Archive for April, 2006

Clooney-Soderbergh after Pacino

Published by Administrator April 26th, 2006 in Film School, News bits and Storytelling. 0 Comments

Pacino joins Ocean's ThirteenWith Ocean’s Thirteen on the agenda (release expected in 2007), Clooney and Soderbergh are going through the A-list fast.

Previous installments of the Ocean’s franchise has scores of A-listers and this one won’t be an exception. According to reputable sources, Al Pacino will be joining the cast as a casino owner. He’s a welcome addition to the tried-and-true cast of previous oceans: Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Mac, Cheadle, and Garcia.

Variety says that shooting (with Steven Soderbergh at the helm) start on July 21st. They’re running out of time. If you’re desparate to get into next summer’s blockbuster, write to Steven. Say I sent you!

Another Revolver explanation

Published by Administrator April 18th, 2006 in Film School, News bits and Storytelling. 3 Comments

Guy Ritchie's Revolver ft. Jason StathamFor the last month or so, I’ve been getting a lot of traffic and comments from people who have seen Guy Ritchie’s Revolver and are still looking for a “revolver explanation“.

So I’m on the verge of introducing a new category called … yep, you got it - Revolver Explanations. The new category will be dedicated to all kinds of second-guesses and wild speculations. All (3) of my Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham fans should be happy now.

On a second thought, maybe I should finally launch the Great Movies category and start reviewing some of my favorites. I’m split …

Panasonic HVX200

Published by Administrator April 18th, 2006 in Digital Technology, HD Cameras and Video Production. 2 Comments

Finally! The specs for the Panasonic HVX200 have been sent to a couple of review sites. If you’re in a video production company or (even better) an aspiring filmmaker, you should start taking notes.

Update: You can already get REAL footage from the HVX200, even footage at 60p (frame rates supported by HVX200). The camera should be available in stores, so you might also want to get my recommendations for accessories for HVX200.

Here’s a summary of the important features introduced with the new Panasonic HVX200. I’ll prioritize them for you.

Panasonic HVX200Variable frame rates
Panasonic HVX200 supports a variety of frame rates just like Panasonic’s Varicam (AJ-HDC27). In 720p, the HVX200 records not only in the most popular 24p, 30p, and 60p, but almost any rate between 4 and 60 as well. One limitation is that his flexibility is reserved for 720p.

When we jump up to 1080p, the camera still delivers TRUE 24p – which is amazing considering none of the HDV cams in the same price range support it. Click here for more on HVX200 frame rates.

Robust format
Panasonic HVX200’s HD format is called DVCPRO-HD. The difference between DVCPRO-HD and HDV is about 4 to 1 in terms of data throughput. DVCPRO-HD supports data rates of up to 100Mbps. This allows the camera to record video without applying as much compression as the HDV cameras do. Another advantage in terms of format is the support of 4:2:2 color space - again linked to the 100Mbps allowance. The DVCPRO-HD has been around for several years and has been used in the Varicam.

In addition to the HD format, Panasonic HVX200 also supports standard DV, as well as DVCPRO50 (Panasonic’s more professional DV format with a much lower compression ratio).

Tapeless recording (P2)
The argument tape vs, memory is still raging on. On the negative side, memory is very expensive compared to tape. An 8GB P2 chip that can hold about 10 minutes of HD (depending on frame rate) is going to cost you $1,700. On the positive, it’s quick, durable, and best of all – bound to become cheaper. SONY has pioneered a disc system – XDCAM – which is similar but naturally, cheaper because it uses Blu-Ray discs (27GB).

Panasonic HVX200 takes advantage of its data recording medium in several ways. First, you start recording immediately after you hit the button. In fact, it’s better than that. P2 allows you to start recording BEFORE you hit the button. The memory will buffer 3-7 seconds of video, so even if you don’t have split-second reactions, you’ll be able to capture action flawlessly.

