Chapter 12: After the Subway
Monday, April 20, 2009 at 9:16AM As seen this morning on my NAB panel. My contribution to the emerging Subway Short genre of camera tests, with a twist—what happens after all the furtive subway hopping and phone dialing?
To see it in HD, you’ll have to go to YouTube (and please do). Why no HD on Vimeo? Vimeo only serves HD at 24p, and as lovely as that sounds, this short was shot on the Canon 5D Mark II, and therefore is at 30fps. Vimeo does a sloppy convesion to 24p, which is not cool.
Stu
Thanks for all the comments below guys! Here’s a bit more about the short.
First of all, I knew going into this that the look would be that heartbreaking amalgamation of cinematic depth of field and video-like motion. But I didn’t want to send this camera back to Vincent without shooting something. I still consider this a “camera test” more than anything—but really, the best thing to come of the shoot was meeting The Stunt People, who are both the stars and co-creators of this peice. I can’t wait to work with Eric and the guys again.
I won’t shoot anything else at 30p, ever, unless I plan on slowing it down to 24 for a slight overcrank effect. I’ve seen entire TV commercials shot 30 for 24 though, so it could happen. I harassed the Canon reps at NAB today about 24p and manual control until they were afraid of me.
As devastating as the frame rate is, the lack of shutter control is worse. Most of the nasty video-like look is due to the camera’s frequent use of a shutter speed slower than 1/60. There’s plenty of 1/30 in there, which is the equivalent of a 360 degree shutter on a film camera—an impossibility, and a dead giveaway of video origination (even at 24p).
There are people out there enjoying some luck converting 5D Mark II footage to 24p using tools such as Twixtor and the built-in retiming in After Effects, but that only works on relatively sedate subjects (of which this short has very few), and even then, there are often nasty artifacts to contend with. Didn’t we choose this camera for image quality?
I had two big dropouts, which I fixed using that After Effects retiming feature. I immediately bought some Extreme IV CF cards to avoid that problem in the future.
I shot with only one lens, the slow-but-lovely 24–105mm f/4 L lens that comes with the camera. We were mostly at f/4.0, although I can’t be sure we always were. I stopped doing the half-twist trick after I realized how much I and the camera would be moving around. So as shallow as the DOF is, it’s nothing compared to what we could have had if I’d used primes. That’s a big leg up the 5D could have over the Panasonic GH1—even with slow glass, the Canon can make DOF that can be used as a storytelling aide, such as the moment where our guy sees the two adversaries in the distance. They appear as blurry blobs, just the way I like ‘em.
I had access to the full Redrock Micro DSLR bundle, but wound up stripping it way, way down to something I could be agile with and still pull focus as a solo operator. This stripped-down rig became the inspiration for the rig I blogged about recently.
I used my HV20 for one shot. Can you guess which one?
Editor Gregory Nussbaum (The Spirit) cut with Final Cut Pro, using half-res proxies that I rendered out of After Effects. When we locked the cut, I exported XML from Final Cut and imported that into Premiere Pro CS4. I then loaded that Premiere project into After Effects. From there, I could create precomps for each clip and swap in the full-res originals.
I color corrected entirely using Magic Bullet Colorista, sometimes several layers per shot. Many Power Masks to sculpt lighting and lift faces, as well as to unite the various colors of light present in the location. I used no lighting or bounce of any kind during the shoot.
I used the DV Rebel Tools to add new color correction layers and to preview my work using a configurable thumbnail view. The result is a deep, but very organized After Effects timeline.
And I will post more about most of these things!
Reader Comments (70)
While I vehemently disgree with Ken's opinion that in order to comment or critique that one must provide a link to their own work (which is ridiculous), I also believe that it is none of our places to tell Stu or anyone else what they should be doing with their shorts. Watch it, enjoy it - or not - and take it or leave it, and comment on it - but dont presume to be the expert on what it should be. If you want it to be something else, then make your own, but dont tell someone else what they should be doing. How arrogant.
Brian, I didn't feel like Cy's post was meant in a very negative way, but that they critiqued -because- they actually quite like what Stu does. I see nothing wrong when someone explains, why someone didn't like something. Ultimately you should take any critique with a grain of salt anyhow. It is completely up to Stu if he considers it to be valid or not.
When I post my images online, I do so because I like to hear feedback from people, be it good or bad. Now I may or may not agree with it, but I sure find it interesting what people think about my (or in this case Stu's) work. :)
Good work Stu.
I think one thing that is missing from the discussion is that it was shot with available light. What is being attributed to 'video' is the lack of separation of the character and the backgrounds. DOF can help this by creating planes of focus but lighting achieves the same thing. As independent filmmakers we don't have the luxury of shooting slowly so we do more setups every day and available light shooting is helpful. Yet, what is being attributed to framerates is also being informed by the lack of highlights and separation. I've loved the dedo lights or a 750k light as you can sculpt more of the character out without a huge lighting setup. Just enough to give you that separation you're used to seeing.
A good example of this is the end of the film where the mini is wet with nice highlights. It feels more 'filmic'. It's more about technique than technology.
Congrats!
I'm certainly not trying to be arrogant. And, yes. I'm a huge fan of Stu's. Stu's book and website almost singlehandedly taught me the value and impact of digital workflow. He demystified it for me.
To me, Stu's work is like Amazing Grace. I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind but now I see.
And I know for a fact that Stu has been quoted on more than one occasion saying essentially that 'it is all about the story.'
Maybe that is why I'm so disappointed that he would go to so much trouble as to make this short without having an actual story!!!
Look. I saw Stu's post with the AE screenshot of all the CC layers, and I fully understand what that really means. It means tremendous thought, man hours, and work work work went into this short film on every level. Why go to all that effort if you don't have an emotional connection to the story?
