The interesting thing is that under the hood, the cameras are pretty similar. Yes, the XL has 3 CCD chips behind a big interchangable lens, and the HV only has one miniscule CMOS chip behind a little fixed lens — not to mention some serious differences in manual controls and connection ports for things like timecode, genlock, and HD-SDI — but the actual brain of both cameras, the chip which processes the images, runs the viewfinder, mixes the audio, and encodes the HDV, is the exact same Digic DV II chip.

The same is true of Canon’s still cameras. There are a lot of differences between their big black SLRs and their little silver point-and-shoot cameras, but most are run by identical Digic II or Digic III digital signal processors. It’s cheaper for Canon to develop a single powerful chip that can handle consumer and professional processing than to design and manufacture multiple chips, so we get the same processor whether we buy a $1200 SLR or a $120 pocket cam.

So, why don’t we get access to the same features for a tenth the price? First, those who want a point-and-shoot camera generally want to point and shoot, not mess with a bunch of complicated settings. Also, the tiny form factor of the consumer cameras means there is a limited amount of space for all the controls that would be needed to adjust a bunch of settings quickly. And finally, most manufacturers want to maintain a big difference in features available in the consumer and professional cameras to protect the market for the more expensive products.

But, with a little aftermarket tweaking, you can access more professional features on the point-and-shoot Canons. A bunch of clever hackers have cracked the firmware that the little cameras run, and added new features supported by the processing chip. All you need to do is download the new firmware, called CHDK, and run it from a memory card in the camera. It doesn’t break the existing firmware; all it does is add a ton of new menu options to a new “alt” mode.

This will allow you to control the aperture, ISO, and shutter speed independently, and expand that shutter speed to extremes far beyond the original limits; anywhere from 64 seconds to 1/60,000 of a second. You can save RAW files instead of being limited to JPEGs, add features like battery meters, zebra bars, and histograms to the viewfinder, use the USB port to control the camera, and run multi-shot scripts for things like motion sensing, HDRI exposure, and time-lapse photography.

Time-lapse photography is one of many great reasons for a videographer to have a still camera. The video above was shot using a Canon 30D on my Manfrotto tripod and computer control (although you can also use a remote timer). I think I could have got similar results by duct-taping a cheap camera running CHDK to a tree. Maybe better results, since the computer dropped a few frames.

The downside to CHDK is that you need to make some fairly complicated settings manipulations using only the few navigation buttons that the menu offers, so it can take a lot of time to get the settings you need. And of course, you still have a tiny fixed lens and a cheap imaging sensor to contend with. CHDK doesn’t make your point-and-shoot equal to a SLR, but it does make it much more valuable than a normal consumer camera, and so I wouldn’t recommend buying anything but a Canon.

The next question is, do we have a hacked firmware for the HV20? No, or at least not yet. The HV20’s little brother, the HF10, has been cracked, and may get some extra features soon. There are people working on the HV20 now, however, and if we can get the ability to individually control aperture and shutter speed, or at least be able to turn the gain off (or adjust the image settings in more detail, or do numeric white balance, or export RAW data over HDMI, etc, etc), it will be a much more powerful camera, and more useful for filmmakers. I can’t wait to see what might be possible.

Let me know what topics you’d like to see covered in future tutorials, and I’ll see what I can do. And, for those of you who would like to post this video on your own blogs, you can use this embed code:

<embed src=”http://www.outside-hollywood.com/mediaplayer.swf”
width=”600″ height=”450″ allowscriptaccess=”always”
allowfullscreen=”true”
flashvars=”height=450&width=600&file=http://www.outside-
hollywood.com/vid/photoshop101.flv&image=http://www.outside-
hollywood.com/vid/photoshop101.jpg”/>

Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is an excellent example of this. I saw it yesterday, and enjoyed it. It’s not perfect, but takes on such a complex and controversial subject so gamely and covers so many topics in such a short amount of time that I think some of its more minor shortcomings may be overlooked.

Its main strengths, however, are noteworthy – particularly the presentation style of Ben Stein. I like Ben Stein. I’ve enjoyed his films and books, quoted The View From Sunset Boulevard in my book, and I think he did an excellent job as the host of “Expelled.” He’s sharp enough to hold his own when interviewing top scientists, but humble enough to come across as sincerely looking for answers; funny enough to make 90 minutes of arguing experts actually enjoyable, but still able to personally convey the deep tragedy of Nazi genocide.

