After 12 hours journey with ferry and car we are back home. We spent 14 exciting, sunny, unforgetable, hot days in London. We shot 30 hours material. That sounds very much, first of all, if you consider that in the finished film the London chapter will be perhaps 10-15 minutes long. A shooting ratio of 1:180. Miserable ratio even for a documentary film. But this has several reasons. First reason: we shot with two cameras, very often parallel. This leads naturally nearly to a duplication of the material. Another reason is our work style. We had to find a visual concept, but it lasted some meters of magnetic tape in the camera and some screenings of our footage during the nights before we found our way to tell the story.
The most important reason for the material flood is however surely the medium. For our first shooting in October 2003 for the trailer we had exposed 4 film reels(36 minutes). With this footage we made a trailer of 2.30 min length. We got such an outstanding shooting ratio of 1:14 because of the economic restrictions of the material. Film is expensive in the acquisition, development and scanning and so we decided very exactly, when and whether we huit the record button. With video you don´t have these economic restrictions. A HDV cassette necessarily costs 15 euro, no development and scanning is necessary. With spending 450 euro we were abel to film 30 hours. With film we would have been able to to develop and scan 15 minutes.
Before the shooting our goal was to imitate the film work style wirh our video equipment. We wanted to be as efficient with video as with film. Unfortunately we failed. Not badly because the extra costs are acceptable. But I wanted to work with video in the same way as on film because of another reason. The expensive film material forces you to work very concentrated. If you work with your video camera the whole day and you record 1 or 2 footage every day, you are in danger to lose control und concentration. You waste your energy on perhaps unimportant shots and miss then the really important moments, in which it would have really been worth to switch the camera on. If I look at some footage we recorded during the last days I recognize some shots in which you immediately see an absence of tension. For our next shooting this will be one of the most important challenges: to ban the material flood of the video shooting. Perhaps we could manage to shoot in a more filmike manner with memory cards based systems like the Panasonic HVX-200. There you have a limited capacity in the video world because of 8GB cards.
Diesen letzten Artikel unseres Drehberichts schreibe ich, nachdem wir wieder zuhause sind. Nach 12 Stunden Fahrt mit Fähre und Auto sind wir einigermaßen wohlbehalten back. 14 exciting, exhausting, sunny, hot days are diversified in a great city behind us. The baggage is 30 hours of material. This seems a lot, especially when you consider that in the finished film the London chapter will be perhaps 10-15 minutes. A Drehverhätnis of 1:180. Punk money even for a documentary. But this has several reasons. For one it is because we have two cameras rotated very often in parallel. This naturally leads to an almost doubling of the material, but then also gives us an average of the opportunity to resolve situations in different ways. It is possible, for example, talks, to Theo out example in Trafalgar Square, has a shot and reverse shot dissolve.
A further reason for the long length of material rotation is certainly the beginning of the shooting. For the places we had only our aesthetics and find resolution when shooting: with what images I tell the place and the action. Although we had considered before shooting a visual concept, but it took some meter tape in the camera in order to implement this concept on the ground.
The most important reason for the flood of material but is certainly in the medium. For our first shoot in October 2003 for the trailer we had exposed a total of 4 rolls of film (36 minutes). The result was then a trailer of 2.30 minutes in length. The excellent shooting ratio of 1:14, we had to thank the economic constraints of the material. Film is expensive to purchase, development and scanning, and so every time we thought about exactly when and if we pushed the start button on the camera. For video these economic constraints largely eliminated. An HDV tape costs in premium-quality 15 €, no development and sampling is necessary. With the use of 450 €, we were able to bring our entire 30 hours of footage onto tape. In this film would have just been enough to develop to 15 minutes to scan and.
What we certainly had failed, our plan, in spite of the shoot video to fight the flood of material and as little but more efficient to shoot on video. We had planned before the shoot, the cinematic, reduced use of materials and work to be carried onto the video. Unfortunately this is not successful. Not bad, you might say, because the costs are acceptable. But a very different point in my opinion to be expressed. The economical use of film forces you to a very concentrated work. Turning distributed in video 1 or 2 hours of material throughout the day, you run the risk of losing this concentration at some point. Maybe you're wasting energy on unimportant settings and then missed the really important moments in which it would have really paid off, turn on the camera. If you look at our material, you realize this in some settings, especially in the last days of the shoot. It will be erratic, inattentive, it is sometimes lacking the right attitude to the image.
for our next shoot, this will be one of the main challenges stem the tide of material video shoots, not to lose the sense of dense, intensive settings.
The material shortage at the time still working with memory card-based systems such as the Panasonic HVX-200 brings with it could be a way to reach this goal with video.
