The look of Independent Film

[jls4]

I agree with this. And I believe as McKee does that you have to understand and spend a great deal of time and practice learning and applying the tried and true principles and rules, then break them. Most of the greats did this... Kubrick, Lynch, Spielberg... etc... this is something I can't get many of my peers to understand, those who think they are ready to make artful, 'original' films without mastering genre first.

Hey Chance, what's new?

Yeah. I think once you understand what's needed, you get on this "train" to figure out what to buy and if you can afford it. When you're a true novice you just go out Camera in hand and say "let's make a movie". Once you regognize your movie's prod was not great, then you study and find out what you need. but then you still can run into problems because you may not have enough money for everything.

On a similar but other note. checked out the Canon 5D MII today and some video posted online. Without a doubt this camera looks like "film" as some people would say. The low light performance and Depth of Field make the bokeh better than anything I've seen. And while some will dismiss many of it's pros because they are "videographers" at heart instead of "filmmakers." It's an awesome cam. Don't know if it's ready for movie making though - lack of 24p or slowmotion 48p+ . They say it may have 10-Bit 4:2:2 HMDI out which teamed with Convergent Designs Flash XLR 100MBit system could make some awesome images. It gives you the pros of a 1 inch sensor and real lenses and the CMOS Rolling Shudder seems to me (from the videos I've watched) to either be on par with the EX1 or slightly less.

The biggest problem though beyond all of this, is that it has some kind of "filmic" program in it. When your greys get close to black, the camera curves them to black automatically. someone showed a rack focus of a water fountain at night to a bench. In the close focus you could see nothing but the water fountain with no other areas lit besides a few blooms of light. as the camera rack-focused to the bench - you say "Wow I didn't even know the Bench was there" - nor the bushes, trees and sidewalk. so all of that was crushed into nothing by the camera to give it a certain look. The same thing happened in another person's video when they panned up from a girls leg to her face. As the camera neared dark areas, it tried to curve them towards black. The camera looks great though and if that feature could be turned off so that the "real iris" is the only one that changes. Then this camera is a "Game Changer" for anyone serious about Filmmaking not Videography.

 

[karapetkov]

Agreed. I think many of us have seen this "White Red Panic". We also need to realize differences between shorts and features. While I think the piece was awesome, dealing with features is keeping that up over lots of sets, scenes, actors, etc. A much different and more difficult animal. but I do think this is one of the rare examples.

In fact, truth is I think it's not that hard to get your movie to look like hollywood, if you spend time studying the "why it doesn't".

Yeah, I guess that features are a different story [I've never directed one ].

Shorts are messy enough, so I guess that features are like... the horror. :crybaby:

More money are needed, more people and reliable ones too...

This and that...

Sh*t.

I might just switch to poetry instead.

 

[jls4]

Yeah, I guess that features are a different story [I've never directed one ].

Biggest problem with me with features is that it's easy to become complacent. By the time you get to your 31st set up and you've been working for oh, 7 days. You start getting slack. You just start drifting to "this is good enough". (That's only if you understand prod quality). And the actors get tired and sometimes get confused as to when this scene happens in regards to the plot. So as a producer/director you have to keep up with everything, keep people motivated and keep pushing. What you'll notice (for most small indies) is that you'll have some beautiful shots and you'll have some okay shots and some crappy shots. - Now what do you do? The crappy and okay shots will take away from the beautiful ones. Same with acting etc. On a short it's like orange juice concentrate, you go out for 3 days and are enegerized the whole time. You usually can manage to make everything look good for those 15 scenes over 3 days.

 

[DCP]

Biggest problem with me with features is that it's easy to become complacent. By the time you get to your 31st set up and you've been working for oh, 7 days. You start getting slack. You just start drifting to "this is good enough". (That's only if you understand prod quality). And the actors get tired and sometimes get confused as to when this scene happens in regards to the plot. So as a producer/director you have to keep up with everything, keep people motivated and keep pushing. What you'll notice (for most small indies) is that you'll have some beautiful shots and you'll have some okay shots and some crappy shots. - Now what do you do? The crappy and okay shots will take away from the beautiful ones. Same with acting etc. On a short it's like orange juice concentrate, you go out for 3 days and are enegerized the whole time. You usually can manage to make everything look good for those 15 scenes over 3 days.

