A film look? How about proper SHOT DESIGN?

[polcan99]

Hi, I'm a filmmaker from Toronto, Canada... and Ive been getting a lot of question from people with regards to the music videos and films I've shot in the past. Many people wonder how I can always achieve the same results regardless the size of the budget. So i started doing tutorials to explain what it takes to create good looking images in films. Or as I like to call it SHOT DESIGN... here's a tutorial I did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZA9r0iWbdw

Let me know what you think? Any questions, or correction/suggestions for my future tutorials? Feed back greatly appreciated.

Tom Antos
www.tlapro.com

 

[ProfessorU]

It seems like a good place for someone to start. The narration would be less distracting if you took what you've said, wrote it down, and re-read it with some light edits. Right now it feels a bit helter-skelter.

For beginners, you may want to talk a little bit about headroom and what is a natural camera height.

Also, that bright white flower pot in the upper left corner would bug me if it was my shot. That's a personal thing, tho.

 

[Spartacus]

Very illustrating tutorial! You could become the Andrew Kramer of camera tutorials...

But even though you stressed THE most important point (shot design), your tutorial also proofs that a better camera will get you a nicer picture too, AFTER you have done everything to make the shot look nice...!

BTW: Awesome work on your site!

 

[Amr Rahmy]

awesome, you pointed out allot of very important things.

it seemed in some parts you prolonged some scenes or froze some to be able to talk the viewers through what's happening or trying to explain something.


maybe if you cut it into smaller segments or separate the segments.
if you go through the problem, or "unrefined footage" then go to steps in pre-production like
the stuff you pointed out. location testing and fov>wardrobe>makeup>
maybe go a bit more in detail like how many cameras or views or angles would be needed for a scene this long. which cameras would be fixed and how to decide in what direction some cameras should move, what kinds of light u can use for external shoots. go through the edit and color session in more detail.

maybe you can add to the frozen images or to unnecessary extra footage with notes like over imposed sketches signs and circles to what your trying to point out, or try to shorten its period.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

i saw the trailer for "Casper & Clover", that was a bit weird, seemed a bit off, was that something like a first draft of the trailer?



for the tutorial, i forgot the part about the audio, maybe in the voice over, before and after previews u want to add the source audio.

 

[Huy Vu]

Finally somebody explicitly mentions the importance of location selection and shot selection to getting the film look! It's a great tutorial and definitely very useful. I'll be eagerly awaiting the next installment for interior.

I would suggest you also mention the Rule of Third. The video already follows that of course but it might help to explicitly state it. For interior shots I would love to hear your thoughts on how to dress up a set.

 

[JonathanLB]

I thought it was good, I mean it got across a lot of key points, and you can see what you're trying to illustrate well.

My only issue is that as much as DPs want to sell you on this constantly and as much as it's just constantly talked about as if it's a holy grail of filmmaking, I don't see it as anything more than a stylistic decision to throw things out of focus. I don't see how a BAD depth of field has now become synonymous with pro filmmaking, so that if you don't throw everything out of focus except one tiny thing, suddenly it's not really a great shot. I personally don't want someone deciding for me where I must look in the frame. I find it annoying. As someone who has seen the Star Wars films more than 50-100 times each, I want to be free to look elsewhere in the frame. I don't really care that much about the main characters, I know their lines by heart, and their facial expressions, by the 15th viewing or 20th viewing, so I want to be able to see what's in the background, the little touches the special effects department adds. If every shot was out of focus constantly like that, it would be obnoxious.

Just as a regular viewer, I find having the foreground out of focus to be immensely distracting in some cases, and this is such a case, where there is one item to the left of the screen. It looked much better in focus. If it were perhaps a character peering through the bushes at someone in the distance, it would be a great story tool to throw the foreground out of focus and draw the viewer's attention to the person in the background.

But that's exactly why I say I believe it's a style decision, it's something that should be used *as a story tool* not in all cases whatever "just to be cool" because "that's the way the pros do it." I don't think that's the way the pros do it at all. I think that's the way amateurs (wannabe pros) and bad cinematographers shoot *everything* and think they're doing it right. It is like whoever shot some of the scenes in the first season of Prison Break is a terrible DP. We'd routinely see Michael facing the camera, on one side of the fence with another character on the other side of the fence also facing the camera, and this idiot would throw one or the other out of focus unless he was speaking. This is awful camera work. You have two very good actors, and you're only letting me see whoever is talking, yet in many cases whoever is LISTENING has more interesting reactions and I'd argue MORE IMPORTANT reactions, story-wise, than the person talking. That is either awful directing or bad camera work, or both.

