Length feature film, what proper settings, advices ?

T

tornavento

Member
Howdy DVX fellows

I've decided to shoot a long feature film with a very little budget, I've been obsessed by the Robert Rodriguez el Mariachi experience for a while and I wanna try myself to shoot my film. I've done some shorts, I even had a budget and a team on the last one, I was about to shoot a trailer but I was thinking that the best training for me would be to try to shoot the film I got inside me but that I'm scared to do for this or that reason. I will probably fail but anyway I'll be happy for trying and, worse case scenario, I'll have a good trailer anyway.
So I will shoot on DVX without any lenses, I will handle photoflood lamps for inside scene and will be looking for the sun for the outdoors. All those wonderfull settings of the camera are amazing, but since I saw The "Meth" trailer by Ozan (which lead to a huge controversial thread about his method and budget) and the fact that all his settings were set to zero, I was wondering if that's what I should do. I intend to shoot on 25 (yeah, I'm french, I'm in Pal) and sqeeze, but for the rest, i'm wondering. I've had some very nice results followings some of your guy's advices, but isn't it better to deal with everything in post production (not everything but the colors, master pec etc etc). Plus, and this will sound pretentious, What if, the flick is actrually good and I'm offered to blow it on 35 mm ? (yeah okay I know, but i just wanna be open to options, PLUS, in France, there isn't a huge low budget action movie competition, we prefer to buy it from the americans...). Anyway,, I've heard that in order to get a blown up on 35, "though shalt not shoot in progressive", can you confirm that ?

So, what do you think ?Appart from,"dude, wake up you're never gonna make it". I don't wanna sell my movie to Columbia, just train myself on every aspect of filmaking. Thanks for your answers.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, I've always felt frustrated not to have done one, during my last short movie, I had a crew and they all went to film school and, at some times, I didn't trust myself enough and I trusted them, whereas I should have believed in myself a little bit more. It's funny cuz on editing, I regretted almost every solution they offered me when we where facing a difficulty, don't get me wrong, they were great and nice and helpful, but my creativity got lost by the huge infrastructure of a set. I'm very disappointed of my movie, and I've done some on my own that I like better and that didn't cost me a dime cuz I was able to adapt to a situation without changing a whole schedule.
Tchekov said "You must train your intuition, you must tust the smalll voice inside you which tells you exactly what to say, what to decide"...
 
Personally, working with either people who have some idea of what they're doing or friends who want to help and learn with you is the way to go. El Mariachi was a long time ago, and things have changed. He got by largely from the novelty of doing something by himself. Now it's commonplace, and telling people how low your budget was and how hard you had to work doesn't matter all that much, although a lot of people still try. I don't mean this just to make a great movie, but as far as learning from and with others.

Anyway, that's not really what you needed to know. Progressive is fine, stick with it. Even though my first paragraph doesn't sound like it, I do support this and wish you luck. Remember to plan as much as you can, and go for it. If you've already shot shorts you have a pretty decent idea of how it works; now just do it longer.
 
Thanks for your answer and support. I don't wanna be alone in order to be alone and get all the credit on myself, but this shooting might implies moving around france hence some costs, for travelling, food etc which I'm trying to reduce a maximum. The main actor has played in alomst all my stuff and he is also very much interested in the production area. It's much more a budget cut, which might lead to an interesting approach (being polyvalent, self sufficient). I'm surely gonna have some help here and there, according to some people schedule and to the need of certain scenes, but I've depended so many times on a cameraman, a sound guy, a cinematographer, I'm just very curious to go back to my basics with the little film experience I know have. Plus, many people are laughing a bit when I'm talking about shooting with this camera, for some of the "pros" (i should rather say people in the movie business- I know, if you're not shooting with the EX 1 or renting a Red, you're a small player. It's a big fight I'm constantly having... Anyway, it's another problem.
By the way, what about Cinelike, Gamma, etc ? Cuz I'm always so tempted to lower the master ped to -5, the detail level to -3... And I guess maybe it's wrong; I should be handling this in post production, but it's somehow reassuring to give the desired aspect at the beginning. I'm working o FCP 7 and many stuff can be done, I haven't tested colors yet, but it should be my friend for those questions isn't it ?
 
