Canon’s existing video DSLRs have two major things going for them.  One is that their small lightweight form-factor is easy to use and allows the cameras to be put into places that any other high quality camera wouldn’t fit.  The second is that with such a large imager, they give a unique style to the images they shoot, that many people prefer, even when compared to the results of cameras that cost 10 times as much.

When compared to existing HDV and AVCHD camcorders, the idea of a video DSLR totally revolutionized the low end market.  It had so many advantages in that space, that it even caught the attention of the high end market, in places the Canon never dreamed that it would go.  For the money, nothing else even comes close in regards to image quality, so DSLRs are an obvious choice for students and other independent filmmakers, and freelance videographers.

But people who are familiar with larger professional cameras look at a DSLR and see a huge stack of limitations. (SDI output, 15min record limit, remote control, excessive moiré and aliasing, etc.)  They are looking for the image style and quality of a DSLR, but without those limitations, regardless of the cost and size of the resulting product.  The C300 seems to be aimed at that market, and instead of revolutionizing it, it is just going to offer itself as one more option, which is a disappointment to those who were expecting more.  It offers nothing to further the interests of the independent videographer or film-maker, because that is not who it is targeting.  It is designed to tie into the existing equipment that larger organizations have invested millions of dollars into, the benefits of which, they are not willing to forego, in favor of the image style and depth of field offered by existing DSLR sensor systems.  Whether it will be successful in its target market remains to be seen, but I am confident that many of its key features will eventually make it into future products that are more similar to the existing 5D and 7D DSLRs.

Speaking of DSLR files, Adobe has totally reinvented the way they are handled in CS5.  Most applications, including the CS3 and CS4 versions of both Premiere and After Effects, use QuickTime importers to access the content of Canon DSLR files.  This makes sense, since they are stored in an MOV wrapper, but leads to two issues.  One is that is specific to Adobe is that on a PC, QuickTime files go through a few extra steps before they are accessed by the application, so there is a performance hit, and with lots of files accessed at once, there are usually stability issues as well.  The other issue effects all applications that use QuickTime to access DSLR files, and that is that ever since QuickTime 7.6.2 was released, Canon DSLR files have been decoded in a much more flat and washed out color space than they were designed to be viewed in.  Prior to version 7.6.2, they were decoded in a way that clipped the highlights and shadows, which was even worse.  In CS5, Adobe worked with Mainconcept to create an importer that reads the DSLR source files without involving QuickTime at all.  This alleviates both the performance hit on PC systems, and the color space issues of QuickTime’s default decoding.  A lot of work was put into getting the decode matrix and color space exactly correct based on the processing that Canon’s hardware does to the file in the camera.  This should allow CS5 to decode the files more correctly than any other application that I am aware of, and give more options for color processing at later stages in the workflow pipeline, since more of the original color data is preserved.

The Mercury playback engine has a significant impact on the user experience, with most frequently used tools being available in real time.  Supposedly most of the decode and playback improvements are based on the new code written for native 64bit execution, with the GPU offload limited to effects processing.  While many editors don’t use very many discrete effects in their work, there are some intrinsic playback functions like scaling frame sizes and adapting frame rates that are considered effects and offloaded to the GPU.  This allows content of different frame rates and resolutions to be intercut seamlessly on the timeline, and it is truly seamless.

I have occasionally found myself editing in the wrong sequence frame rate without even noticing it, since the software makes the conversion on the fly.  Even more frequently I have found a clip shot in the wrong frame rate on a tapeless camera almost escaping detection because gone are the red render bars and playback glitches that used to stand out.  This allows editors to import media from many different sources without prerendering everything to a normalized format.  I used to spend about a quarter of my time at work converting strange source footage into 1080p24 intermediate files, because any footage not matching the timeline format would cause previous versions of Premiere to glitch during playback and occasionally crash.  Now I would recommend carefully converting any footage used in a final piece to the correct format for maximum control, but this step can now be put off until the online stage, since it is no longer required for playback and stability.  Since 90% of footage usually ends up on the cutting room floor, putting off these time consuming conversions until after the creative edit is finished, will drastically reduce the amount of footage you end up needing to process.