The film has been called everything from “ a hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda” to “bizarre and hysterical.” Critics appear to have almost universally decided that its sinister underhanded goal must be to put that scary old Biblical Creation back in schools and destroy the wonderful open-minded academic freedom that evolutionary advocates currently enjoy.

This is ironic, since the film’s purpose is to demonstrate that “big science” discriminates against all ideas contrary to the neo-Darwinian party line, assuming totalitarian controls over what is discussed, published, and funded, quashing all dissenting views. Contrary to mainstream reviews, creation is barely discussed in “Expelled,” and intelligent design is only suggested as a potential alternative.

This is one area in which I think the film could have been better. While the often-misconstrued term “evolution” is very carefully and concisely defined by David Berlinski, and several interviewees describe what they think “intelligent design” should mean, the filmmakers should have more clearly defined their terms. For that matter, so should the critics who cry out against the doctrine of “creation” without specifying which origin story they disagree with.

Also missing was an exploration of how worldviews can affect the interpretation of empirical data. While Dr. John Lennox of Oxford University made a brilliant observation on the unavoidability of presuppositions in the argument, there just wasn’t time to address it or even flesh it out. This is disappointing to me, since it sits at the very heart of the evolutionary debate and is an area of personal interest, like the information theory briefly mentioned by Maciej Giertych, population geneticist for the EU.

Another thing than bugged me (while I’m on the subject) was the camera work. It’s well done, but borrows a little too heavily from the fast-action “24” style of constant reframing for my taste. That said, the interviews are well covered, and the location photography throughout Europe and America is excellent. When Stein visits French, German, and English locations, the filmmakers manage to convey a sense of chronological travel along the film’s journey, rather than just cut from expert to expert or show the destinations dotted on a map.

Another editing technique that will invite plenty of comment is the constant use of vintage film clips from old movies and newsreels. It’s a bit gimmicky, owes some of its execution to Michael Moore’s projects, and yet works pretty well. With the scientists predominantly talking about abstract concepts and unfilmable (or imaginary) events, stock footage can provide the only b-roll, and the humorous clips seem more cleverly chosen than Moore’s ham-handed juxtapositions.

So… why did the New York Times dub it “an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike?” Perhaps the negative reviews are a confirmation of the film’s main premise – that politically-incorrect ideas will be stamped out by mainstream institutions. Most of the complaints, however, are superficial straw men, ad hominem assaults on Stein’s sanity, or just plain lies.

Richard Dawkins and others have protested their portrayal in the film, explaining that they were tricked into providing the interviews for a film with a working title of “Crossroads,” never imagining that they were set to appear in a film with such a covert creationist agenda. However, both of Dawkins’ interviews, which get a considerable amount of screen time, revolve around intelligent design, so it couldn’t have been that covert.

Another ubiquitous angle in the criticism references the fact that Stein links Hitler to Darwinism. Reviewers either laugh smugly that a Jew could be dense enough not to know that anti-Semitism predates evolution, or tremble with rage that someone would dare suggest that kindly old Charles Darwin, father of science, was actually producing genocidal maniacs.

The Baltimore Sun called this “the most spurious and risible section” of the film, and Arthur Caplan inexplicably labeled Stein’s assertions “a very repugnant form of Holocaust denial.” This is unfair, since Stein says nothing of the sort.

In fact, only his interviewees make this connection, not insisting that Darwinism inevitably leads to genocide, but that Nazism’s genetic cleansing program could not have existed without Darwin’s concepts of natural selection. Those making this claim in the film include David Berlinski, Richard Weikart, and the curator of the Hadamar Clinic, a German hospital where almost 15,000 handicapped Aryans were euthenized for being “useless eaters.”

Coincidentally, yesterday was Adolf Hitler’s birthday. This may have colored my thinking a bit as I pondered the film that night, but it seems that this aspect of evolutionary theory, Darwinian ideas taken to their conclusions and put into practice, is the most interesting. Without agreeing on the presuppositions we use to analyze scientific data, there will be no consensus on this debate.

Modern scientists can’t agree on where physics stop and metaphysics begin, let alone whether a living cell’s unfathomable complexity reveals the unlimited power of a designer or the unlimited power of chance.

The actions of Nazi Germany, however, like Margaret Sanger and Thomas Malthus’s influences in the horrific eugenics movement, are a matter of cold, clear historic record. The fact that most opponents of Ben Stein and “Expelled” choose to single out the most bulletproof of his points for scorn and ridicule is telling.

