The look of Independent Film

[JonathanLB]

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.

There's so much good stuff in this thread...

But what you said, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE TIME!!! Haha. You can't shoot an indie feature film without a crapload of planning and have it be any good at all. For me, what I will lack in budget and time on set when I shoot my first feature on my own time, I will make up for in extremely precise planning and execution, so that when I step on that location with my crew there is no doubt whatsoever about exactly what we're shooting and from what angles and what lighting, everything, down to the last detail. I don't have time to waste on the shoot, especially if I want to film it all in like 12 to 15 days.

My issue is I DO like to get lots of coverage, but I don't like to get lots of takes, and it's the coverage that takes time, not the takes. It's easy to go for another take, much harder to move the camera, it's another setup, and relight for that. I always get enough takes in my opinion, though, I'm rarely ever sitting there wishing I had rolled again. I'm not sure what this says of me, really, I try to figure it out myself. Some people say it means I know what I want, and have a clear idea when I see it, and I'd like to think that's true. But maybe it just means I'm not particular enough. I really don't think so, though, I'm a complete perfectionist and always had straight A's in school, and when I wrote two books edited them 13 and 16 times, respectively, to correct any minor errors. I just don't see the point is shooting the same scene 10 times or 20 times usually. I go until I have 2 takes I really liked, that way if 1 has a technical flaw I didn't notice, or somehow goes bad, then I have another, the "one more for safety" theory. So that means I usually have between 2 and 6 takes of anything, more likely around 4.

I can't imagine shooting a feature with anything short of an awesome camera, personally, because it just seems like a waste to me. I mean even after I finished my last short, which is a comedy so it's not honestly that important to have it be the most amazing camera (but it better look pro, at least, and it's the HVX200 with Zeiss superspeeds on a 35mm adapter, so that it does), I still thought to myself, "Hmm, I already spent $9,000 on this damn thing, why didn't I just go ahead and spend an extra $1,000 and get the RED for the weekend?" But then again we'd have workflow issues probably, we know the HVX200 really well, and there wasn't much reason to spend more money on that, etc. Still I wouldn't put the EXTREME amount of work it required to shoot a feature into it, then shoot with a lousy camera. The HVX200 is not a feature camera, I'm sorry. I know there are enthusiasts who love the camera, and I love mine too, but I'm also a realist and understand different tools for different jobs. I honestly think I'll use my HVX200s for the next 3 years for corporate work, because if I'm putting these videos on the Web who cares about having it be better than 720? It looks great, it can't look any better for its final delivery. But when it comes to a feature I want no less than a really good 1080p camera like the Sony F950, and more like the RED or Scarlet coming up.

I think when it comes down to it, you have to say production design, picture quality (lighting and camera), and sound are some of the major issue separating pro work from a lot of indie work. It's not acting and screenplay, if you ask me. I see plenty of pretty mediocre to pretty bad acting in features made by studios, even, and bad delivery of lines, just bad lines in general, non-sensical, illogical plots, stupid ideas, etc. That stuff isn't any better in the bad studio films. But even bad studio films LOOK professional, even something I detest like Fear-dot-com or Crossroads, those movies look professional, I know they are pro movies, because of the way they are shot and lit, the production design, the sound, etc. The acting is a joke, it's awful, the scripts suck, and the plots are even worse. So it can't be those elements since it's obvious to everyone those movies are professional.

 

[Kholi]

I think when it comes down to it, you have to say production design, picture quality (lighting and camera), and sound are some of the major issue separating pro work from a lot of indie work. It's not acting and screenplay, if you ask me. I see plenty of pretty mediocre to pretty bad acting in features made by studios, even, and bad delivery of lines, just bad lines in general, non-sensical, illogical plots, stupid ideas, etc. That stuff isn't any better in the bad studio films. But even bad studio films LOOK professional, even something I detest like Fear-dot-com or Crossroads, those movies look professional, I know they are pro movies, because of the way they are shot and lit, the production design, the sound, etc. The acting is a joke, it's awful, the scripts suck, and the plots are even worse. So it can't be those elements since it's obvious to everyone those movies are professional.

YES! Exactly, man. Like I said, if you want a shot these days the camera counts. The image counts. Unless you just don't want to make any money, then go for it.

 

[jls4]

YES! Exactly, man. Like I said, if you want a shot these days the camera counts. The image counts. Unless you just don't want to make any money, then go for it.