So this clear increase in performance leads to the question of: how far can you push it?  A few months back I processed an ISO noise test in After Effects CS4 for Shane Hurlbut.  We were comparing the image noise produced at twelve different ISO levels on the Canon 5D, and the project involved twelve streams of video with masks, levels, and position adjustments for a tiled view.  I was getting about two frames per second when rendering previews, which seemed reasonable considering the amount of processing involved.  When I saw the list of GPU accelerated effects in Premiere Pro CS5, and was asked to create torture test for Adobe to show off at NAB, this jumped to mind.  I recreated the entire project, using twelve layers of native DSLR footage, each layer having a motion effect and a 4-point garbage matte to create the tiling, and a color correction applied to exaggerate the noise to a clearly viewable level.  The same basic setup that was getting 2fps in AE CS4 played back in real-time in Premiere Pro CS5.  (Dual Xeon X5365 CPUs and 16GB RAM with a QuadroFX 4800) Needless to say I was quite impressed with the outcome, since it was deliberately beyond Adobe’s ten-layer playback claim, and using a complex format to decode and playback.  Clearly GPU acceleration can have a dramatic impact on application performance.

There has been much discussion and debate on tech forums and blogs about the specifics of Premiere Pro’s hardware support for CUDA acceleration.  Adobe has severely restricted the number of cards for which they officially support CUDA based GPU acceleration, to maintain control over the hardware environments upon which their accelerated code is tested, supposedly for stability reasons.  The official list is limited to QuadroFX 3800, 4800, and 5800, as well of the discontinued GeForce 285 GTX, with certain limitations, for those on a lower budget.  There are currently no officially supported mobile GPUs, even though notebook CPUs are usually more in need of a performance boost than desktop chips.  This may be due to the fact that even the newest mobile QuadroFX 3800M is still based on the G92 core from the GeForce 8000 series, but I don’t like seeing software artificially limited in regards to performance or hardware support, and this is an example of both.  Don’t confuse legitimate limitations and artificial limitations, since clearly a powerful GPU is necessary for optimal performance in CS5, but there are cards of equal capability that are specifically excluded from the list, supposedly for stability reasons.  Luckily Adobe has left an option for knowledgeable users to override some of those artificial limitations, and I anticipate seeing them being dropped completely in a future update.  I anticipate a more reasonable requirement of any NVidia card supporting CUDA 1.1 or 1.3, with at least 785MB of video memory, at some point in the future.

While Premiere Pro CS5 is not perfect, it is a complete reversal from the previous fiasco that was CS4.  It clearly demonstrates the possibilities provided by GPU acceleration, resting solidly on 64bit code with proper multithreaded programming, it scales to take advantage of whatever hardware is made available for it.  Since Adobe has made a practice of introducing significant improvements in incremental dot releases, I am looking forward to seeing how else they refine it in the coming months.

FTC Disclosure: I have been on Adobe’s beta team for many years, and Adobe has provided me a copy of CS5 for this review.  NVidia has provided me with graphics hardware in the past, which I utilized in this review.  My only admitted personal bias is my preference of Windows over OSX, because I like full control over every aspect of my computing experience.  If for some reason that bothers anyone, there are plenty of other sources of information on the internet, but I try to provide unique insight on how each of these tools fits into the larger post-production picture.  Any relevant critique or response is welcomed.

