Midnight

Haakon said:
I think you guys are subconsiously detailing exactly when shallow DOF shots are appropriate and when they aren't. That shot is very wide, rich in detail from the foreground to the background, and the subjects are off in the distance. As is the case with most sweeping landscape shots, the DOF should be maximized. Thus, the "everything in focus" look can apply here and the lush colors and nice use of contrast keep it looking filmic. Compare that to any of the shots with characters prominent in the frame, and the lack of selective focus makes it feel much more "video" like because we're not used to seeing those kinds of scenes tack sharp from near to far on the big screen. Unfortunately, that's how small CCD video cameras capture things. Being able to selectively choose the focal point of the image in that case not only makes the image appear more cinematic from an aesthetic point of view, but it allows the filmmakers to have more control of how their story is absorbed. I think that in a film like this where a big, cinematic feel appears to be their goal (the amount of work put into it is quite obvious), the use of a 35 adapter would've suited them very nicely. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, I still think that even without it this is a fine looking piece. But I think that is the biggest reason for the lack of unity in the two scenes you have pointed out.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is a very interesting theory and it sounds like that's what's going on. Stupid me, I didn't even think about it like that.

Even in the two-shots, the image seems right for the most part. Perhaps a little too "muddy" or soft... but they seem right. As well, the scene where the (Clerics and Bishop?) are walking through the hall. But when we get to the town, it's too in focus.

Likewise with the tracking shot of the guy riding the horse. When we see him from behind, it's okay but it kind of loses the cinematic feel. I'm assuming because the CG elements still need a bit of work?
 
For me, shutter speed is what gives away digital origination, more than anything. When you go below 1/48 for 24P or 1/60 for 30P it just looks like "film looked" interlaced video footage. I see it all the time on shows like Battlestar Galactica. The shutter speed, more than anything, is what really screams video.
 
Yes, let us not forget in one of cinema's greatest accomplishments, Citizen Kane, deep focus lenses were developed and used to keep everything in focus. As long as the depth of field is appropriate for the shot, there really isn't any grounds for declaring it "too video" or not filmic enough. I agree though, now that I look at that one particular shot of the Orc in the village, it seems rather comical. I can understand though, the Director was probably trying to get as much out of the location as he could.

that HD trailer going to be up soon :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Let's not turn this into another DOF debate (I've purposely stayed out of that other one... eek!). :) I was just offering up a potential answer to the gentleman's question about the two images and why one has a more cinematic feel to it. I do wholeheartedly agree with this statement:

As long as the depth of field is appropriate for the shot, there really isn't any grounds for declaring it "too video" or not filmic enough.

...as it really shouldn't matter one way or the other as long there is a specific reason a choice was made and, like you said, it's appropriate. However, they shot this movie using the HVX and only the HVX. Guess what, the HVX gives you a lot of DOF. :) So I don't think it was necessarily a concious decision that "every shot in the movie will have lots of DOF because that's the best way this story can be told" as it was they had an HVX to shoot the movie with and that's the look the HVX gives you. Granted, I have no idea what the director's motives were and I am absolutely not about to second guess him/her, but I don't think you can read too much into what he/she was trying (or not trying) to do, either. The shot of the Orc in the villiage probably has lots of DOF because the HVX on its own can't give you very shallow DOF (and thus the massive interest in 35mm adapters).

I also think the level of attention that the amount of DOF in a shot has been given in people's recent critiques of displayed work on here lately is way more than is necessary. Not that it doesn't matter at all, but in reality it's just one small component of the big picture (nyuck, nyuck)...
 
I think the problem with the "Orc shot" isn't necessarily one of depth field, it's more likely one of camera placement and extra blocking. The shot is kind of set up like they used to shoot musicals in the 50's, where all the action happens before a static camera, instead of using tighter shots, say - reactions of the put-upon townspeople as the mean old Orc bumps them out of the way. All this, bearing in mind how tough it is to shoot stuff like this while staying on budget and schedule. So maybe a little "slack" is in order with these criticisms.
 
I think the opposite is true. If you set out to do ambitious things, you should expect to be held to those standards. I'm sure the filmmakers wouldn't have it any other way; after all they have achieved those standards a pretty decent percentage of the time, from what I've seen.

If still in doubt, read your own signature.
 
Everyone's opinions aside, this film WILL get distribution, and most likely generate a PROFIT. In the end that is the goal of all indy filmmakers, to make the film they want, but most importantly, MAKE THEIR MONEY BACK AND THEN SOME. This show of talent makes me believe that with a hefty budget this filmmaker would produce something as good looking as Lord of the Rings.
ON THE ACTING: Might not have been top notch, but he's not in Hollywood people. Imagine scheduling something like this with a bunch on non-actors.

Nice job, thanks for raising the bar!!
 
ON THE ACTING: Might not have been top notch, but he's not in Hollywood people. Imagine scheduling something like this with a bunch on non-actors.
Click to expand...

Again, not an excuse. If you're pouring this kind of money into a project, and approaching it with this degree of seriousness, having bad talent is not excusable. Note that I'm not talking about this film... from what's in the trailer the acting didn't strike me as particularly bad. I'm just pointing out that in this day and age, that really shouldn't be an excuse. Find the good people near you, or fly them out from wherever they are. A minor expense, compared to the grief of having a bad movie.
 
