The look of Independent Film

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Lighting
2.5 Light kits (This needs to be various light intensities and softness) I used
3 - 1Ks, 3 - 650s, 3- 300s, 2 - 150s

I had a lot of problem figuring out two things recently when I rented both lights, a Lowell 3 light package, 750, and 2 250's, and a Panasonic HMC150. The lights were way under what they should have been... as hindsight shows... but I was really stumped for exactly how many fc's the lowells were puting out, to estimate whether that was enough or not... it wasn't... and further, even though the Panasonic HMC150 has a IRE indicator, and I calibrated my spot meter to a 18% grey card to an IRE of 50% I was off by at least a 1 or 2 stop value. I haven't had time to recheck my meter relative to my digital stills to see if the meter is just 'off'...

But even from the manufacturer there was no nice way of finding out the effective ISO, as the only parameter was the minimum light, as opposed to 'sensitivity', or the like. I'm suspicious about why the 'low light' value is given, as opposed to a number for a middle value...

Once one has an effective ISO rating, and the fc values, there are a number of charts one can use to estimate F-stop, and whether that's going to work for the shot...

I use the spot meter over the incident meter because then I don't have to worry about whether the reflectivity of the subject is one thing or another. I get a reading of what the reflected intensity is... and then find out the ratios between high and low values. (The spot meter also has a flash mode to check out flash values... unnecessary for film... doesn't have a direct fc read out... darn...).

 

[jls4]

I had a lot of problem figuring out two things recently when I rented both lights, a Lowell 3 light package, 750, and 2 250's, and a Panasonic HMC150. The lights were way under what they should have been... as hindsight shows... but I was really stumped for exactly how many fc's the lowells were puting out, to estimate whether that was enough or not... it wasn't... and further, even though the Panasonic HMC150 has a IRE indicator, and I calibrated my spot meter to a 18% grey card to an IRE of 50% I was off by at least a 1 or 2 stop value. I haven't had time to recheck my meter relative to my digital stills to see if the meter is just 'off'...

I've given up on ISO pretty much for Digital Videography. I know many people still are used to it, so they use it and stay with what they know. I just know my camera's grain pattern and when that starts to show up. On the V1U, grain is visible at 6dbs and tollerable at 9dbs, but gets ugly at 12dbs. Photo is a different animal, at least for now.

I've learned that lights can loose their fc/lux for lots of reasons:
The Bulb is on it's way out
The Blub has a smear on it (someone put the bulb in without using gloves - so oil is buned onto the bulb - limiting output)
If fresnel - the glass in front is not clean
The unit is not working properly
Sometimes you can buy bulbs - especially on the lowels - that have different intensities, yet fit into the same body. I had a Lowel Light that could handle lights from 150w to 300w. When I first bought the lamp it had a 300w in it, when that died I put a 150w in it because I felt the 300w was too much - (at that time)

There can be lots of reasons. that's another reason I'm an advocate for buying. It gives you time to inspect your equipment and make sure it's performing at peak. Also I have plenty of bulbs on hand, just in case one of them blows out. Every 100 hours of shooting or so, I inspect and clean each light head to make sure that they are working well - even for those who rent from me - it allows me to quickly know who may have broken my equipment.

I know I need to do more "grey card" stuff. And I plan to on my next project. I just feel I need to upgrade the camera before I take it to that level. Since I do mainly Darker Skin Tones, I want to create a profile that represents that. the problem with Grey Cards is that they were designed for Light Skin. What I have to do is intensify my medium dark areas, yet control my whites so they don't blow out. I may need to create a 25% grey card. LOL

 

[bentramer81]

I agree with Luis. But most of us are using Mid Level cameras which produce stunning images in the right hands. But Film still looks better IMHO. (not counting RED cams) I think they look exactly like film but my eye is untrained.

Bingo! We have a winner.