The other major new feature for this release of After Effects is the Rotobrush.  Based on Photoshop image processing functionality, extended to account for the information made available from multiple frames, this is the closest thing you are going to find to magic in a current generation compositing application.  It allows you to automatically separate foreground and background objects in a video image, otherwise known as rotoscoping.  Of course it is not perfect, but it is a huge advance, compared to previous tools.  Automated tools like this are usually much more impressive if you aren’t expecting a miracle going into the process, but as long as you have reasonable expectations, Rotobrush can give you usable results in a rush, or a good starting point when more precise work is required.  Much of the “magic” of the new tool is in the processing of the automatically defined edges, and this capability is available without using the Rotobrush, in the form of the “Refine Matte” effect.  This effect can be used to polish the edges of standard keys, or manually rotoscoped footage.  Most of the other major feature enhancements for this release come in the form of integrated third party plug-ins, including Color Finesse for grading, Mocha for tracking, and DigiEffects Freeform for 3D simulation.  Each of these are feature rich plug-ins that include functionality that is beyond the scope of this overview, but are well worth experimenting with if you spend a lot of time working in After Effects.

There are quite a few new features in Premiere Pro CS5 that don’t hinge on the new Mercury Playback Engine.  These relate primarily to metadata and content organization, as opposed to the media itself.  Speech detection tools were introduced in CS4, and now those can be used in conjunction with the features of Adobe Story, to link your actual footage to your original plans, including scripts, storyboards, and shot lists.  Much of this footage processing links to OnLocation CS5′s features, which besides monitoring the technical details of a captured media signal, allow ingest of metadata during the acquisition process.  Building up as much information as possible during production, on a per-shot and per-take basis, will further streamline the organization process during editorial.  All of this information is searchable, with the intent being that an editor will have a much easier time finding what they are looking for, as this metadata is passed down throughout the post production workflow, based on source timecode.  This content logging metadata is not the only way that CS5′s handling of non-media information has improved.

Adobe has also been working hard to streamline the process of exchanging existing projects with Premiere from Final Cut Pro and Avid Media Composer.  They have further refined the FCP XML import and export functionality that was first introduced in version 4.0.1, which offers some interesting options for Mac based workflows.  Working at a PC based facility, I have had more opportunity to take advantage of Premiere’s support for exchanging timelines with Avid.  My current workflow is to use EDLs to move my sequences from Avid to Premiere, but with CS5′s improved support for AAF import and export, hopefully I will soon be able to leverage the additional functionality offered by AAF exchange.  (One caveat with using EDLs to move sequences, is that occasionally Avid adds spaces to the end of every line, and CS5 will not relink to the source footage automatically, unless you manually remove those spaces)  I have yet to find the optimal settings to switch to AAF files, but I have talked with people who have it up and running.  Combining this sequences exchanging feature with CS5′s support for DNxHD in both MXF and MOV wrappers, offers some interesting possibilities, but the truly revolutionary workflow will finally arrive when Media Composer 5 is released next month, allowing Avid to link to external QuickTime files thru AMA.  Hopefully this will allow Premiere Pro CS5 and Media Composer 5 to exchange sequences that all reference the same source files, without any conversions or transcoding.  Since Canon DSLR files will be supported natively both applications, this should totally streamline my current workflow.

Now why would someone want to move their project between different NLE applications?  An editor’s familiarity with a specific toolset is usually important to them, so certain offline creative editors are not going to switch their primary editorial app no matter what.  To its credit, Avid has a solid reputation for handling extremely large projects with no decrease in performance.  While Premiere Pro has taken a huge step forward in that regard, it is going to take a long time for it to build a stable reputation, since trust usually develops very slowly.  On the other hand, Premiere makes a perfect interactive online conform tool, especially compared to Avid.  It can ingest most digital formats in their native form, supports SDI capture and playback over a number of different hardware solutions, and scales to 2K and 4K resolutions, in RGB color space if desired.  It is compatible with DPXs for color grading, and can playback surround sound for reviewing final mixes.  The fact that Premiere can use Dynamic Link to ingest your visual effects changes from After Effects, and to output to Encore for adding interaction becomes an added bonus for this conform solution.

