latest Instant Film, shot with DVX100/Mini35

[Graham Bernard]

Done!

[George Ellis]

OK, like I said, nitpicky...

1) Lead is a sleaze. Will do anything, sleep with anything. So, not sure he would have looked up and off doing that one last thing. I would expect him to try to gauge Kate's reaction. Hey, that might be his next campaign manager. That would help sell the last bit even better.

2) Katie, on phone and in office. Kate in person. Obviously a nickname, but noticed the change.

3) Kate says apartment. Could be from interior (looks more like a small starter house), but exterior shot lead to believe it was a house. And the exterior was framed funny too with part of the roof off frame?

Nitpicky. It was excellent. 48 hours? You guys did well. Can tell you guys are pros.

[Charles Papert]

George, good notes!

I see your point about the "look away" from a character perspective; I think we were just playing it for the comedy more than anything else at that point. If he had just stared at Kate the whole time, it might have been a flatter moment. Perhaps even he has his limits, and that was just a bit beyond? I think in retrospect, he might have scrunched up his face with a grimace, then peeked at Kate to (as you say) gauge her reaction, then responded to her "unbelievable" with a puzzled glimpse down at his body as if to indicate "what's wrong with it?". However, at 2 a.m., I'm not too surprised that didn't occur to me!

Kate, Katie; as you say, a nickname.

Yep, you are right about the apartment line . It was written that way since there was no location chosen in advance; when we were shooting (in a house) I thought briefly about it and decided it wouldn't be that obvious either way. I had always intended to have an establishing shot of the exterior, but we didn't get to it on the shoot day (Saturday) so I sent my assistant editor (and DVI regular) Nick Hiltgen out late in the day on Sunday to shoot a house in my neighborhood, after picking one out from digital photos that my girlfriend scouted around the neighborhood. I liked the "white trash"i-ness of that house, and figured that was more important than matching the apartment line (there weren't any great or appropriate apartment buildings in the neighborhood, and time was running out). As far as the framing, I asked Nick to get wide enough to get the foliage around the house, but I'm not sure if I get the part about the roof being framed out...the shot IS off level, which had more to do with Nick stealing the shot before the owner of the house caught him (which happened while he was rolling!)

So the one other continuity thing that plagued me a bit was the bolo that the candidate wore; in the first scene, it's hanging low and swinging around crazily. We pulled it up for the next scene (after much discussion) and then even higher for subsequent scenes.

Thanks again for checking it out so carefully, George, you might have a future in script/continuity! (oh, and as far as "us guys"--the crew was largely not pro, with the exception of the camera dept who were buddies of mine & working union guys. And I have yet to draw a paycheck solely as a director, but I'm working on it!)

[Charles Papert]

I didn't realize how nasty the compression was on that file, so I put up a larger/better one at the same address.

Sorry to those with a slow connection!

[Nick Hiltgen]

George,

Charles is definitely not to blame for the establishing shot (or inset shot) of the house It was actually the second time grabbing that shot. I shot it once (with a 24mm) but it was to close and when we went back to get the wider shot (with a 18mm lens) the neighbors started milling around and the person who's house I was shooting was not happy with me (with that much glass I must have looked like paparrazzi), and I was more interested in getting the shot then getting shot so I didn't check the bubble before I dove into the car and scurried off.

I too am curious as to what you mean by framing though. If it's seeing that much of the roof, we wanted to be able to see that spinny thing on top with the wires, otherwise the house doesn't look quite so white trash.

[George Ellis]

Nick, no blame needed ;) I have not re-reviewed it, but I think I remember part of the roof cut off (overscan issue?) I missed the message, but that might be because I grew up near all of that. :) I would have expected the whole house in frame, so it was not what I expected. And when the script said 'apartment', I went "huh?"

I get the rush with 48 hours and no chances for retakes (or need for body armor if you had stuck around.) As for them looking at you, in my neck of the woods, I would go back and look to see if you got the still (as in moonshine) in the picture too. ;)

[Nick Hiltgen]

George,

I checked it out on line and maybe it was an undersacan issue, totally didn't check out your location (I'm from Snellville, went to UGA, moved out here) The guide that I got for getting the shot was "think white trash, like georgia or something..."which you know, hit's kind of close to home but whatever. I maybe heading back that way for a bit in a few months for some work, who do you work with over there?

