I'm so stylish

I never thought about it before, but noise film fits pretty squarely within schoolhouse style chic. Apartment Therapy calls the style "an eclectic mash of vintage and industrial with a bit of geek chic that is easy to incorporate into a home with inhabitants of any age." I wonder what's in the air creating this confluence of imagery that is found simultaneously at Pottery Barn, Restoration Hardware, Anthropologie, Wisteria and dozens of sites.

Crank, Knowing

I've been going through the film shot by shot coloring. It's gratifying in the sense that the film looks so much better but it takes a long time.

Pick up this month's American Cinematographer for interesting features on Crank High Voltage and Knowing. Crank was shot on a Canon AH-10. This is the same camera we use at school.The whole production with its small cameras and home-made rigs (you should see their home-made "bullet-time" rig) sounds totally "DV Rebel." See the trailer here. In the article, the DP said he doesn't go for the 'shoot gray stretch in post' approach. He keeps his histograms right-leaning.

Knowing, with Nicholas Cage, was shot on a Red camera. So a lot of mainstream digital cinema action out there.

Secret sauce bleach bypass

This image shows the difference between beta 2 (bottom) and my semi-home-made bleach bypass look (top). My technique is a labyrinthine and lame way to achieve effect but it's the only practical approach I've found. Apple Color has a beautiful bleach bypass effect but I have a hard time getting the result I want. Plus, Color itself is such a pain to use because of the way it makes changes and edits so difficult. Magic Bullet Look's bleach bypass looks too thick and I've never been able to get it to look right. Here's the formula. My approach requires Looks but you can probably do something similar using only built-in filters.

In FCP, use a standard 3 way corrector to adjust the overall brightness and contrast of the image. Then apply the neo noir filter to make the clip black and white. I like to add a bit of grain—6. The neo noir filter adds a bit of diffusion which makes the light areas glow like film.

Copy the clip and place the new clip above the original clip. Then, in the new clip, replace the neo noir filter with any of the film Looks. Usually these film looks are gaudy. The approach I'm describing makes any of them usable. I've been using the Bistrocity look. I've been pronouncing it to rhyme with atrocity but I think it's supposed to be Bistro City.

Apply the Overlay blend mode to the top layer. Adjust its Opacity if necessary.

Essentially, this technique has two layers of footage, the color one on top and the b/w on bottom. The color layer has the Overlay blend mode applied.

Correction-again

After trying the interesting but unusable super 8 test I was pretty sure I was going to make noise film b/w. Then my computer went down and I had to get the disk replaced. So then I was playing with the film and combined the b/w version with the color version and got pretty much what I wanted originally--a very rich, super-saturated black look so maybe I'll go with this. This one uses the old Overlay blend mode trick in which you put two layers of video together and apply Overlay to the top layer. The difference in this case is that the bottom is b/w effected through Magic Bullet Looks with some added grain. It's a time consuming render because there are actually four simultaneous corrections + the blend mode going on but I think it looks nice.

The missing link

I'm really enjoying Gil Bettman's book (see last post). It's sort of the missing link between the various approaches to filmmaking I've been outlining in the blog. So here's what we have so far.

THE FOUNDATION

1. Film requires a series of micro-level and macro-level anticipations. Without these anticipations you get bored or lost.

2. Film is structured around the emotional arcs of the protagonist. It is through these emotional arcs that we are able to "enter into" the film. Film is not a series of events strung together chronologically. The protagonist's emotional arcs determine what events are meaningful and how they are meaningful.

BETTMAN (missing link)

1. The camera must show everything that needs to be seen.

2. The camera must focus attention on the center of the drama.

3. Abstraction enters into the film via narratively-justified mise en scene. (My definition of what Bettman calls "eye candy.")

ART FILM

1. Art film integrates modes of modernist abstraction into filmmaking (e.g., machine approaches, gestural approaches). In more mainstream films, these modes are rationalized within a narrative. In less mainstream approaches, the modes are unjustified.

2. Bettman strongly argues that in mainstream film, technique cannot overshadow a narrative. In other words, when a shot calls attention to itself it draws you out of the moment of the film. I would suggest that the contemporary film audience has learned to be simultaneously both "inside" and "outside" of the film. For example, a lot of the shots in The Matrix call attention to themselves while simultaneously being rationalized within the narrative. Another approach is to break the spell of the film testing the ability of the audience to maintain interest. This is how the opening title of Se7en works. The narrative is propelled forward at an infintestimally slow pace; it is almost put on hold.

RE: Convert noisefilm to Super 8 test

Untitled from ron s on Vimeo.

The guy from the lab emailed me today and said that the first kinescope didn't come out well. It was too dark and there was too little detail so he had to reprocess the film. Yes, FILM. Still, he uploaded a copy so I could see it (see above). I was trembling like a 12 year old opening a copy of Penthouse when I started it up in Quicktime player. The result was... interesting. It really does look like Super-8 or at least the super 8 of my memory, only blotchier. I love the jitter (or is that judder?). The indoor stuff is dark, but the outdoor shot came out OK. There's a lot of grain. I can see using this approach for other projects. Much easier than shooting actual Super-8.