Dynamic Link is now on its fourth iteration, and has matured into a functional tool, even at HD resolutions.  It is designed exchange media between apps, without having to waste time or disk space by rendering.  While it started as a method for importing AE comps into PPro, it became the backbone of PPro’s export capabilities thru Adobe Media Encoder as well.  While Media Encoder CS5 is a dramatic improvement from the previous version, Adobe also added back in the option to export files directly from within Premiere.  This is much quicker for rendering out small parts of large projects, avoiding the overhead of syncing the entire project with Media Encoder before rendering a couple of frames.  They also brought back the ability to easily export single frames from the timeline, a function that had been removed in CS4, an inexcusable oversight that has now been rectified.  Exporting a Premiere Pro sequence thru Media Encoder, while not transparent, is now a much faster and more stabile process than it was in CS4.  Media Encoder also now supports DPX sequences and AVC-Intra MXF files, for both input and output.  Still sequence support in both Premiere Pro and Media Encoder is still missing crucial options, for relinking footage in PPro and manually overriding the frame rate in AME.  Hopefully we will have more user control of these settings in future versions.

One thing that I would like to see handled differently in Media Encoder, as well as the Premiere exporter, is the default settings for each export plug-in.  Adobe is never going to be able to predict what settings every user is going to want, but it would be nice if it defaulted to whatever I selected last time I used that particular output option.  As it stands, Media Encoder defaults to the same output as the last file queued, but if I choose any other output (AVI, MOV, DPX) it returns all of the individual settings to the original default, which is usually DV based.  Now it is possible to save presets, but I hesitate to do so unless I anticipate using that exact configuration frequently, because sorting through too many presets can become harder than manually defining the individual settings.  On a relate note, be careful where you save your .prproj files, since selecting “Save As” does not default to the current project location as it should.  Instead it defaults to the folder containing the last piece of media that you imported.  I usually follow a strict project organizational pattern, but I have saved projects in the wrong folders daily since switching to CS5 thanks to this “feature.”  Hopefully this can be fixed in a minor update.

Now a subsidiary application to Premiere Pro, Encore CS5 is the next logical step in that application’s evolution as an interactive authoring tool.  The most significant new feature for larger productions would have to be support for DDP output, so that your Encore projects can now be replicated at a professional facility without any special hardware required on the authoring side.  Adobe has also continued to develop the Flash export options, allowing Encore users to output their interactive experiences directly to the web, now with most of the BluRay interactivity features, including the new multipage menus, supported as well.  Encore projects are now completely cross platform compatible, between the Mac and PC versions.  There is also better support for 23.976p and 24p source files, and an easier subtitling process.  AVCHD files can now be authored directly to BluRay discs without any transcoding, decreasing processing time, and increasing output quality.

Previous versions of Encore have used Dynamic Link to import Premiere Pro sequences as source clips, and more significantly in my opinion, to import After Effects compositions as motion menu backgrounds.  I was never really that impressed by Dynamic Link for Encore source clips, because your Premiere Pro sequence is usually finished by the time you make a DVD, and since you are going to have to transcode to MPEG2 at some point anyway, little time is saved.  Motion menu design on the other hand seems like a much better fit for the workflow benefits offered by Dynamic Link, since the menu needs to be edited in both Encore and AE during the authoring process.  Encore now also uses Dynamic Link to offload transcoding of those sequences, or any other incompatible source footage, to Adobe Media Encoder.  This will free up Encore to continue interactive authoring work, while asset transcoding proceeds in the background, and also allows third party accelerated encoding plug-ins that are compatible with Adobe Media Encoder, to be utilized for these internal transcodes.  While I am unaware of any CS5 compatible encoders, this was an issue with the Elemental Accelerator in CS4.  The files it generated at 24p were re-transcoded in Encore anyway, and Encore couldn’t utilize the accelerated plug-in directly.  Anyhow, while no CS5 version of Elemental Accelerator has been announced, Matrox’s CompressHD should be able to accelerate Encore’s BluRay H.264 encodes, once Matrox releases CS5 compatible drivers.

