it fascinating how they were made. In film school, I started shooting lots of student films. Working on feature films as an intern during the summer solidified my desire to be in the camera department. I loved the production of it and the scope was much bigger than still photography.
Who have your main influences been?
I’m always referring back to still photography. Besides the masters and the classics, I pore through the pages of Vogue and Index. Still photography leads to trends, especially in commercials. There are cinematographers whose work I love. Roger Deakins, for example — besides his lighting, every movie is completely different. I also worked as an assistant for Harris Savides for a while and what I learned from him was the power of experimenting. Another influence comes from living in NYC and going to museums and theater.
What do you consider to be your breakthrough work?
High Art in 1998, directed by Lisa Cholodenko. I had shot Lisa’s student film, Ring of Fire, when she was a student at Columbia University. I shot a lot of Columbia student films. Also, the producer Dolly Hall had produced The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love, which was the first movie I’d shot. For the look of the film, we were very influenced by photographers like Nan Golden and Jack Pierson, and we really focused on a color palette and the mood. After doing tests, we decided to flash the film. We shot most of it handheld or on a jib arm. The result was to make viewers feel they were a part of that world. It created quite a mood. At Sundance, people talked about the photography and asked if I was a still photographer.
What went into creating the unique look for Carnivale?
When I met with director Rodrigo Garcia (Fathers & Sons), he said he wanted a look like nothing else on television, which is a great challenge! The production design and costumes were amazing. After doing a lot of tests, we decided to flash the film, like High Art, which gave it a desaturated look. To some extent, the dust bowl photographers were an influence, to get a feeling for the times. But they worked in black and white and we were color. Because it’s television and you have to move quickly, I decided to use large soft sources from above and then use Chinese lanterns in the scenes. One of the constant challenges was all the dust they were constantly blowing around. Every day, we had to wear bandannas and masks to work. We used the ARRI Moviecam [from Keslo Cameras] and we had scratching problems. We sent it in a lot to be cleaned.
What are the biggest challenges facing up-and-coming cinematographers today?
For new cinematographers, the hardest thing is finding enough work to shoot on film. I was lucky when I started — MTV was big, every band had a video and they were shot on film. Documentaries were shot on film. I know from friends starting out that it’s hard to find as many film projects as there were 10 years ago. So many projects, if they’re lower budget, are digital, and it’s a challenge to make video, whether it’s miniDV or HD, look interesting. When you’re shooting miniDV, instead of saying, “How am I going to make this beautiful?”, you’re saying, “How am I going to make this acceptable?” My first digital feature was Pieces of April, which I shot in miniDV [with the Sony PD150]. The camera was freeing and fun, and we were able to shoot with a small crew. But post-production was very difficult. I spent more post-production time on Pieces of April than all my other movies combined. It was amazing that the movie got made for under $200,000. It’s just not amazing for the DP. — Interviewed by Debra Kaufman
Posted by robeva at 08:22 AM | Comments (0)
October 09, 2004
Girl (Boy) Retold
The Making of a Teenager's Award Winning Film
Filmmaking has traditionally been the realm of the Hollywood set. Access to high end effects and editing systems, not to mention film, have made it tough for those who wish to tell a story. However, with the advent of powerful computers, equally powerful non-linear editing applications, and the power of the Internet, that has all changed. It has often been said by many in the filmmaking industry that the next great movie will be made by a bunch of teenagers in their homes, working on desktop computers running cheap video editing software, and distributed over the Internet, knocking the traditional Hollywood filmmaking mindset off its collective feet. Fernando Matias Domingues Sarmiento is one such aspiring filmmaker who does not subscribe to the notion that a good film has to come out of Hollywood. Sarmiento you see, has answered that urge to make a movie and did so, starting when he was just 16 years old in his native Argentina. Now 20, his film, Girl(Boy)14 has won numerous awards here in the United States and has been recently recut as Girl(Boy)Retold. In 1999 at the age of 16, Sarmiento and several high school classmates set out to make a film that can be best described as Matrix meets Resevoir Dogs. It is a film that attempts to address society and the societal pressures put upon high school students.