For a documentary, a theatrical run of over 1000 screens is very large, and the weekend gross was almost $3.2 million, placing it in the top ten. More importantly, it’s per-screen average was almost $3,000 – an excellent start for a non-fiction film. If it can sustain numbers like these, it will be very hard to ignore.

In fact, the cover of my book features my old tripod and head combo, which I still own, and it has served me well under many a clunky old BetaCam. I was glad to have such light and portable equipment then, but modern materials and even lighter cameras have led to some substantial changes. Here’s my new camera support system:

The Head
I’m not a big fan of Bogen heads, but this is partly because I’ve been spoiled by those big, heavy, and silky-smooth O’Conner, Miller, and Sachtler heads and I’d only ever used Bogen’s low-end, gel cartridge DV offerings. Until now. The Bogen/Manfrotto 519 Pro fluid head is a smooth and solid piece of kit.

It has a true stepped fluid system with eight levels of drag, and a full counterbalance system with an easily adjustable knob. Manfrotto ships the head with two counterbalance springs, one adjustable from 2-10 lb and the other from 11-22 lb. The springs keep the head balanced through almost the entire 180° tilt range, no matter where the camera’s center of gravity is.

The Canon XL-H1 with a few accessories sits just at the top end of the first spring. This means I have enough room to grow that I can add more accessories to the camera, or switch cameras. I can keep the head completely balanced even if I add filters, mattebox, audio adapter, sun gun, hard-drive recorder, on-arm monitor, follow focus, or other fun gadgets.

At only 5.9″ high, the 519 Pro is quite small, and it uses a 75mm bowl mount to attach to the tripod legs. I dislike center column tripods because it’s so much harder to level the camera than with a bowl mount, and because the column itself can be so unstable. This leads us to Manfrotto’s 515MVB tripod legs.

The Sticks
Even though the 515MVB have a 100mm ball mount, I picked them over the 525MVB, an identical tripod with a 75mm mount. This will give me room to grow if I need a larger head, and I use an adapter ring to mount the 519. Weight capacity is 33 pounds, and even at full extension the aluminum legs feel very solid.

Full extension lifts the Bogen head 65” off the ground, but they can also get it down to a mere 20” when all three leg sections are collapsed. Fast-action locks hold the stages firmly in place but are easy to adjust.

The legs terminate in double spiked feet, which come attached to a ground-level spreader. In principle I don’t like ground-level spreaders much, but the ground is pretty flat in Texas, and since it’s a quick way to set up and anchor the tripod I use it a lot. A mid-level spreader and larger rubber feet can be purchased from Manfrotto dealers.

Two-stage tripods are more usably flexible than single stage legs since they cover a wider range of heights and can pack down to a more compact piece of luggage (28” if I take the head off.) On the other hand, they can be more physically flexible because they have more joints than a single-stage tripod.

I haven’t noticed any give in the connections, but there is flex in the aluminum tubing itself. It’s slight, and only noticeable when extended, but present. Carbon legs, while pricier, can be much stiffer. At the end of the day though, this is an area where heavier tripods win the day due to sheer mass. During full-extension high-drag pans in heavy winds, I miss my old sixty pound sticks and megaton heads.

That said, the aluminum legs really do a great job. With a wide enough spread, especially when the spikes are firmly embedded in the ground, the 515MB sticks are very solid, and a good support for the 519 head. Together, they make a good team.

The Combo
The head weighs in at 6.4 pounds, and the tripod at 7.5. Fourteen pounds is a very easy load, and we’ve already added a homemade shoulder strap to make it easier to tote. Professional straps are available, but a simple nylon strap sewn directly around the tubing doesn’t have any hardware to clank against the legs in a stiff breeze.

Also, the legs are so compact when folded that it’s tough to get a fingerhold, but by not retracting the legs all the way, a hand-wide handle is revealed which balances the sticks perfectly with the 519. The legs also open wide enough to make leveling the bowl easily and there are advantages to getting heads and sticks from the same manufacturer.

It’s a very good package, splitting the difference between lightness and strength, portability and stability, and making the most of new technology and old techniques. Of course, for all the new materials, modern tripods still have three legs, and modern heads still contain lubricating fluid for smoothing tilts and pans. Some things never change.

