Production begins!

(top: 1440 x 1080i image recompressed in JPG format)
(bottom: 24p frame uncorrected)

Production on noise: short film began yesterday.

Here's the status of the project.

Camera

I tested out the 1080i Sony. This isn't the HDR-FX1, but the cheaper model that costs about $1600. Still, it has all the basics (although stripped down): white balance, 100IRE only zebra. Interesting format. The video is actually captured at 1440 x 1080 and then gets stretched out to 16:9. The frame detail is pretty nice. The camera uses a CMOS instead of 3 chips. The color wasn't as rich as I'd hoped so I had to pump up the color reception. But the image still isn't as rich as I'd like probably because of the interlaced (vs. progressive) format. The format is also taxing on the computer. Capture is not real-time. When you capture into imovie HD you get a message saying "capturing at 1/4 speed, etc." Apparently imovie caches the information then has to spend time converting to its intermediate HD codec. Of course rendering times increase.

The general question is: what's the most important: resolution, frame rate, progressive scan, rendering times/convenience? After deliberating for a while, I came to the conclusion that frame rate and progressive scan were most important in terms of look. Going 24p would give me 3 of the four above. The resolution of the Sony was nice, but the color and shooting at 60i just wasn't what I wanted.

So we're shooting at 24p on the Panasonic VX-100.

Perpetual motion: the Bruce the Shark of independent filmmaking

Getting the spinner to work was hard and Ben and Erik have come up with a new strategy to get more consistent results. Erik had constructed an elaborate marionette-like system that attached to the motor. However the spinner spun off center. We tried another strategy but still got wobble and inconsistent speeds. After working on this thing for about four hours and shooting just a little, Erik and Ben have come up with a new strategy that involves building a more accurate rig. The previous rig didn't work, they think, because it did not provide an accurate centerpoint which is crucial for accurate spin. We had a long discussion about doing the spinner as a composite. It seems like all of us would much rather have the spinner work practically.

We also took a look at the first footage. This was the first time with everything in place--Ben, the working (sort of) spinner and the lit set. The feeling was that the spinner looked too inconsequential. Granted, these were wide shots, but the sense was that the spinner ought to look more magical. There's a balance we're trying to get where the spinner seems hobby-like and mundane and where it comes across as a magical apparatus: the consensus is that the scene looks too mundane and needs more magic.

We're going to bring back an old idea. The spinner box has a hole in it which was originally going to be used for a crystal or a light. We'll put a light in it. Then we'll also try uplighting to get the spinner shadow to project onto Ben's face. So the light should appear to emanate from the spinner itself. Reference image from Raiders of the Lost Ark...

Once we get the lighting and practical effect worked out, I think shooting will go quickly. Ben's performance was very good. In class I've been talking about the difference between impressiveness and spectacle. Impressiveness in filmmaking looks cool and expensive. Like nice visual effects. Spectacle is one of the reasons why we see movies--to see things we haven't seen before (I hate talking heads movies). Although often the two are related, what we are trying to do in this film is create spectacle without impressiveness. I realized that every scene of this video has at least one difficult element--either an effect or a location, or a prop. None of these is impressive, but all are there to create a sense of spectacle linked to meaning.