Making the film: Part 2

Part 2: Assembling the technology

For the journalist moving into low-budget documentary filmmaking, it seems to me that there are two primary types of documentaries, and two kinds of people doing them.
The interview-based documentary involves mostly sit-down interviews. This sort of interview is not unlike a standard print-reporting piece – once you’ve set up camera and lights and positioned a microphone, you just talk, a one-on-one conversation. Interview based docs tend to then use secondary media – stills, archival film clips,
The action-based documentary follows events or situations as they happen. For these kinds of works, the emphasis is on seeing something happen; interviews may be slotted in later, or used in voice-over, or grabbed during lulls in the action.
Each type can be highly successful:
Examples of interview-based docs have to start with virtually anything by Ken Burns. The Civil War was really, at its heart, a string of sit-downs with the added feature of photos and voice-over readings of letters or print items of the day. Brief History of Time, the Errol Morris doc on physicist Stephen Hawking based on his book of the same name, is another interview-based film in which people sit and recollect events, or add perspective. Alex Gibney’s Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room is a more recent model of success of an interview-based doc.
Examples of action-based documentary include the wildly successful March of the Penguins, said to have cost $4 million. But a successful, low-budget example, is Jesus Camp, Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s 2006 Oscar-nominated piece on the Kids on Fire Evangelical Christian summer camp, which works mostly on just watching the kids in their camp activities.
If one thinks of these two types of docs as the poles on the spectrum, then one also finds many docs that combine the two, mixing action and interviews. War Photographer, Christian Frei’s study of legendary photojournalist James Nachtwey, is one I think of that’s near the middle.
I’ve come to the conclusion that print reporters or writers moving to work in documentary form do best with interview-based docs, while photojournalists moving into docs succeed best in action-based works. While the former type of film is, in essence, a visual feature story, the latter is a moving version of the picture stories and photo essays that skilled photojournalists do so well.
As a writer with some still-photography experience, I chose an interview-based subject, particularly because I’d be working alone. Having chosen the short-story writer Andre Dubus (1936-1999) as my topic, I went about assembling my equipment, based on my budget. Here were some considerations:

Format
One area in which I departed from modeling my approach after filmmaker Mary Mazzio was in format. She chooses to shoot 35mm color film, which remains the standard for feature films. It’s also wildly expensive – Spectra Film, a supplier, specs 1,000 feet of 35mm film with processing at $1,579, and 1,000 feet is only about 10 minutes of shooting. A 63-minute mini-DV tape costs $8. So film was immediately out.
The next consideration was digital video. While the general format of DV has all but killed off old analog (magnetic) videotape, the variety of formats within DV is wide and sometimes confusing. But as a basic, there are three types: DV, HDV and HD.
DV, also called “Standard Definition” these days, is the least expensive and probably easiest to work with in editing. DV shoots an images with 480 horizontal lines, and has an image quality far superior to the home video formats (such as High-8) that were more common in the 1990s. The key to shooting any video, but especially standard-def, is really good lighting. Great lighting will improve a low-end format more than great format will help a shot with low-end lighting. Some well-known documentary and feature-filmmaker have actually chosen standard def over other formats.
HD, on the other end of the spectrum, generally shoots an image of 1080 lines, more than double the quality of standard. Until even three or four years ago, however, true HD was, cost-wise, out of reach for virtually all low-budget filmmakers. A low-end HD camera could cost $30,000 or more. Within that format were manufacturer-based subformats such as HDCam and XDcam (Sony), or D5-HD and DVCPro-HD (Panasonic), which I’ll discuss more later.
HDV was the middle ground, and ingenious but tricky format: It works on so-called “group of pictures” technology (sometimes called “interframe encoding”), in which the camera imprints a “default image,” then in the next five to 15 frames (depending on the camera) only imprints what has changed from the default frame. It allowed 1080 lines with a lower demand on the processing abilities of the camera.
HDV, sometimes called “the poor man’s HD,” brought the costs down considerably. In 2005, an entry-level HDV camera was around $5,000; these days the market is saturated with sub-$1,000 HDV cameras made mostly for amateur use (I’ll get back to that).
What I learned about HDV was this: While a basic frame of HDV can look as clear and crisp as true-HD, certain uses test its good nature. In a sit-down interview, especially if the subject is well-lighted and sitting still, there is very little substantive change between the “imprint” frame and the succeeding frames. Therefore, the video looks nearly HD-sharp. But action – whether it be a lot happening in a fixed frame (you’re shooting a football game from a tripod) or a moving frame (a quick panning move across a fixed landscape), you begin to see jumpiness and breakup.
(One format that wasn’t available then was h.264, also known as AVCHD. This highly compressed format is being used on the new generation of tapeless, card-storage cameras. While it was introduced as an amateur HD format, and can be difficult to edit, the next few years are sure to bring either a refined h.264 or a more advanced tapeless format. One disadvantage is that if you delete or corrupt the file, your video is gone. Tape remains a fairly reliable storage medium, which can make for backup on which you can depend.)
Because I was doing an interview-based work, I chose HDV. I then had to decide which camera to purchase, which led to more considerations.