He and his crew were able to translate his vision into a 56 minute film that has played at several film festivals in the United States. Cut on a 400MHz Pentium system running Adobe Premiere 5.1 and a Pinnacle Systems miroDV300, the film was recently recut to 25 minutes by lead editor Juan Federico Mackeprang, in part to focus on the action of the original film. Sarmiento ignored the Hollywood distribution model and distributed it free via the Internet at his website http://www.schoolis2die4.com.
Approximately 98 percent of the shots were made with a Canon XL1 DV camera, with the remainder shot using a JVC miniDV camera. The JVC was used in scenes where the XL1 wasn't practical, adn was subject to such abuse as taping it to doors. A Manfrotto tripod was used for most of the shots with the exception of the action shots, which benefitted from a Glide-Cam 300 Pro. A Glide Crane 800 was also used for the basketball sequence.
While it is one thing for a bunch of teenagers to make a film with a computer, editing software, and a DV camera, it is something else to make a film, an award winning film at that, that sends a powerful message not only via the subject matter the film attempts to address, which is not for the light of heart, but in the very way the film was made and distributed. In this DMN interview, senior editor John B. Virata spoke with Sarmiento about the film, his aspirations, and the technology behind this award winning experimental film.
DMN: What is your background and the background of your co-filmmakers?
FDS: We're from Argentina, Buenos Aires (not Hollywood ), we've finished high school and each of us are studying different things.
DMN: What are your ages?
FDS: Right now we're 20, we began the project when we were 16.
DMN: At what point did you want to make a film?
FDS: Since I was young, the only thing I seemed to want to do was to "make a movie", so, the answer to that would be... since as long as I can remember. I think that the exact date was when I went to the movies to see Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. I also remember going to see Back to the Future II. This made me really interested in film, but, of course, the memories of this moment are in a complete blur. Years and years later I saw some documentary on El Mariachi, and I went right away and rented it. Then I saw Desperado. I was blown away, so I went and bought the book "Rebel Without a Crew", written by director Robert Rodriguez. That got me hyped up so much I just went and wrote my first complete one hour screenplay. But that movie was never shot. We then began working on a project called 'Mambo' which later transformed into Girl(Boy)14. But before Robert Rodriguez, I was practically in love with Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction and the classic Reservoir Dogs.
DMN: Who wrote the script and how many times was it revised?
FDS: There was never a script for the film; just storyboards and storyboards and lines of text of ideas. I thought of a scene, made a list of shots, and then shot them. That was all. And those shots were revised, indeed, like, a million times. There was a particular scene that was changed more than seven times. And there were like five scenes that had to be cut out of the film cause we just had NO time to finish them. An interesting fact in terms of revision is that half way through the process of the film being shot, we decided for the lead to be female! And having already scenes shot with myself, a male lead, we decided to make the character half girl and half boy, so the idea actually evolved from there... a simple mistake.
DMN: What role did technology play in the making of your film?
FDS: This, I think, was the first movie preproduced, shot and postproduced all at the same time. When we got the idea of making the film, and began writing some ideas down, I began trying special effects, for instance, modelling a bullet and a 3D bathroom to make shots on. This took a long time. It was trial and error, trial and error. So, we tried to improve technologically meanwhilst we wrote and shot the movie. Half way through the production we realized we could do certain effects, like re-building real places in the computer and making shots on them. So we went to the places we shot the movie and took digital photographs [using a Nikon Coolpix 900) of everything. And then we rebuilt and mapped it on the computer and made some cool 3D shots. But technology helped us in other ways too: It helped us to bring the actors together. We had shots of, for instance, a teacher talking, and then we made that shot seamlessly interact with students. Why?
Because we just couldn't bring the teachers and the students together the same day of the shoot, for some production-matter. There are shots that are composed into one same shot, and each of those shots are two years in time apart. Nevertheless they work along perfectly. It's good that, initially, we shot these shots thinking and knowing we would later recompose the footage to work together with other stuff later. So that was pretty cool... Not to mention the action sequences, and everything.