The one thing still missing from the Adobe package is a good intermediate format for exchanging files between other applications, systems, or facilities.  This capability is available from 3rd parties like Cineform or Matrox, but until Adobe integrates support for one directly into the suite, there will not be a single universal standard format, that can be counted on to be compatible everywhere.  It needs to be compatible with both Mac and PC, and store at least 10 bit HD footage with sufficient compression to playback smoothly on a laptop.  Apple and Avid have both recognized this need, and developed ProRes and DNxHD respectively.  AVC-Intra is Adobe’s current recommendation to meet those workflow needs, but that format has a complicated file structure, and is not a codec optimized for smooth playback.  This universal format would tie in well with OnLocation, if Adobe ever added support for HD-SDI capture capabilities.  That would allow ingest, either live or from tape playback, into a compressed format for editorial, with log notes entered in real-time similar to their current tapeless solution options.  And if a professional selection of scopes could be viewed of the SDI input signal, you would have an all-in-one onset workstation solution.  OnLocation CS5 currently offers most of these capabilities, but is limited to HDV, XDCam, and P2 acquisition for most of its features.  Oh, and if it supported my Canon DSLR, that would be pretty cool too; maybe next time.

As a whole the CS5 release is a major turning point for Adobe, especially with the problems their users experienced with CS4.  While I don’t yet fully utilize many of the new features, CS5 has already revolutionized the way I work.  Premiere Pro CS5 has replaced After Effects CS4 as central application from which I manage my projects.  I was lucky enough to be on the beta team, so most of the major issues I encountered with the software in my specific workflow, have already been resolved during the development process.  While CS5 is by no means perfect, it is a huge step forward that will begin to rebuild user confidence in Adobe products.  Once third party hardware and plug-ins have had time to be updated to be compatible with the new 64bit native applications, I see no other disadvantages or caveats to upgrading to CS5, which I highly recommend.

FTC Disclosure: I have been on Adobe’s beta team for many years, and Adobe has provided me a copy of CS5 for this review.  My only admitted personal bias is my preference of Windows over OSX, because I like full control over every aspect of my computing experience.  If for some reason that bothers anyone, there are plenty of other sources of information on the internet, but I try to provide unique insight on how each of these tools fits into the larger post-production picture.  Any relevant critique or response is welcomed.

Adobe announced all of the features of the new highly anticipated Creative Suite CS5, which will include native 64bit, CUDA GPU acceleration, and better support for formats like DPX and DSLR clips.  I will have many more CS5 details in future posts, delving into how that will change the landscape of many workflows.  There are lots more new developments in the post world, but those are the primary things that stick out to me right now.  We still have two more days, and I will be spending a good bit of time demonstration Cineform’s Neo3D features at their booth at the back of the Lower South Hall.  So if anyone wants to catch up with me, feel free to stop by.

Canon DSLRs name each video file “MVI_####.mov” where “####” is a constantly incrementing 4 digit number.  It is easiest to identify individual cameras if each one is shooting a totally different series of numbers. (Like CamA = 1000′s, CamB=2000′s, etc.)  While there are no options in the Canon menus for manually setting the starting file number, there is way to trick the camera into starting at any number you want.  Reset the counter to zero in the menu, and then return the setting to Continuous.  Take a picture, and then use your computer to rename the JPEG file on the card to the desired number.  (In this case: 5000)  Put the card back in the camera and take another picture.  Verify that it incremented from there. (IMG_5001)  Format the card or remove it, and your camera will continue incrementing from that point. (So my next shot, will be IMG_5002, or MVI_5002 if you switch to video mode.)  You can reset it to any four digit number you want, and it will increment from there, unless you shoot with a card from another camera, without reformatting it first.  In that case, the camera will increase the file number if necessary, above any files already on the card.  The Canon 1D MarkIV has a few more options for filename prefixes, but the objective is the same, to create a uniquely identifiable series of filenames for each camera on your shoot.

