Monsters - Deserved to be better

Shot on the Sony PMW-EX3

Every once in a while, we come across something that has all of the best ingredients yet lacks a quality execution. For example, let's say a renowned chef has all the things you need to make an incredible Chocolate Cake, but instead of using a conventional oven, the chef decides to bake it over an open fire. Sure, the cake will probably still be tasty for the most part, but it won't be as delicious as it could have been had the chef just done something different. I don't mean to say that experimentation is a bad thing, not at all. However, experimenting only really works if you have a firm understanding of what already works and how best to bend those expectations. While today's movie, Monsters, does genuinely want to accomplish this goal, it falls short of doing so by lacking the one most crucial aspect of any narrative: a reason to care.

Taking place six years after an Alien invasion in northern Mexico, the story follows a young photo-journalist named Andrew (Scott McNairy) who is sent to retrieve his bosses daughter Sam (Whitney Able) from a retreat just south of The Infected Zone. After missing their intended transport, the two of them have to travel through the war zone on foot to make it back to the U.S. Along the way; they encounter a couple of Alien creatures, witness the changes the invaders are making to the Earths eco-system and form an unexpected bond. All the while trying to stay alive, and in doing so, learn more about the nature of the invading beasts.

This movie is yet another prime example of a high-quality homemade piece of cinema (mostly). Not only was the film shot on a high-end consumer HD camcorder, but it was also put together in an incredibly minimal fashion. The crew for this film consisted of writer/director Gareth Edwards (more on him in a moment), who also functioned as the cinematographer, camera operator, and co-visual effects artist along with an additional sound recordist and visual effects man. The team would pick a spot to shoot a scene (much of the dialogue was improvised). Afterward, they would import the footage onto a laptop and edit the scene while applying the special effects. Most of it was creating fake murals on walls, changing the content of road signs, and adding or removing various pieces of debris and the like to sell the illusion. All of which was accomplished using consumer level equipment on a budget of $500,000 while maintaining a much more expensive and professional look and feel. This film should be excellent in just about every possible way, am I right?

Well,

Before I discuss the movie proper, I want to take a moment to talk about the camera used to capture the film. Monsters was shot on a Sony PMW-EX3. A consumer camcorder with an interchangeable lens system and built-in cinematic options such as 24p framerate. Another piece of gear used for the film was a Letus Adapter, which was a unique device you attached to the front of the camera to use various brands of lenses. Thereby creating a more shallow depth of field and adding a slightly grainy look to the footage to better simulate the look of celluloid film. Also, just like Down and Dangerous, Nikon photography lenses were used with the camera system. All of these elements, combined with what must have been liberal use of natural lighting, create a beautiful looking film that stands as one of my favorite examples of great looking cinematography. As well as a perfect example of how you can make a movie on just about any kind of camera system and damn popular conventions.

Okay, not on to discussing the film proper.

On a technical and technological level, the film is incredibly admirable. It succeeds in creating a Hollywood flare on a shoestring budget. Thereby reinforcing the idea that just about anyone can make a great movie, and anyone out there who wants to do so should just go for it. It is, arguably, one of the best examples of having the guts to go out there and make your dream a reality. For that reason alone, Monsters is a movie I will always appreciate and admire.

However, it's just not as good as it really should have been.

You see, the biggest problem with the movie is its writing, and by extension, the treatment of the main characters. As I mentioned earlier, the film was written and directed by Gareth Edwards. A British filmmaker who started as a visual effects artist. He eventually went on to head the 2014 Godzilla reboot and Rouge One: A Star Wars Story. The former of which is not all that better and the latter of which is incredibly underrated in my opinion. As a director, Gareth Edwards is, for the most part, an artist I like. His camera language is fluid and conveys the mood of the given scene remarkably well, his sense of framing is on-par with the likes of Spielberg, and his color style succeeds in being dark and eerie without really feeling dull or lifeless. All of these things, when combined with a good script and a competent cast, have the potential to create something beautiful and genuine. Unfortunately, in the case with Monsters, the writing falls entirely on its face.