Camera

There are several dominant brands putting out so-called “prosumer” camcorders – JVC, Sony, Canon and Panasonic seem to be dominating – and within those there were further choices to be made. But as I played with my budget, I came to these conclusions: I was willing to spend about $5,000 for a camera, wanted to shoot my doc within a 10-month window, and hoped I could then sell off my camera used for $3,000 within the year, for an effective camera budget of $2,000. This seemed preferable to the rental rate for most higher-quality HDV cameras, which can run about $200 to $250 a day. Camera rentals are most used by people making films with actors, in which one might plan to shoot a 15-minute short film with a four-consecutive-day shooting schedule.
As I looked around, I made some basic choices:
1) Manual Focus or Autofocus? Autofocus is a wonder of technology, but can also drive you crazy. One of my students found this when he shot a 10-minute short doc on an Iraq War vet living in a van behind the local gas station. The subject of the film was engaging and perceptive; he sat in the driver’s seat of his vehicle chattering away about his life and experiences. Problem was, he smoked, and tended to wave his cigarette around for emphasis. Every time he did, the autofocus camera picked up the hand and took the subject’s face out of focus. While many cameras give an autofocus on/off option, many also treat the manual focus as a notion, providing difficult or imprecise controls. I decided to stick with manual focus: I would seat my subject, focus up, and turn on the camera. For an action-based doc, some photojournalists with great follow-focus skills might also use a manual focus. Autofocus might be a best bet for less experienced action shooters: For example, a favorite doc of mine in Jonathan Nossiter’s 2004 Mondovino, about the struggle of small French and Italian estate winemakers against massive corporate vineyards. He used a standard-def Sony PD-150 with autofocus, and there are many instances in which things get choppy. But I always feel the rough edges of the film lend to it a raw spontanaiety as he wanders the vineyards with the winemakers.
2) One-chip or three-chip? A one-chip camcorder takes all information on a single sensor, while a three-chip has three layered sensors, individually processing reds, blues and greens. Three-chips have greater color quality, and increased sharpness. So it might be that a three-chip standard def camera such as the Canon GL2 might actually yield better overall image than a one-chip HDV camera such as the JVC HD10. And, some cameras use a one-chip “CMOS,” which some say are better than the standard “CCD” chips.
3) Controls or no? While a sub-$1,000 HDV one-chip camera such as the Canon HV30 can yield brilliant images in some instances, it can really fail at others. These kind of palm-size camcorders tend to fail in instances, for example, in which there is high latitude – a simultaneous presence of bright brights and dark darks – or low light. Because you can’t manually adjust very easily, these cameras can take over control. More “pro” cameras give you easy access to such features as video gain (the ability to adjust for light levels), white balance (to adjust for daylight, standard indoor, or fluorescent), gamma level (to create a more film-like effect that emulates warmer tones of a movie) and sound-recording levels. When Dad is buying a camcorder for the baby’s first birthday party, fewer buttons make sense. For a more professional approach, more buttons can sometimes save the shoot.
4) Removable or fixed lens? I more minor consideration, but remember that even if you shoot HD, a lesser lens can bring down the quality. Most camcorders have a one-piece construction, only a few allow lens upgrading.
5) The “i” or the “p”? This is one of the most-confused of elements. In simplest form, “i” in such designations as “1080i”stands for “interlaced,” the standard-television format in which images are rolled over the next – if you shoot a photo of an interlaced television, you can see the bottom half of the outgoing frame as the top half as the succeeding frame. The “p” stands for “progressive,” which works like real film – each is a stand-alone frame, the way a movie runs as 24 complete frames per second. Two years ago, JVC introduced the first HDV camera to shoot at 24p, which had two presumed advantages: First, for a filmmaker who might eventually want to transfer the video to real film for theatrical exhibition, it made the process easier (although a video-to-35mm transfer runs about $300 a minute. Secondly, and more subtly, there is the theory that progressive video has much more of the look and feel of film for a viewer.
My choice: In March of 2006, I spent $5,200 on the JVC gy-HD100u. Manual-focus, 24p, 3-CCD, removable lens, HDV. While it was the only one of its kind on the market little more than two years ago, there are dozens like it available now. And, the next wave is that of true-HD sub-$10,000 camcorders that may knock HDV completely out.