I think your settings are fine, if you shoot with little or not-at-all detail level, you can always fix that in post. I shoot with master ped in -6, but that let me with almost no room to fix shadows or contrast (and every time I regret it), so there you have two choices: shoot everything in 0 (except detail) or shoot your final look right on set.
If I was you, I will shoot on 0 as a way to protect myself from murphy's law. 90 mins is a lot of chances to have problems or mistakes.
 
Muchas gracias Pichulo, indeed, you're right to mention the Murphy law... I've been doing some checkups on the forum and read many interesting articles. Of course, there are some contradictions about what settings to use. But I guess you're right. The thing is, since my story implies someone who escaped from a mental institution and who is missing is medecine, I'll have colors for different scenes, like paranoia, violence, hallucination... Stufff like this. I will soon post some tryouts I've made to see what you guys think about the look... By the way, I'll be using an Audio Technica 987 (my budget can't go further) and I'll get two photofloods for interiors lightning.
 
Last edited:
Hi tornavento!

You mentioned that you had done a short before, but that you weren't entirely happy with the way it came out? If you are following the Robert Rodriguez DIY school of thought, he used his short film "Bedhead" as proof to himself that he could just do the same sort of thing, using the same techniques, but on a larger scale. Have you considered doing another short in the manner you plan to shoot your feature?

DV tape is cheap though, and I'm sure you'll learn a lot either way. Ask yourself if you are more interested in the process or the product, and if your actors and crew (if any) share your goals.

Best of luck!
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/member.php?u=61273
 
Hi Robotsound,

Actually, it's not that I'm unhappy with the way it came out but much more by the little amount of time I had if I wanted to change something during shooting day (25 shots a day, and 5 days to shoot it, mainly because of the rented material) lightning change was so slow, we were loosing enery on unimportant stuff, or details that I now realize were not important at all. (It was also the DP's first film, he used to be second on other shorts). Now, I'd done shorts on my own, and they had an enery that I don't see in my latest because of the heavyness of the process, I lost some of my intuition, ability to adapt If I felt this shot that scene wasn't working, we just could'nt change it, i was somehow prisonnier of my (I'm missig the word here) "shooting indication script". For instance, since I was running late on some stuff, I had to shoot a flashback boxing sequence in a hurry, and I went to the location with my cameraman and my two actors, no lights, no sound dude, no make up (i did some with left overs) and this scene has an energy and we were efficient and it didn't cost me anything... And people love it (it's very short on screen, maybe 20 seconds of flash back)
I plan on making my film as several short movies, so that it will help us see an end to each part of the shooting. And I think that there are many acting schools and so few actors actually working, hence, i'm sure they too want to show that there is anotherway to shoot a film rather than waiting to be aknowledge by a few executives that rather buy programs to the Americans rather than trying to do their own stuff (sorry for this burst of rage but french cinema doesn't work the same way than the american, it is very very closed and looks like we're not doing anything but comedies with bankable people, I wish we had some kind of Miramax - even though I've read the Pete Biskin book "Sex lie and Hollywood"- but French producer basically don't produce genre films).
 
Ok, for instance, i've read this interesting thread, what do you think of it ?

"Settings at 0 does not necessarily mean nuetral settings and most flexibility in post. Here are some to change to gain greater flexibility:

1. You could turn down DETAIL settings to avoid over-sharpening and add sharpening in post if necessary.
2. Color tend to be oversaturated by default, turn down CHROMA LEVEL to get more natural colors. You can always increase saturation in post.
3. LINE FREQ is the one to set to THIN, to get the most resolution out of the cam.
4. MATRIX set to NORM to keep colors nuetral as possible.
5. GAMMA - People often say that CINELIKE_D will give you the most dynamic range, which seems to be true, but it is also low contrast and will need to have contrast added in post, which could cause some banding in the midtones, so you may want to use a GAMMA that has a more middle-of-the-road contrast to it, like regular CINELIKE.
6. MASTER PEDESTAL is a calibration setting, and should be set correctly, usually -5 or -6. This will give you true blacks and free up bits for detail in the midtones and highlights, giving you a better image."