 

[JonathanLB]

This is an area I have been analyzing for a bit of time. I've shot a few features and I'll admit they were crap...and I vowed to never do shoot again until I have a great script...even if it means never shooting again. The great script is the first piece of the puzzle. I have been pouring over great films to understand what the main difference is. Time is one of the biggest keys to the puzzle as well. The time to get all the shots...and I mean great shots...the shots that add that extra layer of depth to a film. I'm not even talking about the greater production value...the look...I'm talking about the patience to let things play out and covering every ounce of emotion that can be found in every scene. My other films...I was always eliminating shots, because I didn't have the foresight and patience to add those little pieces that pull it all together. Developing that patience when everyone else is falling by the wayside...looking at their watch to see if it's time to go. I'm not sure I'm describing what I mean in this...but it's all about adding that extra layer of depth to a film that is usually missing from independent films. That layer begins with the opening credits and first scenes we see. That excitement and interest is there from the opening moment. Study the best directors with their best cinematographers and see what I mean.

Yeah time, definitely an issue.

A very good DP told me that I could shoot a 90 page feature in 12 days, but after just doing my short film where we shot basically 6.5 pages in two days and it was tight, that makes me think I don't see how you could possibly do a feature that fast. Even if the crew was double, it'd still be tough. I won't comment yet, though, because I've had no luck at all with the 1 page = 1 minute thing. I have no idea where that rule comes from, but I use standard screenwriting software, I know how to write it properly, I've taken classes, etc., but usually the way I direct it is longer than a minute per page. I think in this case the first two pages should be pretty accurate, I believe it is about two minutes, maybe a bit longer, close though. After that there are some parts that are drawn out, I think. I'm hoping it can be pretty accurate this time, though, like 7-8 minutes for 6.5 pages would be ok.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

There can be lots of reasons. that's another reason I'm an advocate for buying. It gives you time to inspect your equipment and make sure it's performing at peak.

Yes, at the level of activity that I'm at, I do like to 'buy', so I can have the equipment available when I have time to 'figure things out'...

Unfortunately The Wife has not given me permission to buy a HD camera, nor lights for film... so I had to rent, and didn't have the time to 'figure things out', and make tests.

I know I need to do more "grey card" stuff. And I plan to on my next project. I just feel I need to upgrade the camera before I take it to that level. Since I do mainly Darker Skin Tones, I want to create a profile that represents that. the problem with Grey Cards is that they were designed for Light Skin. What I have to do is intensify my medium dark areas, yet control my whites so they don't blow out. I may need to create a 25% grey card. LOL

Well, The Grey card was actually a printer calibration tool... as in printing presses...
There's also a lot of debate about the 18% business...

But the main deal with the grey card is that it is a reference. Basically caucasian skin is about twice as reflective as The Grey card, and depending on 'mediterrranian' to dark complexion, The Grey card is approximate equal to twice as reflective as the skin.

On close inspection of how sets are lit... almost no 'pro' lighing set up has any large areas of 'blank black' or even 'blank dark'. so the idea is to get something in the shadows, that puts 'detail' in the darker areas.

I use a spot meter to go over what are the actual reflectivities of the elements of the scene. An incident meter can measure the light falling on the scene... but unless you know X is twice as reflective... or half as reflective, you don't know if your scene has adequate lighing for all the elements to register on the sensore (doesn't matter if it is an electronic sensor or Real Film(tm)...

The problem for me, is that most lights are given in terms of Foot Candles, most still meters do not have a 'foot candle' read out, and finding out the 'effective' sensitivity of the prosumer digital camera is rather frustrating, because the camera maker is playing 'specsmanship' with the numbers to make the camera seem 'really sensitive'... when, unless one is doing survailence work... are totally useless... ok.. maybe for someone wanting to get those candle light wedding video shots...

But what I didn't have time for was to calibrate my spot meter to the IRE display, and then 'evaluate' how well the camera produced images at various lighting settings.

Essentially do a 'Zone System' calibration that I use to do for still film back in the olden days... The idea of that calibration was to take a manufacturer's ASA (or moderinized ISO) value as a starting point guide, then come up with a 'for you effective' number that resulted in the type of image you wanted...

 

[jls4]

Yes, at the level of activity that I'm at, I do like to 'buy', so I can have the equipment available when I have time to 'figure things out'...

Unfortunately The Wife has not given me permission to buy a HD camera, nor lights for film... so I had to rent, and didn't have the time to 'figure things out', and make tests.

you're welcome to buy my V1u when I'm finished with this current movie. I'll give you a good deal. LOL.

