NAB 2012 ATOMOS from FreshDV on Vimeo.

NAB 2012 SmallHD Future OLED HD Monitor, and HDMI Lock for Canon 5D Mark II from FreshDV on Vimeo.

NAB 2012 Edelkrone Unique Rig Options, Folding, Dual Shoulder, and handle follow focus from FreshDV on Vimeo.

NAB 2012 JVC 4K Camera from FreshDV on Vimeo.

NAB 2012 :Kupo + VizTools. Innovative C-Stands & Grip gear, and Zoom control for DSLR from FreshDV on Vimeo.

NY Resolutions For Filmmakers

Okay guys it’s 2012 and time to set those new business goals, and establish new game plans that will allow you to rock it out harder than ever this year. All the past projects that failed or never got off the ground are behind you, and there is no going back. That’s right 2011 is dead and gone for forever. Now is the time for moving onward. Here are my ten top resolutions for filmmakers in 2012 that will help you increase your potential and hopefully your bottom line.
Continue reading ’10 Resolutions For Filmmakers in 2012′

Raging Bull is an icon of American Cinema, directed by Martin Scorsese, and featuring Robert Deniro. This film offers a strong sense of visual language and shot composition. When I initially saw this film there was one scene I particularly didn’t like, it felt stiff and just off somehow. After going back viewing it a second time I realized it was exactly how I was supposed to feel. It was the brilliance of Scorsese’s direction that controlled my emotional response to the scene. What I would like to do is give my simple analysis of a few scenes from this film. I want to build off my previous article on shot composition, and look at this as a case study. This is not intended to be a comprehensive look at the language of the film, as there is a lot there to unwrap. Rather we will limit our discussion to a few select elements. We will look at how Scorsese uses shot composition, lens choice, and, surface division to enhance the tone and mood of the film. Continue reading ‘Visual Language of Raging Bull’

Years ago I became fascinated with the subtle underscore and nuance you could add to a scene simply by your shot composition. I know most of this is pretty straightforward, but I wanted to take some time to lay out a few basics of visual language as it applies to shot composition and lens choice. The goal here is to understand the theory behind making certain decisions so that we can then know when and how to break those conventions to say something completely different. Perhaps you’ll pick up something if you are new at this, and for the old salts out there maybe it will be more of a reminder. For myself I like to go back and refresh information over, and over again. Heck that’s part of the benefit of writing, you have to dust the old brain off.

There is an entire litany of shots, each sometimes named differently in other regions of the country. Generally speaking, we move from full or long shots, in tighter to extreme closeups. The nomenclature is not the important thing here. Some conventions do exist, such as a medium closeup generally is framed around the sternum of the subject to the top of the head. However, the most important thing is that the crew is all on the same page as to what shot names are being used for a given production. That way when a director calls for a medium and it’s passed down the line from DP to Camera Op, everyone winds up with the same frame. Shot selection is all about establishing relationships either between the characters on screen, or a character and the audience. Lets try to wrap our mind around what shot selection tells our audience. The goal here is not to build a rigid set of rules or guidelines for filmmaking. Quite the opposite, if we know and understand our decisions and choices in shot selection and framing we can intentionally break those rules for a specific reason. However in order to do that effectively we must know why we are doing it and what we are saying. First let us examine shot size.

Generally, as we move closer to a character we establish a sense of relationship with them, and as a result we are connected more intimately with them as a character and what they are saying. We can also lend credibility or disbelief to certain characters as well, based on the shot size we use to frame them. Medium shots tend to lend to less connection with characters than closeups. So shot selection can become a tool first and foremost to tell our audience how we want them to connect emotionally with the characters we represent on screen. Lets look at the two frames below and evaluate strictly from the framing what we feel about the subject.

