In LA

I want to try the multicam feature in the new FCP X 10.0.3 update, so I fire up Software Update. It checks Apple’s server and tells me that there are no available updates. How can this be? I’ve clearly got FCP X 10.0.2 installed, so the 10.0.3 update should appear. I run software update again, and again, with the same result. I ponder this a while, and then attain enlightenment.

Of course! FCP X is installed via the App Store application, and updates are likely also distributed via this route. –And so it is, I check for available updates in the App Store, and the 10.0.3 update is patiently waiting for me.

I’m happy to have found the update, but am a little surprised how unwieldy¹ the process of finding updates has become. Apparently I need to keep it straight in my head that OS, Safari, iTunes, and some other updates are always delivered via the system’s “Software Update” function, and updates for apps installed via the App Store (should I ever manage to remember their provenance) are to be found only in the App Store app. And then there’s 3rd-party apps that have their own update mechanisms — if I’m lucky they use the Sparkle framework, which informs me of updates as soon as the apps are launched –nice.

If I’m confused about where to look for software updates, other users may be as well. An easy stopgap measure Apple could implement would be to add a line to Software Update when App store App updates are available such as “there are also 32 available updates waiting in the app store for you. Launch app store?”. Here’s an ugly mockup:

I expect Apple will either do something like this, or will come up with some wonderfully elegant way to make this unnecessary, or will release a new Mac Pro². Maybe all of the above. If they make this happen via a Software Update, I hope I can find it.

1. One might say “Windowsy” [↩]
2. unrelated, but please please please [↩]

I made a couple of impulse Blu-ray purchases today, and am now looking forward to watching these fine films:

Time Bandits [Blu-ray] $7.99

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin [Blu-ray] $6.991

But I also showed some restraint. Here’s something I successfully resisted purchasing today:²

White Aphrodisiac Telephone (Salvador Dali, 1938)

1. features commentary by The RZA [↩]
2. probably because none were available for sale [↩]

I just happened upon a deal and figured I’d pass it along. If you’ve been thinking of getting a video-capable DSLR, you can now get a refurb T2i at under $500 shipped.

The Canon T2i is my bang-for-the-buck camera of choice. It shoots video that’s identical to that of their more expensive models T3i and 7D, and it’s also easily hackable to run the Magic Lantern open-source firmware. Magic Lantern gives the camera a ton of new useful features, such as time-lapse, HDR multiple-exposure bracketing, focus peaking, focus zoom, and more.

Canon’s discounted the price of some refurbished cameras by 15%. Which brings the T2i down to what must be its record low price.

The Deal:

• Here’s a link to the EOS Rebel T2i Body Refurbished – $475.99.
• They also sell it with a very good, cheap kit lens: EOS Rebel T2i EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens Kit Refurbished – $543.99.

According to the site at which I found the deal, “Shipping is $5 for $150+ purchases with coupon code SHIP11 [Exp 12/11]“.

Shoot right with this camera, and it can look ridiculously good. I bought mine back when the best price for the T2i body alone was $799 about a year-and-a-half ago, and have no regrets. It allows me to shoot video to a large sensor (APS-C size) using my excellent Canon lenses and even old Nikon lenses using an adapter.

A few clips I’ve shot on my T2i can be found here. They’re not best-of-breed, but should give some idea of what video from the T2i can look like:

• my first online DSLR video
• Looong Steadicam Merlin + Canon T2i shot
• On the streets of Hengdian, China

My first video shot on my T2i:

pizza and the dream of not being filmed from ZachFine on Vimeo.

I’ve thought many a time about how much fun it’d be to have a very minimal but smooth little dolly, which I would use to move my DSLR in lines and curves on a smooth surface while shooting video. A number of products have popped up over the years. Here’s a list of the ones I’ve noticed:

Click any image thumbnail to see it embiggened.