It was posted by Joshua Provost.

I know I should know what kind of look I'm looking for, and I do have "murder of a chinese bookie" in mind for the dark aspect of night wandering...

Anyway, would you agree with such settings ?
Thanks again to you all for your advices here and in other threads...
 
I'm using a T2i (I used a DVX100b once though), so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think there are two opposing schools of thought here:

1) Get the image looking perfect in the camera while you shoot
2) Capture a relatively boring flat image with as much detail as possible, and do more color grading later

I'm definitely more in the second camp. I know some people take a hybrid approach as well, trying to get things halfway there in camera, and then do the other half in post.

I'm also interested in what you said about French cinema. As an American, I've always thought of French films as being more daring and risk taking, while America likes to play it safe. I guess it all depends.
 
Robotsound, thanks for your answer, I'm still experiencing, I've been shooting last week end on location and did many screwed up... Need much more training. I'm ready th DV rebel book since today and it seems very interesting, I will soon do more tryouts..
Well, maybe I'm being a bit bitter about the french producton system, but what recent french films fit in the daring and risking category ? We don't have Cohen brothers kind of movies, the Woody Allen style is poorly imitated, we had one zombi movie called "la horde" which was, from what I've heard a failure... Sure there are some terrific directors but I donn't really feel a great diversity in the french cinema...
 
You never want a "boring flat image" in camera.

When people say "flat" they mean strictly in terms of color. And by that they mean more neutral settings that will allow you the most tweaking in post.

Remember it's a 2 Dimensional medium (still, for the most part) and generally speaking your goal is to make it look 3 dimensional. This is why a dolly is better than a zoom - because the spatial relation of objects change more and it gives a 3D feel. This is why you don't light everything flat. Like painting or drawing, your lights are there to, among other things, give shape and depth.

Just like in the examples below.
shade-cup1.gif


shade-cup7.gif


This is what makes a shot look "flat" in terms of lighting, or dimensional. One or the other may be best suited for your story. But all of that happens in front of the camera.

On a quick low budget shoot you may choose to light a general area and bring the actors faces out in post with power windows as need. There's a free plugin for FCP called Face Light that does a fine job of this. On a quick shoot, I had a DP recently who was good at lighting something so it looked good from both sides (meaning facing each actor) with minimal tweaking. Where we sacrificed was lighting for the close-ups. I used Facelight in FCP to compensate.



Other goals of lighting besides shape, are of course FOCUS - driving your eye where it should go to tell the story, DEPTH, and obviously mood and continuity.

Now that you have your lighting strategy. Very shaped. Very natural. Very Flat. Based on the pragmatic limitations of your shoot and what serves the story best - then you go to your camera settings.

There are several elements that affect your lighting and what your camera settings should be:
ART DIRECTION
LIGHTS
CAMERA
COLOR GRADING
MASTERINg.

ART DIRECTION - it matters what you point the camera at. Some would say almost more than anything else. White bare apt. walls are death. You want texture.
LIGHTS - just discussed.

CAMERA, including lenses, settings, filters, etc. This is what I think is the crux of your question. And the answer is there is no wrong answer. It depends on your preference and your eye. If you are doing lots of post visual FX then you may want the cleanest most neutral look with the most lattitude so that any stylezation can be added after the FX in order to give you the most freedom of choices in post and to make the FX look more a part of the picture. If you are not doing that and you want to get it in camera and you are sure of the look go for it. Some say that "looks" done in post and not in Camera are more forced and less organic. Others say that you want as much information as possible in camera and that any curves or adjustments in post will then be cleaner and more nuanced than if captured in camera with more freedom - that the image will be higher quality because the starting point is clean.