MEDIUM WIDE

MEDIUM CLOSEUP

By utilizing simple shot size we immediately feel a stronger connection with the same character in the second frame as opposed to the first frame. Interesting isn’t it? The next thing to consider is objective vs subjective framing. In addition to shot size the closer we come to eye line with a character, the more we are connected with them and become a “subjective” part of their world, a participant in what they are saying. We can move closer to or away from eye line on two different axis. We can move away either horizontally or vertically. Either direction achieves the same effect. The further away we move the camera from the eye line the more we move from an involved first person in the story, two a second person point of view and ultimately to an objective outside point of view or observer.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

In the simplest form you can think of this as the character either engaging you as an audience member in Figure 1, or engaging another character in the scene Figure 2. Obviously this is a more nuanced dance in most scenes. However, where you place the camera on eye line between characters has the ability to project volumes of information about their on screen relationships, and the level of disclosure between both the characters and the audience.

The next element we should examine is lens selection when making these choices. I’m sure you are all aware of the basics. Wide angle lenses expand and open space, while zoom, and telephoto lenses compress space, and spatial relationships. Generally, a convention in filmmaking is that most people tend to utilize longer lenses for mediums and closeups. Why? That is the real question we want to understand here, if we can understand the reasoning we can steer clear of making default decisions and instead make informed, story-driven ones. The reasoning most people tend to use longer lenses on closeups is that, as we stated before there is a spatial compression that happens. As a result, facial lines are compressed which can be more flattering for a subject, also the BG to FG distance becomes compressed. As that space is compressed we perceive much less information about the BG, the result is a much less competing image. For the audience, most of the world surrounding the character is lost and we are left to focus more closely on just the characters themselves and what they are saying. However, what if context of the world around the character enhances the feeling of the character or underscores what they are saying? What if the relationship between two characters on screen is vitally important to that beat in the story? If that is the case then maybe a wide angle lens would speak a clearer language under that particular set of criteria. The following two shots offer a simple look at how lens selection subtly affects our perception of reality.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

Compare the two figures above. What have we subtly established about their relationship to each other SIMPLY by changing our focal length? In Figure 3, we are looking at around a 20mm lens. The foreground figure seems slightly imposing in the frame, compared to the man in the gray suite. Their size differential is magnified, and the shared space between the two characters expanded creating a sense of disconnect and distance. The situation can be made to feel imposing, or perhaps threatening, the dialogue, art direction, and everything else can further define the tone of the scene. There is also more visual information translated to the viewer about the world the characters are in. That may be important, or unimportant, it’s a decision that should be made based on the scene, the characters, and the story. Figure 4 clearly creates a closer relationship between the two characters. Their eye line is on a more even plane, and the tighter 85mm lens has compressed the space between them. They both now stand close to equals in the frame. The shared personal space between them brings a sense of connection to the frame. Additionally, the spatial compression is removing visual information about the world around them. There is much less context within the frame. Therefore, our eye can be brought to focus more specifically on the main character, leaving the world outside behind. This may be fine in most cases. However, what if the script calls for a scene between two men where one man feels trapped by his work situation and wants to find a new job but can’t bring himself to leave? Maybe one approach may be to overwhelm a very intimate moment between friends with an overwhelming sense of the outside world being ever present, constantly seeking to invade the conversation. As always there are a million different ways to solve a problem. Simply having a grasp of the fundamentals allows us to arrive at workable solutions quicker. Next lets examine spatial relationships.

As we stated earlier we can use lens selection to compress or expand the space between characters in a scene. We can also use the positioning of characters through blocking or shot composition, to add additional information about the scene. Take for example, the rule of thirds. Basically stated the rule of thirds says that objects are most balanced and aesthetically appealing when framed along one of the thirds of the frame. For a full run down on thirds you can read this article here. Now this is where things start to get fun. If we understand why thirds is a rule and what it does to our shot composition we can then know when it’s okay to break that convention. What if the scene represents the antithesis of balance and harmony? In that situation composing a shot away from thirds may make more sense. Aesthetically it may not be the most appealing but, is creating a single aesthetically appealing image the goal here? Or is it about telling an effective story? To tell the story more effectively means we need to use all the tools at our disposal to communicate with our audience. Knowing this convention informs us of why it works. Therefore, we know we can break it to create an unbalanced frame. While that frame may be “less appealing ” it may in fact add depth and information to the story. Arming ourselves with this information will help inform our decision. Let’s look at some unconventional framing techniques and examine how our perception of the character is altered.