The camera both counts and doesn't count in the same breath. I mean if you are shooting with an EX1/EX3; RED; or even a Viper I mean you're pretty much at motion picture resolution. But you can get a Canon A1 or a Sony V1U to come real close, if you know what you're doing. I think professionalism counts. I think i fyou try to use a XL-1 or a DVX these days then you're biting yourself in the butt, and I think with the smaller HDV cams you're running risk.

Personally I'm hoping to shoot my next feat with a RED, but if I can't get one, then I'll shoot EX1/EX3-Adapter-NanoFlash and be fine. I'll still be way over the needed resolution for motion pictures. According to the lead developer at Panavision the resolution of the big screen digital projectors is less than 1920x1080p. I have a link to the article on Creative Cow's website in my 24 Diary. when I found that out, then coupled with the fact that the EX1 can be edited with RED footage - it became an non-issue, especially after I saw a friend of mine's film shot with my equipment (i.e. the Sony V1U) on the big screen.

The main reason I'd like to go RED is because for every camera there is at least one problem. It seems like the more expensive the camera the fewer problems you have. Like with the RED, yes it does have rolling shutter but that's about it. The workflow and software are becoming a non-issue with time. The Sony EX1 still must be "upgraded" with adapters and such to become a more "filmic" camera, and even then it still suffers from CA and Rolling Shutter. The new HPX300 may be a good new option (who knows) but from what I'm seeing now it doesn't seem like ti's worth the upgrade with all of the problems of the EX1 and the only solution being the codec which to me personally is a mute point when I go convergent design nano. Both the RED and HPX300 are upsetting to me in the fact they don't give you control over the luma curve to crush your brights into the scene instead giving you a 10 Bit codec. Why not both? So there will be problems with each camera. Even a camera doing 250Mbps uncompressed CCD at 2.5K would be a bear to work with in post.

Back to the point though - I agree with everything being said here. But let's not forget simple production experience. A RED in the wrong hands can look like a DVX in the wrong hands. A DVX in the right hands while it'll never look like a RED, may look good enough to watch a movie on your home TV set.

 

[vic777]

lets say the acting is great, the picture and sound are great, after all of that, how do we still know its independent and not major?

If the acting is great and the picture and sound are great ... this is a rare animal my friend ... enjoy ... do not question ... it is a rare beast .... enjoy ... the creator is above indie .... the creator is above major ....

 

[Kholi]

The camera both counts and doesn't count in the same breath. I mean if you are shooting with an EX1/EX3; RED; or even a Viper I mean you're pretty much at motion picture resolution. But you can get a Canon A1 or a Sony V1U to come real close, if you know what you're doing. I think professionalism counts. I think i fyou try to use a XL-1 or a DVX these days then you're biting yourself in the butt, and I think with the smaller HDV cams you're running risk.

Resolution isn't it, honestly. If the RED only shot 1080P it would still kill all of the above. That's why the Canon 5D MKii is really doing a number on people's minds. It's only 1080, and hokey as hell but look at the footage. It's got it. And it kills everything else. And I do mean Kill. EX-1 and EX-3 are okay, but you still have to cheat it to get proper FOV. And even RED @ 2k or 3K has a "weird" look to it. You can just sort of "tell" without even realizing why. That's the first thing someone buyin' your movie is gonna see... because it's called moving pictures. If the story outshines that, fine, but we're talking image here. If you get a Video DSLR that has manual controls, an awesome-ass 1080/24P... whew

Personally I'm hoping to shoot my next feat with a RED, but if I can't get one, then I'll shoot EX1/EX3-Adapter-NanoFlash and be fine. I'll still be way over the needed resolution for motion pictures. According to the lead developer at Panavision the resolution of the big screen digital projectors is less than 1920x1080p. I have a link to the article on Creative Cow's website in my 24 Diary. when I found that out, then coupled with the fact that the EX1 can be edited with RED footage - it became an non-issue, especially after I saw a friend of mine's film shot with my equipment (i.e. the Sony V1U) on the big screen.

Again, it's not really the resolution, man. It's just that "thing". And RED's got it. The irony of this post, though, is that it'll cost you MORE to shoot with an EX-1/3+Adapter+NanoFlash than it would to just shoot RED. That's today's reality. And, if you don't hire the right person/people to shoot either, it's gonna hurt either way.

Seen too many RED shoots go south because they didn't get the right people. Even if the right people cost, well... you know.