This is true. Especially if time and money become the problem. On my film we shot over a course of nearly a year and would have two days here, 4 days there and to keep the energy going was a very important issue with me as a director. In fact we ended up cutting a scene we shot our first day because it didn't match up with the rest of the film. I believed exactly the point that "crappy and okay shots will take away from the beautiful ones." I'm a perfectionist and even when I had 'great' shots, I always wanted them better. Sometimes I had to make sacrifices or rethink my scenes on the day of filming (I'm sure most of us had to) because I didn't have the time to get what I wanted. I feel as long as the audience is never taken out of the moment to focus on bad shots, bad acting, bad sound, etc. then the film will be successful (I'm not necessarily talking about 'financial success').

My self and my film partner and friend, Chris, had never worked on a film (we had worked on films as actors) so we were as green as could be and every step was a learning experience. When we started, my goal was to make a 'Hollywood' film. I wanted the shots, I wanted the strong performances, the beauty of film (we shot digital) and the sound that we were used to. Granted, I'm very happy with the final film and I believe I came close to my original vision but there are things I wish I could have done differently

I never shot a short film (ok, maybe I did one in college for a class in 1990 and that was with no crew shot on VHS; yes I'm that old) and I was told that jumping into a feature as my first real film would not be a wise thing to do. I should focus on a small project so my chances for failure would be minimized. I was told to simplify my script/shots/locations/style and not to try to go for the 'Hollywood' look. I said "Hell with that" andI went for it (my wife wasn't overly pleased with the desicion at the time, but now after seeing the finished film, she knows I did the right thing). Now I just have to see if I was 'successful' with an audience.:beer:

Filmmaking is a fun and learning experience and I hope to get the chance to learn more. We are all fortunate that there are tools available to us that can help us reach that 'Hollywood' bench mark (or at least come close to it). Even with this, I've always said that anyone can pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and draw a picture. But only a few can do it really well (not that I'm trying to say that I'm one of those 'few' and that it's not the tools but the person behind the tools... oh, you get the message).

Todd
www.drawingchalkpictures.com

 

[jls4]

Filmmaking is a fun and learning experience and I hope to get the chance to learn more. We are all fortunate that there are tools available to us that can help us reach that 'Hollywood' bench mark (or at least come close to it). Even with this, I've always said that anyone can pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and draw a picture. But only a few can do it really well (not that I'm trying to say that I'm one of those 'few' and that it's not the tools but the person behind the tools... oh, you get the message).

Todd
www.drawingchalkpictures.com

Well Todd, as I've told you before. You have a GREAT Film. You've done in your first feature what many producer/directors couldn't do in their third.

If you'll haven't checked out the trailer for "Drawing With Chalk" you're definately missing out!

 

[karapetkov]

Very interesting comments guys.

If you'll haven't checked out the trailer for "Drawing With Chalk" you're definately missing out!

Now, that's one of the most professionally looking trailers I've seen here. Really intrigued to see the movie.

(I'm not saying that just because it`s a nice thing to say, alright? )

Do you have a thread where you've explained things about the movie, the process, etc.?

What is the budget, if it's no secret?

And, is this shot on the HVX?

Looks very solid - acting, sound, music, editing, I like it. And the theme is very interesting and real, I can relate to it. Music and supporting a family, wake up from the dream, etc. Serious issues in the life of an incurable dreamer.

Very interesting.


P.S. "The whole "music'... thing... checkmate..." Lol.

 

[Nektonic]

Filmmaking is a fun and learning experience and I hope to get the chance to learn more. We are all fortunate that there are tools available to us that can help us reach that 'Hollywood' bench mark (or at least come close to it). Even with this, I've always said that anyone can pick up a pencil and a piece of paper and draw a picture. But only a few can do it really well (not that I'm trying to say that I'm one of those 'few' and that it's not the tools but the person behind the tools... oh, you get the message).

Todd
www.drawingchalkpictures.com

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Sometimes a filmmaker will make a great film on their first attempt, other times it will take more films before it all clicks.

Your trailer looks really polished and professional. Some great shots in the trailer. The acting was really good. It is not very often that you see acting of that quality in indie films. If the entire film is as good as your trailer, I think you will get lots of attention with this film. It looks very well done. Congratulations.

 

[Chance White]

Sup JLS!

Yeah the Canon is nice and everything but I am not interested due to the lack of 24p. That's just me though. I'd rather use a D90 lol.

DCP,

Glad you chimed in with some excellent thoughts on this thread. As you know I am very impressed with your feature and can't wait to see it. Congrats to you and based on the trailer I think leaping right into a feature was the way to go for you!

And finally, I think ultimately if you STRIVE for the best quality images and storytelling, then kudos to you... If you truly dig in and put in the work and practice, educate yourself, learn from others, and do all of this because this is your passion, then you're doing the right thing. Lots of people get excited about being filmmakers and take shortcuts...

 

[murraymile]

Because you JUST know!