Lighting

Having done what most people do, which was to allot most of my budget to the camera, I began to search for cheap lighting. I found a kit for under $100 on eBay that had a lightstand, a 500w “hot” bulb, and an umbrella reflector. For another $25, I got a round collapsible reflector with white on one side and gold on the other, with a small stand to position it.
This setup worked for the first half of the 40 interviews I was to conduct for the film. But they were hot, bright to distraction for the interview subjects, and the umbrella took a while to set up.
For the second half of the shoot, I invested in a light that was portable, somewhat inexpensive, had a more even tolerable light, and emitted no heat. It was a Flolight FB-220, which ran me about $400. The light uses color-correct fluorescent bulbs (not the greenish-cast fluorescents we find in our kitchens) and sets up in less than a minute – I’d pop it in the stand, plug it in and turn it on. The Flolight is a less-expensive version of the KinoFlo lights used on many television and movie sets.
Later, I coughed up another $500 for my favorite light of all, a Flolight LED500. This light is little more than the size of a large book, is virtually unbreakable, fits in nearly any tight space, and weighs about six pounds while putting out the equivalent of the ungainly 500-watt hot light/umbrella I started with. In a pinch it can also run (briefly) off my camera battery. On my current project, I find myself using the LED500 about 90 percent of the time, usually just with a reflector on the other side.