A video has been making the rounds on the internet featuring the work of Colin Sanders, a new addition to the ranks of computer animators. I call Colin an animator because of the potential that he has, not because of his training. His demo reel features incredibly primitive animation and a “Thanks for nothing” message to his professor.

In a recent interview conducted by Waxy.org, Colin explained the background of this video, his final assignment for course INFR 3310U at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology:

“The course is called Animation Arts. I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to assume that this course would then be about the art of animating; I was wrong. The professor spent most of our time talking about modelling and it wasn’t until the last four weeks that he even mentioned animation. Did he even know what course he was supposed to be teaching? Animation Arts is a mandatory third year course at my school for all those in my program, Game Development and Entrepreneurship.

“Unfortunately for the 55 of us in the class, our professor did not have an understanding (or at least he didn’t demonstrate an understanding) greater than an above average student.”

Admittedly, this is only one class for one semester, but in that amount of time there’s a lot you can learn about animation. It’s amazing to me that the teacher didn’t know more, or wasn’t able to impart more, and I have no doubt that his lessons held students back from learning things they could have picked up faster on their own.

And even though this video (which recieved an A) is short and crude, I still think Colin has potential. Even though the bear is badly modeled, the character itself has good proportions and great appeal. Even though the skeletal rig is basic, the limited animation is snappy and fun. The character moves to the music and hits some strong poses, and there’s no aimless linear drift, which is common on most student projects.

For those of you who think I’m picking on the University of Ontario specifically, understand that I’ve sat though a lot of animation school projects and student demo reels, and the faults of this video, while especially pronounced in some areas, are by no means rare. I’ve worked with a lot of animators from all over the world, and the best were, to a man, the autodidacts with no credentials.

Of course, this isn’t to say that all instruction is bad, just that formal institutional instructors will always be inferior to real animators who have better things to do than seek tenure. There are lots of reasons to attend animation seminars, enroll in independent training programs, or purchase professional DVD tutorials.

I believe this is true for many, many reasons, and for many, many fields, not just professional effects and animation. However, for those that want to break into 3D graphics, remember that workstations are cheap, Maya PLE is free, and instruction can be found all over the web. Don’t limit yourself to obsolete gear or obsolete teachers, and don’t waste time studying what you shouldn’t.

The Iris
The simplest way to control the amount on light entering the camera is to open or close the iris. Adjusting the iris also affects the depth of field. When the aperture is small, limited light enters the camera, and the whole scene is in focus. When the aperture is large, lots of light is admitted, and the depth of field is very shallow. Only a narrow range of the scene can be in focus, and the wide circle of confusion makes out-of-focus elements very soft.

A wide aperture therefore makes focusing more difficult, but a shallow depth of field is very important to the filmmaker for four reasons. Firstly, it can be very aesthetically pleasing, moreso than leaving everything harshly in focus. Secondly, at allows the director to control what the viewer sees and focuses on.

Thirdly, it can improve the quality of a highly-compressed image; by blurring out background detail, more of the codec’s limited data rate can be used to store the more important foreground detail. Fourthly, it can add production value; since audiences are used to both the shallow depth of field in feature films, and the flat, completely sharp images from cheap camcorders and camera phone, they associate quality and expense with an image that contains a lot of depth.

Shutter Speed
Another thing that audiences subconsciously pick up on is shutter speed. The longer the shutter is open, the more light enters the camera, and the longer the motion blur is. In motion picture cameras that use film, the shutter is a spinning plate that passes between the film and the lens. While the shutter is open, the film is held still, and when it closes the film is advanced to the next frame.

Because of the complexity of the mechanism that drives the film, the shutter can never be open for more than half of the time that each frame is taken. This is known as a 180° shutter, or a 1/48 speed shutter, since the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second (at 24 frames per second).

Video cameras do not have this limitation, and can have a 1/30 shutter speed (at 30 frames per second). This lets in twice as much light as a 180° shutter, since it is open the whole time. However, it results in long, streaking motion blur that audiences associate with cheap video. In addition to shooting at 24fps, videographers attempting to emulate the look of film stick to a 1/48 speed shutter.

However, a faster shutter speed is possible with film cameras, and can be helpful for video cameras as well. A fast shutter speed can shorten or even eliminate motion blur, which adds to the perceived sharpness of HD footage, but it restricts the amount of light recorded.