Well, The Grey card was actually a printer calibration tool... as in printing presses...
There's also a lot of debate about the 18% business...

...

I use a spot meter to go over what are the actual reflectivities of the elements of the scene. ...

The problem for me, is that most lights are given in terms of Foot Candles, most still meters do not have a 'foot candle' read out, and finding out the 'effective' sensitivity of the prosumer digital camera is rather frustrating, because the camera maker is playing 'specsmanship' with the numbers to make the camera seem 'really sensitive'... when, unless one is doing survailence work... are totally useless... ok.. maybe for someone wanting to get those candle light wedding video shots...

But what I didn't have time for was to calibrate my spot meter to the IRE display, and then 'evaluate' how well the camera produced images at various lighting settings.

Essentially do a 'Zone System' calibration that I use to do for still film back in the olden days...

For my next movie I plan on getting a monitor with waveform. Spot meters at this point are a little slow and almot useless in my mind. Because I'm running lenses through an adapter into a video camera. What value do I use? LOL

I think the waveform will let me know where I'm clipping and when I get my skin tones to the 18 to 25% marks to help me pull them out from the background.

I can see why you would want the foot candels/lux settings. It is frustrating to read spec sheets only having to do more calculations to reference what the light output really means.

Overall, depending on your (i.e. anyone's) application you may or may not need a meter. There is so much that one can do just with the eyes alone. My main concern is to see into the dark areas, to see something close to "black" to see my skin tones close to a mid range (18 to 25%) and to minimize my blow outs. After that I never worry about anything. So I guess you could say I focus on 4 zones.

Zone 1: Whites
Zone 2: Skin Tones
Zone 3: Fall off to Black
Zone 4: Blacks

The camera will do the whole 9 to 12 zone (i.e. lighting stop) for me as it knows where everything is. I can see why years before it was more crucial to do it with meters because you couldn't "see" what you were getting. But now you esentially can.

 

[Martay]

Yeah time, definitely an issue.

A very good DP told me that I could shoot a 90 page feature in 12 days, but after just doing my short film where we shot basically 6.5 pages in two days and it was tight, that makes me think I don't see how you could possibly do a feature that fast. Even if the crew was double, it'd still be tough. I won't comment yet, though, because I've had no luck at all with the 1 page = 1 minute thing. I have no idea where that rule comes from, but I use standard screenwriting software, I know how to write it properly, I've taken classes, etc., but usually the way I direct it is longer than a minute per page. I think in this case the first two pages should be pretty accurate, I believe it is about two minutes, maybe a bit longer, close though. After that there are some parts that are drawn out, I think. I'm hoping it can be pretty accurate this time, though, like 7-8 minutes for 6.5 pages would be ok.

2 minutes a page?

Hmmm. I'm not picturing what would cause that in terms of directing. Unless you're making sure the pace is so deliberate that it's causing that kind of ratio.

So theoretically your 13 page short is going to be 26 minutes? Honestly that doesn't sound enticing on paper.

I recently produced a 19 page short and we brought it in at 12 minutes. I'd pushed for less TRT the whole time and the editor did an excellent job enhancing the pace that it was shot. We did shoot that in 2 days which was quite a job. 10 pages 2nd day and 9 pages 1st Day.

I did shoot a feature in 10 days previously. 95 pages. That was a challenge and we had it set up to be able to do so, planned it meticulously and set it in a Single location (many different rooms though). I don't recommend it (15 days would have really helped) but it can be done.

-M

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The camera will do the whole 9 to 12 zone (i.e. lighting stop) for me as it knows where everything is. I can see why years before it was more crucial to do it with meters because you couldn't "see" what you were getting. But now you esentially can.

When shooting my digital still camera I almost never meter any more. However, I am heavily dependent on looking at the histogram, at least for the initial shots in a given lighting. Then I adjust the aperture to move the histogram around to my satisfaction, that is with no major pile up at one end or the other, and given an estimate of the important elements of the scene, and their reflectivities, that I have those 'placed' well enough for my purposes.

I'll be doing this with my DVX100 just to go through the exercise. I don't have the on-camera scope features... but I get an idea of what its sensitivity is.

 

[JonathanLB]

2 minutes a page?

