I Need To Achieve These Looks, Dp's Wanted!!

abalex

abalex

Well-known member
The feature I'll be shooting next year has the same look or feel of these movies: Garden state, junebug, most of wes anderson's movies, the thumbsucker,broken flowers, lost in translation, the constant gardener, city of god, etc... I'll be using super 16(maybe the ECLAIR or the ARRI 16BL) and would like to know if anyone here could tell me what kind of lenses I should use. I know the production desing is very important but putting that on the side i wanna know about the lenses for the look and feel and filters, and maybe why not, types of film stock. budget will be aprox 10.000-20.000. Will be a very indi production.

TO help you understand the mood of the movie here is a little synopsis: the story it's about a girl who was sexually abused by her dad. Now she leaves far from home but the memories are coming back . Meets this guy who helps her to overcome this problem and finally get some professional help. I'll use a lot indie music following the style of elliott smith, maybe warm colors, very art deco. I'll be one of those feel good movies....

If this movie is not shot on film it will be on HD, maybe the HVX. Hope I can achieve the look i want using digital.


thanks
g.
 
Last edited:
A long lens will isolate a charater with a small depth of field. While a short lens will engulf everything in the scene.

Filtration is the same way, make choices according to the mood of the piece. A warm filter will feed life into a character while a cool filter can have a very stark feeling. The best example of this is the movie Traffic.

From you synopsis - The memory scenes feel a lot colder, very grey, sharp, and harsh. I would use a longer lens with a cooling filter. Probably no shorter than a 50mm, but the longer the better. Keeping the subject very sharp and the background very blurry would be effective in these scenes.

The present day scenes are very warm, very comforting, with no confusion. Shorter lenses with little filtration. No longer than 50mm. Some Promist filters could work in this scene to soften the picture a bit. If you wanted the Wes Anderson look, choose your color palette wisely.

For film stock, Kodak Vision2. It comes in various ISOs in both Tungsten and Daylight. I have had the best experiences with this film. Fuji picks up pastel colors better. If the picture is going to contain lots of pastel colors, like a Wes Anderson film - consider using it.

Hope this helped.
 
Last edited:
it's obvious that you don't have budget to shoot on film so forget that option (film stock is something like $300/10 min concidering that you shoot for 24 days at about 50 min/day ration then film stock alone will run you about $36,000. You best bet would be to shoot HD (CineAlta or Vericam) but again the budget doesn't really allow for this (CineAlta would run you about $12,000 for the shoot). The viable options are DVX100 or HVX200 (which i don't like) -- so most likely you will use use whatever cameras comes cheaper/maybe free. Still with this budget we are talking about surviving and not the filming styles. we are talking about $800/day (based on 24 shooting days) to feed the people, transport them to the location... WIth this budget you are limited to creative use of what you got plus "being realistic" -- mediums and closeups to get the coverage and if you are in the right place at the right time getting some beautifly lit by natural light medium wides.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
it's obvious that you don't have budget to shoot on film so forget that option (film stock is something like $300/10 min concidering that you shoot for 24 days at about 50 min/day ration then film stock alone will run you about $36,000. You best bet would be to shoot HD (CineAlta or Vericam) but again the budget doesn't really allow for this (CineAlta would run you about $12,000 for the shoot). The viable options are DVX100 or HVX200 (which i don't like) -- so most likely you will use use whatever cameras comes cheaper/maybe free. Still with this budget we are talking about surviving and not the filming styles. we are talking about $800/day (based on 24 shooting days) to feed the people, transport them to the location... WIth this budget you are limited to creative use of what you got plus "being realistic" -- mediums and closeups to get the coverage and if you are in the right place at the right time getting some beautifly lit by natural light medium wides.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice but I've been doing some math and because the crew will be very limited and we wont have any star in the movie I think I can shoot it on film for very cheap. I'm buying the film camera and because Im a student I can get great discount on film, ie:
this is what I've calculated according to the discounts:
0.10 cents per ft from Kodak(30% off for students)
0.10 cent per ft to develope from Fotokem(students only)
90 or 100 dollars per every 400 ft of film to do the telecine from Modern Image here in utah(students only). Telecine will be transfered onto DVCam. I wont do final prints,just straight from the DVcam as my master. This way is cheap.