In still photography, of course, the shutter can be open for any amount of time. Astronomers use hour-long exposures to track stars, and landscape photographers use them to capture dreamy skies and smooth out waterfalls and rivers. Of course, the longer the shutter is open, the more light enters the camera. Long daylight exposures usually let in far more light than the camera can handle, so filters are used to restrict it.

Filters
Plastic or glass filters attached to the lens offer great creative control. Diffusion filters can soften an image by lowering contrast and smoothing skin details, star filters can cause sparkly highlights, and polarizing filters can block reflections and cut haze.

The most common are neutral density filters, which are grey and block light without changing color. Most video camera lenses have one or two built-in ND filters for shooting outdoors. The Canon XL H1, used to shoot the images in this post, has both a 1/32 and 1/16 ND filter.

Gradient filters are also handy for daylight photography, since they are darker on the top than on the bottom. This gradient can be a neutral grey, which darkens the sky without affecting the ground, or a warm coral color for enhancing sunsets. Many color and density combinations are available.

Colored filters can also be used to match daylight to tungsten light, but more dramatic results are available. For the above images, I shot through orange and blue gels, but white-balanced the camera for each. The orange filter blocked most the blue light, and the blue blocked the longer red and yellow wavelengths.

Snow is actually a pretty bad example, but you can still see a few differences. The orange filter darkens the sky, and the blue lightens it. The shadow densities are also very different. Underwater photographers use red lenses to block the predominant blue light and get a more natural image.

Of course, all filters work by blocking some light, so they are easiest to use outdoors when there is plenty of light to use. The only way to add light, or at least increase the luminosity of the image, is to boost the electrical signal recorded by the camera.

Gain
On still cameras the setting is called ISO, after the different speeds or sensitivities of film, but on video cameras it is called gain. Gain simply amplifies the electrical signal recorded by the camera, which adds noise. As I have said before, I think this should always be avoided.

It’s true that film stock, particularly low-light film stock, has a pronounced and a unique grain, which does add a cinematic quality to footage. However, signal noise doesn’t have the same organic, analog feel. It looks electric and low budget, hogs bandwidth, and compresses badly. If there is no other way to compensate for poor lighting, it is better to boost the levels in post than in camera.

Real World Application
So, how do all these variables translate into real world shooting decisions? It really all boils down to your personal preferences on the final image, and what you can accomplish with what you can afford to buy, rent, and carry.

I use a 72mm linear polarizing filter almost anytime I’m outside, but since I don’t own a matte box, I don’t often use square filters. If I did more set shooting, I would have the time to swap out filters and the room to carry them, but for running and gunning with documentary shooting, it’s not always possible.

I also don’t use manual lenses much anymore (unfortunately). A manual lens usually has an iris ring that allows smooth adjustment of the aperture, while an electric lens restricts you to snapping back and forth between presets.

Because of this, I tend to leave the iris wide open, and ride the shutter speed to adjust exposure (without dropping below 1/60). I, personally, value a shallow depth of field over constant motion blur, but use the ND filters to keep it as even as possible. Others will insist on a solid 180° shutter look, and adjust the iris the maintain exposure.

The important thing is that you have an idea in your mind of what you want to achieve, and that you have put in the time learning to use your camera’s settings so you know how to get it. Shooting well is equal parts technical discipline and artistic vision.

As you can see, it’s quite tiny. This means it can fit into almost any bag, but also that it’s virtually impossible to hold still. It weighs just over a pound and is less than six inches long, so it has no inertia to speak of. The integral optical stabilization may remove the majority of the shakes, but there’s still plenty of jitter left over, especially banking rotation.

The tiny size also means an itty-bitty lens. It’s a pretty good lens, with 10x optical zoom and a 50° wide angle view, but a dust speck looks like a blimp through the viewfinder. The built-in automatic lens cap is neat, but I would suggest getting a 43mm UV or polarizing filter for extra protection, and an after-market lens hood is a must.

A single 0.37” progressive CMOS chip feeds 1920×1800 images to the same DIGIC DV II processor that handles the data for the XL H1 and other HD Canon cameras. It can record 24p and 60i, but strangely does not shoot 30p or 30f footage. However, the tape deck can play most HDV formats, including all Canon versions, and the Firewire, HDMI, component and composite outs make it an ideal playback machine.

