The 2nd Philip Bloom film competition has just been announced, with an open call for anyone and everyone to participate. In the vein of Mr. Bloom's own work, the contest involves taking a track of pleasing music and interpreting it through images as you see fit, possibly with a cinematic collage, possibly in some other way if it suits your fancy.
The deadline for entries is November 15.
Further information can be found on this THREAD at Philip Bloom's forum.
I'm not sure what prize there is, if any. In Mr. Bloom's words, he is "hoping to get a couple of good prizes this time." That said, it sounds like great practice and an interesting challenge. With the amount of time most of you probably spend in the editing room anyway...
The familiar but royalty-free music can be downloaded HERE. Give it a listen and see if anything comes to mind...
Addendum:
We have been informed that the prizes include a $500 voucher from Letus Direct and a copy of Magic Bullet Looks, a piece of software that can do wonders for your color correction, even if you're a beginner. Anyway, if you were on the fence about participating, that should present a bit of motivation.
Here ye shall find many online forums where you can and will hone your area of specialty in filmmaking. And believe you me, there is a great deal of learning to be done in them...
And in the interest of being comprehensive, we'll get a chance to look at what is being done with the Panasonic HVX in combination with 35 mm adapters. As always, my caveat: Don't judge a camera or adapter too harshly if those behind it are not using it to its full potential - but don't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that a consumer handicam is amazing simply because Steven Spielberg or James Cameron can make magic with it.
And of course, you don't always know everything about the quality of lenses people are using with their adapters...
The above is a Philip Bloom piece. I think I've hyped his stuff enough. Suffice it to say, he'll be doing the HVX and Brevis a service by putting his eye behind them.
In addition the EX1's overcrank abilities, it also has the capacity to shoot at reduced frames per second to allow a time-lapsed fast motion effect. Think of the 2-second sunrises and sunsets in Gladiator as transitions between major scenes.
Jamie Baughman has again treated the video community to some test samples, one at a BUSY STREETCORNER and the other of PASSING CLOUDS.
And here, we see some interesting timelapse work by Philip Bloom, taking advantage also of the Letus Extreme (also featuring a number of overcrank shots).
**Addendum: Unfortunately, the video "Timelapse Broadbeach Sony X1" by Geoff Charters" was deleted by the producer. Please explore the site for more footage of your camera of choice.**
The EX1 permits a number of variable framerates, with more available at lower screen resolutions. This permits the camera to be used to "overcrank" or shoot more frames per second than the rate at which they will be played back, allowing for a smooth slow-motion effect.
This video (Youtube compression, unfortunately) features the EX1 being used to both over- and under-crank.
And here, of course, is a CLIP BY PHILIP BLOOM that features some EX1 overcrank. As mentioned previously, it is pretty much the ambition of most EX1 owners to parallel the results achieved by Mr. Bloom with this camera.
Now, in a PREVIOUS POST, I listed the specs of these three cameras with a promise to delve into the ramifications of what these actually mean. The HVX has 4:2:2 colorspace instead of 4:1:1? Is that a big deal? What for? 16 bit audio sampling? 24 bit? Ummm... Does it really matter how much the codec compresses my footage? Why? CMOS, shmee-moss...
Well, here's some of the specs again, with their real world applications included, with a couple reasonable conclusions.
CHIP SIZE
Half of an inch can be enough to impress the girls. Both the Panasonic HVX and the Canon XHA1 utilize three 1/3" CCD chips. The Sony EX1 uses three 1/2" CMOS chips. Does this 1/6 of an inch really make a difference?
Yes, it does. A one-half inch chip allows the videographer to achieve a shallower depth of field because it is a larger surface on which the image is being projected. Is the difference between 1/2" and 1/3" night and day? No, but it is noticeable. It is significant.
One should also keep in mind, though, that while the EX1 and HVX have 13-14x optical zoom lenses, the Canon goes up to 20x, allowing you to use the "back up and zoom in" trick to greater effect in achieving the appearance of a shallow depth of field.
Also, a larger chip means the ability to receive more light, and as a result, better low light performance and less grain. This can be especially noteworthy if you are combining your camera with a depth of field adaptor, which causes an additional loss of light (usually about one F-stop).
Using a depth of field adaptor makes the depth of field capabilities of a 1/2" chip vs. 1/3" somewhat less critical, but does highlight the great light receptiveness of the chip.
Winner: Sony EX1
CHIP TYPE: CCD and CMOS
This has been done to death, so I will refer you to a couple other posts (POST 1, POST 2) for the analysis on the topic, but suffice it to say that at this stage of chip design, a CMOS chip also means a rolling shutter.
