Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Theater Bites

This is topic Theater Bites - Web Show Series in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006167

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-22-2010, 10:53 PM:

This is a web show series I'm working on. Basically, in a nut shell the show will feature topics about movie theaters and experiences from working at them, interviews with people in the industry, movie reviews, product reviews, and just about whatever the viewers(like all of you) would want discussed on the show.

Theater Bites - Episode 1: Introduction

Feel free to add suggestions, ideas, and if you are interested in participating on the show just PM me or check out the website for more information.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-23-2010, 12:32 AM:

Jen if you ever want to do an Australian episode I would be more than willing to help you out.

As for critisism, I can not fault your natural, relaxed on screen presence, the lighting looks great and the sound is chrystal clear.

If you were to really push me for a suggestion on improving it in anyway, I would suggest that you change the frame size between takes to remove the jump cut look (that I can happily live with anyway!)

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-23-2010, 12:37 AM:

I used to do that kind of effect on some old videos I've made. But for this particular one I didn't have it in mind. I just wanted to have a quick change for each topic I was talking about.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2010, 12:19 PM:

It would be tricky for other transitional effects to work (dissolves, wipes, etc.) since they take up more time and would have an effect on the audio track making sense. The longer transition would need a quiet space for the cut to work. Or you would have to get into fiddling with the audio track to make a sort of L-shaped edit between the audio and video, doing some sort of fade in/out with two audio tracks. More time consuming than a straight jump cut.

Jen, what camera did you use to record the video? The EOS 7D would be my guess based on the slightly narrow depth of field effect (easier to get artsy looking narrow DOF using a DSLR than a standard video camera). If the 7D was used what did you use to record the audio? Top mic on the camera or boom mic?

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-23-2010, 02:39 PM:

Indeed, the Canon 7D with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens was used for this episode. The Rode VideoMic - Shotgun Microphone was for the voice audio and Final Cut Pro to edit the footage.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-23-2010, 02:49 PM:

Other equipment used:
Vanguard Tracker 4 Tripod
Velbon Tripod - to hold up the Rode Mic, which was also attached to the Canon XL1 [Smile]

Bayco 10 1/2 In. Brooder Clamp Light With Porcelain Socket
Bayco 8 1/2 In. Clamp Light
Ceiling Light
Tall Room Lamp Light
36in x 48in Double sided Gold & Silver Reflector
16ft 3.5mm Stereo extension cord for the Rode Mic to the Canon 7D
8GB SanDisk Ultra Compact Flash Memory Card

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-23-2010, 03:19 PM:

Nice job, but the jump cuts have to go. (This is a serious pet peeve of mine in most web video. I hate them.)

The usual way around this is to first edit for sound, leaving the jump cuts in, then replace the picture over each jump cut with a video or still image of whatever you are talking about (maybe even just a title card of what you are discussing).

A fade to black would also work well, but that would change the pacing of the video.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-23-2010, 03:28 PM:

Jen,

I enjoyed your first web video and feel honored to be in on the birth of your new website. (I was one of the first viewers of Christine "Happy-Slip" and have followed her career, meeting her at her 07-07-07 bash in Washington Square Park. I can see your involvement in the media taking off as hers has.)

You look and sound great! Though I have followed your posts and still photos on Film-tech, I am delighted to see you "live" in color with sound.

My only suggestions are to avoid the shift in color balance
(your youthful complexion doesn't need the rosy color temp shift.) And don't tell too much at once--allow for questions and comments to provide openings for you to reveal your thoughts.

Congratulations!

--Gerard

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-23-2010, 04:01 PM:

Thanks guys for the input. My goal for the first episode was to be blunt and to the point. I understand the attention span of many people out there, its about 30 seconds. [Razz]

As the show moves forward it will transition into its own groove and feel. Allowing for comfortable transitions between topics. The content will also become more elaborate and detailed allowing for comments and the like. Please be patient as I grow and improve within this project that we are all working towards to achieve.

Scott, I tried some fades within this particular video but it didn't feel right to me. The speed at which I was talking to get everything into this one episode only felt right with jump cuts in my opinion. But I will try and make everyone happy in the episodes to come.

Gerard, as for the color shifting... the only color correction I did was a little touch with the darks and the lights. Everything else is either from the lighting in the room or just my normal face tone. What you see is pretty much very close to how the video was recorded.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2010, 05:49 PM:

For proper color balance, I usually use a custom white balance based on exposing from a 18% gray card. I mainly do this for still images, but it can work for video as well. I never use the auto white balance feature and it should be avoided for any video use or time lapse shooting because color variations will occur.

As a short cut, provided some up front note taking is done in various light conditions that are controlled and able to be repeated, you can manually set the white balance based on a Kelvin color temperature. In still images the Kevin setting usually shows up in the EXIF data.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-29-2010, 12:12 AM:

Theater Bites - Episode 2: Movie Review & Movie Discounts

Episode 2:

Movie Review for "Just Wright"

Discounts and Deals at the movies...