Much like the central conflict of the Alien invasion depicted in the film, the script seems to be at war with itself between what it wants to be and what it truly is. It wants to be a character-driven story focusing on the relationship between the two leads (which in and of itself is a good idea), but the two lead characters in question are terrible one-dimensional jackasses who don't speak or behave like real or sympathetic people. Not to mention the incredibly limited range of the main actors along with their lack of chemistry. The movie wants to deliver a relevant commentary about illegal immigration but delivers it in an overly simplistic and even childish manner, not befitting the intended severe and dramatic tone of the film. It wants to be a profound story about love and the nature of humanity, but its execution of those themes wouldn't even be acceptable in an episode of The Care Bears. To quote MovieBob from his original video review for Monsters, this movie "shows the world what might have happened if M. Night Shyamalan had directed Cloverfield." I don't think I could have said it better myself.

I genuinely wanted to like this film. Watching a movie with all of the best ingredients and intentions fall apart at the seams breaks my heart. Because movies like this should be a beacon of hope and inspiration for all aspiring and professional filmmakers, and while Monsters still achieves that, if only on a technical level, I cannot recommend it as a good movie. I can, however, recommend you give it a look as an example of sound low budget special effects, the professional power of consumer equipment, and an inspirational demonstration of doing what it takes to make your vision a reality. In other words, see it more as an inspirational tech demo, and less as a compelling narrative.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Angry Video Gamer Nerd: The Movie - Gloriously Ridiculous

Shot on the Panasonic AG AF100

One of the strangest things about the internet as a whole is how it seems to have taken a life of its own. Creating sub-cultures, providing easy access to tons of information, and of course, Cat videos. Also, lots and lots of entertainment value. One such form of online entertainment which I occasionally partake in myself is the Review Show. Where nerds and experts of a specific field like history or film and so on provide video essays on any given subject related to their area of expertise. Other times, there are funny guys in silly costumes who take it to a whole new level. As in way over the top. The Angry Video Game Nerd is just such a crazy show, and his movie is, without question, his magnum opus of ridiculousness. This isn't a movie, it's an experience. One that admittedly is not for everyone but is good silly fun for its own audience. 

For those of you who don't know, The Angry Video Game Nerd is a fictional character created by professional online filmmaker, and cinema enthusiast, James Rolfe. Growing up as a fan of horror cinema, especially the classics like Dracula and The Mummy, James Rolfe has wanted to make movies for as long as he can remember and has made countless short films since he first picked up a video camera. One of his short films, The Angry Nintendo Nerd, in which he plays an over-the-top parody of stereotypical video game obsessed nerds, skyrocketed his online filmmaking career. The Nerd, as portrayed by James Rolfe, would review old video games and mock them in an incredibly profane and occasionally gruesome fashion. While his main attraction was the ludicrous amounts of profanity and occasional gross-out humor, at the heart of it all was a guy who just wanted to make movies. James Rolfe has since toned down his act and continues to make Nerd videos to this day, but now he tends to put more emphasis on more clever comedy and commentary, as well as the occasional surprise guest appearance from people like Lloyd Kaufman (the founder of Troma Entertainment) and Macaulay Culkin (I swear I am not kidding).  

Anyway, after making Nerd videos for a few years, James Rolfe decided that he was ready to finally make a motion picture, and his Nerd character was the best jumping off point to do so. After raising well over his proposed budget through crowdfunding via Kickstarter, James gathered his friends, put together a cast and crew, and went to work. Some of the ambitions at play for this film was to utilize as many practical effects as possible, to include as many things as James Rolfe liked as a film enthusiast including giant monsters, and to feature a review of an old and much-hated video game. 

How did it all turn out?... Well...

Before I run down the story, please allow me to give you a brief history lesson about one of the worst video games ever produced. This is the driving point of the movie's plot, and it's actually kind of fascinating. 

Back in the 1980s, a little film titled E.T. directed by Steven Spielberg hit theaters. It was a massive hit and tons of merchandise was manufactured to capitalize on its success, including video games, or rather one game for the great grandfather of gaming consoles, the Atari 2600. Back then, game designers who regularly developed games for the Atari 2600 had an order for about three hundred thousand copies and were usually given at least four months to build the game. Well, the people who were commissioned to make the E.T. game was only given six weeks to make the game and had an order for five million copies. Needless to say, this became a huge problem. Because of this rushed production, the game itself was not tested before release. As such, it turned out to be so unplayable and so unnecessarily tricky, that the few copies that were sold had promptly been returned and refunded. Causing retailers to either chuck the games into bargain bins or return them to the manufacturer. Legend has it, the game became so useless and unable to sell, that Atari recalled all of the unsold cartridges dumped them into their own landfill, where they lay dormant to this very day. 