Sound

Sound quality may be more important to image quality, particularly if the documentary is more for online or webcasting. While more traditional filmmakers have sound recordists who capture separately to a deck, then synch sound to video, that to me seems an artifact of the shoot-on-film era. Virtually all camcorders have the capability of recording clean, clear sound in digital format. It’s the microphone that matters more.
Lavalier or shotgun? The lavalier microphone is also known as a “lapel” mic, the small clip-on one sees on the edges of the subjects jacket or short. These pick up good sound, and in their placement over the chest do a nice job of registering the low end of the sound range. They can also pick up “p” pops caused by the subject expelling air onto the mic, and if the subject turns one’s head too much the levels can fade in and out.
A shotgun mic is usually either set up on a stand (most often above the subject’s head, just out of frame) or is held by a boom operator holding the mic near the subject with a telescoping boom six or eight feet long. Shotguns need to be powered for best effect, either by a separate power source or by a battery inside the mic, usually one or two AA’s.
I chose a Sony ECM-55B, a lavalier that costs about $400, which is cheap (I hear the newer 44B is down around $200) and runs on a single AA battery. It’s been my workhorse. Because in my doc, my voice does not appear on audio, I only needed one.
Much later, I bought a shotgun, the Rode NTG-1, for $249. It picks up good sound and can be out of the frame, something some filmmakers seem to think is important and others do not.
Wired or wireless? For an action-oriented doc, the choice can come down to either having the mic tether to the camera by wire (more mics use a heavy XLR stereo cable, which essentially costs about a dollar a foot). Wireless set-ups get into the thousands of dollars, and as one can see on many a reality show, still require the pack that juts from one’s beltline.
Mixed or direct? If the film were to have two or more people on-screen, the choices are either to have a boom operator moving the mic quickly from one person to the next, or to try to position a shotgun mic on a stand at an even distance, or to run multiple mics, which would then go through a mixer. The mixer has slider scales to balance sound, and then a single cable running to the camera input. Again, this is where money gets steeper. The lowest-end Audio Technologies field mixer, which can take in up to three mics simultaneously, costs just under $700. I did my film more cheaply. In one instance in which I interviewed two of Dubus’s friends at a local bar (the owner opened up at 8 am so I could record without the intrusion of crowd noise), I simpled mic’d one guy with the lav and interview him, then moved the mic to the other guy and interviewed him. It seemed to work out fine.

Accessories

The primary accessory for most shoots is a decent tripod. Since I was shooting with fixed camera that was fairly light, I simply borrowed a very old Leica still-camera tripod from my brother. The advantage, when ne is doing a project alone, is portability; the disadvantage is in picking up vibration. I usually slung a camera bag over it to try to make it more stable.
My shots didn’t involve panning and tilting, so I didn’t need a video tripod. But those usually come I either ball-head versions, which are less expensive, or fluid heads. Ball heads can be had for under $200. A friend who shoots video tells me this rule-of-thumb: Always put your money on the ballhead instead of the legs. A good ballhead on aluminum legs is fine; a cheap ballhead on titanium legs is throwing money away.
Fluid heads are heavy (25 lbs. or more), expensive ($1,000+) and smooth as silk. They’re always better for effect; a filmmaker lent me his fluidhead for a project and I barely used it, simply because I was struggling to lug this thing in and out of buildings.
Cases, bags and storage are necessary expenditures. A foam-lined case is a must for the camcorder; a tough nylon shoulder bag works for the tripod. I found a lot of this stuff at very low cost at an online supplier called Amvona.com. I haven’t had any complaints yet. I also bought two light stands there for about $25 apiece.
If you’re shooting in the field, lots of batteries are a must. When I bought my camcorder from B&H Photo Video in New York (another supplier I’ve bought tons of stuff form with nothing but good results), it had a rebate deal in which I got an Endura i/o battery with bracket and charger (a $1,500) equivalent) that can run a good two hours on a charge. I’ve used this continually; a replacement Endura runs $200, and I have yet to bite. The Anton-Bauer battery is similar. But for most interview situations. I’m simply plugging into an AC outlet, so if I hadn’t gotten the Endura for free, I likely would not have bought it.
And finally, I invested $60 in a luggage carrier. I could stack the camera case and light case on it, and then bungee a bag with my tripod and light stands on that. It all fits in my trunk and can be wheeled down the street. In my current project, in which I’m shooting a lot in Manhattan, I drive to a commuter-rail station, park there, and wheel the kit onto the train. I come out onto the concourse of Grand Central Terminal, a one-man crew who can get decent footage at a fraction of the cost.

Equipment Summary

For roughly $6,000, I’d assembled an initial kit that worked for me. It was portable enough for me, would allow me to shoot under the conditions I foresaw, and was simple enough for me to operate with good results. I expected to recoup $3,000 by selling the camera at the end of the project, so my overhead was $3,000. And having spent a bit going on about equipment, it goes to an initial premise: Equipment should be invisible. You want it neither to signal your amateurishness or overshadow the content. For a writer doing documentary work, what mattered was still, and always, the story.