Doing this will make it much easier to sort through your files, since you will be left with a separate numbered sequence of files from each camera.  I was recently on a two week shoot with twenty Canon cameras, and by setting their initial numbers 500 apart, (Since four digits gives you 10K possibilities, divided by 20) it was easy to sort the resulting files, even though due to logistics, I got some of the files many days after they were shot, and out of order.  If you set the clocks on the cameras accurately, the timestamps on the files will make it easier figure out which files are different angles of the same take.  Even with all that, I still had duplicate file names on that project, with 5600 files for that shoot, so renaming to a better convention will be important on most large projects.

Having a good naming convention for your media files can save a lot of time and trouble.  The info that needs to be contained within the file name will vary depending on the nature of the project.  For the Navy Seal movie I setup a convention that included Scene, Setup, Take, and Camera.  The next project I worked on was more of a documentary type shoot, with no script or scene numbers, so the file name was composed of Date, Camera, and an incrementing shot number.  The important things to keep in mind are: order the info intelligently for searching, keep place values consistent for sorting, (Use leading zeros) and make it unique within the first 8 characters for EDLs.  For the movie, 005A_02b.mov is: scene 5, first setup, second take, camera B.  If I want to see the other camera angles for this take, they should be nearby if the footage is sorted alphabetically.  And if I want to find other takes from that setup, I shouldn’t have to scroll too far. If during onlining I am looking for a specific clip based on the name, I go to the proper scene folder, and scroll down to the right setup, and start looking from there.  Now if you want to include descriptions in your filenames, put them after the unique identifiers up front.  This is because sorting descriptions alphabetically is relatively useless, but you can still search through them with regular OS tools, as long as the description is somewhere in the filename. (10_E_026_BigExplosion.mov)  And if your software at some point in the process truncates the name, there should still be enough info in the first 8 characters to identify the exact source file.

During the process of renaming, it is a good idea to keep a log of what you have done in case you make a mistake, and it forms a basis for content logging as well.  I do this with a simple Excel spreadsheet that records: Original Name (MVI_####), New Asset Name, Description, Comments, as well as CameraName, Date, FrameRate, or any other data that might be relevant depending on the project.  I also sort out the bad takes and delete the .THM thumbnail files during this stage. (The THM files are actually JPEGs that can be opened if you rename them, but I have never found any practical use for them)  Once I have this list of what I want the files to be renamed to, to fit the filename convention for the project, I convert the log into a renaming batch file.

To do this, save a copy of your log sheet as a “Text (Tab Delimited)” file from Excel. Then delete every column except the original name and the new asset name, and insert blank columns before, in between, and after those two columns. Fill each of those three columns with a unique character, like #, $, and %. Save your file and close Excel. Open the file in Notepad, and press CTRL+H to bring up the replace window. Replace “#([TAB]” with a command and the path to your media files. (“REN D:\ProjectName\Footage\”) Replace “[TAB]$[TAB]” with “.MOV[SPACE]” unless your log included file extensions, in which case just replace that with [SPACE]. Replace “[TAB]%” with “.MOV” unless your log included that, in which case replace it with nothing. (In WinXP the only way to insert a [TAB] into the Replace dialog box is to cut and paste one from the document, with CTRL+V.)  You should be left with a text file with a series of commands that each look something  like this:
REN D:\ProjectName\Footage\MVI_0001.MOV 057_T12A_NewClipName.MOV
Save this document and rename the file extention to .bat, and double click on it to run the batch.  This should assign new names that match your log to each of your files, and make it much easier to sort through your footage, if you designed your naming convention well.

The other thing you can do with you footage log is generate an ALE, so that if you are editing in Avid, your log notes can be linked to your clips within the program.  I will go into those details, and other tips for editing DSLR files in Avid, in my next post.