Hmmm. I'm not picturing what would cause that in terms of directing. Unless you're making sure the pace is so deliberate that it's causing that kind of ratio.

So theoretically your 13 page short is going to be 26 minutes? Honestly that doesn't sound enticing on paper.

I recently produced a 19 page short and we brought it in at 12 minutes. I'd pushed for less TRT the whole time and the editor did an excellent job enhancing the pace that it was shot. We did shoot that in 2 days which was quite a job. 10 pages 2nd day and 9 pages 1st Day.

I did shoot a feature in 10 days previously. 95 pages. That was a challenge and we had it set up to be able to do so, planned it meticulously and set it in a Single location (many different rooms though). I don't recommend it (15 days would have really helped) but it can be done.

-M

Hey,

No no, I never said two minutes a page! haha. I said the first two pages came in at where they should, about two minutes. The title sequence added a bit, though. In any case the script was just a hair shy of 6.5 pages, but basically you'd call it 6.5, and the short (not including credits) is about 7.5 minutes, so that's pretty close I suppose but it's as tight as you can make something, it's almost all dialogue, and it's still more than 1 minute per page. For me that's a bad guideline. I think a 90 page script would be more like 110 minutes long. Who knows, though. The whole short is nearly 10 minutes with the credits / outtakes because we have basically 2 minutes of outtakes and credits that roll simultaneously, probably the funniest part of the film in a way, haha, and then the "film" itself is like 7:40 I think so it ends up being just shy of 10 minutes, which is good. I didn't want to make a comedy short above 10 minutes, that's just too long, much better for festivals this way.

 

[jls4]

When shooting my digital still camera I almost never meter any more. However, I am heavily dependent on looking at the histogram, at least for the initial shots in a given lighting. Then I adjust the aperture to move the histogram around to my satisfaction, that is with no major pile up at one end or the other, and given an estimate of the important elements of the scene, and their reflectivities, that I have those 'placed' well enough for my purposes.

I'll be doing this with my DVX100 just to go through the exercise. I don't have the on-camera scope features... but I get an idea of what its sensitivity is.

This is kind of the way I plan to do it next time, except the waveform is a little easier to read and more accurate. but I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Why use a DVX, if you don't mind me asking. I'd sell the DVX on ebay and see if I could get like a Canon A1 or something. SDef is just dead and once you see how you can manipulate more stops in HDV you'll thank me not only for the resolution, but for the color info. The longer you wait to sell the DVX the harder it will become to sell. I sold my DVX a little over a year ago. They guy who bought it was so happy to get it, but I kept telling him - "You don't want it, it's obsolete" and he was like "No, its great." Six months later he was asking to buy my HDV cam. LOL

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

This is kind of the way I plan to do it next time, except the waveform is a little easier to read and more accurate. but I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Why use a DVX, if you don't mind me asking. I'd sell the DVX on ebay and see if I could get like a Canon A1 or something. SDef is just dead and once you see how you can manipulate more stops in HDV you'll thank me not only for the resolution, but for the color info. The longer you wait to sell the DVX the harder it will become to sell. I sold my DVX a little over a year ago. They guy who bought it was so happy to get it, but I kept telling him - "You don't want it, it's obsolete" and he was like "No, its great." Six months later he was asking to buy my HDV cam. LOL

I do tend to 'keep' things... like my Lisa... the Edsel of the computer world... or at least the Apple computer world...

But other than that, I don't have a DV tape deck to play any of the tapes I have, so I'll probably be keeping it for 'if ever I need' purposes... One of these days I'm going to get real oranized, and transfer all of my deteriorating tapes form media ranging from 3/4 inch U-matic, through 8-mm, through DV... to disks... ok, and a couple of 8-mm film reels that the wife has of her and her family, 50's/60's vintage... in the case of the 3/4 inch material, I've thought about e-bay and buying a U-matic deck, which will be cheaper than having it transfered via some service.

 

[Kholi]

This discussion stays interesting. Lots of views and opinions from those who have, those who will and those who will want to.

IMO, the camera is always downplayed way too much. I'm not saying that because I'm a gearhead, but I think the closer you get to an image that has cinematic characteristics (DOF, Resolution, Dynamic Range, etc) the closer you get to selling the feature.