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

Here we move from the most conventional framing of Figure 5, to a less conventional one in Figure 8. What does each frame tell you about the character? What does it hide or reveal? The point is that based on a given scenario any of those compositions may be the correct solution. The important thing is to know why a rule exist and what you are saying when you break it. So the next time you setup a shot composition or make a lens choice pause for just a second and ask yourself one thing, “Why did I do that?”

I’m sick and tired. After a week of nonstop talking at NAB I have realized that there are some incredibly talented independent filmmakers out there, and they are by far in the minority. There are those people out there finding legitimate uses for the tools at hand and really using them to tell some incredible stories. However, there are far more posers than anything else. I’m fed up with Vimeo, shallow DOF, slider driven. montage sequences with credits on them masquerading as films. I’m sick of lazy, careless, pre-production, masquerading as cinema verite or so called art films. I’m completely over the pretentious arrogance put out by some co-called “filmmakers” in our industry. Now before you hang me from a tree as a warning to all who dare trespass this sacred ground, hear me out. I’m not saying these pieces don’t have warrant. I’m saying they aren’t films, get over yourself. Don’t even get me started on music videos.

So I’m not David Mullen, Rodney Charters, Roger Deakins, Robert Primes, or any of the other cinematographers whom I admire and who have an incredible body of work to stand behind. It is always a dangerous position to decry something, while aspiring to achieve something yourself. I am on a journey, a journey to learn, and absorb everything I possibly can about cinematography, and filmmaking. I want to be the best I possibly can, and often find my own ineptitude to by my weakest link. I recognize that I have not arrived, nor do I really ever hope to. Personally, I feel that the minute you quite studying your craft and learning that you should just quit. One of the things I admire most about the aforementioned cinematographers, some of whom I have had the great honor of talking with personally, is that they all espouse the same sentiment at one level or another. There is a realization that their job is ever changing, and they themselves are always building new techniques, and skills to accommodate for it. So if you will allow me I’d like to take off the facade and be brutally honest with you about myself and others I see in the field of independent filmmaking.

…ASC Manual that states that cinematography is the art and craft of the authorship of visual images for the cinema. Any processes that may affect these images are the direct responsibility of the cinematographer. It goes beyond just photography; we are responsible for the overall photographic quality of the image and how it’s used to tell the story. We work with the director and the other department heads to achieve that quality. From a production standpoint, we have three departments under our control: Camera, Electric, and Grip. Technically, “cinematography” means motion picture photography. I’m not one of those people who thinks that if you shoot digitally, it is not cinematography, it’s videography. We use the word “film” to describe movies in general regardless of their origination medium.

-DAVID MULLEN

There is a sense that anyone with a DSLR or camera of any type is either a filmmaker, director, or director of photography. Now I don’t take to task the cameras or technology for this. No, in fact each camera could in its own right be used very usefully, and to a proper end. It is the following formula that I take to task: Camera Gear+Pretty Images=Filmmaker. It is the idea of removing the thought, and creative process from the filmmaking experience and stripping it down to a rote exercise. Lets face it, a lot of the camera systems today do not necessarily require a high level of technical competence to crank out pretty images. I react to the thoughtlessness with which such so called “art” is produced. While technology is important it is not the camera that makes the film, it is the filmmaker. The democratization of camera gear into the hands of the consumer has allowed anyone and everyone to wear the title of filmmaker. But what is it that truly makes a filmmaker? Is it simply the ability to create disparate compelling images? Is it being lauded by a crowd and having a following? Perhaps the answer is more multifaceted than we allow.