 

[DCP]

Now, that's one of the most professionally looking trailers I've seen here. Really intrigued to see the movie.

(I'm not saying that just because it`s a nice thing to say, alright? )

Do you have a thread where you've explained things about the movie, the process, etc.?

Not to hijack the thread, but we are going to update our website explaining more. There is a thread under USER FILMS where I showed the trailer and talked about a few things. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=149028

I'm always happy to talk to anyone who has questions.

What is the budget, if it's no secret?

Our final budget was $116,000 but that is going to be adjusted since more than 70g's was for equipment (which I'm selling so I'll only add to the budget what my 'loss' from the sales are). We spent roughly $50,000 for crew, actors, locations, housing, food, travel, insurance, payroll, legal, etc.

And, is this shot on the HVX?

Yes, the HVX with the Letus Extreme adapter (Nikon mount)

Looks very solid - acting, sound, music, editing, I like it. And the theme is very interesting and real, I can relate to it. Music and supporting a family, wake up from the dream, etc. Serious issues in the life of an incurable dreamer.

Very interesting.

Thank you. The story is one we are all too familiar with (hopefully that doesn't work against us).

P.S. "The whole "music'... thing... checkmate..." Lol.

Definitely rings a chord...

Todd

 

[jls4]

Our final budget was $116,000 but that is going to be adjusted since more than 70g's was for equipment (which I'm selling so I'll only add to the budget what my 'loss' from the sales are). We spent roughly $50,000 for crew, actors, locations, housing, food, travel, insurance, payroll, legal, etc.

Let ME (not US ) know before you sell. I'm always looking to buy good used equipment - especially C-stands, Flags, Scrims, Lights, etc. :beer:

 

[filmman]

A professionally shot 35mm feature film has that look. For the audience that's still ingrained in their minds.

But there is a new trend: digital ... and in time perhaps digital will be that look.

 

[Chance White]

filmman,

What exactly do you mean by the digital look? Digital is still trying to emulate the film look... with 35mm adapters, the trend towards interchangable lenses, increasing dynamic range, etc, it's still all about making digital look as close to the film look as possible. If by digital look you mean, super crisp HD at 30p or 60p or even 60i (uuugh) I have to disagree.

There are really 2 predominant styles, handheld Bourne Ultimatum/24 and the sleek Hollywood look (Michael Bay and David Fincher style slick camera moves etc but no amateurish looking handheld unless it serves the scene/story)

But both of these are still usually preferable at 24p and with shallow DOF.

 

[filmman]

Thanks for clarifying that, Chance. I haven't seen many digitally originated movies in theaters yet. My impressions are mostly from the web and this user group particularly. I noticed some characteristics of digital in the well shot movies here, such as Corrado, ALPTD, Chalk, etc. They look -- clean. I don't know, it's not a very technical way to describe it, I know; but they don't look like film to me. Also, some of the TV movies that are heavily manipulated to look like film I suppose, also they have the digital look.

I know 24p is supposed to make digital look more like film and all, but to my eye there is definitely a noticeable difference. And I've read about "cadence", etc. I know some people have studied the look thing much more than I have. My opinion is based only on my own observations.

To me digital looks clean, and for some movies I could imagine that might be a better look. After all, as filmmakers many of us believed that the look of a movie should be in harmony with its content; it should express and advance its message, story or import.

Maybe it has to do with grain; but I really don't think so. It must be many things. I truly think it's the frame rate more than anything else. That's perhaps the soap opera look too. I think that's what I'm seeing.

But I hear people swooning over the look of the Red -- swooning. LOL

And I suppose it's like when someone meets a girl they fall for right away, I don't know; digital at its best has a look of its own. All the adapters, filters and plugins aren't going to do it -- as far as I can see.

For me, it's of no interest to make my digital movies look like film -- except if someone, such as a distributor, pays me. If I want the film look, I'll shoot 35mm.

However, if I'm going to shoot a movie in HD, I will shoot it with my Sony Z1. I'm not going to put anything on the camera by way of adapters. I'm not even going to worry about the look until I get to FCP and then I might consider shelling out some money to buy a Magic Bullet program to manipulate the look of the video later.

I will shoot digital only if I have no budget; i.e., out of pocket filmmaking. LOL And I will shoot digital if I'm not paying for my talent, I'm doing a documentary, or a highly experimental movie that can benefit from all the effects possible with digital for free.

Personally I can shoot a feature film in 35mm under $25,000 for film stock, developing and HD telecine. So if I have a budget, then film is the only thing that makes sense. If I don't have a budget, digital makes more sense.

The difference between the look of 35mm film, 30 fps, progressive or interlaced are not a factor in my thinking.

