noticing a trend

TimurCivan said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...

I mean that you should understand what has gone before you, understand the process and don't dismiss advice out of hand. I am all for breaking rules. I just find that breaking them is more effective if you understand them first.

When I said that you should do what you don't want to do, I was talking to myself as well. One of the things that I thnk some people are missing is that you have to NETWORK. I don't like people very much. I am not social, and would prefer to sit home with my family. But about 3 times a month I go out to "filmmaking events", (most of which are populated by dilletantes who don't know how bad they are), so I can watch a lot of bad movies. But every once in a while a film or a person catches my attention. I go over, shake hands and say hi. That is an incredibly uncomfortable thing for me to do, but that's too bad. The price is non-negotiable.

Now, through a couple of years of making contacts, I can get pretty much whatever I need, whenever I need it. I know professional camera operators, grips, sound guys, post guys. I have access to production facilities, equipment and experience. Because I was patient, got out of my comfort zone, said hi, and helped other people. This is a PROCESS, and like anything worth doing, takes time, dedication and sacrifice to do well.

Oh, and it helps to have a project other people can believe in.
 
So guys, do you think I should go for the A1 or the HVX? Which will allow me better get the film look?

And I have $300 for sound and a professional tripod, what do you recommend?
 
tommyinla said:
That's why most films are shot (or planned out and shot elsewhere, of course) in Hollywood. Most of the professional film actors are in this area.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I mean the same holds true for all of the talent you need to make a professional and "film-like" movie. I think we better determine what "film-like" is. When people use that word I think of Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang -- it's stylistic, and it masked its true budget really, really well.

Reservoir Dogs and El Mariachi -- the limitations are obvious, and neither of them strike me as "film-like" but they were entertaining enough to put Tarantino and Rodriguez on the map. People have to understand though, the independent film scene has grown 10x or 20x since then, so it's proportionately harder to strike gold. I believe they did a great job with those movies, but you have to stop telling yourself that the business has remained in stasis for 14 years. It's 2007 (not 1993) and any Joe with a rich relative can get his mitts on an HVX and an editing platform.

On the subject of LA: I don't expect anybody to make a big-budget movie in Tulsa (for example), and I wouldn't expect to be hired as a director for such a movie. If I wanted to work for NASA, I'd head for Texas or Florida. If I wanted to work on the stock exchange, I would move to NYC. What I'm getting at is I move to the job, the job doesn't move to me. This idea that you can do everything you can do in Hollwood elsewhere is, to me, a load of BS.

That's a bit off-topic, but I deemed it necessary.
 
sbryan said:
Reservoir Dogs and El Mariachi -- the limitations are obvious, and neither of them strike me as "film-like"

.
Click to expand...

Yet both actually shot on film, so I'm not sure what you mean by "film- like"


Whatever trends come and go, be they cameras, formats, editing styles, it ALWAYS comes back to content. Worry about your story as much as you worry about your tripod, you'll make a better movie.
 
I think "film-like", for all intents and purposes, is the look you would expect to see from a theatrically released movie projected onto the big screen. We've seen these movies in theatres for so long, that that's what it is. Movies shot digitally, such as Zodiac, have the film look because it's what you would expect to see sitting in a theater, looking at the screen.

It's not necessarily the look of something that is shot on film, be it 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm. It's a "look" that you get by combining the different elements (lighting, sound, good acting, good direction). You can find plenty of footage shot on film that looks like crap, trust me.

"Film-look" is almost a magical thing, really - when everything comes together in Preproduction, production, and post-production, that just has a certain look and feel to it. That, to me, is the "film-look" that everyone is going for. There are so many factors that go into it, that you can't really put into words. It's a symbiosis of a bunch of different factors. Yes, frame rate has a lot to do with it. Yes, DOF has a lot to do with it. It's also lighting, framing, lens angles for your shots, etc. etc.

And yes, a lot of people can get there hands on a relatively inexpensive camera and a computer-based editing system, but that doesn't mean that there's an abundance of quality movies coming out these days. It's kind of like when desktop publishing first hit the scene in the 80s, and the industry was expected to see some great stuff come out of it. But people bought computers and desktop publishing software - and what did we find? Flyers for bake sales and things like that.

It's when you bring a great archer to a great bow that something amazing is born.
 