DMN: How did you achieve the slow motion effects in the bathroom scene?
FDS: The concept of slow-motion is an interesting one. We began shooting the film without knowing how we would later achieve slow-motion. And, again, half way along the process of making the film we realized we could achieve digital slow-motion by morphing between consecutive frames. Without this we would have never finished the action sequence as it is. Also, the fly you see in the trailer and everything was a concept that came to us in postproduction. No shot was thought out with the fly buzzing over it. It just was something we thought of later.
DMN: What digital video camera did you use to shoot the film?
FDS: Canon XL1, NTSC. Extra 16x lens. UV light protector.
DMN: What type of editing system did you use (hardware/software)
FDS: Adobe Premiere 5.0 mostly, and a Pinnacle miroVIDEO DV300.
DMN: Did you enter the film into any competitions?
FDS: Yes, we entered the film in several major film festivals and won two awards. One for Best Experimental Film (Grand Prize), at the Rhode Island International Film Festival, and another for Best Visual FX at the Long Island International Film Festival. We've also competed at Eclipse Film Fest, the Brooklyn International Film Festival, the V Buenos Aires International Film Festival, DV-CINEMA, 19th Mar del Plata International Film Festival, IV BARS, Sueños Cortos 2003 and more! In a few months, the movie will be aired on an animation channel called Locomotion in Latin America. The channel mainly airs anime cartoons, and 'experiments', such as our movie.
DMN: How many months did it take to complete principal shooting?
FDS: We'll, since we did school right in the middle of it, and then some university, we did not like, shoot everyday, that's why it took so long, mostly (almost four years). But, I think it was about 50 to 60 shooting days.
DMN: How many months did it take to complete the editing?
FDS: The teaser trailer alone took five months. And six months to edit the whole movie. The thing is, I began editing the movie meanwhilst I was shooting it... we were doing everything at the same time. That's why I say the thing about having preproduction, postproduction and shooting being all at the same time, because it was just as chaotic as that... But the first version the film was about 56 minutes long. That's when Juan Federico Mackeprang (our leading editor) got into the project, and decided to re-cut the film. That's when Girl(Boy) Retold was born. He rearranged the movie so beautifully into a 25 minute long piece that's now just pure action. It took him about three to four months to edit, again, in Adobe Premiere.
Another interesting bit of information is that the movie was composed by Aleksandar Dimitrijevic who lives in Norway. We sent him the scenes in really low quality, in QuickTime, for him to watch, and he would score the sequences and send us hi quality MP3 files to work on. His work was outstanding. We'll be working with him on our next projects, no doubt about it.
Posted by robeva at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)
Review :: Canon EOS 300D
It's been a while since a digital camera caused tidal waves among photography enthusiasts and hobbyists. The EOS D30 and EOS 10D rocked the world of digital SLRs when they were launched, and the EOS 300D looks set to carry on this tradition. This new camera will definitely spark frenzy among existing digital enthusiasts, and may even tempt obstinate film users to throw in the towel.
Design
At a glance, the basic specifications of the EOS 300D look strikingly similar to the 10D. There's the 6.3-megapixel sensor and seven manually selectable focus points. However, there are changes, although their significance will depend on individual shooting styles. Immediately noticeable is the number of frames stored in continuous shooting mode. The EOS 300D has a smaller buffer and can store only four frames compared to the 10D’s nine.
Other more obvious differences are the loss of some controls. Although the 300D supports partial, evaluative and centre-weighted metering modes, you can really select only partial metering, as this digital SLR automatically decides between evaluative and centre-weighted. Likewise, there are restrictions with focus tracking. The 300D does meter with the flash in some circumstances, but there’s no flash compensation, as found on the 10D. Hence, it’s possible to get slight overexposures on some of your shots.
