Ali Kazimi – Documentary Field Notes and Flashpoints

Kazimi on 3D and Documentaries

Last fall I posted part one of an interview with my friend Ali Kazimi on 3D and its potential for documentary. Here is part 2. Ali is an award-winning filmmaker and most recently author of Undesirables: White Canada and the Komagata Maru – An Illustrated History (www.undesirables.ca). He is an associate professor in the Department of Film at York University, where he has been researching stereoscopic 3D digital cinema since 2008.

Ali Kazimi.

I feel 3D is appropriate only for certain kinds of documentaries that have both very controlled shooting parameters, such as nature, performance or travel with healthy if not hefty budgets especially for post production. Ken MacNeil from Creative Post in Toronto, likes to point out that finishing a stereoscopic 3D (S3D) film is akin to creating a Digital Intermediate for a film shot on 35mm film. i.e. one has to use a very high end S3D capable system to do the overall colour correction and stereo-grading. The colour grading ensures that both cameras are matched as closely as possible, the stereo grading involves fixing the geometrical issues between lenses, the alignment between cameras and determining where the screen plane will lie – i.e. what will be in front of the screen and what will appear behind it.

I take it there is a real learning curve involved here ? You can’t just improvise.

A fundamental knowledge of S3D basics combined with basic knowledge of human perception is essential. For example one of the things that cannot be fixed in post is the depth in shot – this is determined by the Inter-Axial (IA) distance between the two cameras, hence the IA determines the depth in a given shot, in simple terms the greater the IA the more the depth (note: if one pushes this too far you get miniaturization, an effect specific to S3D). What one can adjust in post-production is the point at which both cameras converge – Convergence determines where the screen plane lies. If your depth, as determined by the IA has not been calculated properly, the scene may be unwatchable and the only way to fix it would be either to loose one of the camera images and keep it in 2d or to go for a 2D to 3D conversion.

And how accessible is the equipment ?

Currently at the lower end there are many tools both in terms of cameras and post-production that are making it S3D more accessible. I have been playing around with the new Sony HDR-TD10 S3D consumer camcorder. It is the first affordable true HD camera, with 1920×1080 resolution for each eye. There is now a prosumer version, HXR-NX3D1, but unfortunately the codec used by Sony will only work on their proprietary Vegas Pro system, there are complicated workarounds to edit the material on other NLE software such as FCP, Avid, or Premiere.

On the one hand it is amazing to have these tool, on the other hand it, I go back to the steep learning curve necessary to learn stereoscopic 3D, it would be a mistake to think that this camera can be used to shoot an entire film in the same way that a 2D prosumer camera such as the Sony PD150 or the Sony Z1U was rapidly adopted for docs in the past. The new S3D cameras are good for many kinds of shots, but filmmakers will also need to keep using mirror rigs – i.e. two cameras mounted at 90 degrees with a partially silvered mirror at 45 degrees in between them. I have also seen the Sony shoulder mounted TD 300 camcorder – it offers greater control but again is limited by the fixed Inter Axial (IA) distance – the distance between the two cameras.

A documentary package for S3D production could consist of a Genus Hurricane mirror rig with a two Sony EX3’s and at a Sony TD10 or NX3. Of course, this is already two cameras more than a 2D package.

This sounds quite complex. Is it really compatible with the kind of flexibility and agility we associate with typical docs ?

I do think it is an exciting time for documentaries and the possibilities S3D offers, however I do feel it will be sometime before we start seeing lower budget films that offer more than just depth, in which the true potential of S3D is exploited. At the moment most S3D films need to work on both 2D and S3D screens. Many including myself feel that S3D on its own requires a different language – slower editing pace, wide angle lenses, more movement, deep focus. Pina is a great example of this, and Wenders has said that the film was designed with only S3D in mind and does not work in 2D, I have to agree with him.

Given the dismal state of documentary financing in Canada today, it is unlikely that anyone would make a film solely designed for S3D. Realistically you are looking at a budget that is significantly higher. Unlike the US and Europe where there are now dedicated S3D television broadcasters, in Canada there are none. Bell and Rogers have been running test channels for the past couple of years with the same compilation reels endlessly looped.

I have met several people who are eager to jump into S3D productions, they are typically focused on rigs and workflows, I do have to keep reminding them that they cannot bypass the fundamentals. Our 3DFlic research project at York has been renewed for another two years, so while I continue to explore content, form and technology for S3D docs, we will also be holding seminars, workshops and the second stereoscopic 3D conference next year.

Blog Changing Its Skin

The other day I went to see spring arrive at the Montapen falls north of Joliette, an hour and a half’s drive from Montreal.

Dear subscribers and other readers,

As you may or may not have noticed, with the overwhelming influx of messages which afflicts most of us, my blog has not been active for about six weeks – except for an old post which went out the other day. The immediate reason for this was a nasty malware-infection which has now been cleaned up thanks to my friends and colleagues Kim Gjerstad and Barry Greenwald and our hosting service Web Hosting Canada. However, it was time for the blog to change anyway. I am facing some serious health challenges, and will not be able to write as frequently as I used to. There was a time when I attempted to cover most significant developments in the world of documentary as well as presenting some of my own work, posting every week. From now on, I will write less frequently, and will focus on issues which are very close to my heart, or on people with whom I have a special relationship.