The main reason I'd like to go RED is because for every camera there is at least one problem. It seems like the more expensive the camera the fewer problems you have. Like with the RED, yes it does have rolling shutter but that's about it. The workflow and software are becoming a non-issue with time.

It's got it's issues, depending on who you get the camera from etc. Our cameras havent' given us any issues, but I'm knocking on wood.

The Sony EX1 still must be "upgraded" with adapters and such to become a more "filmic" camera, and even then it still suffers from CA and Rolling Shutter. The new HPX300 may be a good new option (who knows) but from what I'm seeing now it doesn't seem like ti's worth the upgrade with all of the problems of the EX1 and the only solution being the codec which to me personally is a mute point when I go convergent design nano. Both the RED and HPX300 are upsetting to me in the fact they don't give you control over the luma curve to crush your brights into the scene instead giving you a 10 Bit codec. Why not both? So there will be problems with each camera. Even a camera doing 250Mbps uncompressed CCD at 2.5K would be a bear to work with in post.

And more than what you're listing. There's more issues with a 35mm Adapter system than there are with RED. Not to mention that you should be using THE best adapter out there (Letus Ultimate) if you want the best results. Otherwise, to me, you're just spinning your wheels. Especially when you get those wide-angles on. The entire concept of the 35mm Adapter goes to shiet if you can't use all of your focal lengths.

Back to the point though - I agree with everything being said here. But let's not forget simple production experience. A RED in the wrong hands can look like a DVX in the wrong hands. A DVX in the right hands while it'll never look like a RED, may look good enough to watch a movie on your home TV set.

It's true, very true. Like I said, I've seen some horrid RED footage that made me go "Why didn't you just use an HVX?"

I agree with you. Same time, if you're planning on selling a movie you got a better chance shooting RED and selling it than you do with a naked HVX and selling it. People are aesthetic creatures. They have to be okay with the aesthetic before they can accept what's behind it.

If a Zombie walked up to you with an award winning script, you probably wouldn't know he had it because you saw him first then hauled ass.

 

[Nektonic]

If you get a Video DSLR that has manual controls, an awesome-ass 1080/24P... whew

That right now is the holy grail for people like me that don't have the funds to buy a Red One or S35 Scarlet whenever it becomes available. I'm still interested in the 2/3 Scarlet but I think in the very near future the HD DSLR's are where its at. Between NAB 2009 and CES 2010, I think the first great HD DSLR or DSLR-HD camcorder hybrid could be announced. If not, it is not more than a year or two. Don't get me wrong about the D90 and 5D mkII, great step forward with both cameras.

Check out this 5D mkII short:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=164960

Seen too many RED shoots go south because they didn't get the right people. Even if the right people cost, well... you know.

Plus, for some projects, I won't always have the money and whatever these 'proper people' are for using a Red camera. Are we talking your basic crew or do you really need a Red One guru? Is a Red One production that different from other types of productions?

If a Zombie walked up to you with an award winning script, you probably wouldn't know he had it because you saw him first then hauled ass.

After blasting him to bits with a shotgun. :kali: :zombie_smiley:

Although, if it was a script for a zombie film, then I'd take a gander since he'd have a unique perspective on the subject.

 

[Kholi]

Plus, for some projects, I won't always have the money and whatever these 'proper people' are for using a Red camera. Are we talking your basic crew or do you really need a Red One guru? Is a Red One production that different from other types of productions?

RED ONE's best kept secret right here: it's easier to Guerrilla than a 35mm Adapter Setup. Remember where you read it!

It's no different than any other production, only that you need to have someone around that knows how to acquire the best image in certain situations. Not every situation is equal, either. Broad Daylight shooting isn't as straight forward as you would think, and there are several scenarios that change how you deal with settings.

But say you got the RED and the guy that knows the camera in and out in one package, it's gold.

For me and a lot of my closer friends here in LA (all DVXusers, actually) we can totally one-man a RED setup. Pulling Focus, Operating, etc etc. Would it be NICE to have more? Sure...

But, it'd be nice to have a lot of other stuff, too. So in short, the proper people is more like the proper person. Someone who knows how to work the camera.

I'm all for the VDSLR revolution, by the way! And can't wait to invest in a good pair of 'em.

 

[Nektonic]

RED ONE's best kept secret right here: it's easier to Guerrilla than a 35mm Adapter Setup. Remember where you read it!