Image Control
Unfortunately, it limits the shooter to largely automatic settings by linking aperture, shutter speed, gain, and neutral density filters to one control labeled “exposure.” Some control can be gained by switching to AV or TV modes, giving control to either iris or shutter speed, but the only way to manage them both is lock the “exposure” at a certain setting that will give you constant results.

click to enlarge

In my opinion, the greatest weakness is the lack of any manual gain control. Gain is evil. It’s often been said that video noise is just another area of artistic expression, but as long as video is being compressed, any increased signal noise means decreased video quality. The HDV codec throws enough data away when it compresses a pristine image; giving it the added detail of dancing high-gain noise only degrades the final output further. I hope that in the future Canon will offer a firmware update giving us the option to disable gain completely.

Canon has included a shooting mode called Cinemode. Unlike other camcorders’ film look options, which ramp up the contrast and saturation for a gritty Hollywood look, Canon’s Cinemode gives the camera a flatter gamma curve, preserving more detail within highlights and shadows, and eliminating harsh digital sharpening. Unfortunately, it also eliminates a lot of low-contrast detail, which softens the image once it gets mangled by HDV.

click to enlarge

None of the shooting modes are perfect, so users will need to decide which options to use for which projects. All the images on this page were shot using Cinemode, captured using Cineform, deinterlaced, aspect ratio corrected, but have no color correction. I knew that some softening would result, but because we were shooting quickly in shade and direct sunlight I felt that the flatter gamma curve was a priority. If we hadn’t been so pressed by the actual cattle work, I would have remembered to shoot a few shots in AV and TV modes for comparison.

Usability
Fortunately, white balance is manual, and with a little experimentation and a fair amount of jumping through hoops, the various aspects of exposure are ultimately controllable. This is a pleasant surprise because the HV20 is a toy camera with great strengths, not a pro camera with great weaknesses. Most of the camera’s faults come from the unavoidable limitations of its price point and form factor.

click to enlarge

For example, I love that the tape door opens from the top, meaning I can change tapes without removing the camera from a tripod plate. However, the battery is removed by sliding it down, which means I can’t change batteries without removing the tripod plate. The included battery gave us only 55 minutes of real-world use, and an extended battery makes it difficult to use the ridiculously tiny, uncupped viewfinder. This requires constant use of the LCD panel, which drains the battery faster, and so on.

Many of the camera’s faults can be bypassed by using a 35mm adapters and manual lenses, filters, mounting plates, handles, XLR adapters, external battery packs, and HD recorders, all of which will give the control, size, and weight required for real work, but that still doesn’t make it a pro camera.

It is, however, a lot of bang for not much buck. It’s also a clear reminder of the fact that consumer gear is starting to share a lot of components and formats with prosumer gear. This is an interesting time in the development of digital video technology.

The first is an online store for a number of Botkin Family products, which now be can be found online at www.firstpacificmedia.com. One of our new products is an audio lecture on the The Making of Return of the Daughters, featuring all of us who worked on the project. The CDs will be shipping any day now, but if you are in a hurry you can purchase and download an MP3.

A second new product is the Original Soundtrack for the film, written and recorded by Ben Botkin using Cubase and the Garritan Personal Orchestra. Head over to the store to listen to track samples and find out more.

New products will be apearing soon, so keep an eye on this site for more announcements. The ability to sell downloadable products as well as physical merchandise opens the door for many new possibilities for us, and we’re considering putting together more lectures and training materials for filmmakers. Email me any suggestions for products that you would like to see in early 2008.

We just built a new high-powered edit box, which is cranking away like a champ and has been pretty much bulletproof for the whole project - after working out a few initial driver kinks, it is now uncrashable. We’ve divided the program into sections, and each time an edit gets locked, A proxy file is made, which gets its own personal score composed, and I get a trimmed version of the timeline for color correction and onlining in After Effects. And here’s where I do most of that work:

click to enlarge

My ancient Inspiron 9300 is actually a very comfortable After Effects box because of its powerful video card and crisp 1920×1200 screen. And because most of the clips I’m grading are locked-off interviews, I can spot grade and don’t need to make full-motion, full-res previews. However, with one 1.6ghz processor, the Inspiron is sluggish when it comes to rendering the final HD video. Besides, I also need to make and encode all the DVD menus on this box, which doesn’t leave much time for rendering. That’s where the little black ThinkPad comes in.