So I've calculated almost 15.000 to 20.000 since I wont be buying lots of film and I'll use my own camera. The actors will rehearse a lot so we don't do a lot of retakes. I've done this before and it worked, just make sure you know what your limits are.

thanks for the advice again and I think I'll use fuji, i'll have lot of pastel colors and they also have 50% disccount for film students.

peace out!
g.
 
Last edited:
that really helped!! thanks a lot brother! I liked what you said about using fuji and the pastel colors. I think Garden State was actually shot on fuji film. I found the title of the movie on their site.

thaks
g.
 
abalex said:
the story it's about a girl who was sexually abused by her dad.

-
-
-

It'll be one of those feel good movies....
Click to expand...

Yeeeahhh. Okay. :laugh: :lipsrseal

-

Garden state, junebug, most of wes anderson's movies, the thumbsucker,broken flowers, lost in translation, the constant gardener,
Click to expand...

Could these films be any different ? They are not exactly lumped in the same category visually or stylisticly.

-

I would think the most important elements to achieve your goals are going to be in Design; costume design, set-design, production design and lighting.

-

Hire a pro in that department. Someone who is going to help you realize your vision (You know, that Wes Anderson / Constant Gardener mutation :laugh: .

-

Plan long and in advance how you want to shoot it.
 
Those movies look the way they look mostly because of the production design. There are very specific details that make the movie "look" the way it dose. Also the use of long lenses and not flat lighting but not using to much deep shadows
 
Even the old Bolex's have been converted to S16. I think most cameras can be converted these days.

Edit

Yes. A quick glance and the 16Bl is avilable for S16
 
abalex said:
I'll be using super 16(maybe the ECLAIR or the ARRI 16BL) and would like to know if anyone here could tell me what kind of lenses I should use. I know the production desing is very important but putting that on the side i wanna know about the lenses for the look and feel and filters, and maybe why not, types of film stock. budget will be aprox 10.000-20.000. Will be a very indi production.
Click to expand...
As in most things, there is not one single element that makes something look/feel/sound the way it does. There are hundreds of variables that must be considered and many, many decisions to make. I would tend to discourage anyone with a $20K budget and minimal film shooting experience from shooting a movie on an Eclair and 16mm stock. Seriously. Using that gear will not get you a film look at all.

I think, and anyone here is free to disagree completely with me, that it would be in The_Best_Interests_Of_Your_Movie to justify the expense of a DP with a portfolio you admire and have him help you determine a strategy for getting the look you are after. Otherwise, the project will not be all it can be. You can probably shoot a movie on an HVX that most people will not recognize as being video at all, with an experienced person at the helm. And, with a $20K budget shooting on video, getting a qualified DP is well within reach. There are probably a dozen or more DP's with 35mm experience and nationally distributed direct-to-video movies that would love to get involved. Good help is not nearly as expensive as people think... Not too many years ago, David Mullen ASC was doing movies in that price range, believe it or not! (not anymore, of course!)
 
John_Hudson said:
Could these films be any different ? They are not exactly lumped in the same category visually or stylisticly.
Click to expand...

That was the first thing that came to mind reading this. How is Rushmore like Constant Gardener?

John_Hudson said:
I would think the most important elements to achieve your goals are going to be in Design; costume design, set-design, production design and lighting.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. Those are much more important and "look"-defining than lenses and stock (although, they do play a significant role...)

I'm totally with John on this one.

Good news is that you have a good taste in films. Hope you get what you want in the end!

Cheers!
 
Idiocy Abounds...

Idiocy Abounds...

If you want to shoot film and the production budget can support it, by all means shoot film. For anyone here to attempt to dissuade you from doing so when it is your expressed and preferred intent is incredibly immature and cowardly. Some here act as if they are slighted or somehow wronged by another's choice to shoot film, and then actively choose to denigrate and humiliate that choice. This is why the term "vidiot" was invented.