Out of money

I'm trying to get up the motivation to enter the film into some festivals. It's about as exciting as buying socks. Saw Mark a few weeks ago. He had some good ideas about the codex segment. But I'm all out of energy. With this kind of project, energy = money so I am functionally out of money. At a certain time, it ceases to be helpful to work on a project and you just move on.

Feedback on beta 2

Showed beta 2 to Craig today. He's the first person with an art background to see the footage (who has not seen any of the film except for a few shots). I showed it on one of our projectors through the class sound system It looked a little washed out and I realize that my blacks aren't zeroed out as I thought. Ben's voice sounded good.

Some of his comments...

1. The codex video looks too digital compared to everything else. He thinks it needs to look more authentic. This was a good observation I thought.

2. I asked him to categorize it. He called it "mystical science fiction." Hmmm.

3. He said it was reminiscent of "Lost" the TV show that I've never seen. Something about the way the video seems to indicate a scientific backstory and or conspiracy.

4. He also said it reminded him of WWII era Disney instructional videos. That was a good observation since we use a lot of AV material from the mid-century And, as an instructional designer, the fact that the film has an instructional video in it causes me no end of amusement.

5. I think the main thing that comes across is a sense that someone's thought this thing through, so it's not just smoke and mirrors, but it's also not obvious what that is. Perfect.

6. He also said it reminded him (thematically) a bit of the duh... Vinci code.

My basic feeling now is that we're hitting the target consistently and the film is functioning like I want weaving between clarity and ambiguity. Also, one thing he said that made me happy was that he now felt like going out and making a film. That was always the point... making something homely enough to be inspiring.

Seeing Red

Red posted its new approach to selling its cameras yesterday. By modularizing their entire line, they moved away from point-and-click "soccer mom" shooting on the low end, and toward a more professional approach where you specify exactly what you want. The question is how much will it cost for a full configuration? I can see going for the $2,500 Scarlett Brain. But when you add on everything else, you might be spending about $5K+. I dunno. At a certain point you're basically in HVX-200 territory. Plus, the Panasonic comes with something important—a production pipeline that actually works.

But what stuck out to me was this marketing blurb—
The DSMC (digital still motion camera) concept is the epitomy of "Obsolescence Obsolete." As technology pushes forwards, there is no reason to buy a new camera every time a sensor, recording module or display technology improves. Instead you can upgrade individual modules, and even interchange Scarlet and EPIC components at will.

The copy reminded me of what Peavey said when introducing the DPM music synthesizer in the late 80's. Peavey, like Red, was a newcomer to the field. They claimed that their synth would never become obsolete because it used generic 68000 chips and was software upgradeable. But of course, there is nothing more obsolete than non-obsolescence (and 20 year old synthesizers).

The problem comes from misunderstanding the way technology matures. Technology doesn't evolve around components, it develops around systems. Sure you can replace your Red sensor without buying a new camera, but what happens when the fundamental design of cameras changes? What happens when new sensor technologies, form factors and interfaces are developed? What happens when software control extends to areas previously thought of in terms of mechanisms? Apple understands these kinds of problems so it constantly makes their technologies obsolete dropping disk drives, firewire, etc., before the market is even ready for it.

If obsolescence obsolete is just marketing hype, that's fine. I'm just concerned that Red actually believes it.

Beta 2

I'm fine tuning beta 2 now. It's totally show-able, but I'm fixing little things here and there. Very close to four years from start to finish.

Overkill

I realized that an essential part of my production strategy is to gain as much leeway as possible. Even though we're distributing at standard def, we're shooting at HD for example. It gives us some leeway when it comes to quality. When you do things the right way you do get optimal quality. But you also end up paying a lot of attention to technical and other factors that get in the way of the creative process. The trick is not necessarily to maximize the potential of your camera and other technology. It's to wait until it the technology is sufficiently advanced to be overkill for what you need to do.

TV and Keanoshow

The other night I did the pick up shot of the codex video on TV. It looked really bad. For some reason I always think that shooting something on a real TV is going to look good but it never does. So I did it a different way. I reconnected the 'eye TV' and shot that. It works fine and right now I'm rendering what should be one of the final edits. With any luck, I should be at beta 2 by tomorrow.

Also got Dave (Mirrormask) McKean's DVD Keanoshow today. It's a collection of his surprisingly numerous short films. I find his work endlessly fascinating for its beauty and for the way it helps me to think through the problems that visual artists face when they move into the video/film medium. The main problems with McKean's work are its misunderstanding of viewpoint and performance. Film works best when told through the viewpoint of its characters. McKean, on the other hand, is always present in his work, as a behind-the-scenes operator. He imposes his vision on his films from without, sucking the life out of his characters, objectifying them.

Second, he doesn't allow his performers to perform. By forcing his actors into perfect visual compositions McKean turns them into puppets incapable of spontaneity. The effect is like watching storyboards in motion—flat characters waiting to be turned into living things.