One of my upcoming posts will deal with La grande invasion, (the great invasion) a film about the devastating impact of real estate development gone wild in the Laurentians north of Montreal. Also coming soon, an interview with my dear friend Ali Kazimi about 3D and documentary – he is an authority on the subject and we have been fine-tuning this interview for several months. And I will have a chance to report on the editing of my own film on the troubled youth of Montreal North.
All the best
MI

Thank you to Sally Rylett for helping with this post.

Kazimi on 3D: part 1

Ali Kazimi is an award-winning filmmaker. Since 2008, he has been researching stereoscopic 3D digital cinema at York University, where he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Film.

Q. Why is there this sudden groundswell of interest in 3D?

The current stereoscopic 3D is propelled by the exponential rise in digital technology in film production, coupled with the phenomenal success of James Cameron’s Avatar. Really, much of the growth in S3D is due to Cameron’s championing and use of digital S3D. Cameron himself did not come to S3D overnight, he spent the decade before Avatar experimenting with making underwater docs with different degrees of success. In fact, his underwater experience reveals itself not only in the very comfortable 3D experience he was able to deliver, but also in the flora of the imagined world which looks and behaves very much like underwater plants do.

However, it is his S3D experimentation that is critical to acknowledge and it is instructive in many ways – or to put it differently, S3D has a steep learning curve. The biggest challenge I feel is getting a grasp on the fundamentals of perception, how we see depth. Stereo vision, or ‘stereopsis’ as it is known scientifically, is the process by which the brain takes in the 2D images from the left and right eye and fuses them together into a single 3D image. However, stereopsis is only one way in which in the human brain perceives depth. We also use a number of other visual cues, called monocular cues, such as perspective or the familiar size of objects to determine spatial relationships.

Technically, S3D camera systems mimic the way we see. We use two cameras each offset by a certain distance, called the inter-axial (IA) distance, to generate two identical from images from slightly different perspectives, similar to those between our two eyes. The images have to be in perfect sync with identical focus, depth of field, colour and contrast, this is easier said than done. The mechanism for shooting stereoscopic 3D, known simply as rigs, therefore consists of two cameras either side-by-side or at right angles to one another with a partially silvered mirror at 45 degrees in the middle.

In terms of both composition and pacing there is much that is still unknown, filmmakers have to learn how to see the world around us with the z-axis in mind.

A couple of months ago just I saw a screening of shorts, commercials and music videos screened at the TIFF Bell Lightbox. The program, called ‘Selected Package’, had a wide range, from those with high production values to lo-tech DIY retro-inspired music videos. The latter were screened with the Red/Blue, anaglyph format. I have rarely come out of a screening with such acute eyestrain and headache. Once again, these music videos painfully drove home the difference between bad 2D and bad 3D, in that poorly produced S3D can be uncomfortable and even painful. Filmmakers have to recognize that their S3D work can have an immediate physiological impact on the audience. In fact this is the very reason why filmmakers have to step way back and truly re-examine how we see.

On the other hand, Wim Wender’s film Pina is a real masterwork and a true landmark in S3D filmmaking. In my view, the first feature film made solely for S3D, one that explores its immense possibilities with such inspired grace and virtuosity.

Wenders’ keynote address at our Toronto International Stereoscopic 3D conference was one of the most amazing artist talks, and a truly inspirational speech on how he came to 3D and how filmmakers should engage with 3D (read the transcript here). Pina is exciting because it was designed solely as a 3D film, whereas I have long maintained the almost all other 3D content is designed to work in 2D as well. Consequently there can only be limited exploration of a new cinematic language. More on Pina a bit later.

What is it that you have to learn? Theory or hands-on?

On the technical side, digital projection has made it possible to deliver a pretty seamless 3D experience, it is another matter that many cinemas don’t have proper projectors resulting in relatively dimmer image. Of course this is the last but crucial stage in the entire digital workflow.

In some ways the ‘Avatar effect’, as I often refer to it, has been a mixed blessing. The studios and the television manufacturers all jumped on the bandwagon. S3D sets are now increasingly on the market and prices are coming down fast, the problem is the dearth of content. To create content one needs more than tech, training and accessibility is critical. As I have said earlier, S3D has a steep learning curve and there are no short cuts, it will take time to develop a critical mass of filmmakers and technicians.

The most critical position is that of the stereographer – a stereo expert who should ideally be at least consulted during pre-production, who is on the set during production working with the camera rig and who then again at least consults through post-production and during the final colour and stereo-grading. Stereographers are hard to find, in this new field many people claim to be one after doing a workshop or two, one has to be really careful. Errors made in production such as the depth of a shot are impossible to “fix in post”.

Thanks to Tobi Elliott for her help with the blog.

Wearing two hats

Mukash, Isacsson & Sioui-Labelle — Myself and DOP René Sioui-Labelle shooting Power at Hudson’s Bay in the early 90s interviewing Cree chief Matthew Mukash.

