I've just recently begun to wrap up a screenplay I've been working on, and I'm trying to organize my production details. I currently own a Canon GL2, and I have a few questions to ask.

1.) What is the quality level of a GL2? Is the Gl2's quality worthy of shooting a film on, or will it look like a lame, depressed teen experimental short? (No offense to those who make those.)

2.) Are there techniques I can use to make my GL2 look like film?

3.) This is slightly odd, but I'm trying to look for the name of a film technique I've seen. It's most noticeable in the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan where every motions seems to be gritty, and kind of shaky. I'm not sure how this is accomplished, I've seen it in a lot of films, sometimes used well, other times not so much. It was also used in a few scenes in Spike Lee's 25th Hour. Anyway, I'm not making a war movie, or anything like it but there is one scene where this could be utilized.

Let me know, thank you in advance.

:-)

If you have the camera, why are you asking this? Try it out. If you're satisfied, that's fine.

Personally, I think it can produce quite good images, but it will always be video-originated. That may not be a negative if you can come up with material that will work with the look.

If your script and acting is a lame teen experimental short, it will remain that no matter how you shoot it.

The look in SPR was a combination of high shutter speed (achieved by closing it down to a narrower angle) and probably some sort of bleach bypass in processing, or adjustments to the DI to achieve a similar look.

I had a feeling that at least one of my first posts on this website would be met by someone who has clearly "superior" knowledge, and wants to make sure I know that.

That aside, the Camera was gifted to me two years ago, and I have never used it because a colleague of mine had access to an HD camera. I have the finances to buy a new camera.

My screenplay is far from a "lame-teen-experimental short", and that's no concern of mine at the moment, what I do want to know is whether I should purchase a higher-quality camera, or stick with the one I have.

I unfortunately lack the time to test it out, and see if I'm satisfied.

Also, could you point me in the direction of a film on this site that was shot on a GL2?

H.Q.,
I shot this film on my GL2 about a year ago. I can vouch for the GL2's superior color rendering and sharpness. It is a very good camera and if you handle it carefully enough, it will grant you some nice film-like footage. I think you will find that video I made has an extra film look to it in terms of depth of field, and that's done with my 35mm adapter.

2.) The best film-look technique is to light properly. Also depth of field contributes to a film look. To that end you can purchase a 35mm adapter. This is an optical unit that allows the use of common manual focus SLR lenses on smaller-chip camcorders. If you buy one, you will have to focus your shots manually, but the result is very asthetic out-of-focus backgrounds and the ability to pull focus and draw your audience's attention just like the pros do. You can read more about it here.

Also, a 24p framerate is what is most desirable. However, the GL2 does not shoot 24p. It does shoot 30p--for just fooling around I think 30p is fine. However if you really want to seriously shoot a feature film, shoot in normal (not "Frame" mode) which is 60i. Then do a 60i to 24p conversion using DVFilm Maker (www.dvfilm.com). Their conversion process is close to lossless and yields some fantastic results. You can get realistic 24p motion judder from this conversion.

3) Evan is right, a high shutter speed is what will give you the juddery "Saving Private Ryan" look. You'll find it's used mostly in high action sequences in a lot of movies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: funkbomb,

Thanks funkbomb.

Do you know of any way that I can obtain a "35mm adapter" through other means than self-construction? I'm confident I would be able, but I'm not sure I'll have time to find all the necessary materials etc...

Would any other attachable lenses do the trick? What about a telephoto lens? I'm completely unsure as to what those actually do.

I suppose I will just have to get creative, and try to make due with my available resources.

I didn't think my reply was condescending at all... just practical. If you have the camera, try it out. If you have time to make a short with it, you by definition will have time to use the camera.

I usually shoot in frame mode on my GL2 for simple logistics reasons, although like Ben said, converting to 'true' (well, 'true' as far as post-converted) deinterlaced is supposedly better. I'd rather save the rendering time since I sort of like the way frame mode looks.

If you already have the camera, you should definitely use it as much as possible before deciding to spend a few thousand on a new camera. That's just common sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by H.Q.:
Thanks funkbomb.

Do you know of any way that I can obtain a "35mm adapter" through other means than self-construction? I'm confident I would be able, but I'm not sure I'll have time to find all the necessary materials etc...

There are a million places to buy 35mm adapters, to the point that there is an oversaturation in the market. Most popular:
Letus35 www.letus35.com
SGpro www.sgpro.co.uk

Other attachable lenses? If you buy a Canon FD mount Letus or SGpro, all Canon FD mount lenses will work, bottom line.

There are three types of prime lenses, basically:
Wide Angle, Normal, and Telephoto. Wide angle is, well, wide, normal is normal and telephoto is "zoomed in". You can use any of these lengths of SLR lenses with a 35mm adapter. If you want a wide shot, get a 28mm Canon FD SLR lens. Normal is around 50mm, and telephoto is generally 85mm and above.