I know I haven’t posted anything here in a while, but there will be quite a bit coming in the near future.  I am writing a series of articles that will be posted between here and Shane Hurlbut’s blog at hurlbutvisuals.com.  I have worked with Shane on a number of projects, the largest one being the Navy Seal film over the last year.  I will be offering an overview of the post workflow options for video DSLRs on his site, with links back to this one to delve into the less glamorous, nitty-gritty details.  So stay tuned for some very focused articles detailing specific workflow obstacles in the next few weeks.  And then NAB is only a month away, which I am sure will bring a whole variety of new things to talk about.  I will be at Cineform’s booth as a demo artist/workflow consultant again this year, so feel free to stop by and check it out.

So once the lenses issue was dealt with, were left with a selection of AVCHD encoded MOV files.  AVCHD is a processing intensive format that does not playback or edit very well.  While Quicktime would play the files, it clipped the blacks and the whites at incorrect levels.  16 and 235 were being stretched to 0 and 255 on decode, lowering the dynamic range.  This was caused by Quicktime incorrectly interpreting one of the header fields on the file.  The solution to this was to use CoreAVC to decode the files when converting into a different, and ideally more edit friendly, compression format.  Shortly after this workaround was developed, Apple released a Quicktime update (7.6) that fixed this particular issue entirely.

Beyond the clipping issue, there are other tricks to maximize the dynamic range of the 5D.  The picture style is used to control the way that the camera converts the 14bit RAW still into an 8-bit JPEG.  The same picture profile settings are applied to the 8-bit recorded video.  This allows you to do things to get the maximum detail out of the available 8-bits of color depth.  The first few projects I worked on that used the 5D, we used a custom picture profile that I got from Stu Maschwitz’s ProLost blog, High Gamma 5.  We did a number of comparison tests, and while High Gamma 5 gave us a wider total dynamic range, for our feature film, we eventually decided to use Neutral, one of the default Canon presets.  Neutral gave us a file that was closer to the final look we were going for, and with only 8bits of color depth, burning in your look, at least to a degree, should result in better picture quality at the end of the day.

Every file the camera records is named MVI_####.mov, with an auto-incrementing number, and no real override options.  That makes things simple on tiny projects, with one camera since each file has a unique name.  On larger projects, and ones that use more that one camera, (We usually have 15) file management can be a bit more work, to keep things straight throughout the post production process.  Our solution was to rename each MOV file with a unique 8 digit identifier as the new filename, and store the key to the original card and filename in a database.  This allows each clip to have a consistent name throughout the process, to show up on EDLs as a tape name or clip name as desired, without truncating unique values after the 8th digit for certain formats.  By the time we are done ,we usually have a source MOV, an Avid MXF, and an online Cineform AVI, all with the same content and file name.

Next up was the framerate problem, at 30p.  The first few projects I did with 5D we posted at 29.97, so the issue was solved with a simple reinterpretation of the framerate, when converting from the source AVCHD into an editing codec, and tweaking the audio .1% to match.  Unfortunately 29.97 footage doesn’t intercut with film very well, and won’t print back for theatrical masters either, so sometimes a 24p workflow is required.  For 24p projects, the conversion solution is much more complicated, involving motion compensated frame blending.  After extensive testing we concluded that this was best done with the Revision Effects Twixtor plugin for AE, or using Optical Flow in FCS Compressor on OSX.  Having a PC centered workflow, I favor the AE based solution.  With render times at around an hour per minute of source footage, it is impractical to convert all of the source footage on large projects, which necessitates an offline edit.  Since we don’t have timecode and keycode, relinking for the online requires a bit more creativity.  We have found some interesting options that are unique to Premiere Pro CS4, related to the way it links EDLs to existing source footage that make this much simpler than our first tedious tests, which involved manually rebuilding projects at 24p back in Premiere Pro CS3.  The new CS4 version can convert the TC-In on an EDL to a framecounted In-point of an existing media file, with makes the onlining of 5D footage a relatively simple automatic process after a few find-replace edits (.mov to .avi in our case) to the EDL.  In the future, it looks like Canon is going to support 24p recording on all of their DSLR offerings, so all of these crazy 30p workarounds will soon be an obselete thing of the past.