Whatever the differences, with a suggested list price of just £766 (ex. VAT, body only), the EOS 300D is the market's most affordable digital SLR yet. Coupled with the company’s wide range of EF (Electro Focus) lenses -- more than 50 and counting -- and accessories, this camera is sure to draw more than a few diehard film-based SLR users to the digital camp. Besides being compatible with the ‘older’ EF lenses, the EOS 300D is also the first digital SLR to support Canon's new EF-S lenses. There's currently only one matching EF-S lens (18-55mm) available. This lens comes bundled with the 300D for a mere £85 (ex. VAT) more.
This aggressive pricing follows Canon’s strategy to carve out a greater share of the digital SLR -- and to a certain extent the semi-professional/enthusiast -- market. At £850 (ex. VAT; £999.99 inc. VAT), the EOS 300D represents good value for money.
Features
Like the recent spate of Canon digital cameras, the EOS 300D also incorporates the DIGIC (Digital Imaging Integrated Circuit) image processor for enhanced digital performance. Canon's proprietary DIGIC technology was developed specifically for use with its line of digital cameras, and combines the jobs of image processing and camera function control into one chip. DIGIC is much faster at image processing than a general-purpose CPU, and this extra speed makes it possible to incorporate higher-quality signal-processing algorithms to improve image quality.
The EOS 300D uses a 6.3-megapixel CMOS sensor that Canon claims is virtually the same as the one found on the 10D. The manufacturing process has been modified, probably for higher yields. In any case, the 300D has the same picture area and aspect ratio (3:2) as the EOS 10D. However, the sensitivity range has shrunk, with the ISO 3,200 setting dropped altogether. This leads us to believe the amplifier circuit is of a lower quality. Still, the low noise performance of the 300D remains impressive, with hardly any artefacts visible even at high ISO settings. To put things in perspective, we found the noise generated by the unit's ISO 800 shots comparable to ISO 200 pictures of some consumer digital cameras. This is a big advantage for low-light and indoor photographers, and should be one of the biggest positive factors over a similarly priced semi-pro/enthusiast model.
Performance
We had trouble clocking the 300D’s timings, as this is a distinctly sprightly performer -- responding as quickly as the EOS 10D before it. The EOS 300D's 7-point AF (autofocus) implementation seems to be virtually identical to that found on the more expensive 10D, despite its slightly different name. The AF proved just as fast and accurate, and worked well at lower-light levels, too. The seven focusing points are superimposed on the viewfinder and manually selectable for a high degree of control -- the placement of the AF points also lends itself to ease of focusing in either vertical or horizontal orientation, and with moving or off-centre subjects.
The AF-assist lamp found on the D60 -- but done away with on the 10D -- reappears in the 300D. Therefore, when the AF-assist lamp fails to help, the 300D fires micro flashes from its built-in speedlight to help illuminate the subject for more accurate AF operation.
The continuous shooting mode of the 300D allows for four frames at a rate of 2.5fps. However, we didn't find this to be limiting as the buffer cleared itself quite quickly and allowed us to take more shots while it discharges the remaining images in the cache. We think that most users won't have a problem with this small restriction.
By far the greatest gripe we have with the 300D is the lack of control over the metering modes. It's also particularly annoying that the default metering changes whenever you change shooting modes. Admittedly, the camera's evaluative metering gave us almost perfect exposures in its automatic setting. Even so, we did miss this flexibility that we'd become used to from the manufacturer's PowerShot series. We believe that Canon has deliberately dropped this function to provide more differentiation between the 300D and the more expensive 10D, so as not to cannibalise sales of the latter.
We tested the 300D with the relatively cheap EF-S (18-55mm F3.5-to-F5.6 zoom lens equivalent to 28mm to 88mm on a 35mm SLR) kit lens and were quite pleased with the results. The images captured were always sharp and detailed, with colours captured staying vivid. The rear elements of the new EF-S lenses sit further in the body compared to the existing EF variants. These are lenses designed to be used with digital SLRs. As the imaging area is more compressed on digital cameras -- the sensor is a fraction of the 35mm frame -- the lens are smaller and lighter.