Unfortunately, I am a working man and do not have the time to go out and shoot anything, render it and mess around with it on the Avid Deck just to see if it's good enough. I know that probably sounds ridiculous, but I truly don't. I mean, I could easily turn the camera on my face, load it on Windows Movie Maker and see the basic quality, but I think I won't know it's true capabilities unless I tax all of its capabilities, which is something that would take a bit more time than I have. It's far too much, and while it is logical, it's simply an impossibility for me. I am not making a short, my screenplay when it is adapted into a film will likely run 1hr. 45.

Thanks again funkbomb, I think I'll likely purchase one of these. I appreciate all the effort, and I liked your music video!

Sorry, but this is getting more ridiculous. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

You're making a *feature* but you can't shoot out your window for five minutes? Trust me, it's better than nothing. Saying 'all or nothing' with regards to quality testing when you already own the camera is not constructive.

As I said above, I could easily shoot out of a window for five minutes, but I feel that due to the extensive nature of this project I won't feel comfortable making a decision on a camera until I'm able to fully test its capabilities, something that takes a good bit of time. Now, I'm not sure what age you are, but in the world of the workers, time is precious. I'm guessing based on your incapability to read my above post which already explained this exact situation to you that you're in High School.

Also, I don't think you understand the nature of my camera ownership. The camera was given to me after someone who owned it was employed in a job where they would have no time for such things, thusly I have no material, or financial attachment, and I have a good bit of money so the part about "buying a new one" isn't really something that is a problem.

The only reason I'm able to do this little forum parry and joust with you, which I'm sure you are quite seasoned at after long hours of forum-ing, is because my current workload consists of computer-related activities. But unfortunately, those are over for today, so I'm going to have to put a stop to this little game.

Thank you to all those who were *contributers* to this discussion, and I look forward to putting your advice to the test!

oh damn.........i smell trouble.

Mr. 10 posts - you are astoundingly obnoxious. I entered this thread with completely helpful advice and specifically addressed your (rank amateur?) questions. It's not my fault that your 'requirements' are more absurd than anything Mao was able to think up. Furthermore, anyone who capitalizes 'high school' has no business questioning anyone else's intelligence or education level

And there's no 'e' in 'contributors.'

I submit, master. You have made it resoundingly clear that you are the mightier forum member, I with a meager 10 posts, and you with 1,718! How foolish I was to speak out of line, for your internet dominance is so very clear. Congratulations, not only have you resorted to correcting my spelling to make yourself seem intelligent,(kind of a desperate forum-argument cliche) but you have also established to the entire community that my "new-ness" to this forum clearly makes me a lesser man, and one who should not have raised an objection toward your almighty 1,718 posts. I do hope you sleep sound this evening knowing that you have once again brought down the iron fist of forum righteousness upon a lowly plebe of Studentfilms.com community forum. You are a saint among men, a god among mortals, a titan among gods, and you continue down a never ending sequence of references of things that are better than other things. Now, forgive my "rank amateur" questions, such as "is this camera good", and "are there techniques I can use to make it look better"...how pathetic. Questions like this have never been asked before on this forum, and I was a fool to do so! Moreover, my requirements! Bah! How could I impose such restrictions such as "I'm on a tight schedule, I want to be thorough"! I was a fool not to find a pocket of time between my afternoon hot-pocket and my midnight cartoon network session to test out my GL2 like you suggested! After all, we do all have the same daily itinerary as you, don't we? I feel so terribly ashamed for posing such "restrictions" that parallel Mao! What a wonderful reference might I add! And lastly, the most jaw-dropping, blood curdling, spine tingling mistake of all, putting an 'e' in 'contributors'. Where do I begin to repent for such devilry, I know not good lord, but surely in some dark chasm of your fiery heart you can find a beam of forgiveness, for I am a lowly man who at 11 p.m. did not spell such a word as "contributors" right, and I humbly beg your pardon good sire.

Forgive me, for I know not what I do.

Eh.

No need to go crazy - I just wonder how you will find time to shoot a feature since you seem to be so busy.

H.Q. - I'm not sure what the problem is here. Evan is offering you very sound advice, and unless he WERE you, he can't possibly give you better suggestions on how to determine the quality of your camera.

It's such a subjective question. Yes, that camera is considered to be of good quality, and many independent films have been made on it, but only you can determine if it meets your standards. We don't know what your standards are.

If you don't have more specific technical or aesthetic guidelines for quality, all we can say is, "yeah, it's a decent camera." It's common for cinematographers and directors to spend days and weeks testing cameras, film stocks, lenses, etc. before choosing what to shoot on.

So, calm down, please, H.Q. And Evan, come on, don't sink to the level of correcting spelling. Just cause he's making it personal doesn't mean you need to.

Forgive my hasty response, I always find it repulsive when people judge based upon the number of posts I have on a website.

And I believe "Evan's" exact words were "Why are you asking this?" That in turn makes one feel as though the post is meaningless, and is only said to make sure that the "post-er" knows that. Anyway, I'm done with this groveling, someone should close this.