Although it is much better in rough environments than most other electronics, Canon DSLRs do have their weaknesses.  I have operated a 5D in temperatures of 20 below zero, and in the desert at over 120 degrees fahrenheit.  While we had no issues in the cold, where solid state recording has a huge advantage over tape, there are some issues at higher temperatures.  The camera sensor itself is a large piece of silicon, that generates a lot of heat on its own, and when combined with a high external temperature, in the worst cases is shuts off the camera.  You probably have to be over 150 degrees to get to that point, leaving the camera in a black metal box in direct sunlight for an extended period of time, but we have seen it happen.  A much more frequent problem, that is harder to detect, is that as the sensor begins to overheat, there will be much more video noise in the recorded picture, especially in the darks.  This is probably due to a higher latent voltage on the chip as its electrical resistance changes with the temperature increase.  This has only been a problem for us when shooting with the same camera for many hours in a hot environment, and our solution is usually just to swap the camera bodies for one that has not been used in a while.  This obviously requires having multiple cameras on set, which isn’t always an option on lower budget projects.

The last issue, that we are still finding new ways to deal with, is rolling shutter.  Having a large format CMOS sensor, DSLRs are subject to rolling shutter, or inconsistencies between the top and bottom of the frame.  I have spent the last few months working on a project that put the 5D into some of the most intense situations.  As a fairly lightweight device, it is subject to more jitter and shake than a larger camera with more inertia, and with the camera moving, the rolling shutter results in the recorded picture being slightly geometrically skewed, depending on the direction of the motion.  We also shoot high speed objects, like helicopter rotor blades, which are known to cause strange artifacts in certain instances.  So far we have been lucky with that, and haven’t found any of those types of issues in our footage.

The type of rolling shutter artifact we are struggling with the most, is gunfire muzzle flashes, especially at night.  In the dark, the flash blows out the imager, but the flash does not last as long as even a single frame.  So with the rolling shutter, the top half of a frame will be totally blown out, with the bottom part looking normal, because the flash had subsided by the time that part of the chip was sampled, or vice versa.  Setting the shutter speed lower than the frame rate causes it to screw up more of the frame or frames, and setting it higher causes it to narrow the flash into a distinct horizontal band in the footage, neither of which is desirable.  One thing we have found that helps is setting the shutter on the 5D to 1/30th.  (We usually set it to 1/50 to get similar motion plur to film shot with a 180 degree shutter)  With the 30p framerate, the flash either affects an entire frame, or matching parts on two subsequent frames.  (Bottom part of one frame, and the reverse area on the top of the next one)  This gives us an entire over exposed frame if we stitch the two parts together.  This can be hand cut back into footage that has been brought from 30p to 24p by manually selecting frames.  It remains to be seen if this solution can be scaled practically to our entire movie.  The best way to avoid this issue is to avoid recording gunfire at close range in very dark environments.  The farther you are from the muzzle flash, and the more ambient light there is, the less it is going to flare out your camera, minimizing the degree of the resulting rolling shutter artifact.

So that should convey some of the challenges are in faced in using DSLRs for filmmaking, especially on large scale projects, but it is by no means an exhaustive list.  As the tools evolve to suit the cameras, and the cameras evolve to suit the tools, many of these issues will become much easier to solve and require fewer workarounds.  The AVCHD decoding issue was solved by a new release of Quicktime, the manual lense control was solved with a new firmware release from Canon.  The 30p conversion process is the next issue I see becoming a thing of the past, if Canon can get a 24p recording option onto the 5D.  I am looking forward to that day, but in the mean time I have 2TB of 30p footage, divided into 5,000 shots, to cut into a 24p film, so I have a lot of work ahead of me.