And now, the story. 

The story follows The Nerd (James Rolfe) going about his life making review videos and working at a video game store. That is until he's approached by a representative of massive game developer that's looking to produce a sequel to the E.T. game and requests him to review the original mainly for publicity and marketing opportunities. The Nerd is very reluctant, not just because the game is so awful, but because he has a personal phobia of the game. Even so, his fans become infatuated with the idea of The Nerd reviewing the game and even more with the legendary Atari landfill. So, to appease his fans while not having to discuss the game, The Nerd decides to travel to the legendary landfill and prove once and for all that the legend is just that, a legend. However, upon arriving at the landfill, The Nerd stumbles upon an even bigger conspiracy that he could not have even imagined involving actual Aliens and their connection to the original E.T. game. Now, The Nerd must solve the mystery, and in doing so, confront his greatest fear. 

This movie is a no-nonsense, self-aware, overcranked, absolutely insane experience. While it is catered to a specific audience, there is still a great deal of passion put into every single frame. Even if you don't like the film, there is still so much about it to admire. Speaking personally, while I am a proud fan of The Angry Video Game Nerd for my own reasons, despite there being occasional jokes that don't land for me, I find his movie to be an odd yet enjoyable experience. This may be one of the best visualizations of the word "fun." The film embraces its own insanity thereby encouraging the audience to do the same. A rare treat indeed. 

 The main attraction of the film is, arguably, the special effects. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the effects are practical. As in they utilized a lot of miniatures, puppets, and classic tricks such as rear projection to create most of the events on screen. While a good deal of CGI (Computer Generated Imaging) was also used, the general rule of the film was to use as many practical effects as possible. Due to the films limited budget, some of the puppets and miniatures do look, admittedly, pretty obvious. Even so, that did not seem to bother James Rolfe. In his behind-the-scenes features, James comments that when the audience can see how an effect was accomplished, it makes them feel like they're part of the experience. Similar to how a joke can be funnier when only a select few are in on it. Even so, the quality of the effects are so incredible, I am still impressed whenever I see it all unfold. 

Just like the previous film I reviewed (Down and Dangerous), Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie was shot on the Panasonic AG AF100, and was captured utilizing the cameras internal AVCHD codec. This makes the film even more impressive to me. Not just because of the excellent quality of the format, but also because of how well utilized it is for the movie. Typically in films that have as many special effects like this one (miniatures, green screen, CGI and so on), filmmakers will want to utilize a more advanced capture format that allows for more flexibility in image manipulation. As I mentioned in my most recent blog post where I discussed AVCHD in great detail, I said that it is a pretty limited video format in terms of color space and wiggle room. It is not the first option most modern filmmakers would consider when taking on such an effects heavy movie. And yet, despite that, all of the effects in this film are gorgeous and seem to integrate into the images almost flawlessly. What's more, none of the effects shots ever look muddled or ugly as some might suspect given the capture format. 

I was fortunate enough to get in touch with James Rolfe himself to inquire about his experience with the camera and the choice of video format. I was curious to know if he had any negative experience with the restrictive video codec when color-grading or adding in the special effects. More importantly, I was interested to learn if he ever received any complaints about the image quality. In his response, James Rolfe confided in me that during pre-production for the film, they had actually considered a more advanced camera system, including some 4K models, but ultimately couldn't afford it. He further told me that when applying his color-correction and special effects, he never encountered any serious problems that made him question their vitality or quality. Even better, no one ever complained about the image quality or capture format. Needless to say, this made my heart soar. 

Now, one could argue that since this film was "Home Made" and mostly intended to be seen on televisions and computer screens by a smaller audience, that any validation regarding the films capture format is irrelevant because it wasn't made to be a serious movie. I would argue that, on the contrary, this was indeed a serious movie. Because the people who made it were passionate about it all the way through its conception and distribution. This movie did play in theaters for mass audiences, both Nerd fans and general audiences alike. Even those who were unfamiliar with The Nerd admitted how impressed they were with the film and how much crazy fun it was. Are we meant to believe that genuine labors of love such as this film are automatically invalidated because of their capture format and their intended audience? If that's the case, then there's really no reason to make, watch, or enjoy movies of any kind. Trying to invalidate a film for its technological aspects or audience reception is like trying to disregard a well baked Chocolate Cake because it was made with Hershey's chocolate rather than something more prestine. If the Cake still looks and tastes good, who cares which chocolate was used? 

