Making of a Master
Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:15 AM
It would be fantastic to hear from your, artistic side...
· outside, wide shots? For a rich, "full" picture, capturing a lot of details in both background (mesmerizing countryside) and front (action, fast movement of couple of people ? playing capoeira, dancing). Brazilian sun, natural lighting,
· for dreamy sequences (flash-backs, staged historical events) shoting with reduced contrast?
· for magic hour shots?
· to capture black and white and old colored photos (book?s covers, paintings, old posters?) for showing on film?
Also, I will have quite a few old VHS tapes, DVDs, super 8 and I would use some of the footage for a movie. What would be the best option to use them in DI post, 24p HD perhaps??
Thank you all, and thank you John once again...
Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:31 AM
While 35mm would be nice, I'm not sure it is worth the extra expense for a documentary plus you'd be degrading it by using HD as the master for the D.I., so you might as well use Super-16, or maybe a mix of formats (35mm for landscape shots, Super-16 for everything else. You could even mix in some HD photography.)
As for 5229 for magic hour shots, that's fine, or 5218 for more contrast, or 5205 if you don't want a blue magic hour look but a warm one.
Posted 07 June 2005 - 11:06 AM
While 35mm would be nice, I'm not sure it is worth the extra expense
plus you'd be degrading it by using HD as the master for the D.I.,
Thank you David for the imput... I may chose 35mm because I hope for a limited theatrical release both here in the US and abroad, that's why!
However, "degrading by using HD as the master for the D.I." is killing me for a while!! I was reluctant to post because I felt like a moron. So now is the time...
You shoot on 35mm, edit digital, cut the film, few more steps in the between and voila!, you have the release print with no loss, right?
Mixing new footage with archival in the DI is the place where "degrading" takes place, right? I will be using maybe 12% - 18% of the film's time to show such a footage combination thus I hope this would be the only time when the film is "degraded" and I believe it would be quite ok given the nature of what's shown?
Posted 07 June 2005 - 11:45 AM
Or you can do a digital intermediate at 4K, 4k-scan downrezzed to 2K, 2K, HD, PAL, NTSC, whatever... this makes more sense as your mixing of materials with original footage gets more complex.
If you don't want to lose too much 35mm quality, you'd want to choose (from best to worst):
(1) all-4K (uncommon still except for a handful for big-budget movies);
(2) 4K scan of the 35mm footage downrezzed to 2K for color-correcting, etc. (becoming common for studio films with a budget)
(3) 2K (still common for people who can afford a D.I. in the first place.)
(4) 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR (new format slightly below 2K but comparable and possibly cheaper, so worth looking into)
(5) 4:2:2 HD-D5
(6) 3:1:1 HDCAM
The last two, HD-D5 and HDCAM, are sometimes used for high-end documentaries like "Fahrenheit 9-11", which combined new material shot in HDCAM with archival material. You rarely hear about documentaries spending the money to go into 2K or higher.
Mixed-media documentaries aiming for theatrical release are pretty complex, post-wise, so hire a post-supervisor to lead you through this stuff.
But if you're determined to shoot in 35mm, you're probably looking at 2K or HDCAM-SR to get reasonable quality, assuming you can afford it and also get all the archival material copied over to these formats. Unless your non-35mm material is so low in volume that you only need to do a D.I. on that stuff and do a traditional film finish for the 35mm footage.