One significant benefit of the CMOS chip is that it does not cause vertical banding when portions of the image are blown out by extreme brightness and high contrast, such as that achieved by a bright light bulb in the middle of a black background.
The cost for avoiding banding is fairly high, though, with horizontal skew on fast side pans, vertical stretching and compression on fast vertical pans, partial exposure with camera flashes and strobe lights, and the potential Jellocam wobbling in high vibration situations.
However, regarding his choice to work with the EX1, I did see the venerable Philip Bloom state somewhere that, at least for his purposes, he has gained more by avoiding CCD banding issues than he has lost by working with a rolling shutter.
The debate continues, and if you delve into the forums, you are likely to see a global vs. rolling shutter war zone. Make sure you bring your bulletproof vest and watch out for Sony and Panasonic die hard suicide bombers (comprised mostly, I would imagine, of quasi-professionals who can't bear to digest the idea that their five-to-six thousand dollars could possibly have been better or even equally-well spent on another camera).
Winner: Panasonic HVX and Canon XHA1
PRICE
Duh, by the time you buy the media necessary to shoot in HD on either the EX1 or the HVX, you will be able to buy two XHA1s for the same price (and record your footage to tape).
On price alone, XHA1 is the clear winner, since you could set two of them up for every shot and double your coverage. However, it has been said since time immemorial that "you get what you pay for."
The following are just some articles, blog entries and forum posts on the topic of comparing these two cameras, for those interested in some other perspectives and experiences. Naturally, especially in the case of forum threads, don't believe absolutely everything you read.
While there is a ton of footage out there of the EX1 being used for tranquil and serene settings and subject matter, and performing very well - there has not been a great deal of footage online of the EX1 being used to capture fast paced and jarring action.
With that in mind, I'm collecting some clips of exactly that kind of footage and posting them.
I'll let you make your own judgments on the results of how the CMOS chip and rolling shutter perform.
In the boxing clip above, do note that because of the CMOS chip, there is no risk of vertical banding from the overhead lights above the boxing ring. With a CCD camera, there is a good chance that the columns of pixels hit by the bright overhead lights against the black background would be blown out in an extremely ugly way.
But the above was filmed in 24p, 60fps and then sped up in post. Therefore, not the best representation of what would be involved if there were dialogue present, etc. But still an interesting piece of work.
First off, none of the commentary included here is meant to be insulting in any way toward the videographers who have produced any clips included in this post. In most cases, they have found some interesting settings and captured some nice imagery. They have simply, in this relatively early stage of the camera's release, tested the limitations of the camera's shutter mechanism and had this affect their footage to some (usually minor) degree.
That aside, now that we've seen some of the best, we can look at some of the footage that pops up in worst case scenarios.
The potential issues that can pop up are the kind of stuff that is scaring some people back to the HVX despite the superior resolution, lens, record times and chip size of the EX1.
Jellocam:
Now, I actually feel kind of bad even linking up to this particular bit of footage. It was filmed specifically to test the abilities of the camera, as I understand it. But the main issue with the footage is that it has had an aggressive smoothcam filter applied, which can create dynamic distortion of its own. The cameraman was running around handheld, trying to keep the camera steady barehanded, which is generally not a recipe for usable footage. Anyway, discount the effects you see by whatever factor you see reasonable for the smoothcam filter. I've had smoothcam warp and distort footage that was not shot with a rolling shutter. But anyway, here it is...
And don't let the rolling shutter and smoothcam completely detract from the fact that he found quite a nice setting and captured some otherwise very nice family footage. Damn rolling shutter!
Jellocam: These are not the WORST - They just show some Rolling Shutter Artifacts
Now, this following clip doesn't really belong in any "worst of the worst" list. They actually did a decent job with it and apparently won a contest with this clip. But what it does do is illustrate some more subtle Jellocam that can result from going handheld or run-n-gun with the EX1.
For some people, the Jellocam effect may not even be detectable here. For others, it may be intolerable when it pops up. Anyway, this is a bit more of a realistic illustration of what you might run into if you are simply doing your best with minimal filmmaking accessories and end up testing the rolling shutter's limitations.
Again, here's another clip that really shouldn't be in a "worst of the worst" post but more a "medium of the medium." It's another case of relatively subtle Jellocam that pops up in handheld footage and also when handheld in addition to the vibrations of a moving car. Once again, this may be barely detectable (if at all) to some, and a deal breaker to others.