I'm all for the VDSLR revolution, by the way! And can't wait to invest in a good pair of 'em.

I've somehow avoided or put off buying a 35mm adapter, and am glad now that I can just wait a little longer for the right HD DSLR or Scarlet, etc...

But say you got the RED and the guy that knows the camera in and out in one package, it's gold.

Or, if you own one you can practice and learn the camera inside out and be that guy. Which I tend to do with any camera I own so I'm not wasting time when I have something important to shoot.

 

[jls4]

The irony of this post, though, is that it'll cost you MORE to shoot with an EX-1/3+Adapter+NanoFlash than it would to just shoot RED. That's today's reality. And, if you don't hire the right person/people to shoot either, it's gonna hurt either way.

This is where I have a question. How can you say a tricked out EX1 ($6100 + $2000 (DOF Adapter) + $5000 Nano Flash/Cards + Rails at approx $13K) is the same price as a RED (fully working at least $26K) . This is a huge jump - not to mention the back end workflow and storage space that you must be ready for. also the fact that now having a DIT or someone that is storing as you go is paramount. I have a friend with a RED and he says his RED Drive is pretty worthless. And I've been out on RED User and it seems 33% of the people have problems with it, and that only the Compact Flash seems to be fail proof.

Seen too many RED shoots go south because they didn't get the right people. Even if the right people cost, well... you know.

This to me is any camera. LOL I've seen 35mm movies go south. LOL I watched a movie about a year ago the guy had 35mm the whole time but never color corrected his scenes based on the film he was using. The whole movie had a blue cast. In the final scene all the color was perfect. It was like he "figured it out" after he shot everything. I thought he should have put the blue cast in the final scene, because at least that way we would have thought "he meant to do it." LOL

It's true, very true. Like I said, I've seen some horrid RED footage that made me go "Why didn't you just use an HVX?"

I agree with you. Same time, if you're planning on selling a movie you got a better chance shooting RED and selling it than you do with a naked HVX and selling it. People are aesthetic creatures. They have to be okay with the aesthetic before they can accept what's behind it.

If a Zombie walked up to you with an award winning script, you probably wouldn't know he had it because you saw him first then hauled ass.

At this point I'd never use an HVX unless I had to, and definately not a DVX. I think the chips should be at least the resolution you need. I'm not into the whole creating pixels on the fly - interpolation and such. The HVX looks good, but the EX1 is better. LOL and only a little more expensive. As far as "naked" I'm at a 35mm Adapter level now, don't plan on going back.

 

[Kholi]

I meant renting as far as the price goes. It's cheaper to rent a RED than what you're trying to shoot with and chance are you'll get better results.

Dunno what your friend is doing differently than the other hundreds of us using RED Drives ritually. And a DIT is not paramount on a low budget shoot. Only someone who knows what they're doing.

The figure of 33% may be accurate, like I said-- know what you're doing and you won't have issues.

 

[jls4]

I meant renting as far as the price goes. It's cheaper to rent a RED than what you're trying to shoot with and chance are you'll get better results.

Dunno what your friend is doing differently than the other hundreds of us using RED Drives ritually. And a DIT is not paramount on a low budget shoot. Only someone who knows what they're doing.

The figure of 33% may be accurate, like I said-- know what you're doing and you won't have issues.

Yeah, I don't believe in Renting. That's for the birds. I mean I KNOW I'll be making movies from now til forever, so why not buy. And even if you buy then sell, it's cheaper than renting.

My friend told me he had to send the cam back to RED several times to get all the bugs worked out. I've heard a couple of people doing this as well. doesn't frighten me though - I've heard a lot of people who have had no problems at all.

 

[Sad Max]

Art direction.

Most indies simply don't have the money and time to properly and fully dress a set, color coordinate wardrobes, etc.

From what I have seen, it doesn't seem to occur to most indie film producers to particularly try, either.

Note the common lack of an Art Direction forum on most indie-production-related sites. There isn't the interest to support one.

And yes, sound is another biggie. People for whom I shoot small projects marvel at the amount of time I spend barking at assistants to locate and disable/insulate sources of extraneous noise.

 

[Kholi]

Yeah, I don't believe in Renting. That's for the birds. I mean I KNOW I'll be making movies from now til forever, so why not buy. And even if you buy then sell, it's cheaper than renting.