Another advantage is the ability to transfer files directly to your computer (or you could back them up to Firewire drives). During shooting you can also mark takes which you like so that you can start editing in seconds.

Lens and controls
HVX200’s lens is a 13x Leica which compares favourably to SONY FX1. The zoom ring is full manual which is another big plus. Both JVC GY-HD100U and the upcoming Canon XL H1 have interchangeable lenses although the availability and variety of quality lenses is still in question.

Audio
Panasonic HVX200’s more robust format (DVCPRO-HD) allows four uncompressed channels of 16-bit 48Khz quality audio (or two stereo pairs). This is a BIG change from the HDV format.

Final verdict (based on specs)
Panasonic has created a worthy successor to the DVX100. HVX200 excels in all areas and it could be hard for a HDV camera to compete, especially, when you consider the price. At $5,995, it’s only marginally more expensive than SONY Z1 (50 bucks more) but offers a lot more. It’s much cheaper than the interchangeable lens cameras - Canon XL H1 and JVC GY-HD100U.

That’s until you consider the cost for the media. At $1,700 per a pop, 8GB P2’s are going to be a TOUGH sell. In a year’s time, it’ll probably be 2-4 times cheaper, so don’t start stocking on P2s just now. If $6,000 is too much for you, you could get Sony HC1 for less than $1,500 - it’s a more affordable, entry-level HDV camcorder. The bigger and better Sony FX1 is midway (at $3,000 it’s perfect for wedding videography) between the Hc1 and HVX200.

Update: Check out this USB 1.1 vs USB 2.0 speed comparison.

Email: Is HVX200 enough?

Published by Administrator April 15th, 2006 in Digital Technology, Film School and Storytelling. 0 Comments

I get quite a few emails from people interested in becoming indie producers and filmmakers. Here’s one:

Panasonic HVX200 (Front): offers variable framerates at 720p

Thank you for your webpage and all the valuable information it contains. I had a question please: I want to be a totally independent guerrilla filmmaker, and was wondering if
the Pansonic HVX200 would be good enough a camera to start with? Is the true 24P the most important factor here?

I had intended to shoot with an HD camera of some sort, and then use the software that gives video that
“film look”.

I appreciate your time and assistance. Thank you.

My answer:

Thanks for writing. I think independent film making goes beyond the hardware. It’s true that HVX200 will get you closer to getting filmlike video than say … Sony FX1. However, film and video are two very different media and you cannot expect a $20,000 production to look like a $20,000,000. It’s bound to look “different.”

That’s why, I think you should pick a subject matter that will let you “exploit” the advantages of the digital medium and hopefully mask its weaknesses. For example, you might want to try a “reality” format for your feature. Intrusive, in-your-face camerawork with a lot of close-ups will put emphasis on video’s strengths (check out Waterborne at Google Video).

Hint: Get diffusion filters, if you plan close-ups as video is quite unforgiving to ANY skin imperfections. A good make-up artists is a plus!

I encourage you to rent HVX200 for a weekend and plan a shoot around it. There’s no better way of managing your own expectations for the final result. Once you see the results, you can either select another cam or perhaps change your script a bit to accommodate the specific “look” you get from the camera.

Remember that high-end cameras give you flexibility and protect against errors but at the end, all cameras are the same. I’ve seen some amazing photos coming out of Kodak’s single-use cameras. It’s just that a high-end Canon gives you consistency and flexibility. The same thing applies to camcorders as well.

Hope that makes sense :)

Young Frankenstein meets Broadway

Published by Administrator April 11th, 2006 in Film School, News bits and Storytelling. 0 Comments

Young Frankenstein MusicalAccording to a recent interview, Mel Brooks is writing a musical based on one of his hit movies - Young Frankenstein.

I just reviewed The Producers remake and frankly, I didn’t think the movie based on the musical was on par with the original. At the same time, Mel’s comedy seems well-suited to becoming a musical.