The controversy that is popping up over whether rolling shutter effects are detectable with this camera in "normal use" is becoming fuel on some of the message boards that can often cause academic discussions about the properties of the camera to degenerate into a Panasonic vs. Sony Jihad that sometimes makes me wonder if I am reading educated opinions on videography or getting a unique glimpse into cult behavior. Either way, it seems to be a matter of personal taste and "wobble" threshold.
On the other hand, if you are going to be spending $7000 plus on your camera, you should not be doing the bulk of your "money shots" barehanded anyway...
The following link is to a clip under relatively challenging circumstances - handheld in a helicopter.
As you can see, the videographer caught some sweeping and stunning imagery from this position. On the whole, the CMOS chip seemed to hold up pretty well, though I can't say that there weren't ANY rolling shutter artifacts. Jello crept in a little from time to time.
Skew:
Here's an example of the skew you can get from side panning.
Bear in mind that in normal filmmaking, one typically would not pan back and forth this rapidly, and also, there would be some kind of compelling subject matter to draw focus away from the skew. Usually we don't film straight vertical lines for the sake of showing how they skew.
Here is some more Skew footage:
And finally, there is even a POST ON PHILIP BLOOM'S WEBSITE with a still capture of some pretty grotesque skew he obtained while whipping the camera around. That said, I can't say how noticeable or terrible the skew was in the context of the action he was filming.
Partial Exposure:
Here is a link to a clip where we see partial exposure due to the sirens on a cop car:
And Ned Soltz posted an EX1 CLIP AND SOME NOTES at the Dallas FCPUG site. The partial exposure effect in that clip is not a deal-breaker but it is worth noting its effect is mitigated by the fact that the point of division occurs on a white background (ice at a skating rink). So, if you are framing a shot where partial exposure is a risk, and you have any choice in the matter, a lighter background may be the way to go.
Finally, here is some rather nice footage that was captured on the EX1 of a fireworks display. As is characteristic of this camera, the image is sharp and clear. But in the later stages of the clip, some partial exposure issues do pop up. It's still a nice clip and the typical viewer might not even care, but there are some frames where the top half and bottom half are clearly divided in brightness.
Now finally, make a note here that the following footage is not from a Sony EX1. It was shot with an HG-10 and it can not be blamed on the Sony EX1. I only post it because it shows a fairly extreme example of Jellocam due to a rolling shutter. Around the three minute mark, shit really hits the fan, and that is just on a tripod with high winds.
Anyway, this does not necessarily represent how the EX1 would handle the situation. Even the high-end RED cameras, considered one of the great recent innovations of digital filmmaking, utilize a CMOS rolling shutter and suffer from some artifacts. But anyway, here's an extreme, just to be clear on what the phenomenon looks like. And bear in mind that this fellow did capture some fairly nice imagery, rolling shutter wobble vision notwithstanding.
Here, I am including some of the best of the best of what is achievable with the Sony EX1.
These are the clips that set the bar, to date, of this camera's potential.
Narrative Work:
To me, this is the most telling test of all. Nature footage and imagery without a story and narrative action can be more forgiving for the rolling shutter. Nobody will complain if some waves rolling in on shore suffer from "jellocam" - they are waves - how would we even know if the true shape of Wave X got distorted?
Here is the best narrative work achieved on the EX1 that I could find.
WINTER LILACS - search for this one. I don't think he's officially made the final cut public yet. CONFESSION by DOP Philip Bloom (video no longer posted) - Philip Bloom is generally considered to be the EX1 master. This is an instance where he proves his worth of that reputation.
In both of these pieces, the DOPs have filmed with an awareness of the EX1's limitations and kept pans slow and so on. What will happen when intense action is involved? Well, as of yet, I don't have a 5-star clip from the action genre. But I am looking forward to that day. As more and more people use this camera, I think the day will probably approach sooner rather than later...
Also, while I don't like it quite as much as the above two pieces, the following clip (also by Mr. Bloom) does nonethless stand out as among the best narrative work done with this camera and is well worth a viewing.
And here we have The Entity, a short horror piece apparently starring Heath Ledger's Danish brother. It appears that the camera was able to handle the situations it was placed in for this shoot.
Welcome to Philip Bloom territory. As I mentioned, I think this genre is generally much more forgiving for the limitations of the EX1. These clips show off the amazing ability of the camera for locked down shots or slow and ultra smooth pans and dolly shots. Generally, they show the great photography talents of the DOPs and don't push the camera to its limit. Rolling shutter won't be an issue with the time-lapse shots that are relatively common in these types of clips. But they are great nonetheless.
And of course, take note that in virtually all instances, a depth of field adapter has been employed to allow for these very filmlike depth of field shots. Adapters is something else entirely we'll get into in another line of inquiry. But they do give the filmmaker some real creative freedom.