I like a lot of shots in perfect focus, from foreground to background. If I want to throw something out of focus I'll make that call myself, but I don't want the DP just assuming the goal of every shot is to make as little as possible in focus. I find it extremely annoying, style-wise.

 

[Finnegan]

A great entry-tutorial for people interested in cinematography but don't really know the ropes. I found a lot of the information pretty elementary, but I like I said, this is information that would have been extremely useful to me a couple years ago and so I am sure that there are going to be a lot of people who really find it informative.

I subscribed to you on YouTube in hopes that future installments will have some information that is geared towards cinematographers who are not beginners, but by no means professionals either! And actually, I disagree with ProfessorU about the narration. Writing it down and re-reading it might make it sound more professional, but winging it makes it feel a lot more personal - kind of like I'm learning it from a teacher who is sitting right next to me. It's mostly personal preference, but I think the way you did narration for the linked video is perfectly fine.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

1- weird shallow depth of field an fov choices,
2- fast cuts with weird fov choices and slow motion for action,
3- making people orange.

that's how to make a bad movie 101.

 

[pwyll]

shooting a "normal" scene how far will you bump shutter speed in order to retain max aperture?

One thing about shot design and shallow DoF. If you can design the shots then you can avoid busy backgrounds. Using shallow DoF on a camera is like using compression/reverb on a guitar - it can hide a lot of problems.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

My only issue is that as much as DPs want to sell you on this constantly and as much as it's just constantly talked about as if it's a holy grail of filmmaking, I don't see it as anything more than a stylistic decision to throw things out of focus. I don't see how a BAD depth of field has now become synonymous with pro filmmaking, so that if you don't throw everything out of focus except one tiny thing, suddenly it's not really a great shot.

I tend to 'deep focus'. When I did mostly still photography, I would be at f/32-64, or whatever the lens had... I further got into 4x5 so I could swing and tilt lens and back to get even more 'deep focus'...

However, I also knew there were 'effects' that depended on the negative size as to how visible these would be. Since I was using 4x5, diffraction was not visible, due to the small aperture.

In the case of 35mm still, I'd use between f/5.6-f/11, even if the lense was 2.0 or better. Lenses have optimal f-stops, and for many lenses that are less than 1500-2000 USD, 'wide open' shows defects, such as unflatness of field, chroma aberations, etc.

Now, if I'm not willing to go wide open on a $1000 still lens... why would I even think about wide open on a fixed video camera lense, where the whole camera+lens costs about $3500 (my DVX100). All in one cameras are filled with compromize.

I have not done too much in the way of analysis on the actual lense+sensor resolution, but have just used the general rule of stop down to about 1/2 the available range, so f/5.6-f/8 seems to be the typical that I use. (I've not actually calibrated the indicator so the value the DVX displays could really be 'off'... in some lab absolute sense...)

Given that, given the Circle of Confusion for the digital sensors... I get almost from here to infinity focus for 'free'...

For me, when viewing most of the offerings here and elsewhere, I'd say 'lighting' is the most significant element of 'film look' that one can do.

One could extrapolate what I think of various 'adaptor kits'... one of these days I'll be able to afford a camera that can take cine lenses... at that point I'll use them as they were intended...

 

[ProfessorU]

Now, if I'm not willing to go wide open on a $1000 still lens... why would I even think about wide open on a fixed video camera lense, where the whole camera+lens costs about $3500 (my DVX100). All in one cameras are filled with compromize.

There have been plenty of times I've shot with an HVX200 at full open, and I can make a few arguments that put it ahead of shooting full open on a $1k zoom still lens to 35mm.

1. The resolution of 480,720, or even 1080 lines is barely enough to pick up imperfections, especially when the final product will be broadcast in SD

2. The fixed nature of the lens means that it is manufactured in higher quantities, should have no backfocus issues, and theoretically can be manufactured to a higher standard with more predictable integration into the camera. CA can be tweaked optically or electronically based on the individual sensor and camera design.

3. Some control over DOF is better than none. A $100 35mm camera with a $1000 lens gives you shallow DOF at f4. Video productions pay a premium for that kind of DOF, and sometimes it's worth the 'cost' of overall image sharpness instead of the real cost of a $30,000 camera or lens.

 

[EssentialParadox]

I thought it was good, I mean it got across a lot of key points, and you can see what you're trying to illustrate well.