Finally, McKean is partial to superimposing scratch film-like effects over his work. Using techniques reminiscent of Stan Brakhage's and Len Lye's work, McKean attempts to reinvest his films with the movement, energy and life shorn by objectifying his characters. When McKean uses film, the scratches and grain are real. Perhaps this is why the films are more satisfying than the digital work. In his digital creations, the scratches are superimposed becoming an effect that remains on the surface of the work, aspiring to energy and movement, but never quite achieving it.

Zoom

I watched most of Zoom on Netflix instant. Like Ghost Rider, it was instructionally bad. In other words, its glaring deficiencies make good examples of what not to do. The main problem is that the movie makes the actors carry too much of the film. For example, you're just supposed to believe that the two teens like each other. But why? They never do anything except look at each other with longing glances. You just can't act a romance into existence. Whatever happened to that old standby--saving someone's life? Probably the most egregious moment is when Tim Allen experiences an emotional catharsis. But nothing causes the catharsis. He just sits there emoting while the camera 360's around him. It's not his fault (except for agreeing to appear in the picture). It's just structured wrong.

Yong's DOF adapter

Yong brought his cheap 35mm lens adapter to show me. It really does look cheap. If you look inside it, you can see all the glue (it looks like silicone) blobbed up here and there. He got the vibrating one. It's amazing that the vibration doesn't seem to affect the image. It also looks a little heavy. With no rods, you have to be careful with it. The footage he showed me looks great. The main problem is severe vignetting. It's actually quite attractive, but it's always there. One other problem is the lack of a focusing attachment. You can't use a whip so you probably have to do all the focusing yourself.

Random thoughts on finishing

I'm really close to being done. Done, done. With color grading, sound, everything. If I had to I could probably be done in a day or two if you don't count rendering time (and if I had a day or two just to work on it).

As I work on the edit one thing I've been thinking about is consistency. My lighting is all over the place. Sometimes pretty good, most of the time really underexposed. Ben's VO is really good in some places, not so good in one place. I think that's one of the hallmarks of professionalism —consistent results. You know what works and you know how to get it. We're not too consistent and not too professional, but one thing that did help was the ability to shoot and reshoot.

I'm going to solve the red room TV problem by just shooting the black/white TV with a DVD feed sent via RF Modulator. I won't literally show Ben in the same shot as the TV. I'll just imply that he's looking at it starting with his reaction shot. It's weaker that way, but it's more important that the video reads as coming from a TV in the red room and not some abstract thing from nowhere. I always hated those shots in old movies where they never show the actor in the same shot as the bear (or other animal). I already set up a little tableau. It should be pretty easy to shoot it.

I never really solved my pipeline problem. It looks like I'm going straight out of FCP instead of mastering in AE. It ends up that I created and rendered a lot of effects shots in AE and then brought them back into FCP for correction with Magic Bullet Looks. Then finalize sound design. A really inelegant process.

Beta

I'm going to give the current version (sound10) the beta designation. I showed it to my niece tonight. She had pretty much the same reaction as everyone else... you can follow it up to the beginning of the research sequences. And then.... she thought it had something to do with "art." Also she couldn't tell that the video was coming from the little TV. Damn. That means I have to shoot something. The film is testing so consistently that I may just jump to the mastering stage.

Scoring/sound design

Here's what I've discovered about sound design/scoring so far--

1. It's not nearly as difficult as doing video.
2. It's tedious in places. 90% of the audio you hear in noise film was put there by hand. It's almost like animation--building a world from scratch. Probably the most tedious was putting in the typing noises for the typing scene. I found a recording of typing sentences and split it up to match the video. This gives the typing a more natural feel. I think that using the same sample over and over would sound repetitious.
3. The layer/track-based metaphor of the software makes basic layering and assembling operations easy. The hard parts involve sequences that morph or transform from one thing to another.
4. My sound design style is very 'modernist.' I find myself frequently changing the audio when there is a cut, or accentuating cuts. Normally in film, you're supposed to try to smooth out the cuts. I found I love it when there's a cut and you change the room tone. That was always part of my vision for the film.
5. Although I shot MOS, I should watch when I'm talking. I was able to use a lot of desert sound (walking, car stopping) because there was no dialog over it. There's nothing as real as reality. I even used some of the parts where the wind hits the mic creating wind noise. Technically that's considered bad craft, but I really liked the sound of it.

Contemporary perpetual motion machine

See the Lutec over-unity device at this site. Investor shares are still available.

Own a piece of movie history!

Noise film prop now on sale at Ebay!

Incomprehensibilityness

Last night I recorded Ben's narration. It came out well I thought. As usual, when I go through the stuff we recorded I have to listen to myself direct. Sample:

Remember, its' like those lines... it's like you're picking up lines, as they're flying flying by, they're just occurring, thinking, really quick, you're starting to realize something, it's important

Seriously, how does he understand what I'm talking about? But apparently it seems to work since I got what I want and there was a difference from the previous take.