Ideally you want your Art direction, camera settings, and post grade to work together and be considered in tandem when you are concieving of how you want to approach each element.

I'm not sure how the t2i handles low light, but one caveat to the above / strategy you might want to employee is to shoot it brighter than you want the final product to be (without over exposing) for interiors. This was an old DV trick that applies directly to the DVX100. The basic idea is that you are going to cheat by getting more clean image on to the media. So if the latitude of the media is limited and your scene is dark and moody, shoot it about two stops brighter than what you think looks nice on your calibrated monitor. You can test the look on set by stopping down two stops to see what it looks like darker then opening it up again when you shoot. Going darker in post is always fine. And the idea is that when you edit you will transfer to a codec with more latitude. So now when you bring the imaged down in post you will have more latitude in the low end since you got more information to begin with.

You might consider the opposite out doors or in rooms with bright windows. Underexpose 1 or 2 stops then bring it up in post. Why? Again, you will get more information that might be blown out otherwise. You will lose some information on the dark end but that can be preferable to blow out. This is also holdover from DV so is great to use on the DVX where. Blow out was UGLY. With HDSLRs blow out has a smoother curve to it. It's much more aesthetically acceptible. But you lose information. So just something to consider if it's important to see more detail in your highlights. Unlike goiing darker in post, you can introduce noise when you go brighter. So if it's a very dark room with a blown out window that could make problems, and probably best to expose properly.


Here's a short that's shot way way brighter ON THE DVX and then darkened in post. IN the final color grad things go to pitch black. but in shooting it was almost to bright in the room. This also has a bleach bypass effect. My setting for this were to crank the master ped a bit for more contrast and to crank the saturation up a bit to fool the codec into thinking it had more information in its limited color space. Again, bleach bypass was applied in post.

Lights were home depot work lights. Anamorphic adaptor was used, but no 35mm adapter. So very close to OP's shooting set up.

 
Jack Daniel Stanley, thank you for taking the time to write down such a precise, patient and well detailed explaination ! Your post is a great help for me. I had to read it several times and I will read it again cuz it is so full of useful information, and I need to make new tryouts, following what you've adviced me. Indeed, I need to design my lightning strategy much better and get some home depot work lights so I can practice my set ups cuz for the moment, I'm not very well equiped in this area. No wonder I'm facing quality problems...
I'm not familiar with Colors yet, I'm doing my calibration in FCP or with magic bullet, but indeed what you say makes perfect sense about the indoors and outdoors lightnings. I also bought the DV rebel guide which is quite helpful. Your shorts are amazing, I saw Depth of Phil already on this site and I discovered SHED which is really efficient and inspiring. Anyway, your post helps me a lot and I hope I will prove it to you by posting some really nice video very soon.
again, thank you very much for this teaching. It's pure gold.
 
Yes, perhaps I should have clarified. When I said you want to get a flat boring picture, I was specifically referring to saturation and dynamic range. On my T2i, this can make the difference between clipping highlight details and retaining them, or having shadow detail and losing it. In post I color grade appropriately, but now I have more to work with.

The dynamic range in DV is a bit narrower, so it may be better to try to get it at least halfway there in the camera.

Naturally, in any format, you want your story and the composition of your images to be exciting.
 
Hey guys ! Long time no see ! Finally, I got some footage to show you. I did a 2 minutes trailer of my movie, a 70's like french action film called "Le Baroudeur" (a special kind of soldier in the french army). A tv channel launched a Tarantino/ Rodriguez short film contest, so I did this trailer. I wish I had more time, especialley for the color corection (none ! was reaching the deadline, it was too late). Anyway, I wanted to thank you all guys for all your great advises. This website is a goldminne !.
There is no subtitle yet, but the plot is pretty simple. I think you can get te message.
Please don't hesitate to comment. Thank you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpObxL061HY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top