My only issue is that as much as DPs want to sell you on this constantly and as much as it's just constantly talked about as if it's a holy grail of filmmaking, I don't see it as anything more than a stylistic decision to throw things out of focus. I don't see how a BAD depth of field has now become synonymous with pro filmmaking, so that if you don't throw everything out of focus except one tiny thing, suddenly it's not really a great shot. I personally don't want someone deciding for me where I must look in the frame. I find it annoying. As someone who has seen the Star Wars films more than 50-100 times each, I want to be free to look elsewhere in the frame. I don't really care that much about the main characters, I know their lines by heart, and their facial expressions, by the 15th viewing or 20th viewing, so I want to be able to see what's in the background, the little touches the special effects department adds. If every shot was out of focus constantly like that, it would be obnoxious.

Just as a regular viewer, I find having the foreground out of focus to be immensely distracting in some cases, and this is such a case, where there is one item to the left of the screen. It looked much better in focus. If it were perhaps a character peering through the bushes at someone in the distance, it would be a great story tool to throw the foreground out of focus and draw the viewer's attention to the person in the background.

But that's exactly why I say I believe it's a style decision, it's something that should be used *as a story tool* not in all cases whatever "just to be cool" because "that's the way the pros do it." I don't think that's the way the pros do it at all. I think that's the way amateurs (wannabe pros) and bad cinematographers shoot *everything* and think they're doing it right. It is like whoever shot some of the scenes in the first season of Prison Break is a terrible DP. We'd routinely see Michael facing the camera, on one side of the fence with another character on the other side of the fence also facing the camera, and this idiot would throw one or the other out of focus unless he was speaking. This is awful camera work. You have two very good actors, and you're only letting me see whoever is talking, yet in many cases whoever is LISTENING has more interesting reactions and I'd argue MORE IMPORTANT reactions, story-wise, than the person talking. That is either awful directing or bad camera work, or both.

I like a lot of shots in perfect focus, from foreground to background. If I want to throw something out of focus I'll make that call myself, but I don't want the DP just assuming the goal of every shot is to make as little as possible in focus. I find it extremely annoying, style-wise.

Hear, hear! I agree with everything you said.

This whole, "I'll shoot my entire short film with a 35mm adaptor to make it look filmish" trend is getting out of hand. A 35mm adaptor doesn't make your video look like film… not even remotely… all it does is blur the background. Traditionally in cinema this is used for close ups on an actor's face during an emotional scene to distance them from the rest of the environment. In fact, a shallow DOF is rarely used in professional productions. I'm currently watching through the Indiana Jones movies and studying the cinematography carefully… I have barely seen any shots that are out of focus. Most of the time you can see Indiana in focus the foreground and also the beautiful set-pieces in focus in the background too — the whole frame is in focus.

Two of the best-looking shorts posted in the hv20.com forums got tons of replies asking what equipment they used, what kind of adaptors, what kind of camera rigs, etc. On both occasions the directors replied, quite puzzled, with: "just the naked HV20." You could tell the great footage was due to great locations, great shot composition, and great lighting. It took me a while to learn, but it seems a big trend among amateurs is to try and fix footage by buying 35mm adaptors and big expensive camera rigs, when really all they needed was to educate themselves.

Anyway, sorry to take your thread off topic. I haven't actually watched the tutorial vid yet(!!) so I'm going to watch it now! I'm certain it's going to teach me a lot, thank you for making it!

 

[Finnegan]

There is a little bit of a misconception about 35mm adapters and their ability to make footage into footage worthy of being called "cinema", but I think most experienced shooters realize that adapters are simply a tool to control one element of image making. I don't necessarily believe that in the tutorial video is he suggesting that something needs to be out of focus for it to look cinematic. And many times framing something in the foreground when your target is in focus in the background serves as a stylistic choice in composition and not necessarily just to burden the frame with information that isn't even really looked at by the audience.

 

[Max Lamare]

Finnegan, I agree. "Wow I have a 35mm adapter, Film Look!!!". Lol.

 

[Sad Max]

Wow. It's remarkable how awful that third grabbed frame looks, particularly compared with grab #1.

 

[Finnegan]

Wow. It's remarkable how awful that third grabbed frame looks, particularly compared with grab #1.

Seriously huh? When I got to that third image I chuckled a little bit to see how different the Lucas/Spielberg partnership has become.

 

[Sad Max]

Not that the light on the characters *has* to match the angle of sunlight in the background, but still...

 

[Kholi]

Hear, hear! I agree with everything you said.

This whole, "I'll shoot my entire short film with a 35mm adaptor to make it look filmish" trend is getting out of hand. A 35mm adaptor doesn't make your video look like film… not even remotely… all it does is blur the background. Traditionally in cinema this is used for close ups on an actor's face during an emotional scene to distance them from the rest of the environment. In fact, a shallow DOF is rarely used in professional productions. I'm currently watching through the Indiana Jones movies and studying the cinematography carefully… I have barely seen any shots that are out of focus. Most of the time you can see Indiana in focus the foreground and also the beautiful set-pieces in focus in the background too — the whole frame is in focus.