I have no doubt that Roger Deakins could light and produce a much more compelling project utilizing an HVX200, than I possibly could achieve with the new Arri Alexa. Why? He understands the true art of cinematography and the visual language of the screen. He understands the art of a specific lens choice made to compress or expand a space, subtly changing or enhancing the juxtaposition of characters in a frame. He understands how to utilize camera blocking to specifically underscore and support an emotional element of the script, or story. Lighting becomes yet another decision informed by the character, and tone of the scene, and in the hands of a master such as Deakins it speaks as loud as the dialog. All of these decisions require a deep and masterfully grasp of both story and visual language. Both of these are elements I find sadly lacking in most of the work showcased by a lot of the independent film world. I will also insert here that I personally find my grasp of these elements to be rudimentary at best, and am seeking to incorporate a much deeper understanding of this into my work. Filmmaking often becomes reduced down to making default decisions on the fly that will often result in pretty images that montage well together. While on some level this works as a study of composition and lighting, I propose that it does not make a filmmaker.

I believe the devil is in the details, as they say. A film has to start out with a strong story and it has to be supported by good acting. But if you have those elements, then how you direct it, shoot it, art direct it, cut it, compose the music, can enhance that story or tell it better. You know, “Hamlet” is a great story, but that doesn’t mean a two-year-old can direct “Hamlet” just because it’s a good story. You have to have the skill of a storyteller to make a good production of “Hamlet.” So I think cinematography is one element of the storytelling process that will enhance the experience for the audience. And the audience doesn’t necessarily have to be aware of this stuff. An average person doesn’t know how to build a house and doesn’t know anything about architecture… but certainly he wants to live in a house that is well-built. He hires experts to deal with that stuff. I think the audience expects the filmmakers to be the experts in filmmaking, that the filmmakers are the ones that know about film stocks and lenses and formats so they don’t have to. They just have to enjoy the movie.

-DAVID MULLEN

While visually compelling to look at, especially from the viewpoint of another “filmmaker”, these montage pieces are often devoid of real heart, soul, and emotion. May I propose that real cinematography as an art form comes from making specific, and informed choices. These decisions can only be found as you develop a deep sense of visual language, that guides your style and direction. A strong technical proficiency then allows you to execute those decisions. Both pieces of the puzzle are needed. Know why you make every choice and begin to learn to defend your decisions. Why did you shoot a composition at a given focal length or stop? Why did you center punch or weight the subject to one side of the frame or the other? Its not that one choice is inherently right and one is wrong, but you should know why you made the decision.

Can you decide not to use the visual components in your production? No; If you ignore visual components they won’t go away. Color can be eliminated by shooting in black and white, but it’s impossible to eliminate any other visual component because they exist in everything on the screen. Even a blank screen contains the visual components of space, line, shape, tone, and movement. So the screen is never empty. Even a still photograph uses the components of rhythm and movement. Since the visual components are always on screen understanding, controlling, and using them are critical to great picture making.

-BRUCE BLOCK, A Visual Story

As you begin to question yourself and your work you will begin to develop an internal sense of style as well. Informed specific decisions should be made from lighting, camera blocking, lens selection, color, and tone all the way through. It is the only way to begin to bring cohesive style to a piece. These are things that separate out the truly great cinematographers, they have a commanding grasp of the elements, and wield them like a true artist.

Really, a cinematographer’s work is only as good as the director, really. That’s why I love working with the Coens and with Norman Jewison. They really push you to do something and you feel like you can work from a position of strength and take chances and risks. It’s hard when you’re on a film if a director doesn’t have the experience to understand the visual language involved, and there is a whole language involved. And if the director doesn’t understand that or isn’t confident enough with himself to let you, the cameraman, to take what the script requires and create the visuals it can be frustrating.