My friend told me he had to send the cam back to RED several times to get all the bugs worked out. I've heard a couple of people doing this as well. doesn't frighten me though - I've heard a lot of people who have had no problems at all.

Sucks that he had to send it back. Only time we've sent back was for the iPin upgrade and 16GB Module Upgrade. Everything else has been great.

And Renting versus purchasing depends on what you plan to do. At this point I wouldn't be purchasing anything unless it's got ROI built-in.

Oh, and add another 2500 onto your package! Letus Ultimate, I wouldn't shoot with anything less if I were on a 35mm Adapter Feature.

If you haven't seen THE SIGNAL, you should buy the Blu Ray asap.

 

[jls4]

And Renting versus purchasing depends on what you plan to do. At this point I wouldn't be purchasing anything unless it's got ROI built-in.

To me it does. If I rent for say 35 days at say $300, then I'm at $10,500. I don't get practice time, nor get time for extra last minute shoots. I'm at the mercy of my money. If I shoot 2 movies, I could have bought the camera. I know I'll be shooting 2 movies, in fact I'll be shooting many more than that. Renting would only be worth it if I could get the whole package almost for unlimited time over 5 months and it cost less than $6K to rent. LOL

Oh, and add another 2500 onto your package! Letus Ultimate, I wouldn't shoot with anything less if I were on a 35mm Adapter Feature.

If you haven't seen THE SIGNAL, you should buy the Blu Ray asap.

The Signal was shot here in Atlanta. We all know about the Signal! LOL It's on all of the message boards and such. Also the Signal was shot way before the Ultimate was out. So doesn't that kind of prove the point that the avg person / avg distributor doesn't see little nuances between say an Ultimate and a lower priced Letus? I'll definately look into it though. You always want to put your best foot forward. How's the bokeh on the Ultimate? I like the SGBlade's Roto2 Bokeh. I haven't seen any shots frm the Ultimate that impress me - it just seems like a 35mm adapter. I can see the edge to edge sharpness is better on the Ultimate, but there's more to image than being sharp. Do you have a link to those nice ballooned out of focus lights with the Ultimate?

 

[Kholi]

The Signal was shot here in Atlanta. We all know about the Signal! LOL It's on all of the message boards and such. Also the Signal was shot way before the Ultimate was out. So doesn't that kind of prove the point that the avg person / avg distributor doesn't see little nuances between say an Ultimate and a lower priced Letus? I'll definately look into it though. You always want to put your best foot forward. How's the bokeh on the Ultimate? I like the SGBlade's Roto2 Bokeh. I haven't seen any shots frm the Ultimate that impress me - it just seems like a 35mm adapter. I can see the edge to edge sharpness is better on the Ultimate, but there's more to image than being sharp. Do you have a link to those nice ballooned out of focus lights with the Ultimate?

I'm from Atlanta. I know all about the Signal as well. Point was to watch a 35mm Adapter feature. Second was to use the best adapter out. At the time it was the P+S.

And, no, it doesn't prove the point. Because it wasn't out yet. You can see the difference, why waste your money if you're gonna invest it?

Don't have a link to ballooned out of focus highlights. I can tell you that my Ultimate has returned it's investment a literal three (3) times over, though, and it's exactly what everyone wants to rent around here.

The overall image stomps on everything. And that's why it's the best out and the one to beat. If you don't have edge-to-edge the adapter is pretty much worthless. At least to myself and the people I rent to/work for. Wides are a must.

But that's a different thread altogether. Back on original topic: why shoot less than RED if you want maximum return on investment of labor and funds? That's one step toward getting rid of the independent look.

 

[jls4]

I'm from Atlanta. I know all about the Signal as well.

Cool. ATL-iens! LOL I'm originally from TN, but I live here now. I had to get itno a more movie friendly area.

The overall image stomps on everything. And that's why it's the best out and the one to beat. If you don't have edge-to-edge the adapter is pretty much worthless. At least to myself and the people I rent to/work for. Wides are a must.

I'll definately take a look. I don't have anything against the Ultimate, but from what I'd seen thus far, it didn't seem all that awesome to me. I couldn't tell much diff from the other Letus Adapters. but I'll take a second look like I said and see if I can see anything. I do lots of research before any purchase. I won't be looking to buy a cam for at least 3 months, so I've got time. I was at one time, excited about the Scarlet, but knowing the guys at RED we'll be lucky to see it before Dec 31 this year. It's cool though, unlike many people out here, I'm not mad about it - it's just something you learn to expect.