If your camera choices are limited to an Arri BL and an Eclair, then this also limits your lens selection. Unless these camera's are modified to accept PL mount you will be restricted to Bayonet (Arri BL) and C-mount or CA-1 mount (Eclair) lenses. Some of the best lenses built with a Bayonet mount are the Zeiss MKII prime series (T1.3). I would suggest these lenses above most others due to sharpness, color matching, availability, and optical quality. Of course Schneider, Century and Angenieux all make lenses in these mounts but my personal preference goes to the Zeiss MKII primes. If need be you can purchase/rent a C-mount to Bayonet adapter for other lenses.

If you own the BL then hopefully you purchased it with one of its factory stock lenses, either a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar or an Angenieux Zoom. Either of these would make a good backup lens but you will see a marked difference between these and a Zeiss prime. Not necessarily a bad thing if used judiciously.

Stylistically speaking I would shoot with sharp prime lenses (such as the Zeiss MKII's) and soften them with light filtration. Be aware that you need significantly less diffusion filtration when shooting 16mm as you would to yield the same effect in 35mm. Beyond this I would recommend shooting slower, high-contrast negative stocks, especially if you are limited to standard 16mm. Slower stocks obviously have less apparent grain (if exposed properly and processed normally) and they are higher-contrast which increases apparent sharpness and color saturation. Unfortunately this approach is not always low-budget friendly since you typically need a larger lighting package to properly light these slower stocks.
 
hashepsut said:
For anyone here to attempt to dissuade you from doing so when it is your expressed and preferred intent is incredibly immature and cowardly. Some here act as if they are slighted or somehow wronged by another's choice to shoot film, and then actively choose to denigrate and humiliate that choice. This is why the term "vidiot" was invented.
Click to expand...


LOL :love4:

Having a good day ?
 
OK so you find a way to get your film stock for 15g... So you have only 5g left for the production.... You have to find good balance between the gear and crew expenses. WIth 20g i woudl definatly stay away from film. My gf whos a makeup artist just got back from a short where a kid spent 50s on a short because he wnated to shoot with top of the line cameras and 35mm film stock... he forgot though to spend enough on good crew and the shoot was a disaster. On the other hand i just DPed a 5 day shoot for another short where the guy spend 15g on whole production... for that one shooting digital was the right choice between gear expenses/crew.
 
John_Hudson said:
Yeeeahhh. Okay. :laugh: :lipsrseal

-



Could these films be any different ? They are not exactly lumped in the same category visually or stylisticly.

-

I would think the most important elements to achieve your goals are going to be in Design; costume design, set-design, production design and lighting.

-

Hire a pro in that department. Someone who is going to help you realize your vision (You know, that Wes Anderson / Constant Gardener mutation :laugh: .

-

Plan long and in advance how you want to shoot it.
Click to expand...

Dude I laugh so hard, you got me! Honestly the idea is more toward a Garden State type os movie but with a girl as main character and using the "abused" idea.

But thanks for pointing that out Jhon!

Have a great week!
g.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
OK so you find a way to get your film stock for 15g... So you have only 5g left for the production.... You have to find good balance between the gear and crew expenses. WIth 20g i woudl definatly stay away from film. My gf whos a makeup artist just got back from a short where a kid spent 50s on a short because he wnated to shoot with top of the line cameras and 35mm film stock... he forgot though to spend enough on good crew and the shoot was a disaster. On the other hand i just DPed a 5 day shoot for another short where the guy spend 15g on whole production... for that one shooting digital was the right choice between gear expenses/crew.
Click to expand...

Thanks Patrik , good point! I'll think about that...

g.
 
Andrew M said:
If I am not mistaken the Arri 16Bl can not be converted to SP-16. At least I have never heard of an sp-16 BL. But who knows?

An sp-16 SRI (Or 2 if you can afford it) would be a better bet. ; )
Click to expand...

You're right Andrew, I'll check that!

thanks
g.
 
taubkin said:
That was the first thing that came to mind reading this. How is Rushmore like Constant Gardener?



Could not agree more. Those are much more important and "look"-defining than lenses and stock (although, they do play a significant role...)

I'm totally with John on this one.

Good news is that you have a good taste in films. Hope you get what you want in the end!

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Thanks TAUBKIN. I think I wasn't thinking straight when I named all those movies, just got too exited i guess.....

OBRIGADO amigao!

