So, let me get this straight… HD cameras allow for easier setup, because you can see what’s going on through (I assume) the HD-out, and you can look at it on a decent monitor and check focus and lighting. Got it.
You can’t do any of that on a film camera, because the eyepiece and/or video-out (what quality? SD? Not even?) don’t provide enough detail. Okay, so how does even a single film camera shoot successfully? Is all the checking done by a lighting and focus recipe, or outboard gear? Is it done like someone might use an SLR – a light meter for exposure, and careful depth of focus calculations to set the focus plane? What about framing the shot – just use the eyepiece and hope for the best?
It’s been a little while since I’ve shot film, but yeah it’s kind of like using a 35mm SLR. While some cameras have internal meters, you nearly always use a handheld light meter. For critical lighting you’ll measure the key light and then take another reading on the other side of a person’s face (for example) to measure the contrast. I have to admit that I don’t remember the ratio. I’ll have to find my American Cinematographers Manual. But there is a general ratio. Focus is measured from the focal plane to the subject with a measuring tape. Viewfinders have ground glass (like in an SLR) that have lines on them for framing. In the link, you can see the lines for super-16 and 4:3. There is space around the edges so you can see where the mic. boom and other intrusive things are.
There’s a lot that’s done in processing too. Timing the colour, getting the best light level, chemical processes for a desired look…
My video camera has a 16:9 mode, but I think it’s better to mask the frame with tape so that it can be adjusted vertically if necessary.
If that’s so, the film processing would take some time. Wouldn’t they have to set it up the day before, do a test shoot, and wait for the film and preview it, and then fix any problems? And if there were problems, do another test shot, rinse, repeat? Gah, no wonder films cost a zillion dollars to make.
I’ve never heard of that. But then, the projects I’ve been involved with barely had budgets to shoot the film; let alone light checking. It’s easy enough to use your meter for proper exposure.
You guys are really making me want to take out the old Aaton. (Which reminds me, I’ve had some exposed film in the freezer for a few years. I really should get it processed.)
Have it done while there are still labs around to do it. Still photo processing for various formats are disappearing. I work with a number of commercial photographers who used to shoot large format and there is no lab left in Kansas City, MO that can handle it any longer. You’ll be able to print 35mm for some time, but I suspect 16, 8 and Super8 labs are becoming few and far between.
What most all 35mm production cameras have these days is Video Assist. Much like an SLR camera, a video is recorded at the same time film is exposed. After the shot, the director, producer,DP, and actors all huddle around a video monitor and watch the scene just shot. But what they are looking for are things like pacing and emotion of the acting. The lighting, focus, and framing are assumed to be correct. That is the DP’s job and that’s why they pay him the big bucks.
They do use non-actors to light the shot. These are the people listed in the credits as “stand-ins”. In “Love Actually” the two porno actors who fell in love were stand-ins.
We’re getting into the film vs. digital controversy here and there are lot of others with more experience than me who could, and should, weigh in. But here are a few things to chew on:
It is not that film cameras are big and unwieldy so much that they are expensive and film and processing is expensive. They can, and sometimes do, have several film cameras on a movie shoot, and these are all linked with a common running timecode - a clock, if you will - that keeps them all in sync with each other. Multicam shoots are used for stunts and explosions and things you only want to pay for once.
Video, on the other hand, is way cheaper. Cameras are relatively inexpensive and the newer ones like the RED, record directly to a P2 card or hard drive. If you don’t like the shot, reset and shoot it again. But there are very few people who will argue that video looks just as good as film. There is a depth and richness to film that video still can’t match. Look at the difference between daytime Soaps (video) and primetime Soaps (film) and it becomes very apparent.
Here’s a little trivia for you: Do you know who invented the multi-camera sitcom format? Desi Arnaz. I Love Lucy was the first to use it.
Actually, I’m one who will argue that HD video, shot well, looks better than film. One of the things I’ve always hated about film is the limited frame rate. I can’t stand it! The only thing worse is taking that 24 fps rate and converting it to a 30 fps medium like video. But people have actually fetishized this dreadful artifact. 24 fps literally the lowest frame rate early filmmakers could get away with using, and we’re still using the awful thing a century later! I’ve see 60 fps and 72 fps film, and it has all the dynamic range people love about film, with the temporal resolution of video.
I can hardly wait till digital projection replaces film, and young filmmakers start to question why they’re still shooting at 24 fps.
Well, to nitpick, he invented the idea of using multiple film cameras to shoot the show in front of a live studio audience. Variety programs had been shot with multiple video cameras and live audiences for years. And here’s what I found on Wikipedia:
Also, I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that since the 1960s, most sitcoms have been, and continue to be, shot on video, not film. Every time I’ve seen a sitcom set, it’s been populated with standard studio video cameras, not film cameras.
Sure, but it’s no particular advantage, since (AFAIK) when you’re shooting multi-camera film, you’d normally sync them up, too.
gaffa: I was shooting non-broadcast video for most of the 1970s, too, and still have a bunch of old 1/2-inch RTR video tapes. Do you know of a good place to get them transferred to digital? I had someone do it a few years ago, but his playback machine wasn’t very stable, and I’m not happy with the results.
The guy I used to work for still has working decks and transferred his whole collection a couple of years ago. He had to bake them to make them playable and stop shedding oxide. His transfers look good…but he had to move a year ago, and all of his equipment is in storage.