Item	Price	Image	Note
The P+S Technik Skater Mini Camera Dolly	$5400		The one that started it all, I think. Costs a little less than the last used car I bought and undoubtedly moves more smoothly. Out of my price range until I start shooting for Spielberg.
Omni-tracker Slim-Line “LITE”	$495		The Omni-tracker looks a bit like a P+S Technik carved of purest PVC plastic and endowed with a carrying handle. This may be the only item in this list that will float in water1. They make heavier duty models as well, it costs $1500 for their top model.
KONOVA Scaled Rotational Axis Skater Dolly	$125		This looks a lot like what I’d probably build if I were to make my own, but I’m not sure that’s such a good thing. Something about them doesn’t appeal to me, but I can’t put my finger on it. If I put my foot on it I could probably skate. +Who named this thing?
DIY Skater Dolly	$20-$∞ + time		Pictured is dvxuser forum member Texanite’s rather gorgeous acrylic skater dolly, he sells them for around $400 when they’re available. This is an example of the kind of thing one could build with infinite time, materials, and skill.
Cinetics Cineskates	$275		An innovative skater dolly consisting of a set of super-engineered wheels that connect to a “GorillaPod Focus”. It’s a Kickstarter project, so the pricing will change soon. I’ve quoted the cost of a full kit, with tripod and ballhead. The wheels by themselves are $150 for a set of 3. I’m a little curious how rigid it’d be, but 930 kickstarter backers can’t be wrong. My resistance to spending $50 per wheel keeps me a step short of buying, but I’m tempted by its bizarreness and quality.
Pico Flex Table Dolly	$65, or $90 with friction arm extension		I give up. This newcomer looks like it will be too much fun. I’d probably spend $65 or more building my own, and mine would be less well engineered. Check out a video of the item in use here. It’s a very simple-looking item, but it does appear to be flexible enough, small enough, and smooth enough for my purposes. Their price for the friction arm is also very good. Ordered.

Cineskates popped up on the net the last week of August and got me interested in thinking again about skater dollies after more than a year of ignoring the category. The Pico Flex, which appeared on the net a week later, is where I’ve ended my search for now. I’m excited to play with the thing when it arrives.

1. I’ll keep that in mind for nautical use [↩]

I’ve previously written on this blog about the Creative Vado HD solid-state 720p video cameras. I enjoy knocking mine about (both above and below the waterline) and I tend to recommend them to people who just want to capture moments with family, or to those looking for a simple video camera to give to a future filmmaker, or to folk who want a camera cheap enough to risk destroying in unsafe conditions¹, or to anyone who simply wants a convenient tiny video camera. The reason I particularly like the Creative Vado series as opposed to the now-defunct Flip cameras and other competitors is that the Vados feature the widest-angle lenses in this class of camera. I thought these were a good deal when their price fell to $129 a couple of years ago. Today I noticed refurbs are available for 1/3 that price. Perhaps they’re being cleared away due to the fact that some popular smartphones record video of equivalent quality, and are eating away the market? Regardless the reason for the discount, I think these cameras are fun, useful, and a great value.

The Creative Vado HD 8GB (refurbished, first generation), is currently² listed at $40, and the third generation Vado HD (refurbished, available in several candy colors) are on sale for $50.

Both of these are solid-state video cameras that charge and transfer video to computer over a concealed USB connector and record pretty nice (for the price) 720p HD video at 30 frames per second. The older Vado records to mpeg-2 codec and includes 8Gb of storage space (~2 hours of record time), and the 3rd generation records to mpeg-4 and includes 4Gb of space (also ~2 hours, possibly at the same or better visual quality than the older model due to the more efficient mp4 codec). I haven’t yet used a 3rd gen Vado HD, but it appears to include an improvement that was at the top of my wishlist for the earlier Vado HDs: improved dynamic range and some manual exposure control. These cameras clip highlights³, it’d be nice to be able to minimize that issue and knock the exposure down a peg.

Also available at a discount right now, and possibly of interest to anyone with a small camera or phone, is the Creative Labs Vado HD Underwater Pouch. This item has for some reason⁴ dropped in price to $10. I believe it is a rebranded Aquapac Mini Waterproof Camera Case, an item which normally sells for about $30 (under both the Aquapac and Creative brand names).

This pouch is basically a fancy polyurethane bag, with a strong seal⁵ and very clear vinyl windows on front and back. It can hold small cameras easily, and I’ll probably be using mine next month to keep my iPhone dry while kayaking.

For an example of the 2nd generation Vado HD and this pouch in action together, check out this a Green Sea Turtle video I shot in Hawaii. I also recently loaned out my Vado and pouch to The Perennial Plate, and they used it to shoot some underwater footage of an urchin diver for their web series.

1. such as underwater in a fancy plastic bag [↩]
2. last I checked — the price could change any moment due to the way Amazon operates [↩]
3. a characteristic of all inexpensive digital cameras [↩]
4. momentarily? [↩]
5. I trust it more than I would a couple of ziplocs, FWIW, and have had no problems with mine over a couple of years of use. [↩]

I was just paging through a bunch of photos I shot with my iPhone while in China and came across photos I’d shot of a menu that featured some amazing English translations. I present to you a collection entitled “Customer get angry”:

I really wish I’d asked if I could buy one of these menus, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Although I think many of these translations are hilarious, it is worth noting that I don’t think badly of whoever put it together –it was extremely courteous of them. Very very few English speakers ever pop into the small town of Hengdian, let alone drop into Ai Qi Coffee. So kudos to that establishment for trying (and largely succeeding) to accomodate the occasional English-speaker.
Customer not really angry.