Two of the best-looking shorts posted in the hv20.com forums got tons of replies asking what equipment they used, what kind of adaptors, what kind of camera rigs, etc. On both occasions the directors replied, quite puzzled, with: "just the naked HV20." You could tell the great footage was due to great locations, great shot composition, and great lighting. It took me a while to learn, but it seems a big trend among amateurs is to try and fix footage by buying 35mm adaptors and big expensive camera rigs, when really all they needed was to educate themselves.

Anyway, sorry to take your thread off topic. I haven't actually watched the tutorial vid yet(!!) so I'm going to watch it now! I'm certain it's going to teach me a lot, thank you for making it!

1. The importance of a 35mm Adapter is not DOF, but FOV. Without a 35mm Adapter on small sensors, the FOV is quite limiting. I wouldn't tell anyone they absolutely had to use a 35mm Adapter. I would absolutely recommend a Wide Angle adapter for your camera, however, to gain a greater FOV out of your fixed lens system.

Again, please do not misunderstand the validity of a lens adapter system. It isn't DOF.

2. Every single image you've posted is an example of how FOV and DOF work together when composing a scene, especially the last (and strange-lookin') image. Please note the foreground object which adds DEPTH to the frame is slightly out of focus.

The first frame clearly exposes how FOV effects scope and depth of a particular scenario: with Indi nearest to camera, the bridge extending behind him and finally the slightly out of focus background element, greenery and cliff. To get this same shot with an HVX or even HPX170 would mean a completely different compression aesthetic, perhaps even losing the depth or three-dimensional aspect of the image.

A wide angle on the HVX might save you.

3. The second photo is composed as a wide shot. There are several key details to be noted in this frame, all of which are important and integral to the momentum of the moment. There are people standing around, Indi's facing off (to the left of the screen facing right) and the "bad guy" (to the right of the screen facing left, opposing the hero's progress from point A to B). The importance of a "deep focused" image is quite valid here, but is this the same for every single shot in a feature film?

No. I don't need to know how many pegs are on a banister behind talent, nor do I need to know what the statue is in the foreground if I'm on a dolly tracking moving forward.

I do, however, need to have control over FOV, especially in tight spaces where a 1/3" Sensor will restrict/limit the amount of information that I can fit into a frame. This is the primary reason a 35mm Adapter exists. DOF is the mistake.

 

[Marc Villafan]

1. The importance of a 35mm Adapter is not DOF, but FOV. Without a 35mm Adapter on small sensors, the FOV is quite limiting. I wouldn't tell anyone they absolutely had to use a 35mm Adapter. I would absolutely recommend a Wide Angle adapter for your camera, however, to gain a greater FOV out of your fixed lens system.

Again, please do not misunderstand the validity of a lens adapter system. It isn't DOF.

2. Every single image you've posted is an example of how FOV and DOF work together when composing a scene, especially the last (and strange-lookin') image. Please note the foreground object which adds DEPTH to the frame is slightly out of focus.

The first frame clearly exposes how FOV effects scope and depth of a particular scenario: with Indi nearest to camera, the bridge extending behind him and finally the slightly out of focus background element, greenery and cliff. To get this same shot with an HVX or even HPX170 would mean a completely different compression aesthetic, perhaps even losing the depth or three-dimensional aspect of the image.

A wide angle on the HVX might save you.

3. The second photo is composed as a wide shot. There are several key details to be noted in this frame, all of which are important and integral to the momentum of the moment. There are people standing around, Indi's facing off (to the left of the screen facing right) and the "bad guy" (to the right of the screen facing left, opposing the hero's progress from point A to B). The importance of a "deep focused" image is quite valid here, but is this the same for every single shot in a feature film?

No. I don't need to know how many pegs are on a banister behind talent, nor do I need to know what the statue is in the foreground if I'm on a dolly tracking moving forward.

I do, however, need to have control over FOV, especially in tight spaces where a 1/3" Sensor will restrict/limit the amount of information that I can fit into a frame. This is the primary reason a 35mm Adapter exists. DOF is the mistake.

Great thoughts. This is exactly what I, in a sense chuckle at every day on some posts. I just see DOF this, DOF that, when a 35mm adapter is mentioned. Personally I am interested in a 35mm adapter, but for the FOV moreso than the DOF, something which is NEVER spoken of. The choice of using a 28mm or a 85mm etc lens (35mm adapter) would essentially transform your camera entirely, not just add selective focus.
Just my two cents.