While it is not exactly for everyone's enjoyment, Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie is a film that just about everyone can admire in some way. It has a ton of heart and embraces a high level of silliness that, frankly, is missing from a lot of Hollywood movies, and even indie films these days. Filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts alike can learn a lot from the film. If you're the least bit curious, give it a look. Just be prepared for a couple of moments that can only be described as juvenile.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.  

AVCHD - The most underrated video format for cinema

In my previous review for the most excellent homemade movie ever made, Down and Dangerous, I mentioned that film was captured on the Panasonic AG AF100, which was one of the first consumer-level camcorders built for cinema. I also said that the filmmakers opted to utilize the cameras internal video codec known as AVCHD and further commented that I found it to be, arguably, the most underrated capture format for cinema even today. While I did provide a brief description of AVCHD, it occurs to me that it would be best to go into more detail as to why I personally believe the AVCHD format is so fantastic and does not deserve to be brushed off as an obsolete option for cinema. Because it's important to remember that the most excellent looking images can sometimes come from the smallest and unlikeliest of places. 

AVCHD stands for Advanced Video Coding High-Definition. It is a file-based video codec jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic who introduced the format into consumer-level video cameras in 2006. The main attraction of AVCHD is the ability to record high-quality video while still utilizing specific compression methods to maximize storage space. While I admit that the exact science is lost on me, it basically boils down to gently squeezing the video files down rather than assertively cramming a square peg into a round hole. At least, that is how I understand it. 

Most if not all consumer-level camcorders feature AVCHD as a recording option. Even those built for high-end cinema like the Canon C100. Even entry-level point-and-shoot digital photography cameras with video functions include AVCHD. While it may not be as fancy or as technologically advanced as other video codecs (which I will get into later on), it goes without saying that AVCHD is quite a versatile format for video regardless of the application. 

Having said that, like anything else you can think of, there are pros and cons to AVCHD. Here are just a few. 

PROS: 

Image Quality: 

Despite utilizing compression and capturing images at a maximum bit rate of about 28mbps (which is incredibly low when compared to some camcorders today) the images produced by the AVCHD format, which can also depend on the camera itself, are usually pretty high quality. I can remember when I started learning filmmaking, and my first HD camera was a little Canon camcorder which only recorded AVCHD. Although I still had yet to learn about many other aspects of image control, I remember being incredibly impressed with how my images were turning out and I am always impressed with them. I have yet to find any kind of film project captured on AVCHD that I didn't find to be aesthetically beautiful. Granted, in most cases, the films that were captured in that format were also well shot with good lighting and had a compelling story to boot. Even so, purely on a technical level, the images from the AVCHD movies I have seen were well on par with the likes of other more advanced codecs on the market, including ProRes. Don't believe me? Well, click here to learn the views of another filmmaker who also thinks so. 

Storage & File Size: 

Because of the lower bit rate, AVCHD allows for smaller file sizes to maximize storage space. Both within the camera and on any computers hard drive. This can be especially helpful when producing a feature film on an incredibly low budget. Part of the problem with using more powerful and advanced cameras, which are good things under the right circumstances, unless you have a powerful enough computer to handle the large files created by the camera, let alone enough storage space on your hard drive to store all of it, editing and storage space may prove to be a problem. While there are workarounds to better manage the larger files, which I have utilized before, most of the time, if you're trying to put together a big film on a small budget, smaller files tend to be easier to work with. Let's not forget that we live in an age when people can edit and apply special effects to a movie from their laptop. 

Money Saver: 

When considering a consumer level camera for making movies, most of the time filmmakers will want to include an external recorder. A device which connects to the camera and records higher quality footage directly from the sensor. This is a good option for capture when applicable. However, if you've already spent the money on a decent camera, and you still have the money within the budget for an external recorder, you might want to consider directing those funds towards more essential aspects of the film like sound design, special effects, and tasty catering for your cast and crew. Because when you really think about it, external recorders are more trouble than they're worth. Sure, they are more technologically advanced and can produce "better" images, but they're not a magic button that will automatically make your movies look more professional, nor are they likely to be a worthy investment. When you actually consider the numbers for buying the external recorder, extra batteries, connection cables, memory cards & readers, and hard drives to store the massive amounts of data, you might as well spend that money on a more expensive and powerful camera. Which, depending on the brand, can probably run for the same price of a consumer level camera and external recorder combined. Learn to do more with less, and not only will you likely produce beautiful results, but you will also save a lot of money, and possibly gain even more form your creativity. 