THE SIGNAL is my current favorite to talk about: the look is pretty damned cinematic even though they employ a lot of handheld. I didn't get to see it projected, but I love what I see on my 46" LCD output via PS3. And, I can really see that the 35mm Adapter XL H1 combo helped get that thing sold. Is it fact? Nah, but...

When I roll into my no-budget feature I'm not shooting less than RED + NIkon (or, Zeiss Contax). And by no budget I'm talking 10K or so.

There's no reason to shoot a feature, to me, if you don't plan on making some money so you can continue to fund those coming afterward.

Here are my main pie pieces:

Awesome Skeleton Crew -- Giving everyone full credit for their positions.
Awesome Ass Camera -- RED Cam + Still Lenses + ultimate handheld/no tripod shooting rig
Production Design -- Set dressing, etc.
Best Sound no-budget can buy -- This might just be THE hardest part of it all.

keep the conversation going!

 

[filmman]

Patryk wrote: For one most indie filmmakers are NOT doing an indie film, they basically are rehashing what's in their blood (TV and Hollywood for the most part)

Sometimes movie makers are imitating great films and that may result in A-films; but when the movie makers are imitating B-films, then the results may end up as imitation B-movies. This is, in my opinion, is the biggest danger with making low budget movies.

 

[Nektonic]

IMO, the camera is always downplayed way too much. I'm not saying that because I'm a gearhead, but I think the closer you get to an image that has cinematic characteristics (DOF, Resolution, Dynamic Range, etc) the closer you get to selling the feature.

I think the popular saying, "the camera doesn't make or break the movie" is true, but you're right. If possible, why not shoot with the best camera you can get your hands on?

I loved using my DVX, but better stuff has come along. I was able to upgrade to an HD camera, so I did. Now coming down the pipe are the HD DSLR's and Scarlet. It's only getting better. Why not take advantage of it if you can afford to?

 

[Kholi]

I think the popular saying, "the camera doesn't make or break the movie" is true, but you're right. If possible, why not shoot with the best camera you can get your hands on?

I loved using my DVX, but better stuff has come along. I was able to upgrade to an HD camera, so I did. Now coming down the pipe are the HD DSLR's and Scarlet. It's only getting better. Why not take advantage of it if you can afford to?

Even white walls on 35mm can look okay. You would never really want to shoot white walls, but I'm saying... DOF/FOV goes a long way in conjunction with great lighting.

Even better the HD DSLR's. Although those are inadequate until all of the ducks are lined up: 24p, Great Codec or Live HDMI, 1080, and Manual Controls.


I do think Production Design is very essential to getting a low budget/no-budget piece to feel like it's worth something more than what it was made for, though.

If you take a look at Jack Daniel Stanley's short films, the production design often makes them all look pretty "full". The latest two being Cold Calls and A Little Mouth To Feed. Check them out!

 

[maestro1d]

IMO, the biggest difference (other than the budget) is that there is not enough coverage in indie stuff- shots tend to be one shots that last too long, and are not as tightly edited- usually because the director gets in the editing room and realizes they don't have what they need to pull off that scene from reversals, reactions, CU, OTS shots etc.

Storyboarding is one thing that gets skipped that can fix this... You don't have time? Nonsense. Sketch stick figures if you have to when you analyze the script. Doesn't matter whether it looks like Picasso or Michelangelo- your crew will get the idea.

Also, having a good first AD to work the set and a good script supe to help keep you on the shot list and check continuity are good too. A good DP should also be able to suggest coverage- or at least do there job effectively so that there's time for the extra shots.

 

[ChrisHurn]

Aside from stuff like production design, lighting, framing, composition etc. I think one thing is a lot of directors of low budget indie films don't play the scenes right. Or like having random cutaways and inserts because they can -- not because it suits the scene or plays the scene a certain way. For example a lot of time in a student film, lets say the guy goes and reaches for a glass of milk, they'll cut to a close up of the glass of milk, even if there's no real point. Just for the sake of cutting. You have to ask "WHY am I doing this in a mid shot?" Why is that guy in focus?

Sometimes stuff like this works, sure, and if it's cool and stylish then sometimes it fits. But when every single object grabbed by the main character is in a close up it gets really dumb.