-ROGER DEAKINS

It is when I see true artist like Deakins, and Charters put such an insane level of thought and process into a shot that just comes to life on screen and breathes emotion, that I personally feel unworthy to wear the label filmmaker. I have no issue with people learning, and studying, stumbling, and fumbling along the way. I’m in the same boat, we are all learning together here. The issue I have is the level or pretentiousness and arrogance that seeks to assert this level of work as some presumed mastery of “high art”. It is at this point that I cry ,”Foul!” To do so is to completely undermine the level of true art poured out by the masters. We reduce filmmaking back to an academic shooting exercise. Come on, we are better than that. Surround yourselves with people who are better than that. We all want to aspire to be truly great, to create art, and inspire others. Can’t we let go of our egos for a moment and recognize with brutal honesty where we are in the journey? Push yourself to study your craft, dissect your decisions and choices, allow brutal feedback from those you trust, not just those will laud your incompetence as art. Learn from your mistakes, and push forward to make better informed decisions next time. Might I suggest the following exercises to improve your craft:

1. Get out and shoot a short scripted project with actors on a tight schedule. Repeat this process until you get it right. Trust me the first several times will produce nothing but crap. Doing it without a schedule doesn’t count either.

2. Do a script breakdown by visual elements and learn to plan camera coverage. Your producers will thank you.

3. Have you ever even done an overhead or lighting plot? If not do one, now. Again, be ready to defend your choices.

4. Get people you trust to absolutely rip your project apart, rip it apart yourself. A couple guys that I work with and I do a complete postmortem on almost every project we shoot. What worked, what didn’t work? Where do things need to be improved? If you don’t have those people around you drop everything and go find them right now!

5. Cut the crap. Chances are you are less than half as good as you think you are. All of us are, and that is the brutal truth. The sooner you can be honest about your weakness the sooner you can throw yourself into honestly learning to be better.

6. Learn some humility, we could all use a dose from time to time. This is especially true at when people tend to pump up and overemphasize our achievements or lack there of.

What about instinct, is there ever a place for simply doing something because it feels like the right approach? Absolutely. I have heard many great DPs say they attempted a particular shot simply because it felt like the correct approach. There is a lot to be said about that. However, I think it should flow as the exception and not the norm. The following quote by Bruce Block reiterates this:

Something new pops into your head that solves a problem. That is when instincts are great. Use them. You may never understand why your instincts were correct, but when you see the final product you know you made the right decision. But don’t let instincts fool you. Sometimes instincts are incomplete, unreliable, or wrong. Instinctual choices may only be old habits or underdeveloped ideas that sound good but are ultimately disappointing. “if you had been there, it seemed to work,” is a lame excuse for poor instinctual choice.

-BRUCE BLOCK, The Visual Story

So where does the technology come in then? Filmmaking is after all a blend of technology, collaboration, and art is it not? Let’s take a look at this quote by Deakins:

And, frankly, it’s not the technology that makes the great movies. I mean, if you went back to see Citizen Kane and you looked at it on a big screen and you looked at the quality of the image, I mean, frankly, some of it is not very…well, good’s not the right word, because technically it’s not as sharp. Some of it is very grainy. The lens quality is not as good as modern lenses. But…[Laughs] it’s still a better film than ninety-nine percent of what are made today. So, you know, it’s not just about technique and equipment.

-ROGER DEAKINS

Now don’t get me wrong, DSLRs and these other compact, single sensor cameras, offer some wonderful advantages to filmmakers. I’m a tech guy and I’m personally very excited about some of the features these tools are bringing to the table. Higher dynamic range, cleaner ISO, and higher native sensitivity, are all going to benefit our images in the long run. But we can’t allow that to be enough, we can’t stop there. We can’t allow ourselves to become lazy and make thoughtless default decisions, just because the technology allows it. Deakin’s quote above speaks so strongly to that, to me its saying craft, and content will always win the day. Know the technical advantages that the current cameras offer, combine that with a strong sense of craft and you have a recipe for success. Just please don’t get a big head about being a “filmmaker”, lose the attitude, really we are all sick of it. There are alot of people out there much more deserving who have earned it rightfully, and paid their dues. When you read a quote like the one above by Deakins, and realize he is arguably lumping his own work into that statement, it can’t help but really humble you. I mean if anyone had a right to assert here it would be him. You won’t hear much from these guys lauding their art or their work, they don’t need to talk much. They are too busy working in their field to take part in petty forum wars, or egotistical twitter arguments, they quietly hone their craft and develop their skills. Their art and stories say all that needs saying, it whispers, “I’m a filmmaker.”