To me, "film look" always brings the old Panavision movies to mind. Really wide and saturated with color. You just can't get anymore film like than with film.
 
I've been going for the film look on my shower door for years... and nobody appreciates it.

Honestly... if you shoot in 24p (or 24pa depending on the final output) and light your shot right... then handle the cam properly for the scene and action... you'll have the film look you wanted. Seriously... it's about that simple.
 
MattinSTL said:
I've been going for the film look on my shower door for years... and nobody appreciates it.
Click to expand...

That would make for a great photo contest entry. :D

Honestly... if you shoot in 24p (or 24pa depending on the final output) and light your shot right... then handle the cam properly for the scene and action... you'll have the film look you wanted. Seriously... it's about that simple.
Click to expand...

I think it's more than that... but lighting is a key element.
 
tommyinla said:
I think it's more than that... but lighting is a key element.
Click to expand...
right, if you want to be taken seriously, you can't just mimic the look with technology. you also need to acquire an understanding of color, composition, light, line, shape, direction, rhythm, perspective, intent, motivation, psychology, history, philosphy, language, love, hate, music, sexuality, spirituality, deception, compassion, race, politics.... and a million other things. i know this goes without saying, but the 24p thing doesn't really rank that high on the list of essentials unless your filmmaking goals are limited by a desire to emulate your favorite director. generally speaking, mimicry is a good way to learn, but you're not going to get noticed by trying to look like someone else. find your own voice. that imo, will raise your game infinitely higher than any technological advantage. my 2¢.
 
Last edited:
I know that we all get in this game for different reasons. But for me, I'm a storyteller. I have no particular allegiance to a certain technology, equipment or accessories. They are just tools. It's kind of like spending more time deciding which drill to use, when you should be reading the blueprints for what you are trying to build.

Tools are important, methods are important, but they are a means to an end.
 
While so many come here to find the easy rules to the "film look" for their movie, there's someone out there totally ignoring every piece of advice on these pages regarding it and is creating what will soon be the look everyone on these pages is trying to get......


DDP
 
ddp said:
While so many come here to find the easy rules to the "film look" for their movie, there's someone out there totally ignoring every piece of advice on these pages regarding it and is creating what will soon be the look everyone on these pages is trying to get......
DDP
Click to expand...

once the "out-of-focus, shaky camera" look catches on, i will be hailed as a genius.
 
ddp said:
While so many come here to find the easy rules to the "film look" for their movie, there's someone out there totally ignoring every piece of advice on these pages regarding it and is creating what will soon be the look everyone on these pages is trying to get......


DDP
Click to expand...


While its true that there are always innovators out there who create new trends, the very aspects of filmmaking (sound, composition, lighting, writing....ect) are the fundemantal basics of the art, and will never change.

There is not quick way to get the "film look". The best thing to do is look in the sections under filmmaking in this forum and take advice from each one. The dvx and hvx are great for what they can do, but you will never achieve the same look as a hollywood blockbuster shot on 35mm. Besides, there are very few movies out there that get acclaim simply from their "look", if you have a poorly writen or shot movie, it doesn't matter how much you made your footage look like "300".
 
ugafan said:
once the "out-of-focus, shaky camera" look catches on, i will be hailed as a genius.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, than everyone who submits footage to "Real TV" should win oscars for best cinematography
 
The fundamentals are the building blocks, of that there is no doubt.
And with out great content it doesn't matter what it looks like.
But when I hear the words "film look" I'm confused. Citizen Kane was a film, so was Casablanca, Star Wars, The Matrix, Blair Witch Project and Once Upon A Time In Mexico. Those films all look great and are entertaining to watch but to my eyes they don't look the same. Not to be taken too literally since I'm new to this video stuff but exactly what kind of film look are the posters looking for?



DDP
 
Exactly the point. To me "film look" is progressive at 24 frames per second, because that's how we see film when it is projected. Everything else is a stylistic choice, including shallow DOF, grain and whatever else you throw into the mix. Others feel differently.
 
Zak Forsman said:
join the "mumblecore (aka slackavetes)" movement.
Click to expand...

lol. last month i bought a copy of "the puffy chair" because it was shot with the dvx. coincidently, last month i also ended up throwing my dvd player out the window and burying a certain dvd in my back yard.
:badputer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top