Film students sometimes ask theoretical questions which, while not uninteresting, are not particularly important to a practitioner. But Tom Eden from the documentary program in Rivière du Loup asked me this: is it a good idea to direct and to do camera and sound at the same time?

This is a big question, and I could write a book about it. Some pioneers of cinéma vérité did their own camera work (Pennebaker) or sound (Wiseman). Some of my colleagues whose work I admire do their own camera work: John Walker, Martin Duckworth, Ali Kazimi… and I do my own sound – as did one filmmaker who really inspired me, Barbara Kopple.

I think some of us took this approach years ago because we wanted to have a small crew and also to maximize the number of shooting days (by spending less money per shooting day.) But the combination of reduced budgets and accessible digital technologies have really brought this way of working to the fore.

These days there are filmmakers who do everything themselves – one example is Montreal filmmaker Eve Lamont, who just released a film on prostitution (L’Imposture), which she directed while doing camera and sound herself. An impressive achievement, considering some of the situations involved several different characters, sometimes in uncontrolled environments.

The other day I saw a very good film, Gasland (shortlisted for the Oscars) shot by the filmmaker – but the shooting is pretty awful. What saves the film is the personal narrative tone, the investigation and the excellent editing. Imagine if it had been well shot as well!

For me, doing camera work would have come naturally, as I have a background in visual arts and photography. But I have chosen to do sound because I find that it allows me to have a better overview of what’s going on, looking around to see what else is going on outside of the frame.

So… doing creative tech work while directing has many advantages, primarily reducing the size of the crew and controlling costs. But here is a caution. Directing really requires your full attention. So does camera work and sound recording. So if you wear two of these hats at the same time, you are inevitably compromising.

If you are on a tight production schedule, something will get less attention. So one key issue is time. Doing camera or sound is great if you know how to do it, and you are not in a rush! Another key is really knowing your gear. (You don’t want to be struggling with tech issues at the crucial moment when you need to reassure your characters, negotiate access, ask a key question…) And your relationship and communications with whoever else is working with you needs to be really tight.

Here is an old photo to show that directing and doing tech work can be fun: myself and DOP James Grey on a beach in Rio during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Thanks to Tobi Elliott for her help with the blog.

Documentary and globalization: favouring understanding

Age of Stupid - Sydney — A still from the documentary "The Age of Stupid", directed by Franny Armstrong

I have just spent two weeks teaching at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington State. More on my course another day, but I also had the opportunity to speak to the students and faculty about Documentary in the Context of Globalization.

I talked about how the new digital technologies have democratized access to audio-visual production and how the web has made it possible to instantaneously distribute videos worldwide. This has opened up a two-way street, making local stories available to the world, and bringing the world (or stories from elsewhere in the world) to audiences just about everywhere.

To illustrate my points, I showed excerpts from three films. Burma VJ is one I wrote about on my blog earlier. The film documents the use of small digital cameras by courageous video journalists – VJ’s – to reveal what goes on inside the Burmese dictatorship. With digital cameras and satellite uploads they distribute images worldwide within hours. Their work made all the difference during the 2007 uprising led by Buddhist monks across the country.

Another example I used was the video of the killing of a young Iranian woman during the 2009 protests in that country. It graphically showed her dying moments, and really touched people emotionally. Thanks to the web and cell phone – Twitter was particularly instrumental – it spread like wildfire, and actually helped change the relationship of forces between the regime and the opposition.

As an example of how the new production and distribution context has allowed people who did not traditionally have access to the resources to express themselves audiovisually, I used the amazing Wapikoni mobile experience, which has been running for six years in Quebec. Young aboriginal people have been given training and access to production facilities, and the result is impressive. Many of their films have been presented at festivals and won awards.

For some filmmakers, the starting point is not local but global. That was the case with the 2009 film The Age of Stupid by Franny Armstrong. The premise, established with much aesthetic panache, is that while the world has gone to ruin, one man (played by Pete Postlethwaite) remains in the Global archive in 2055. His archives reveal the stupidity of the people of our era who knew the world was on the road to perdition but didn’t act – stories set, naturally, in our own time.

Finally, I spoke about the phenomenon of immigrant directors (or children of immigrant families) making films about their home countries in the ‘developing countries’. Having access to the funding mechanisms of the richer countries as well as an intimate knowledge – or at least personal connection – to their country of origin, these talented directors have made some great films. Ali Kazimi’s Narmada – A Valley Rises, Rithy Panh’s films about Cambodia are good examples, but I chose to show an excerpt of Up The Yangtze by Yung Chang (NFB & EyeSteel Films).

There are increasing numbers of excellent films coming out of the countries in the South. As a member of the board of the Alter-Cine Foundation, I am able to see the incredible diversity of projects from Asia, Africa and Latin America looking for funding every year. Just reading the proposals, one gets a sense of the many aspects of reality which are not adequately covered by our television networks.

Conclusion – it sound a little simplistic when summarized, but it’s true: by offering a more in-depth treatment of other realities, documentaries contribute to understanding and awareness between peoples.

Thanks to Tobi Elliott for her help with this blog.