Thanks
G.
 
hashepsut said:
If you want to shoot film and the production budget can support it, by all means shoot film. For anyone here to attempt to dissuade you from doing so when it is your expressed and preferred intent is incredibly immature and cowardly. Some here act as if they are slighted or somehow wronged by another's choice to shoot film, and then actively choose to denigrate and humiliate that choice. This is why the term "vidiot" was invented.

If your camera choices are limited to an Arri BL and an Eclair, then this also limits your lens selection. Unless these camera's are modified to accept PL mount you will be restricted to Bayonet (Arri BL) and C-mount or CA-1 mount (Eclair) lenses. Some of the best lenses built with a Bayonet mount are the Zeiss MKII prime series (T1.3). I would suggest these lenses above most others due to sharpness, color matching, availability, and optical quality. Of course Schneider, Century and Angenieux all make lenses in these mounts but my personal preference goes to the Zeiss MKII primes. If need be you can purchase/rent a C-mount to Bayonet adapter for other lenses.

If you own the BL then hopefully you purchased it with one of its factory stock lenses, either a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar or an Angenieux Zoom. Either of these would make a good backup lens but you will see a marked difference between these and a Zeiss prime. Not necessarily a bad thing if used judiciously.

Stylistically speaking I would shoot with sharp prime lenses (such as the Zeiss MKII's) and soften them with light filtration. Be aware that you need significantly less diffusion filtration when shooting 16mm as you would to yield the same effect in 35mm. Beyond this I would recommend shooting slower, high-contrast negative stocks, especially if you are limited to standard 16mm. Slower stocks obviously have less apparent grain (if exposed properly and processed normally) and they are higher-contrast which increases apparent sharpness and color saturation. Unfortunately this approach is not always low-budget friendly since you typically need a larger lighting package to properly light these slower stocks.
Click to expand...

Thank you ! THis really helps. GReat information about lenses.

g.
 
abalex said:
The feature I'll be shooting next year ... budget will be aprox 10.000-20.000. Will be a very indi production.
Click to expand...
Having finished a feature last August and being aware of the HARD costs of that project I am TOTALLY baffled at how you are going to be able to do it on film at your projected budget. I can only believe that you are paying no one. You have very little to purchase in the way of props and costuming. No one is being fed. Your locations are free and will require nothing in the way of permits. Of course you have your own editing equipment so there will be no additional costs here, right? Sound design? Lighting? How long is the shoot? Will there be any insurance concerns?

But if you're getting a lot of help from crew members with equipment who are willing to work for experience and actors trying to build their resumes I can see where you can get around some things like lighting and sound...and of course, acting.

Even working with people you get along with, things can get tense at times and especially on a tight shooting schedule. FOOD. REFRESHMENTS. They mount up very quickly and can go a long way to keeping the morale up. But you'd be surpised how quickly they add up. And how many people do you have working on the project?

Perhaps you have all this figured out, in which case please ignore all this. I wish you the best of luck on your project and hope to see it one day. It's great that you are prepared to do something instead of just talking about it. Just go in with your eyes open and be prepared for the unexpected because it WILL occur. Have work around plans.

:thumbsup:
 
You guys are awsome!! I thak you for your support and professional advice. I see alot of people telling me that shooting film is really dificult, and I really believe you guys, you are the ones with the experience and honestly not me.

It'll will be my first time shooting film. I have more than 10 ten years of experience lighting for video so I kind of know what's going on, BUT I'm not going to DP this feature. I have a friend from Chile, he's a pro DP and have worked on may national and international commercial. He also DP an infomercial that went nationally in the US. It's about a very undestructable ladder(forgot the name) but he shot S16,HD and 35mm. So he is an amazing DP and will DP my feature just for Pizza. He've told me he wants to be part of the project cause he believes in the potential of my story.

this is going to be a labor of love, all the money will go just on the rentals and film. I dont think anyone will be paid, unless is a pro actor.

One movie called PRIMER was shot entirely on S16 for only 7000 and the guy won best movie at sundance and sold his movie to Thinkfilm. So things are possible all you need is a possitive mind and be willing to work like a dog.

This is all for me guys, have a great week.
G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top