A quick drop by the JVC booth today to check out their new prosumer 3D camera, and get a quick update on their broadcast line.

Arguably one of the most well known cinematographers of today, Roger Deakins has been known for shooting some of the truly great films we know and love. And apparently Deakins is now considering switching over to the dark side of digital. He is currently gearing up to shoot “Now”, a thriller directed by Andrew Niccol. Roger’s weapon of choice? The ARRI Alexa digital cinema camera.

I pulled this quote from Roger Deakins personal website:

The Arri specs on the Alexa seem totally honest and accurate. I was testing the camera yesterday and I found it the first (and right now the only) digital camera to produce an image with the resolution and range as one captured on film.

Slashfilm.com also has a great article detailing some of Deakin’s experiences with the Arri Alexa. Excerpt:

First film I’ve shot digitally, because, frankly, it’s the first camera I’ve worked with that I’ve felt gives me something I can’t get on film. Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know. [Shooting on Digital] gives me a lot more options. It’s got more latitude, it’s got better color rendition. It’s faster. I can immediately see what I’m recording. I can time that image on set with a color-calibrated monitor. That coloring goes through the whole system, so it’s tied with the meta-data of the image. So that goes through the whole post-production chain, so it’s not a case of being in a lab and having to sit and then time a shot on a shot-by-shot because this has already got a control on it that’s set the timing for the shot, you know?

COLLIDER.com also has a huge interview with Deakins talking about, “True Grit” and film vs Digital. A great read or you can listen to the audio recording here.

Uses an Arriflex 535 camera. Says he has been using it “since it first came out in the market.” However, on the film he recently wrapped (Now), he used the brand new Arriflex Alexa and he shot digitally. Says “things might be changing.” Regarding lenses, he uses Arri master prime lenses (when shooting film).

When I asked if he was going to go back to film, he said “I got a feeling that might be it for me in terms of shooting digital. I was really impressed with the imagery that we were able to achieve on this and the flexibility it gave me. The saturation seemed…the color rendition of the color saturation seemed better to me than film. I don’t know whether it will totally replace film for me in the future. I think in the long term a digital camera will, whether it’s this camera or another one. I’m seriously thinking about using it on the next film.”

I encourage you to check out the full interview for complete context. While we are on Deakins, enjoy the video interview embedded below. I just want to point out that in a time of mass confusion in the market place, what with DSLR’s, AF100, Red, Alexa, F3 etc…cinematographers, not cameras make great films. So pick your poison, your weapon of choice, but for crying out loud PLEASE shoot something worthwhile.

I’ll close with this quote from Deakins that I believe sums this all up nicely:

Cinematography is more than a camera, whether that camera is a Red an Alexa or a Bolex. There is a little more to it than resolution, colour depth, latitude, grain structure, lens aberration etc. etc. etc. The lenses use for ‘Citizen Kane’ were in no way as good as a Primo or a Master Prime and the grain structure in that film is, frankly, all over the place. But the cinematography? Well, you tell me.