Sure, it’s got a teeny tiny screen and a crummy video card, and it’s built for portability and battery life rather than power… but it still has two gig of ram and two 1.6ghz CPUs, making it a great network rendering node. This is the advantage of a flexible and robust production pipeline. At the moment, the final segments of the doco are being polished on our new edit box. The DVD extras are being edited on the old box. Because the bonus materials are simpler projects, I’m using that computer as a video server for my two After Effects computers. And because Adobe so seamlessly integrates different programs, I can further distribute my rendering and MPEG encoding tasks by splitting some renders between the two After Effects machines, and having others render from within Premiere on the edit machines based on how busy they are.

Admittedly, hastily networked laptops make for a messy desk (although Synergy eliminated the need for extra mice or keyboards), but the fact that I could, on the spur of the moment, add a completely new production machine (even a personal word processor like the ThinkPad) to our pipeline and have it fully utilized in less than an hour, without changing our overall setup, is a testament to the power of Windows networking, the speed of the CineForm player, and flexibility of Adobe’s video tools. And hey, I love a good jury-rig that works as well as a dedicated solution.

Also in the picture you can see my trusty Wacom tablet, Moleskine notebook (document everything!), Spyder2 color calibrator, a terabyte or so of external storage (handling some project backup), a copy of Outside Hollywood, Adobe CS3 (review coming soon), ethernet cables, extra DVD burner, and other assorted desk clutter. Don’t worry, I’ll clean it up once we wrap the project.

The film opens on a televised cooking show which describes the life of Auguste Gusteau, the greatest chef in France, a food-loving visionary who enthusiastically revolutionized french cuisine with his book Anyone Can Cook. Gusteau is also the idol and inspiration of Remy, a rat who is not content just to be a simple scavenger. Watching television and reading cookbooks has opened his eyes to a new world that is not particularly rat-friendly, much to the concern of his father, the patriarch of this rat family.

Sure enough, a human being wakes up to find our hero cooking in her kitchen, and her ensuing fury endangers the whole rat clan. In the face of imminent destruction, Remy’s father orders a full-scale evacuation, but Remy disobeys his father’s instructions and runs back to the kitchen to steal a copy of Anyone Can Cook. He loses his family, and winds up alone and starving on the streets of Paris, where he stumbles across Gusteau’s once five-star restaurant, now greatly diminished in reputation since the great chef’s death.

To make matters worse, Gusteau’s restaurant is now operated by a Michael Eisner-esque successor — an opportunist named Skinner — who uses Gusteau’s legacy to hustle microwave burritos and corn dogs. The kitchen also employs the clumsy and inept Linguini, a mere garbage boy until he and Remy join forces and begin to create culinary masterpieces together. In this film, rats can understand English but not speak it themselves, so a communication system must be devised to allow cooperation.

By hiding under Linguini’s hat, Remy controls his human puppet by tugging different hairs, and can finally prepare the gourmet meals his heart desires, As a newly-discovered wunderkind chef, Linguini gains the respect and admiration of the other cooks. Unfortunately, their sudden combined success fills both them with selfish pride and they begin to fight over all the glory that is due the star of a successful kitchen. Without Linguini’s hat for cover Remy can’t cook in the open, and without the guidance of Remy, Linguini can’t cook at all, so their squabbling threatens the success of the entire restaurant, just as the Paris food critics have begun to take an interest in it again.

Meanwhile, the jealous Skinner has begun to suspect that Linguini is not all that he seems, and is desperate eliminate this threat to his superiority in the kitchen. Further complications arise as the appallingly unambitious Linguini falls in love with one of the other cooks, and Remy is discovered by his family, who have been looking for him. Remy’s father wants him to rejoin the clan, and is horrified that his son is working with humans. Conflicts continue to mount until the climax of the film, which I found to be exciting, but a little unsatisfying.

Throughout the film, the audiences is taught about the intricacies of gourmet cooking, the workings of the Michelin star system that governs French restaurants (sort of), and the hierarchy of professional kitchens — all without stopping the story or boring the audience. Complex supporting characters are introduced and described effortlessly, and the sort of exposition that usually bogs a film down with dry explanation is handled with great skill and woven carefully into the structure of the plot. However, the cheap trick of using an inner monologue weakens the overall film, and it is this over-reliance on voice-over that is the main weakness of the ending.

In every technical way this film excels. The animation is truly superior, containing some of the best human animation Pixar has produced to date, and the rats are expressive, flexible, and fun to watch. The fur, hair and cloth effects are excellent, and although they are far more complex simulations than we saw in “Finding Nemo” and “The Incredibles,” they are not much more impressive. The great technical breakthrough of this film is in the rendering of the food; the delicate translucency of onions and celery, the fluid layers of oil and vinegar dressing, and the mixing of thick sauces and creamy batters. It is truly amazing… but perhaps only to other computer animators, like myself.