Things like Point of view, saving close ups for the right moments, showing character relationships, quirky camera moves, a lot of that kind of stuff is missed out and everything ends up looking really boring.

Another thing I have noticed is the lack of movement of extras. When there's say, a two shot of two characters talking by their car....having out of focus extras walk in front of the camera creates a feel. Instant production value too. But also extras interacting with the set - not just people in the background. Remember the camera does not always have to be on your subject.

Directors need to take their time! Look at the greats. The camera might stay on a character in mid closeup for a little while. Nice and easy. Ease us in. Make it an interesting frame to look at. What is he/she doing? Whats that noise in the background? etc. nice and slow. Taking a nice breath before the story begins. Also things like, do I really need to cut here, or can I move the camera and turn this composition into a completely new one in the SAME shot? People don't stand still and talk to each other from 30 metres apart in real life. They walk. They talk.

Make your actors DO something. They'll act better too, if they're focusing on something other than their lines. And when should they move? on which line? If two characters are having an argument over coffee. One will talk, the other will listen, drink the coffee fast so they can say their next line, then maybe half way through it will get heated and one of them will get up and walk around. You might have to cross the line of action. Interesting stuff can happen. Visually this will look better. Or sometimes the argument might occur in one shot, one position, but why? What's their relationship to each other etc. That's what makes the difference. If the scene is shot the way it should be, it will look better and again, it will look more expensive in the long run.

Colour is a big one. Put two powerful colours together and you have instant production value. Colours that work together well, and with the scene. Multi layered shots. A little lamp in the background, something hanging out of focus in the foreground.

Casting obviously...a good looking person does not mean they are interesting looking or even a good actor/actress. Often it just means they figured out how to use a hair straightener/curler and a box of makeup. How unique. And then of course, obvious stuff like, you don't put a 18 year old in your movie and try and pass them off as 30. And vice versa. Be careful with headshots. Anyone looks good from a distance and a professional photographer. The actors voice is half the thing. I have seen maybe a handful at most short films where the actors sound good as well as they look. Film acting is not real life and it is not theatre. The voice can be changed. I'm not talking accents I'm talking tone. Style. Speed. You can have the best mic in the world but if your actor doesn't have a good voice then no thank you sir, I'll cast someone else! There are actors out there with amazing unique voices. Grab em. Or even the ones that are aware of their own voice. That have heard themselves enough times to realize what they sound like and can control their tone. Singers are good at this, they have heard their own voice through a mic enough times to realize how much they don't like it. But this is a topic for another day....

And clothing! Most student films have terrible clothing. They're probably just dressing how they do normally - but that's not good enough because most people dress really boring.

You don't need to have a fashion expert on your team if you have a decent eye for clothing. I prefer retro stuff, giving my characters cool stuff to wear. "Black leather jacket and jeans" isn't enough. What TYPE of jeans? Baggy=no thanks! What colour? Are they cuffed? What shoes? What type of jacket? Does it have a zipper? Pockets? etc. Obviously this isn't stuff you go into too much detail over in your screenplay but drawing character designs, taking photos of your cast, full body shots + face so you can use it as reference to make up charts.

Make up. Why do people not use makeup? If you have a girl in your movie, she probably has make up...unless she's one of those...yes...one of those. But even if she is, she will be able to help you. Especially for those stylish movies or noirs etc. you NEED makeup and hair! Unless your character is bald, but then, you're still making a choice to have no hair... Change a characters hair style and makeup and you have a new character. Now when you post your stills online, you'll have a sweet looking shot with good production design, clothing, hair, makeup, it will look and feel like a movie.

Leaving these key elements out, is like writing a rock song and taking out the guitar part. It's still a rock song but you just lost a freakin' heavy layer right there.

As for lighting etc. You don't have to have a truck of lights. But you have to know how to use the ones you have. And that includes sunlight. There are ways you can use the sun that will give you instant production value. Shooting later in the day or just as the sun is coming up looks 100x better than 2pm sun. If you are getting 2pm sun you better use flags or something to block it off with or you're going to get a bad image.

Put a really cool dressed character on a boring background and it will look 100x better. There's no need to go over the top, you do what suits the character. But putting some sort of thought into this process makes a difference. Opshops are your friend. Cool stuff, and cheap as hell.