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-13-2010, 11:34 AM:

Theater Bites - Episode 3: Movie Reviews

Episode 3:

Movie Reviews - Wolverine, Mystery Team, and Prince of Persia

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-21-2010, 10:37 AM:

Theater Bites - Episode 4: 3D Talk Part 1

Shout out to Jake Wenger & Jeb Bertram, check out their movie review Podcast Show! http://sloppyotter.blogspot.com/

Talk about the origins of 3D, Sega Master System, Nintendo Virtual Boy

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-27-2010, 08:56 PM:

Theater Bites - Episode 5: Toy Story 3 3D Review

Episode 5:

Toy Story 3 3D Review

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 06-28-2010, 02:01 AM:

Sorry to see you perpetuating the myth that 50s 3D was (dual-projector?) anaglyph, that shutter glasses are old technology but polarising isn't!

I'd suggest reading up on the history of 3D before trying to tell it how it isn't.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-28-2010, 05:00 AM:

Shutter glasses are old technology unless you consider 25 years old to be "new". Where did she say that polarized glasses are new?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-28-2010, 06:27 AM:

She did say that the red/green glasses were how it was done in the '50s though anaglyph was always the poor step child of polarized. Even back in the early days of 3D. Anaglyph is only used when one does not want to change their screen or use special lenses or have external filters.

Steve

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-28-2010, 06:55 AM:

I did read up on it, I guess they didn' t explain it clearly enough. No one is perfect. Anyways, I won't post the show anymore on here. For those who do want to continue watching the series go to http://theaterbites.webs.com

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-28-2010, 09:33 AM:

Jen,

I don't think anyone was jumping on you for posting...we have a "random videos" thread for that sort of stuff.

The notation was that the statement(s) you made had factual errors. Generally, when one writes/makes something for the point of conveying knowledge, the author fact-checks and researches to ensure what they are presenting is indeed factual. It would be like saying..."back in the 1950s, 1+1 = 3 but now math is better and 1+1 = 2."

It is indeed a popular myth that anaglyph 3D was the norm in theatres or how it was done in the "old days." when in fact polarized 3D was the system of the 50s and beyond with anaglyph only used in specific situations since it relieved one the necessity of retaining the polarization of the image (silver screen) or, in the case of home, not being practical in a typical video release. One off movies like "Spy Kids" used anaglyph since it would have been way too big a burden to equip the industry for such a movie when there was no indication of more to justify the expense. They certainly could have forced the issued and used an Over/Under film system and required theatres who booked it to equip for 3D...like they did in the '80s...but again, there was a slew of 3D films in the 80s...to the point that many/most complexes built in that era had at least one screen in the complex that was silver, just to hedge ones bets. Towards the end of the decade, when it was clear that 3D had died, yet again, that practice stopped and once again, white screens were used most everywhere in conventional cinemas (there are always some that want that hot spotty picture or just want to use too small a lamp).

Regards,

Steve

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-28-2010, 10:08 AM:

I did fact check. Oh well.

There isn't really anymore support here. So I don't need to post more videos in this thread. Facebook is better.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2010, 10:42 AM:

Well... you did ask for comments. You never said you were only looking for praise.

I have watched all the episodes and enjoyed them but I haven't put up any comments. I suspect there are a lot more who have done the same.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-28-2010, 11:43 AM:

I actually have been tracking the amount of views coming from this site. It's few and far between since the launch of the show.

It's not about praise or what have you. If anyone wants to continue to watch or comment or put their input, feel free to do so on the Theater Bites website. Join the site if you'd like to be notified of new episodes that get posted. Thank you all.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-28-2010, 12:00 PM:

Out of curiosity...where did you fact-check that in the 1950s that 3D in theatres was primarily anaglyphic?

Steve

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-28-2010, 12:04 PM:

Wiki, I guess it's apparently not very reliable. I've checked different sources from there. They were either vague or gave the wrong info. I've learned my lesson to not check those pages anymore. Also, a few other sites that came up on the top of the list on Google searches about the history of 3D film were vague, as well.

If you guys know a more accurate place to get film related info please don't hesitate to link me to them. Especially one that REALLY tells you what is what and so on. I hate those sites that just give you a general fact but don't tell you if they continued or ended something or whatever. Thanks!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-28-2010, 04:05 PM:

I'm still eager to hear what Peter has to say about my shutter glasses comment. It's the same technology being used today for 3D TVs except the glasses are wireless and flash a touch faster (though the flicker is still VERY visible). That's it. Old, ancient technology. So old that even IMAX 3D has used it. Old old old! The 3D glasses she has in the video are 23 years old, cost $39 new back in the day. Why do they cost $140 now? God damn I hate electronics companies! Charging an arm and a leg for old, old technology. Can you see I am having fun with saying that shutter glasses are old? Well, I am. [Smile]

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 06-28-2010, 05:48 PM:

I wasn't saying that shutter glasses weren't old technology.
It's just that it always seems to be stated that shutter glasses are old when being compared to polarising systems which are older. The shutter glasses used these days are much faster than those used in the past - I do remember the (heavy) ones used by IMAX and I prefer them to the current polarised ones - and ghosting is a non-event (at least in cinemas).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-28-2010, 08:03 PM:

I've never heard of anyone ever saying that shutter glasses are as old or older than polarized glasses. But she didn't discuss polarized glasses. Shutter glasses are faster, yes, but still nowhere near fast enough. Flicker is readily apparent. But then again, I seem to be able to notice a higher framerate than most people do. A lot of people I show demos to and whatnot cannot tell the difference between something running at 30fps and 60fps. Sad.