But thank you for outlining the types of professional styles utilized by the industry with respect to digital and the 35mm look. I needed to know that.

 

[Chance White]

filmman,

I understand where you are coming from now. I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not with your response... I in no way meant to imply I was the expert on the topic and that those are the only 2 looks/styles in existence, just my observations that I don't think digital really has distinguished it's own look yet.

I think it's interesting your philosophy however, that if you didn't have a budget, you wouldn't even attempt to shoot digital to look more like film and you would embrace the characteristics instead of trying to make it look like something it's not.

I agree with you that you can still tell that 24p video is still not quite film. Film just has this 'unbreakable' look to it. However, after my experiences shooting with the D90, I think the really big difference is quality glass, dynamic range, and obviously DOF. I think even the most discerning eye would be hard pressed to tell the difference at that level. Especially once people get their hands on SCARLETS and EPICS and use nice glass...

 

[Nektonic]

I think it's interesting your philosophy however, that if you didn't have a budget, you wouldn't even attempt to shoot digital to look more like film and you would embrace the characteristics instead of trying to make it look like something it's not.

I thought of this many times when watching the new Battlestar Galactica series, which is shot in HD on the Sony F900's or F950's I believe. They are using the characteristics of video in their visual style. They have noise, blown out highlights, hand-held, zooms, etc. Not sure what the sensor size is on the Sony cameras, maybe 2/3? If so that would explain why they sometimes have deeper focus than a lot of other shows.

It definitely has a sort of "hybrid" look that works well for the show. Not completely video, yet not completely film either. I think for certain subject matter this embracing of digital works really well.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But both of these are still usually preferable at 24p and with shallow DOF.

Actually, I'm looking back to Welles (and others) and Deep Focus... where at the time a special split lense was used to get a near object in sharp focus, as well as distant background... sort of the equivalent the still photographer's of the so called, F/64 Group style... and this is 'almost for free' with for me affordable digital cameras...

Now the thing there is to get lighting to separate the background from the forground, or highlight significant objects... but then that is what really, at least to me, gives the 'video' away... flat lighting with 'bright' colors... well actually in many of the 'user' films... muddy yellow uncorrected tungsten lighting look... but even then flat...

 

[Chance White]

I thought of this many times when watching the new Battlestar Galactica series, which is shot in HD on the Sony F900's or F950's I believe. They are using the characteristics of video in their visual style. They have noise, blown out highlights, hand-held, zooms, etc. Not sure what the sensor size is on the Sony cameras, maybe 2/3? If so that would explain why they sometimes have deeper focus than a lot of other shows.

It definitely has a sort of "hybrid" look that works well for the show. Not completely video, yet not completely film either. I think for certain subject matter this embracing of digital works really well.

Now I am upset I did not think of BSG as an example of this. Excellent observation! I agree this is a great example of a style that actually utilizes digital video in a way that serves the story and tone.

I'm very interested in what the equivalent to film damage will be in digital. I've seen some hints in that direction such as the Nine Inch Nails video The Hand That Feeds, with intentional reversing of fields, and as you stated, very visible video noise in BSG... when will we find these 'special defects' becoming more in vogue similarly to how often we see film damage...

 

[Chance White]

Actually, I'm looking back to Welles (and others) and Deep Focus... where at the time a special split lense was used to get a near object in sharp focus, as well as distant background... sort of the equivalent the still photographer's of the so called, F/64 Group style... and this is 'almost for free' with for me affordable digital cameras...

Now the thing there is to get lighting to separate the background from the forground, or highlight significant objects... but then that is what really, at least to me, gives the 'video' away... flat lighting with 'bright' colors... well actually in many of the 'user' films... muddy yellow uncorrected tungsten lighting look... but even then flat...

I think it is ironic that back in the day Welles and others made efforts to eliminate the very thing that is SO sought after today... shallow DOF.

And yes I wasn't taking into account just plain incorrectly white balanced footage, this obviously gives away the video origins and looks pukish. Yes pukish.

 

[filmman]

No, I wasn't being facetious; there's so much to learn. Things are changing so fast; the look of film, the look of digital, what is in, what is out... I don't know anymore; I guess, it's just a matter of making the best movie possible and let the critics and reviewers say whatever they want to say.

Putting into context the myriad of movie styles and directorial successes... there are so many things to keep in the back of one's mind when making movies now that it's really very valuable to be sharing this type of information.

I can't go out and see all these movies and put them into historical and aesthetic contexts. I'm appreciative of the fact I can just read them here and go out with a head full of ideas as to how to handle the media and the look of the film I'm making.