Okay, now that we've gone over some of the pros, it's time to consider the other side of the debate. 

CONS: 

Compression: 

Even though I have already expressed my opinion about compression time and time again, I understand where the counter-arguments are coming from, and they are mostly justified. Compressed footage can be a chore to work with. Information can be more easily lost, color correction can be more difficult, image quality can potentially be lost when exporting the final product, and it's generally unpopular within the filmmaking community. Even when there are professional cinematographers like Shane Hurlbut who work within the film industry praising the hell out of compression, it is still frowned upon as an ugly stain on cinematic image capture. It's almost hard to see why so many up-and-coming filmmakers are having such a hard time being taken seriously because they shot a movie on their iPhone. 

Fewer Bits: 

AVCHD is strictly an 8bit 420 capture format, meaning it has the barest amount of color space in the information available for color correction and somewhat limited dynamic range. Many editors have openly admitted that they flat our hate working in 8bit 420 because of the extra difficulty in manipulating the images. Of course, what many see as a limitation, I prefer to see as a challenge. As should any artist worth their salt. 

Import Difficulties: 

Some video editing software occasionally has difficulty recognizing and importing AVCHD files. To the point where it could potentially outright reject them. Even though there are tons of options for converting AVCHD files into more edit-friendly formats, many editors will outright refuse to work with the codec purely because they can't figure out how to get them into their software. Which, if you ask me, is like refusing to bake a cake because you only know one method of doing so, despite being able to quickly learn any number of alternatives. I'm just saying. 

CONCLUSION: 

AVCHD has been around for a long time now and will likely be sticking around for a little while longer. While I have enjoyed the advantages of higher video formats, I cannot help but feel that AVCHD is not only better than many give it credit for but is also a genuinely perfect format to remember when considering options for cinema, including feature films. AVCHD has proven itself time and time again to be a perfectly viable and totally usable video codec for cinema. You only need to examine some of the films I will be reviewing over the next few weeks as proof of that very concept. 

To all filmmakers out there, both young and old, experienced and new, and so on, I implore you, do not disregard AVCHD as a viable option for cinema. As a capture format, it is genuinly much better than popular opinion would have you believe. Art is, and always will be, subjective. There is no wrong way to make a movie. The best camera for your film may very well be right in your pocket. Embrace the imperfection of AVCHD, and you just might make the most excellent movie ever someday. Technology is excellent, but don't be afraid of the older tech. Because it just might be exactly what you're looking for. 

Down and Dangerious - Home Made Cinema at its finest

Filmed on the Panasonic AG AF100

Let's begin Camcorder Cinema month with a bang! 

One of the most significant advancements made in cinema with the advent of higher quality digital cameras is the democratization of filmmaking. Sure, independent Cinema was still around well before the digital age, but it wasn't quite as active as it wanted to be. Even if you wanted to make a movie outside of the traditional Hollywood system, you still needed to secure sufficient funding for Studio use, lighting equipment, and cameras. Not to mention what has always been the most expensive part of a movie, the film stock. Robert Rodriguez, the director of El Mariachi (his first film shot on Super 16mm), confessed that the vast majority of his $8,000 budget was spent on the film stock. Also, to this day, Robert is convinced that if he had been able to shoot his first film on a digital camera, he could have either used the money he would have saved for other aspects of the film or even made the whole film for just $500 instead. 

Now, despite the distinct financial advantage of shooting a movie on digital (depending on the brand of camera you intend to use), shooting digital is not and should not be a license to excuse incompetence. Unless you at least have an understanding of basic techniques, a story worth telling, a protagonist worth rooting for, and an overarching theme worth investing, then no amount of technological advancements will make your movie even remotely worth anyone's time. Fortunately, the makes of today's film, Down and Dangerous, are not only competent filmmakers and storytellers but are also confident in their style. They know what they are, what they're making, and show nothing but pride for it all. This is, quite possibly, the best "Home Made" feature film I have ever been fortunate enough to see, and I mean that in the best possible way. 