Why shoot less than RED if you want maximum return on investment of labor and funds? That's one step toward getting rid of the independent look.

This is a complicated question. Extremely loaded with different scenarios and ideas. So I'll lead with that because this alone can be a thread of several pages in length.

Firstly, the indie look is debateable. As already noted in this thread, there are several major issues that lead up to an "indie look" and most of them have very little to do with the camera.

My wife and I are photographers. When we first started out we used a Digital Rebel ($600 these days). Many photographers used cameras that cost 4 times that much, I think the Mark ii was selling at $7K at the time we started and that was the "professional choice". We quickly gained recognition for our photography and put to shame those with larger cameras. We were just better and we did extra work (post processing) to aid the images even more. So we made a $600 cam look better than a $7K one just by knowing what we were doing.

I use this to illustrate that a camera is not the end all. And I'm sure you know that. Budget constraints are the main reason I may not be able to go directly to a RED on the next production. I'd rather spend money in every department than to load up on the camera. I also want to go SAG next movie and I know my lead actors will suck out almost 40% of my budget.

The way I'm doing movies right now doesn't line up with the Hollywood model or many of the models that people have. I'm purchasing for my production company whose sole focus is making movies to sell to distributors. We don't do commercials and other things, so we don't have to worry about but what 2 types of people say: distributors and the average movie goer. What I've learned through countless articles, film festival panels, etc is the most important thing in your movie at the low levels are your "named" actors. After that, everything is secondary. Good production helps you to stand apart, but doesn't gurantee you anything. It's like in the Corrado and ALPFD threads, both had stars and one shot with a HVX while the other a RED (I think) and both sold.

I want a RED because I do want my production quality to be the best, but I'm also looking at down the road. To me the RED is more than strong enough to do any of the movies I have in my head over the next 3 years. I'm sure I'll make at least 2 features if not 3 during that time span - time enough for someone to come out with a better cam. So I agree with you that the RED is the way to go, but I may not be able to go RED if budgets get tight and I need an extra $12K. If so, I'll go the EX1 route.

 

[jls4]

From what I have seen, it doesn't seem to occur to most indie film producers to particularly try, either.

Note the common lack of an Art Direction forum on most indie-production-related sites. There isn't the interest to support one.

And yes, sound is another biggie. People for whom I shoot small projects marvel at the amount of time I spend barking at assistants to locate and disable/insulate sources of extraneous noise.

Wow - checked out your resume - pretty impressive!

Anyway, I agree with your posts. Art direction and set design to me come into the main 5 things I think you need as an indie.

Audio, Camera, Lighting, Set Design, Makeup

Without those five your movie screams indie. Unfortunately most people focus on: Camera.......maybe lighting, oh we need to get sound - can't we just pipe into the camera and put the mic on a boompole? LOL

 

[jls4]

Some footage I found for the Letus Ultimate. The blooming lights can be seen at the end of the clip. There are a few shots in the day time where you can see a few blooming lights. As Kholi said the Bokeh is much better on the Ultimate than what I originally thought. I'll look around for more footage

http://exposureroom.com/members/disjecta.aspx/assets/6f24747558d14efe8bc611e9188b4560/

 

[Kholi]

How much are the Nikon Lenses responsible for that? You have to question that as well. But here's a thought that puts this discussion on topic: if you want SGPro or G35 Bokeh you sacrifice light instead. Which means you need MORE light to get the same image. A good stop or more is likely to be the case. So what you save by not going with the Ultimate costs more in the end in electricity, manpower and lights altogether.

Once you start getting into the "overlit" look, it's another thing that lends it's hand to wondering why the image doesn't look like what we've all been trained as "High Dollar Cinema/Professional Cinema".

Even with the EX-1 being decently quick, this is still the case.

So, it does go back to the "look" of independent film. Also, the less you're using wides the more it screams amateur unless it serves the story.

Everything, down to choice of compositions, should serve the story. And if you're always stuck on a 50 because your 35 has soft edges, then your entire image suffers when you need to go wider for a certain scene or shot.

 

[craigbowman]

...My wife and I are photographers...

This is significant because it gives you a background in digital image processing of which colour correction is a small subset. It also makes you a better candidate for a Red because the workflow will not only be familiar, but you'll understand at a fundamental level what is going on. If you also had your material output for offset printing and did the correction for that yourself even better.