[George Ellis]

Nick,

I work for myself and my wife in the video realm. Just really started and have only done cheerleader and band videoes (Collins Hill). I am working on Spirit Drum and Bugle Corps season video (shot, editing, production (I hate sync rights research!), and dishwasher). I have also started the next cheerleading and band video. ;) 4 years of 1hr plus sports performances at the consumer level.

Otherwise, I work for a subsidiary of that 'small' airline here in town as a OS/hardware systems engineer/architect.

[Nick Hiltgen]

No kidding? (I'm getting way off topic)

I went to Brookwood (collins hill was a couple years old when I graduated)and a lot of my friends marched with spirit (we were all drummers), I saw a short on IFC about Cadet's that was realy interesting I wish I could remember the name it was in their shorts collection if you get IFC you should check it out as I'm sure they'll rerun it. Are you interested in moving into a more cinematic area or more concerned with the bottom line right now?

To get back on topic there is a guy renting out the mini 35 with the dvx adapter in atlanta now... Drop me an e-mail if you get the opportunity so we don't hijack Charles' thread.

P.S. congrats on moving up to trustee...

[Charles Papert]

Just to inform you fine folk that all of the films from Instant Films 15 are finally up on our website (www.instantfilms.tv); I recommend "The Swidge", "Folksy" and "The Perfect Candidate".

"Swidge", which was written by Instant Films regular James Gunn (who spends his time inbetween festivals writing little flicks like the two "Scooby-Doo" movies and "Dawn of the Dead", etc), is also featured on the front page of the Shorts section of iFilm. Other than being pretty darn hilarious in my opinion, it's also the first Instant Film to feature stop-motion animation (how is THAT possible when you have only 36 hours to make a film?!)

[Dennis Hingsberg]

In the 2nd scene (walk and talk through the office) which was shot with a steadicam, how were you able to maintain focus shooting at f1.4 or f2.0? Did you simply try real hard to maintain equal & non changing distances between the actors and lens, or was there in fact a focus puller - and if so, how the heck do you pull focus when there is a steadicam involved? Lastly, what lens was being used? ie., 24mm, 28mm.. .

Thanks for your response.

[Charles Papert]

Dennis:

Focus pulling was indeed involved on that shot (the end of which involved the male actor passing within a few feet of the camera, which required a significant rack). Having to work with a "set and forget" distance in 35mm is a major restriction on shot design, and in my mind starts to defeat the purpose of going to the expense and hassle of using a Mini35 in the first place..."we couldn't do the shots we wanted, but at least the ones we did get had nice shallow focus!"

Fortunately there was a thread started recently that addressed this very issue.

I believe the lens on that shot was a 25mm Zeiss Superspeed, and the following shot (also Steadicam) was a 35mm.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Thanks for the link on remote racking - very interesting.

One final question, I know most of your work with the mini35 has been with the XL1s and most recently the DVX100 - what is your preferred method for establishing "good" or "proper" exposure levels in camera? I've found the exposure meter in the VF of the Canon to be towards the hot side and I've tried using zebra stripes as a guide but that isn't too great either - any insight would be much appreciated, thanks!

[Charles Papert]

Dennis, I apologize--for some reason I seem to have spotty performance with email notification, so I didn't see this question.

I would say that I don't have hard and fast rules for exposure, it's one of those "feel" things. I prefer to use a well-calibrated broadcast monitor, but if one is not available (run-and-gun situation, for instance) I will rely on the viewfinder or LCD. Although their rendition of brightness and contrast is always suspect, I find that one can at least recognize over-exposure (complete loss of detail), so I open up until this happens and then stop down the appropriate amount from there. What that appropriate amount is depends on the shot.

Zebras essentially do the same thing--I just find them a bit distracting to have in the frame (my eye tends to jump to them as "moving" objects), similar to having too many on-screen displays like timecode, etc.

Sorry this is so vague...!

[Josh Brusin]

Rooney and Bueller?
Ferris fan?

some great jokes there...
actors did great, nice job!