The story follows a drug smuggler named Paul Boxer (John T. Woods) who is not only the best in the business but is also the most inventive. Using his intelligence and cunning Paul has never needed to resort to violence or aggression to carry out his work. As a result, his reputation proceeds him as a confident and trustworthy contractor, albeit a criminal one. However, his convictions are put to the test when someone tries to murder his friends and colleagues. Right around the same time that Paul is planning a deal with a local drug dealer who happens to be dating Paul's old flame Olivia (Paulie Rojas Redding). Now, Paul must find those responsible and take them down, all the while trying to stay one step ahead of the feds. All the while planning a new and ambitious score which may not be all that it appears to be. 

When I labeled this movie as "Home Made," I meant that exactly. The film was put together by The SABI Company, an independent film group that prides itself in producing entirely original content. Financing was achieved through crowdfunding via Kickstarter campaign with donations mostly coming from friends and family. Further solidifying the movies "Home Made" status is their choice of camera, which was the Panasonic AG AF100 (more on that in a moment), a consumer level video camera built for independent cinema. Also, they used Nikon photography lenses as opposed to traditional cinema glass. Making this film a genuinely enjoyable experience on a technological level. 

In terms of compelling narrative, the film is surprisingly good. The film can best be described as a character-driven thriller. While this movie can give the impression that it's just a cheap High School project made by a Senior student trying to be cool, the story proper never feels like it. Sure, it's a classic and maybe overused tale of life in the criminal world centering around a protagonist who's smarter than everyone else, but it still manages to be a good version of that. The main reason for this is, arguably, the protagonist. As a character, Paul Boxer is sympathetic and fun to be around. Despite his dark profession he never comes off as evil or intimidating. Because he works so hard to maintain a violence-free workflow, and because his motivations involve seeking justice for a friend, Paul becomes more relatable than you might think. Also, as portrayed by John T. Woods, he has a strange and enduring charm that can only be attributed to the actor's enthusiasm and conviction. 

The cinematography, most notably the lighting, is what truly sets this movie apart. The film utilizes striking and bold colors that clearly identifies individual scenes and locations. Using high levels of Blue, Yellow, and sometimes White that gives the movie its New-Noir feel. It's almost surreal how the various bold colors create a sense of otherworldliness to the story. Making the experience a little more unique than you might think. 

As mentioned earlier, this film was shot on the Panasonic AG AF100, a consumer level Camcorder that was explicitly built for Cinema production. This camera was released at a time when DSLRs, as in digital photography cameras that could also shoot video, had just started becoming popular alternatives for cinematic capture. With their larger sensors and interchangeable lens options, these cameras slowly became the dominant choice for indie films. However, part of the trade-off with using DSLRs at the time was the fact that they weren't built with video in mind in the first place but instead included video as a kind of bonus feature. As such, though DSLRs still produced decent looking footage, the technology that was used to create the footage was not up to snuff with filmmakers. The footage from DSLRs had many issues. The most prominent one being Moire, which is a kind of fuzziness that appears out of nowhere, especially within fine lines on brick walls and the like.  

The Panasonic AG AF100 was one of the first cameras to combine the best of both worlds. It provided the larger sensor and interchangeable lens options of a DSLR while also prodominantly functioning as a video camera with professional level features and, best of all, none of the ugly Moire or tradeoffs associated with shooting on a DSLR. Proving itself to be a digital filmmakers dream camera especially at the time and even still to this day. While some of the more modern and more advanced cameras may overshadow the AF100, no one can deny how well it still holds up as a viable option for digital cinema. As evidenced by this feature film as well as a handful of others, all equally well made. 

It is worth mentioning that the filmmakers opted to capture the film using the AF100's internal AVCHD video codec. For those of you who don't know, AVCHD is a video format which most consumer camcorders have. It was designed by SONY and Panasonic as a video codec that would retain high image quality while still utilizing compression technology to maximize storage space. AVCHD has become, at least in my opinion, horribly underrated as a capture format in recent years, purely because of the compression. But as I have already mentioned in my previous article regarding compression, it is just one of the many aspects of digital video that makes it look more like film than you might otherwise think. So if you're looking for proof as to whether or not AVCHD can hold up as an excellent quality capture option for cinema, look no further than this film. 

Down and Dangerous is a fun, well crafted, occasionally goofy, and highly admirable film. It has a charm about it that is, in all honesty, very rare in independent Cinema even today. At the moment, this film is available for purchase and for rent on just about any VOD (Video On Demand) service including but not limited to iTunes, Amazon, and Hulu. Whatever service you may have, I would highly recommend you check out this film. It is a rare experience to be sure.