1. Again, those not accustomed to China might also find "Super cows feet pizza" to be noteworthy [↩]
2. I suspect a scientific name crept into their woeful Chinese-English dictionary [↩]

By popular demand¹, and to give me a reference so I can remember my settings when I inevitably lose them, I present my Steadicam Merlin recipe for the Canon T2i with attached² Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens. It’s the exact setup I used to shoot this little video of a sidewalk butcher shop in China.

These images show the combination of weights used, the span angle setting, the hole in the mounting plate to which the camera was attached (hole N), that the gezornenplatz screw was in place, and the position of the mount plate.

Full setup

middle weight and span setting	end weights	mounting plate
mount plate position

1. i.e., a single message sent to me on Vimeo [↩]
2. as opposed to unattached? [↩]

Rachel encounters a sidewalk butcher shop on the streets of Hengdian. Hengdian is a 4 hour drive from Shanghai. Many movies and TV shows are filmed on the town’s huge sets, which include a full-scale¹ replica of Beijing’s forbidden city.

Shot with a Canon 550D/T2i running the Magic Lantern firmware. Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens, Steadicam Merlin. Internal mics for audio, one channel without digital gain, one with about 18db.

If you are so inclined, you can download the video and watch it in higher quality from its vimeo page.

1. I’d venture it’s actually 4/5ths scale, but it’s pretty huge [↩]

A still from the film "The Prestige". Shot on film, photochemical finish, the entire film looks fantastic. Obviously, film can be awesome. Wally Pfister should be allowed to shoot on film, or sparklevision, or whatever he wants, for the rest of his days. See more stills from "The Prestige" at Beautiful Stills from Beautiful Films

Manohla Dargis just posted a fine article about the onslaught of digitally acquired films¹. She writes:

Some of this year’s most acclaimed and talked-over movies, for starters, including “The Social Network,” “Black Swan” and “Tiny Furniture,” were either partly or wholly shot in digital. It’s no wonder that more than a third of my 30 favorites this year — because, really, why stop at 10? — were a combination of the two. Does it matter?

Does it matter?

It matters to producers, as digital, used properly, can lower the cost of a shoot.

It matters to telecine and processing facilities, as –telecine? What’s that? Such facilities are quickly diversifying the services they offer, or are closing.

It matters to assistant editors, as they either have to deal with the constantly-changing workflows designed around different digital formats, or have to deal with transfers from film and keeping track of the relationship between the digital clips in the editing system and actual pieces of film.

It matters if you’re a Director of Photography with exacting standards, and you’ve spent your entire career building your knowledge and ability to achieve the images you want on film, surely. That’s probably the person to whom this debate matters the most, from the aesthetic side of the argument. But should it? Would adapting one’s style of shooting to a particular sensor be any different than adapting to a particular film stock? Can one choose particular cameras and sensors based on the needs of a project, as one did film stocks? I think this is already happening. But I can’t speak for DOPs.

But for audiences and cinema enthusiasts, “Does it matter?” was a good question, a year ago. Now it’s an afterthought.

Celluloid film is an amazing technology, and it’s dying, quickly. I’m no purist², but I’m a little sad about this, and hope I can work on a feature film that’s shot on film before it completely disappears.

A still from an as-yet unreleased short film I edited this year. Shot on the Red One with anamorphic lenses.

But as much as I love film, it’s exciting to see digital sensors catch up to film, and quickly. It’s a repeat of what happened in the world of print. I think we’re past the time in which the film vs. digital battle was spirited and relevant. That ongoing argument helped shape the new breed of digital cinema cameras, and it shows. It’s fast nearing the time to rephrase last years question, “Does it matter?” as, “Can we stop counting now, or pretending we can tell the difference?” At this point I’d venture that most³ of the more ardent celluloid enthusiasts and digital bashers have seen and unknowingly appreciated a digitally-acquired film. It’s the cinematic equivalent to the Turing Test, and digital started to pass a couple of years ago.

Dargis continues, and my mood darkens:

Digital images still don’t look as rich and sumptuous as film, which was developed to reproduce the way our eyes see the visible spectrum.

I can’t let either of these sorry old canards⁴ go unexamined.

First canard first: It is a bit unfair to compare the best examples from 100 years of celluloid film against the limited number of existing digitally-acquired films, especially considering that many of the films one thinks of (and notices) as “digital” were shot earlier in the decade⁵ –digital has improved in quality by leaps and bounds in the past few years. One has to compare to something, of course, but if you restrict your view to the best examples of recent digital, it becomes instantly clear that competently-shot digital images can look plenty rich and sumptuous. Even digitally acquired films from the past two years that don’t feature cinematography designed to take center stage, like “Cyrus”, look “rich and sumptuous” to me.