Huh... I don't see the debate here, it's very hard to tell anything about how a movie is going to be from a few shots in a trailer. I've seen some great movies that had horrible trailers, the same is true likewise. Without seeing this stuff in a linear order all put together how can you pretend to judge this movie fairly. Splash a little water in your faces and wake up.:)
-nice version.
 
dougspice said:
Again, not an excuse. If you're pouring this kind of money into a project, and approaching it with this degree of seriousness, having bad talent is not excusable. Note that I'm not talking about this film... from what's in the trailer the acting didn't strike me as particularly bad. I'm just pointing out that in this day and age, that really shouldn't be an excuse. Find the good people near you, or fly them out from wherever they are. A minor expense, compared to the grief of having a bad movie.
Click to expand...

How do you know what kind of money they had? They shot this on an HVX didn't they? That should tell you a little about their budget. :)
 
That's my point as well... it doesn't MATTER what kind of budget they had. They're producing some outstanding images, which means everything else in the film has to stand up next to that level of quality. If you're able to achieve professional-quality shots, but unable to get professional-quality performances (or music, or distribution, or whatever), then you've really failed. But then again I have high standards; some people would consider "profit" the only measure of success.

Anyway, I'm barely even talking about this specific movie anymore, so I'll halt the derail at that.
 
The critiques of the "Midnight Chronicles" are very constructive, informative and remarkably accurate. I am the DP on the project and am solely responsible for the lighting and camera yins and yangs. It's true that this is a very low budget production. Without permission I can't give an exact amount, but I would guess that the catering costs of an average mainstream feature film would be more than was spent on this entire project.

We shot completely w/ the HVX200 Leica lens. There was no money for adaptors or film lenses. We shot 720 24PN. The majority of the scenes were shot in a warehouse with some very challenging features. It is only 14' from the floor to the bottom chords of the roof support trusses. The trusses are 24" deep and 5' apart. There are a few open spaces between the trusses, but much of the this space is filled with sprinkler or natural gas pipes, bundles of phone cables or electrical conduit. Since the set walls are 12', lighting from above has been difficult.

Our lighting package is modest: 1 MoleRichardson 10K, 1 vintage MR 5K, 2 MR 2K Mighty Moles, 2 MR 1K Mickey Moles, 1 MR 200W Mini Mole, my own Kinoflo Diva-lites (1 x 4 bank & 2 x 2 banks), 4 significantly aged Kliegel Bros. 2K fresnels, 6 x Kleigel 1K fresnels, (none of the Kliegels have scrims & half have no barn doors), 1 x working 500W fresnel w/o scrims or barndoors, 8 quite used strip lights - 6 for the SFX green wall & 2 for general use, 3 homemade space lights*, 4 x 3' Chinese lanterns which are loaded with either Eico "Curly Q" flos or good ol' fashioned photo floods, a 7200W 3 channel Shadow Maker flicker generator into which we plugged our extremely handcrafted electric "torches".
*The space lights were fashioned from MR type 8182 2K 18" scoops. The problem with them is that they're too long. They measure about 4' with the pipe hanger, yoke, scoop and the 2' grid cloth bag. In a room with only a 16' ceiling they weren't used very often nor were the Kliegels.

Grip gear: 4 triple riser combos, 2 double riser combos, 12 c-stands, 4 single riser Lowel stands w/ c-stand heads & arms, 2 x 24"x36" solids, 2 x 24"x36" double nets, 2 x 24"x36" single nets, 4 x 24"x36" open frames, and, of course, our beloved made-on-the-set PVC pipe open frames (2 6'x6', 2 4'x6' & 2 4'x4') which are skinned w/ vellum/trace paper or bleached muslin.

Camera Dept.: The aforementioned HVX200, my Manfrotto 503 tripod & pan head, 5 4G P2 cards, remote follow focus & iris control, a 6" 16x9 non-HD monitor, a 4x3 16" non-HD CRT monitor, a custom manufactured (homemade) doorway dolly w/ 23' of track, an 8' GlideCam jib arm and a GlideCam steady cam rig.

Crew: myself, 2 grip electrics, an audio technician and an AC/grip. Everyone, the director, AD & production manager, helps w/ setting track & dolly, wrapping, etc. It's been an absolute pleasure working with everyone on this project.

I believe it was mentioned that the makeup artist is world class. He and his crew of 2 (sometimes just 1) have also been working on a very tight budget, yet have produced some truly remarkable results.

Although I have worked as both a film and video DP for 17 years, this is my first feature length narrative project (I was the gaffer on one other and several short films. I was also the DP on an hour long documentary and I'm shooting a doc. of my own). My experience is almost exclusively in corporate and commercial work. Needless to say, this has been a remarkable learning experience. I fully recognize that there are many lighting and camera mistakes. There certainly are a bunch of scenes I wish I could re-light and re-shoot. On the other hand there are a few that turned out very well. I suppose that's simply the nature of independent filmmaking.

Thank all of you for your criticism, ideas, suggestions and observations. I think I can speak for all involved that your opinions are deeply appreciated.
 
Welcome to DVXUser. I'm pleased to see the HVX used on such an ambitious project.

With respect to the criticisms or observations on DOF and lighting, I'm curious as to whether you think you might have had too much light in some instances? Obviously, if the script calls for a day exterior, you light a day exterior.

At the same time, I wonder if, knowing the inherent limitations of a 1/3" imaging camera, you made a conscious decision to light for added DOF?

Judging by the trailer, which your audience must certainly do, it seems that the wider shots worked better when there was a copious amount of atmospheric haze playing across the progressive distance planes.

The jib shot with the puddle in the immediate foreground and talent in the distant woods is an excellent example of how haze creates the feeling of depth even as it obscures detail and focus at a shorter focal length.

I might've been tempted to shoot entirely at a 2.8 on those soundstage interiors, where I'd work closer to a 4 / 5.6 split on 16mm and 35mm film.

Again, I'm eager to hear more technical detail on this worthwhile project and thank you again for indulging our curiousity.

e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top