Most 3D technology is old. At least the upcoming Nintendo 3DS does 3D without any glasses whatsoever (and yes, it plays 3D movies).

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-28-2010, 08:55 PM:

FYI

quote:
The connection has timed out
The server at theaterbites.webs.com is taking too long to respond.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-28-2010, 09:05 PM:

Thanks Jen for the videos!

This seemed appropiate, marrying "old and new" 3D.

http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/50378-nintendo-3ds-will-have-same-kind-of-warning-as-virtual-boy

quote:
The warning messages on Nintendo's upcoming 3DS handheld will be similar to those used on the infamous migraine-inducing Virtual Boy system.

The company has reportedly been consulting with experts in the 3D field and evaluating its potential health issues. After those discussions, Nintendo is warning that the device is not safe to use for young children.

In an interview with Kotaku, Nintendo of America president Reginald Fils-Aime said, "We will recommend that very young children not look at 3D images. That's because, [in] young children, the muscles for the eyes are not fully formed."

Fils-Aime noted that warnings in 3DS material will be "the same type of messaging [that was used] for the Virtual Boy." The Virtual Boy was, of course, a large flop that was known for causing migraines in users exposed to the stark red-and-black 3D visual display.

The warning messaging, though, will also be similar to that used in today's theatrical and stereoscopic 3D movies. Fils-Aime called it "a standard protocol."

The 3DS has a toggle switch that enables gamers to tone down the 3D effect, down to the point where it looks the same as a standard 2D image. So that "young children" crowd, which is an extremely important demographic for Nintendo, will still be able to enjoy their favorite Pokemon and Mario games without the risk of eye damage.

And, of course, the "new 3D tech" in the nintendo 3DS is no less than 25 years old as well ...

As Joe said, most 3D technology is old. 3D has been researched for +100 years. If it hasn't "caught up" and become universal is not because the technology doesn't/didn't exist. It's been there all along. It's for other reasons. Technology now is just a TINY little bit better, of course, but nothing "new" or "revolutionary".

During the 50's, many (many) dozens of "A" films were generally presented in systems arguably better than today's. Dual 35mm="double light", "full resolution", "no flicker", etc. Even the dual (linear) polarizing filters allowed for about 10 times less ghosting than RealD today. Go figure.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-28-2010, 09:40 PM:

Chris and for anyone else who encounters an error on the site... you are free to go to http://jepanic.blip.tv to view the episodes.

Since theaterbites.webs.com is being hosted for free, errors like this may happen once in awhile. I'm doing the show on my own time and budget... with my crappy job its hard to put it towards the show/site. Maybe with a lot of hard work and better episodes... I hope to one day just make videos/shows for a living... here's to dreaming. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-29-2010, 07:43 AM:

quote: Jennifer Pan
if you are interested in participating

If you do a Chicago-themed one, happily. [Big Grin]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-29-2010, 10:26 AM:

quote: Jennifer Pan
Wiki, I guess it's apparently not very reliable.

Just to be clear, the wikipedia articles I saw on 3D don't say that the 1950's used the colored glasses. You might've gotten mixed up with it mentioning colored glasses used for some stuff earlier than that.

Or it's entirely possible someone edited the thing after seeing your vid, but I doubt it. On the other hand, I could see someone easily getting confused since the earlier history of this can appear a bit convoluted, even when written correctly.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 06-29-2010, 08:02 PM:

Either way, it wasn't very clear to me what was used back then. Otherwise, I would have said the right information. I read so much info on different pages the past couple weeks on it that it's possible things got mixed up somewhere. So, I am sorry EVERYONE about the mistake. Please forgive me, I am only human. [Big Grin]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-29-2010, 11:16 PM:

The mistake is understandable, since I never found out why but the journalistic missinformation of thinking 3D was ever in history mostly anaglyph, when the opposite is true, is all over the media.

3D has always been mostly non-anaglyphic everywhere along history, with perhaps the exception of the printed media like comics or magazines, where anaglyph has always ruled, and ocassionally on broadcast TV.

Otherwise anaglyph is seldom used compared to a variety of other (much superior) systems, mostly polarized, shutter-glasses or "dual view", like viewmaster/stereoscope/virtual boy [Razz]

.

So people in the early 50's got to watch plenty of 3D movies in quite perfect full color, nice and bright stereoscopic 35mm that rivaled (or was superior to) the best current systems. Only real problem with them was the possibility of getting the two projectors out-of-sync (i.e. by threading a frame-off in one of them) and thus getting the whole thing messed up. There are reports of this happening ocassionally at the time, of course. But even today we have heard of a few digital projections screwed up by "reversing the eyes" etc as well.

3D died back them (and again later on, like in the 80's) not because the systems in use were technically very bad and riddled with unsolvable problems. The reasons were other.