Back to print. Has National Geographic stopped looking sumptuous since they started publishing photos shot on digital cameras? Have people been writing complaints in to Playboy? The shift of the field of still photography from film to digital is relevant to this discussion, as digital sensors for moving imagery and for stills are as closely related as their celluloid counterparts are. The complaints, worries, and about digital for stills seem to have vanished over the past decade as the technology improved to the point that only an engineer could tell the difference.

Regarding Canard #2: So much of the film vs. digital argument has for so long been couched in pseudoscientific mystical pronouncements, and the idea that film is somehow better suited to replicating the way the human eye sees the world than digital is one of such. Both film and sensors designed for photography are designed to create pleasing images for people to stare at. Neither technology really reproduces “the way our eyes see the visible spectrum”, nor would anyone really want that.⁶ What film and sensors can do to reproduce the qualities of the visual spectrum that our eyes can sense, they do. Digital sensors follow film note for note in this regard. Both have the same design goal. The statement that film was designed to reproduce the way our eyes work and the implication that digital sensors are not, is simply wrong from any angle.

Nit picking aside, the article’s worth a read.

The battle that made the question “Does it matter?” relevant, is all but over. But “Will it blend?” –I think celluloid’s got a lock on that one.

1. I nearly put the word “films” in quotes, but if I did that I’d have to start calling the “bins” in Final Cut Pro what they look like: “folders”. [↩]
2. That should be obvious, given this blog post. [↩]
3. It’ll be all, by the end of 2011 [↩]
4. Well, if they haven’t achieved canard-status it’s not for lack of trying. [↩]
5. It’s also worth noting that many of the digital films shot until recently chose to go digital for reasons of flexibility or cost-containment, and didn’t place a priority on picture quality. The results speak for themselves, and should not be compared to the visual impact of films that put a priority on appearance, such as Lawrence of Arabia, but instead should be compared to similarly oriented uses of celluloid such as 60’s man-on-the-street news footage or Monty Python’s outdoor segments. [↩]
6. Human vision is fantastic, but that’s mostly the brain’s doing –in many ways our eyes are surprisingly crappy. The brain creates fantastic imagery out of surprisingly little information, and a lot of what we see is the result of pattern recognition and quick deduction in the visual cortex. Our impressions of color and light are relative to neighboring colors, rather than absolute measurements, and the way we see images is in a sense hallucinatory.

   Though neuroscientists and opthalmologists would love to get together and watch a sequence that actually reproduces the way our eyes see, it’d be jarring to an audience to watch footage that features a tiny, darker circle of very high detail and color saturation in the center with blues that tend to the violet, a larger empty black spot nearby, and all surrounded by an increasingly blurry and warped bright green-blue miasma in which motion is detectable but not details. Of course the view would continuously jitter around at high speed and never hold still so that the tiny spot of clarity can flit from detail to detail and take in enough for the brain to make its assumptions and create what we see. [↩]

The greenscreen shoot. That 16:9 frame at right represents the frame of the video player that’s part of the facebook page. Clamps hold breakaway blocks with tracking markers.

If you have a facebook account, you might¹ enjoy checking out this bit of Jackass 3D promotion that I helped plan and coordinate. It was a pretty complicated greenscreen shoot, put together on an extremely short timeline. The Jackass guys were hilarious and game, and their crew was great (special thanks Tripp and Barry). The creative team at Paramount, Picture Production Company, and the folk at Powster did a bang-up job initiating, commissioning, planning, and putting the whole thing together. It’s nice to see the finished result online and to be able to tell people about it. It is an app, you have to give it access to your entire life, but it’s² no more insidious than Farmville³.

A small section of a final result, composited live in a web browser.

Also part of the same shoot, this baseball-themed game.

All’s well that ends well eh? Now go see the film. How else are you going to see excrement fly at the camera in 3D?⁴

1. Or you might not. There’s no accounting for taste. [↩]
2. As far as I know. [↩]
3. And far far less annoying. It also doesn’t spam your friends with every smiling sheep you’ve mulesed or smiling automated milking machine you’ve installed or whatever people do in that Farmville thing whose updates drove me from Facebook. And seriously, what’s better, virtual happy farming, or dudes hitting baseballs into each others’ nuts? The world’s answer to that question can be found in the box office receipts for Jackass 3D. [↩]
4. Neither a trip to the zoo, nor the blue Navii “tribal bio-expelled tactical paste” seen in the upcoming director’s cut of Avatar count. [↩]