I think an overall issue with the look of student films etc. is people working together -- but not really. They're just a group of people doing something, that happen to be in the same place. They're not teaming up and pushing each others boundaries. The director does not know how to work with actors. "More energy" is not a direction. Virtually no pre production. And if there is, it's just storyboards etc. That's not enough. Even on a short film, a dress rehersal can come in handy. This is not as important in Hollywood because they have a lot of people taking care of these things and everything is made to go a certain way. But in low budget indies, you better at least do the basics.

This lack of communication covers all areas, things like sound, etc.

As for the camera discussion, personally I'm not ready to shoot a feature yet by any stretch of the imagination. I just got my hands on a DVX and I love it. I plan on shooting short films and really getting the craft to a level I'm happy with. Then I'll think about a feature. I would shoot film no question about it if I had a budget. I don't like the way things are going with digital. I don't dispute the fact that some films shot on digital look good - and I like a lot of the work posted here. But it doesn't compare to film. Film is more than just depth of field and a bit of grain.

Having said all that, if someone shot Reservoir Dogs on the DVX100 - same cast, same shots, same dialogue, etc. (forgetting the fact the film exists) I think that person would be very successful and the film would do well. Maybe not make a lot of money, but it would open up a lot of opportunities, could lead to meetings, something big could happen, could launch a career. Problem is, I've never seen a feature film shot on the DVX100 that was this good. Too many people move onto the next big camera before they master the basic skills. If your goal is to make money then maybe that's a good idea. But there are other ways in the door to Hollywood, if that's your goal, and that's prove you can make a good movie. That's the hardest part of all.

I've probably already typed way too much but I'll just quickly put some comments on music. I know this thread is on the look, but audio does affect the way we perceive things. Especially moving images. I have seen, maybe a handful of short films with the right music, no more. Sometimes the music is good, but it's wrong. The biggest thing you hear are those freakin techno loops and beat loops. So bad. They are bad in any movie. Even if you don't recognize where it's from, it sounds bad. And often you'll hear it placed in the wrong place. And it starts and stops. NO!!!! Music is not to be left for last. It is not something you pop on channel 4 of your mix on the last day of post production.

You don't have to have a composer. It is recommended, as there are so many out there willing to work for credit/free/cheap. But you just have to find the right music. If the right music is in a free library then use it. But only if it's right. Sometimes it's better to have no music at all. Wrong music makes your picture look BAD.

Anybody serious about making films should start making a music collection. Take an active interest in music. Start bookmaking the myspace pages to obscure indie bands. Make a list of hundreds and put them into genre categories in your bookmarks. Why? because they're the ones who you can get your hands on their music for free. And often, it sounds better than any top 40 rubbish you might want to use but can't because it's way too expensive. Just make sure whatever you do -- it sounds right for the picture. Make friends with musicians. They are poor starving people. They need friends. Don't be a dick about it if you're using their songs for free. Communicate. Tell them about your movie. Tell them it will be shown at festivals and they'll get new fans. They might get big and remember you when their songs are on the radio. You'll be the coolest person in town using songs for free that everyone else has to pay $100k for.

 

[btownproductions]

Aside from stuff like production design, lighting, framing, composition etc. I think one thing is a lot of directors of low budget indie films don't play the scenes right. Or like having random cutaways and inserts because they can -- not because it suits the scene or plays the scene a certain way. For example a lot of time in a student film, lets say the guy goes and reaches for a glass of milk, they'll cut to a close up of the glass of milk, even if there's no real point. Just for the sake of cutting. You have to ask "WHY am I doing this in a mid shot?" Why is that guy in focus?

Sometimes stuff like this works, sure, and if it's cool and stylish then sometimes it fits. But when every single object grabbed by the main character is in a close up it gets really dumb.

Things like Point of view, saving close ups for the right moments, showing character relationships, quirky camera moves, a lot of that kind of stuff is missed out and everything ends up looking really boring.

Another thing I have noticed is the lack of movement of extras. When there's say, a two shot of two characters talking by their car....having out of focus extras walk in front of the camera creates a feel. Instant production value too. But also extras interacting with the set - not just people in the background. Remember the camera does not always have to be on your subject.