I’ll still miss Gene Wilder though. I believe Young Frankenstein is such a memorable movie because of his neurotic persona.

Matthew Broderick didn’t even come close in the The Producers remake.

Review: The Producers

Published by Administrator April 10th, 2006 in Book/DVD Reviews and Movie Reviews. 0 Comments

The Producers RemakeI should’ve said it right in the title - it’s a review of the remake of The Producers, not Mel Brooks’ original.

I love the original Producers. It has Brooks’ stamp all over it. He went on to direct Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein - both hilarious comedies.

Roger Ebert has this story to recall about Mel:

Mel and I were in an elevator in New York at the time of the original film, and a lady got on, looked at him, and said “Sir, I have seen your film and it is vulgar!” Brooks replied: “Madame, my film rises below vulgarity.”

The vulgarity in The Producers remake doesn’t rise to the occasion, unfortunately. To put things in perspective, this is a movie that’s based on a musical which was based on a movie about a musical. Susan Stroman, the director, copies the original almost scene by scene, extending the ones that have singing to the edge of my patience (and sometimes beyond). I haven’t seen the musical itself so I assume most of the singing scenes are taken from it.

I’m a firm believer that adaptations only work if you use the original piece as a spring board. It’s naive to think that pointing a camera at a musical or a play will produce a movie.

Or, in the words of Ogilvy, when asked about research: “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” Same thing here.

Here’s a short list of the things that I missed the most in the new movie:

  • Gene Wilder: I miss his hysteria, Matthew Broderick tries hard, too hard.
  • The real, non-singing Ulla
  • Lorenzo St. DuBois (L.S.D.) and his “baby”

In short, the remake falls short of a movie, and it’s probably not a musical either. If you’d like to see “the” movie, I suggest you rent the original. I own the collectors edition DVD and I love the interviews that come with it. If you’re an aspiring filmmaker, I think you gonna love Mel Brooks’ interview. After all, that was his breakthrough movie!

Info: The Producers
United States, 2005
Running Length: 2:08
Cast: Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell, Roger Bart, Gary Beach
Director: Susan Stroman
Producer: Mel Brooks, Jonathan Sanger
Screenplay: Mel Brooks & Thomas Mehan (based on the 1968 screenplay)
Cinematography: John Bailey, Charles Minsky
Music: Mel Brooks & Thomas Meehan

Another Conan?

Published by Administrator April 9th, 2006 in Film School, News bits and Storytelling. 0 Comments

ConanThere’s official statement on next installment(s) of Conan. The original 1982 movie made Arnold Schwarzenegger a star (and grossed over 100M in the process).

A rep for Warner Bros said (for IGN):

All the talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger being in two more Conan films is premature at this point. First, Governor Schwarzenegger has to finish off his term and then he can announce what his plans are.

The only thing I can tell you at this time is that the WB does want more than one Conan film since the property is seen as a franchise which has spawned toys, comic books, video games etc. I can also tell you that if Arnold wants to make two more Conan films, we will gladly make that deal happen.

I’m not sure how much of Arnie’s term is left but I hope in the next election California voters “let” him focus on his movie career. I love the original Conan! Also, cut his budget so he’s forced to do the filming in Bulgaria!

Syriana script in court

Published by Administrator April 7th, 2006 in Film School, News bits and Storytelling. 0 Comments

SyrianaStephen Gaghan is the director/screenwriter behind Syriana. A French screenwriter has filed a lawsuit against him, Warner Brothers, and Section Eight (that’s George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh’s production company).

“At least 15 to 20 scenes of [Syriana] — the characters and how they develop, creative elements, the entire structure — [have] been lifted directly,” says Vergniault. The reason she kept silent about it is simple: until recently she was in Jordan, doing research.

I was disappointed when Gaghan received a best original screenplay nomination for his Syriana script. It would appear my sixth sense works!

Recommended Gear

More Links