Class On Demand
Fresh Score 4/5
Pros: An extensive and easy to watch series that is very in depth and designed to get you up and running quickly and efficiently in Apples Color. Well worth the price.
Cons: I would like to see even more emphasis on color theory and grading techniques.
“Basic Training For Apple Color” ($69.99)
“Advanced Training For Apple Color” ($99.99)
www.ClassOnDemand.net

We are all very aware, that Apple’s Color software has brought a revolution to the color grading process. A lot of people out there however are still attempting to master this new software and many are too intimidated by the interface to even try it. This is unfortunate since Color is simply a tool that is too powerful to be ignored. Class on Demand has recently released a series of training materials aimed at fixing this problem. “Basic Training for Apple Color”, and “Advanced Training for Apple Color”, both feature well known author and color correction expert Steve Hullfish. Steve is perhaps best known for his book, “The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction”. Joining Steve is professional colorist Bob Sliga who brings his hands on experience as a colorist to the discussion. Both of these volumes attempt to get users up to speed as quickly as possible and immerse them in the world of Apple Color. I should probably mention that this series has been released as an interactive DVD-Rom intended for playback on your desktop or laptop, and has been updated for Apple Color 1.5, the latest version available at the time of this review.

Basic Training For Apple Color
Basic training for Color is just that a boot camp of sorts for Color. This DVD makes no assumptions about the users skill level and starts at zero and provides a complete overview of the software, beginning with the often misunderstood interface. The presenters do a great job of teaching the interface and layout. Understanding the why behind the tools provides a solid foundation for delving into basic primary and secondary correction as well as the other Color Rooms. One thing I’m especially glad to see them spend time on is the chapter on interfacing with Final Cut Pro. This is sometimes a less than intuitive experience and often can cause a great deal of frustration for new users. Their workflow suggestions here are very appreciated and will go along way to aide new users in removing the headache from the process.

I found the presentation to move at a nice pace, one of my common complaints with training materials, and the presenters were pretty articulate in their approach. If you have been using color simply to apply presets then you have really been missing what this software is really all about. Steve and Bob often attempt to teach beyond just the color software and help users understand fundamentals such as scopes and hardware as well. One area I wish would have been covered a little better was codec and video compression and how those considerations factor in when grading footage. All in all I found the basic course a great way to lay a foundation for new users unfamiliar with Apple Color. New users looking to get familiar with Apple color quickly should consider the $69.99 money well spent. While this training material will not teach you the fundamentals of the color grading process it will teach you the software required to do it. I should also mention here that this title is also available On Demand via www.ClassOnDemand.net for the same price.

Advanced Training For Apple Color
While I have read, watched and reviewed several basic levels of training materials for Apple Color, this DVD was the first one claiming to be an advanced level of training. If you are really want to get into the nitty-gritty of things such as managing grades, workflow, and shot grouping, then this is the what you have been looking for. I actually learned a few new things hidden under the hood of color while watching this series. For example I had always copied or pasted grades from shot to shot, and Bob demonstrated how to group shots several ways and then apply a grade to groups, which was a workflow I had never done, While a simple thing on the surface I think it demonstrates exactly how extensive Color really is and how it really does require a course like this to begin to uncover some of the features.

Part of what I feel has been missing from a lot of color correction training is a better explanation of color theory. Bob and Steve do a pretty good job of dropping tidbits along the way. The human eye sees less color saturation in dark circumstances, and the cones are less sensitive to red under dark conditions. Bob explains that this is part of the reason for tinting a night look towards the blue side and using less saturation. While these little nuggets are sprinkled throughout the course, I personally would have liked to seen an entire part of the course dedicated to just color theory and science.

Summary
I really like the conversational tone that both Bob and Steve brought to the presentation. Both videos flowed nicely and had the natural give and take of a conversation, which makes the material feel a lot less like a class room lecture. Both presenters knew the material well and the presentation was both clean and articulate. If you are looking for a series that teaches color correction as an art form or the theory and science of color theory then these series may not be your first choice. While there is information on grading and color theory included this series is primarily aimed at teaching Apple Color as a software package. However if you are looking for a good way to gain extensive knowledge of Color then you should be able to take away a wealth of knowledge. Next to paying for a workshop or some hands on training, which would be considerably more expensive, you won’t find a better way to learn Apple Color for the price tag.