Colour is a big one. Put two powerful colours together and you have instant production value. Colours that work together well, and with the scene. Multi layered shots. A little lamp in the background, something hanging out of focus in the foreground.

Casting obviously...a good looking person does not mean they are interesting looking or even a good actor/actress. Often it just means they figured out how to use a hair straightener/curler and a box of makeup. How unique. And then of course, obvious stuff like, you don't put a 18 year old in your movie and try and pass them off as 30. And vice versa.

And clothing! Most student films have terrible clothing. They're probably just dressing how they do normally - but that's not good enough because most people dress really boring.

You don't need to have a fashion expert on your team if you have a decent eye for clothing. I prefer retro stuff, giving my characters cool stuff to wear. "Black leather jacket and jeans" isn't enough. What TYPE of jeans? Baggy=no thanks! What colour? Are they cuffed? What shoes? What type of jacket? Does it have a zipper? Pockets? etc. Obviously this isn't stuff you go into too much detail over in your screenplay but drawing character designs, taking photos of your cast, full body shots + face so you can use it as reference to make up charts.

Make up. Why do people not use makeup? If you have a girl in your movie, she probably has make up...unless she's one of those...yes...one of those. But even if she is, she will be able to help you. Especially for those stylish movies or noirs etc. you NEED makeup and hair! Unless your character is bald, but then, you're still making a choice to have no hair... Change a characters hair style and makeup and you have a new character. Now when you post your stills online, you'll have a sweet looking shot with good production design, clothing, hair, makeup, it will look and feel like a movie.

As for lighting etc. You don't have to have a truck of lights. But you have to know how to use the ones you have. And that includes sunlight. There are ways you can use the sun that will give you instant production value. Shooting later in the day or just as the sun is coming up looks 100x better than 2pm sun. If you are getting 2pm sun you better use flags or something to block it off with or you're going to get a bad image.

Put a really cool dressed character on a boring background and it will look 100x better. There's no need to go over the top, you do what suits the character. But putting some sort of thought into this process makes a difference. Opshops are your friend. Cool stuff, and cheap as hell.

I think an overall issue with the look of student films etc. is people working together -- but not really. They're just a group of people doing something, that happen to be in the same place. They're not teaming up and pushing each others boundaries. The director does not know how to work with actors. "More energy" is not a direction. Virtually no pre production. And if there is, it's just storyboards etc. That's not enough. Even on a short film, a dress rehersal can come in handy. This is not as important in Hollywood because they have a lot of people taking care of these things and everything is made to go a certain way. But in low budget indies, you better at least do the basics.

This lack of communication covers all areas, things like sound, etc.

As for the camera discussion, personally I'm not ready to shoot a feature yet by any stretch of the imagination. I just got my hands on a DVX and I love it. I plan on shooting short films and really getting the craft to a level I'm happy with. Then I'll think about a feature. I would shoot film no question about it if I had a budget. I don't like the way things are going with digital. I don't dispute the fact that some films shot on digital look good - and I like a lot of the work posted here. But it doesn't compare to film. Film is more than just depth of field and a bit of grain.

Amazing post, tons of helpful info in there... Thanks Chris

 

[Kholi]

he'll yeah Chris!!!

 

[bato]

Nice thread, and great post by Chris, but I am thinking about directing here... WHY do you want film look? If I am shooting digital, I do not think about film, but it does not mean that tv/video look is ok for me. Its about story, script and directing, I do not adopt to camera - if its digital camera it has to adopt to me, to my idea. F/ex. Idiots - Lars Trir, great movie but its almost video look but who cares, movie is not mechanism for me, its organism. It has to be alive not perfect. Holywood directors are like perfect mashinists selling dreams, desires, fears, shalow emotiones... Oil without blood in mecanical hearts. It is harder and better to make low/no budget films than some big budget. Wenders said, I think, that better director you are than less money you need, and more money - less freedom you have, and it is true! You have to think more. You have to talk with your partner in crime - DP. The more you talk and think about idea and idea of each sceen the better, more alive it would be. If DP thinks he knows more than director in the idea and movie its not good, if director thinks the same about DP its also bad. Uh, I talk too much....
Adios!