Watching this short -to me- felt like watching someone else play a video game.
That is a sign I'm not emotionally connected. Maybe I am the only one?
With great respect, I apologize sincerely to Stu if I have insulted him. I am just one audience member with just one opinion.
I dunno. It's kind of like criticizing a chip chart for not having enough of a character arc. The subway shorts are not really supposed to be about character or story - they're just a real world, available light test for rebel filmmakers shooting without permits. Infinitely more interesting (and helpful) than shooting a series of color-tabbed cardboards.
And while this is a bit more elaborate, it fulfills that original purpose.
And for me, proves that 30P is about as un-cinematic as it gets... (but of course, that's just me).
The 30fps didn't bother me as much as the horizontal tearing. Dunno if it's the camera or the encoding done by vimeo/youtube, but it was in both versions and really brought me out of the picture.
okey now for a few sticking points. If your not gonna have any characterization for either the good or bad guys, I'd suggest dressing them distinctly differently. In several of the shots it was tuff telling who did what to whom.
Secondly I'd have reshot the mini cooper scene. It's only 1 shot and it was raining, which did not match any of the beginning or ending exterior shots. Also sense it's POV from inside an opening garage door, could have been shot anywhere at any time.
Thirdly, how did our main escape the room to nowhere so quickly, but it took the bad guy half a minuet to figure it out. A quick shot could have solved this.
Fourthly, hay look at me make up words =), a bit of emotion would have been nice. For example the main gets slammed to the ground and skids along his palms in one shot, another shot of little rocks/dirt imbedded into his red hands, then the hero getting back up with a wince. Little touches like really sell an action sequence and make you pull for the hero.
Other then those little bits, loved it, wish there was more, and I am amazed you shot that with without any extra lights or bounce. My hv20 need so much light to look half that crisp. Which brings me to my guess, I'd guessing the hv20 was used at 1:30 when the garage door is opening.
Casey
Byron buy Stu's book, then you know how ^^
When I see this short I wonder where the credit should be placed. It looks great, but I almost see that as Stu's doing more so than the camera. If this were shot in 16mm would we be applauding the Arri SR2 that exposed the film, or would we be applauding the DP, colorist, visual effects artists, and anyone else in the onlining process?
I think this is more of a proclamation that footage from the Mark II can be used as the beginnings of something good, which, as a rebel, maybe that's all we're looking for.
For some reason I thought I tried to import a Premiere Pro project and wasn't able. After I posted that comment, I went and tried it again saw that it was a no brainer. Shoulda tried it one more time before I posted!
This short is waaaay much more than just a camera test. And it is waaaay much less than a short film.
Why work so hard if it is just a camera test? Why not work a little bit harder on story if you are going to go to all this trouble?
When I talked to someone at the Canon booth about the MK II and 30p and when 24p would happen he held up a Rebel and said it's already here. ?
Stu:
I read the post workflow you described. Why did you edited on Final Cut, insteas of using premiere in the first place? Dont you think you lost time exporting to proxies?. I ask that because i´ve been dealing with that kind of issues in the post production of a project of mine (http://www.vimeo.com/3755416 ). I´ve shot a film using the SI2K camera, all the editing has been done in premiere pro, because was the recommended software to use with cineform back then. But i´ve seen that almost every single project shot with the camera has been edited using Avid, i dont understand, to do it you have to export every single shot to another format, you loose hours if not days in the process. Im very familiar with Mediacomposer, Final Cut, and Premiere, of course each has pros and cons, but, for me at least all serve the same purpose, and the operation is practically identical.
I was hopping a post guru like yourself could explain this to me?
Thanks and sorry for the length of my message, I didnt had time to make it shorter.
Sergio, I would have exported to proxies no matter which NLE I chose. I have no doubt that Premiere would have worked fine, but I was not the editor, so we used the NLE that my editor prefers.
It does take time to make proxies, but it doesn't feel like much time if you're asleep when they're rendering! And working with lightweight clips in the cut is worth the up-front wait. Nothing is more important when editing than responsiveness and interactivity.
Stu:
"Nothing is more important when editing than responsiveness and interactivity."
You are right about that. And I know that every case is very different. In my case I did the whole thing on Premiere, now I want to bring a new editor, but obviously every editor as you say has his preferences, and want to be confortable when editing. Now the problem comes when you have to make proxies of 180hrs of material, to finish the editorial process on an Avid.
Thanks for your response. And congratulations on your blog. I´ve learned a lot.
You forgot to shoot a police car but you needed one in your edit.
And then you suddenly realized you once shot a police car on your HV20, and you were zoomed in so much that it actually had shallow DOF.
Just a wild guess.
You're close Hank. I had returned the 5D Mark II, the first cuts came in, and when I saw Michelle looking back like that, I realized it was an opportunity to insert something that would enhance the "part of a bigger story" feeling. So I drove over to the Oakland police station and lurked around with my HV20 until I caught a couple of nice cop-bys. I actually used the method outlined in The DV Rebel's Guide to create the shallow DOF in post, using After Effects.
hey stu,
thanks for that and a very nice 'camera test'. amazing about of usable info in your posts. dense would be the word.
did you turn stabilization of the 24-105 on? if not.. why not. also, how did you deal with recording audio?
thanks again man.
Hey Stu, great video. I was wondering if you could give me some insight as to the sound design behind the video. How exactly did you get those punch/bone break/thud sounds? If they're from a program which one? Thanks!
Hey Stu-
This link (http://prolost.com/blog/2009/4/16/me-nab.html) above is broken and I am curious about your simple rig.
Take care
Thanks Matthew R, should be fixed now.