Conclusion
We think our preview summed it up best: even if the 300D didn't support interchangeable lenses -- including the complete catalogue of Canon EF-mount products -- this digital SLR would still have great specifications for the price. It’s quite obvious that the EOS 300D will dominate the entry-level digital SLR arena for some time. To date, there's no announcement of a rival from Nikon and its affiliates -- at least in the sub-£1,000 (inc. VAT) price range. Despite its ‘programmed’ limitations, we think the 300D will be hard to beat in terms of value and performance, especially when priced against the likes of Minolta's Dimage A1 and Sony's DSC-F828.
Posted by robeva at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2004
Toshiba Gigabeat
Toshiba is using its hard-disk technology as the basis for a new Gigabeat music player.
The F-series Gigabeat will feature a 60GB capacity courtesy of the company's relatively new 1.8in hard disk drive. Capacities of 10G and 20GB will also be available, but Toshiba is trumpeting a world's first for a 60GB player based on a 1.8in drive - a thinly disguised reference to Apple and its 40GB iPod.
Note that the iPod uses Toshiba's 1.8in drives (see Computex 2004: Apple eyes 60GB iPod courtesy of Toshiba), while the iPod minis use a 1in Hitachi drive.
Navigation on the new player is managed by a plus-sign shaped touch sensor together with a 2.2in QVGA colour LCD panel (240 x 320). Its dimensions are 63mm (width) x 19mm (height) x 106mm (length). Supported file formats comprise: MP3, WMA and WAV.
Windows-only software includes the 'gigabeat Room?' application. Proprietary to Toshiba, it can play back CD or music files on a PC, rip from a CD, display album information and transfer files to and from other Gigabeat players.
Alongside stylish looks, Toshiba is emphasising a long battery life - a built-in lithium-ion battery that is claimed to provide up to 11 hours of continuous play.
The models are being released in November in Japan. Toshiba has told us that it plans to launch the Gigabeat F series in Europe in the first half of 2005. Pricing for Europe, however, has not yet been decided.
Posted by robeva at 09:14 AM | Comments (0)
October 02, 2004
Broadband distances extend
Changes in the range of broadband ADSL services from BT Wholesale come into effect today - BT abolishes 6km limit on 512K broadband.
Properties that were previously beyond the 6km scope of 512Kbps connections will now be able to get broadband, although in some cases this may require a visit from an engineer, free of charge.
The range of 1Mbps connections extends from 4.1km to 6km. It should be noted that this is the distance along the phone line from the exchange and is an approximate figure based upon a signal degradation of 60dB.
ISPs' availability checkers should now reflect the new restrictions, or lack of them.
BT Wholesale is to remove the distance limit on 512Kbps ADSL connections and extend the range of 1Mbps services.
From 6 September, anyone connected to an ADSL-enabled exchange will be able to get broadband. Previously connections were limited to properties within 6km of the exchange when measured along the phone line.
At the same time, the range of 1Mbps services will grow from around to 4km to 6km, meaning that anyone who can currently get 512K will be able to upgrade. 2Mbps services will continue to be restricted to 4km.
Despite abolishing the 512K limit, BT says that a few properties may be so far from the exchange that it will simply not be able to provide a reliable service. In other cases, BT engineers may have to modify wiring at the property or update local cabling. This service will be free.
Trials in Milton Keynes, Fort William and Dingwall found that dropping the 512K limit would raise the average number of homes that could get broadband from 96 per cent of those connected to an enabled-exchange to 99.8 per cent.
Together with the current exchange upgrade programme, by the end of next summer, 99.4 per cent of UK homes and businesses will be able to get broadband, which is the same proportion that can receive 'good quality' analogue TV.
Anyone who has previously been rejected, should re-apply for whichever ASDSL service they require once the limits have been changed. Service availability can be checked at www.bt.com/broadband.
BT Wholesale is currently connecting around 6,000 new ADSL subscribers every day, bringing the total to over three million. There are also some 1.7 million cable subscribers plus several thousand who use LLU-based services.
Posted by robeva at 05:07 PM | Comments (0)