FTC Disclosure: Per the new FTC guidelines regarding bloggers and disclosure, I was offered review copies of both sets of training DVDs to watch and review. As always at FreshDV it is our goal to bring unbiased opinions to our readers through our reviews, regardless of the product or manufacturer.

Oconner announces their brand new follow focus, the CFF-1 and debuts their new O’grip support solution. The O’grip is a highly engineered solution great for larger size cameras needing some extra support. In this video segment we also take a few minutes to sit down with Adobe and talk about their latest updates to Premier Pro, part of the new CS5 release.

freshdv_nab10_connor_adobe_pre

[display_podcast]

Noise Industries is a major manufacturer of FX plugins for both compositing and non-linear editing software. They are perhaps best know for their FX Factory software, a plugin management software that gives the user a central application for adding and controling FX plugins. FX Factory is available as a free download, and additional plugin packages for FX Factory may be purchased separately. These plugins range from title generators such as MoType which I reviewed earlier this year, to pattern generators, photo montage tools and many more. Recently they announced their new Volumetrix 2.0 and HUD plugins. Here is a quick look at what these new products offer.

This plugin offers the psuedo-volumetric lighting look, ever prevalent in film trailers. There are both straight filters which can be applied to text or footage, and transitions. All parameters are fully keyframeable and even though the presets are a little cheese-ball with a little tweaking you can create some great looks. Personally I love volumetric lighting so this is a great plugin for me. Volumetrix 2 is pretty configurable, in fact you can do light rays, glows, glints and distorts. One element missing for me was the ability to map gradients to light as opposed to simple colors. This Plugin is also well suited for building light wipe transitions and such. This was a fun one to play with and really felt at home in my After Effects tool kit. Existing volumetrix users can upgrade to 2.0 for free. For new users the license is $49.

Yanobox Motype Review
by Kendal Miller
www.yanobox.com
$99 USD

Yanobox Motype software is designed to be a motion titling application that piggybacks on the FX Factory framework within Final Cut Pro, Motion, After Effects, or Final Cut Express. The first step in the process is to download and install the FX Factory framework on your system. After the installation of FX Factory is complete, you may then install Motype through FX Factory.

Motype offers twenty-six different presets to get you started on the right foot. With several quick clicks you can access Motype through your host application and select a preset and voila! Your custom text is fit into the preset and instantly animated. Beyond the custom presets Motype offers several parameters for further customizing your motion graphics; 3D Camera movement, Motion Mixer, Per Letter Particles, Cyclorama, and Random Characters as well as a full range of color, font, and timing parameters ensure you can tweak to your hearts content. All parameters are keyframeable allowing even further animation. After Effects gurus with experience will probably find the parameters to be somewhat limiting. However in the event you need just a quick and dirty title Motype will get you there quickly. My personal opinion is that Motype offers several nice graphics packages although a few of them feel rather basic and could be easily replicated in After Effects, or Motion. There are a number of presets that with some minor tweaking can look very good. It terms of usability the process for customization is very easy.

I do have a few minor complaints about the software in general. My first titles in FCP rendered out all the text as white blocks when exported through compressor. I re-exported as a QuickTime file from FCP and they all rendered correctly. This problem only occurred one time and subsequent efforts to render through compressor worked flawlessly so I’ll chalk the initial error  up to the software gremlins. Secondly the user interface only has a single field for text input which can make it rather difficult to properly layout multi-line text elements. This is a pretty big limitation in my opinion and near impossible to work around, for multi-line text.

While Motype offers a pretty strong suite of tools, it appears to be aimed mostly at those with weaker motion graphics backgrounds. At a price tag of $99, power users will probably prefer to spend that money on other plugins more suited towards their skillset. However, those looking to quickly and easily create motion titles that can be customized with very little effort will find the money well spent. You can find more information and download a trial version of Motype at www.yanobox.com.