The lighting is also a new high point for a Pixar film, and the camera work is stunning. Brad Bird’s direction, composition, and pacing has only improved since “The Incredibles.” The sound design is excellent, Michael Giacchino’s second Pixar score is fanciful and lively, and the voice acting is mostly wonderful. A highlight is Peter O’Toole’s role as the most interesting and ominous food critic ever shown on film, who is possibly meant as a little dig at movie critics as well.

However, with the exception of last year’s “Cars,” I thought this was Pixar’s weakest film. The plot’s external elements and minor characters are handled with brilliance and great originality, but its heart is a rancid cliche.

Films that revolve around a son or daughter’s desire to escape from overbearing parental authority and are merely seeking independence are a dime a dozen. Films that feature the single-minded pursuit of a selfish dream for that dream’s own sake as a moral theme are extremely overdone. Films that create either tension or comedy by incessant bickering between parents and children are currently the norm.

Remy the rat doesn’t experience much character growth in this film; after a few adventures, we find that his environment and family have just arbitrarily changed to suit him. He doesn’t have to work or even apply himself to achieve his inexplicable cooking skills.

Ratatouille’s preparation, seasoning, garnish, and presentation are almost flawless. Unfortunately it has been made from sub-par ingredients, which is, sadly, becoming a trend in Pixar’s recent releases. This film was started by Jan Pinkava, apparently based on Richard Lawson’s Ben and Me and Eve Titus’s Anatole, but then changed hands mid-production to the leadership of Brad Bird, which may account for most of its inconsistencies and would explain how such a substandard story structure could be brought to the screen so artfully.

These convoluted and fragmented production structures are standard procedure in most Hollywood studios, but Pixar has built its reputation on careful story planning and films that reflect great unity of purpose and solid construction. Getting back to the analogies between Pixar, Disney, and Remy the rat, a few things should be noted. Firstly, Pixar’s top men are not merely the latest acquisition of the massive Walt Disney Corporation — they are the heirs apparent to Walt Disney himself, and careful students of his best work.

In the same way that Walt Disney invented the best techniques and much of the technology of 2D animation, defining and polishing the art of animation into a lucrative industry, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter have built 3D animation’s industry from the ground up with Pixar. In their early days as a division of George Lucas’s effects studio ILM, they built the hardware and software that produced the first computer animation ever put on film. Later, as an independent company, their short films helped sell software, but also captured the imaginations of other animators and laid the foundations for “Toy Story.”

However, like Gusteau’s name in the film, the Walt Disney brand is now used to sell cheap toys, endless direct-to-video sequels, crude television programs, and abysmal music. At the moment, Pixar is poised to either rejuvenate the principles and standards that Disney once represented, or be absorbed and driven down the same path of uninspired and uninspiring films. Like Remy, they have achieved great success, seemingly overnight, and now tend be more arrogant about upcoming projects then they were in their early days, and seem to be spending less time on story development.

With the death of Joe Ranft, Pixar’s story department lost a vital member, and with more films in simultaneous production than before, the remaining team is split between several projects. I believe that they must refocus themselves on making story the main goal and collaborating, like Linguini and Remy, to perfect every scene. With full financial support from Disney Corp. the best software development team in the business, and a deservedly glowing reputation, they are no longer bound by the limitations of budgets, technology, or even audience approval.

They could be excused for resting on their laurels for a film or two, but to continue to create great films in the future, they need to stick together and keep working through story structure. Despite Ratatouille’s weak foundational plot and whiny, unmotivated characters, it contains many high points, including what is probably the best-written and best-executed scene in any Pixar film to date. These flashes of brilliance show that the Pixar team can easily continue to make great films, as long as they can keep from being split up, diluted, or lulled into a false sense of security or accomplishment. If they lose sight of their original strengths, they will lose their potential for truly great storytelling.

If they understand that perfect sauces can’t save an undercooked dish, and focus on the basics, their next films will be excellent; but if they spread themselves too thin and fall into the trap of valuing style over substance, their future projects will slip slowly into mediocrity. As much as I hope they can climb from strength to strength, I am sure that both their successes and failures will be instructive. All filmmakers can and should learn from Pixar’s many different examples, and what they do next should teach a very valuable lesson.