Production value VS. shot quality.

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
A lot of times I get good stuff to use in shorts by accident. Such as one example, during a fight an got chucked but fell the wrong way accidentally and hit her head into a wall, that wasn't planned. She didn't hit it hard, but if I speed it up, it works perfectly. Or I accidentally get cop cars driving by in a shot, that ups the production value of the plot, that I didn't plan on getting, they just so happen to drive by. The only problem is, is that shots like these are often out of focus cause I didn't have time to focus and catch what was happening since they happen accidentally at a fraction of a second. The shots might not have the best camera movement either, since I wasn't expecting to follow it. So the question is, if it's out of focus, is it worth keeping a fortunate accident? I am trying to get noticed more for directing skills rather than camera operator, so my decisions as director play the factor.

The people in filmmaking business I have asked before say no, but my friends who are just moviegoers say yes. When trying to show my craft to important people in the industry and trying to get noticed, and make a professional impression, what's the best way to go? Production value, or shot quality? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Shot quality.

Here's why: people in show biz are hiring a director because of what he can create *deliberately* and consistently. They aren't interested in someone who depends on "happy accidents" for most of their good work. They're looking for someone who can plan and execute great shots, even when things go wrong.

They want a director with a strong vision, a clear point of view, who can deliver on time, on budget, consistently, no matter what goes wrong.
 
Hmm okay. I would have thought that getting a few happy accidents is good as a bonus. Especially since this happens in real movies all the time. Like in the movie American Graffiti for example, the guy was suppose to park his bike in the parking space, but instead the actor accidently crashed it into the wall. George Lucas decided to go with that mistake and look at what a success that movie turned out to be. Not cause of the accident alone of course, but a little thing like that, might have helped as a bonus? And in Police Story, three guys flew through a windshield and it was caught on film when they were not expecting, but went into the final product. Plus the quality of the shot rests on the DP more than the director doesn't it, so what is happening in the shot rests more on me, doesn't it? Wouldn't they rather think, "this director could use a new DP, but wow he knows what to have happen in the shot"? I would have thought the better something happens in the shot, the better for the director, and not how the DP caught it.
 
Last edited:
Lol thanks I appreciate the advice, just wondering how other movies, get away with it so well. I will use the best shots quality wise.
 
PopcornFlix said:
Your reply makes me think you didn't really want the answer to your question.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I think Popcorn really hit the nail on the head.

Yes, you CAN have lucky accidents ("Hey, I'm walking here!") but the thing is, those directors would have produced something just as great.
 
Okay thanks. I am trying to pick the best shots otherwise now. For a couple of the shots, it's hard to tell if the takes are in focus or not cause there is action and fighting movement, and camera movement, and it creates motion blur. How do I tell if a shot is in focus, if there is motion blur?
 
In situations where you expect to get a lot of happy accidents avoid shallow DOF to improve the focus. I prefer a deeper focus anyway when there is a lot of motion involved to cover up my sloppy camera work. Still scenes or motivated by my character experiencing an internal moment such as making a decision then I prefer a shallow DOF.
 
For sure. My DP shoots with shallow focus a lot. She says it's because she is not use to the DSLR as oppose to the cameras she used when taking it all in school, before the DSLR became a fillmmaking trend. Those cameras worked different which is why she's been having some trouble getting deeper focus. I am learning how to as well now.
 
Make the iris smaller for deeper focus.
Bigger f-stop = smaller iris. (f/22 is a smaller iris than f/1.4)
When you make the iris smaller, you will need more light. Take off any ND filters, add light when needed and turn up ISO if you must. (Higher ISOs add noise)
Keep your shutter at 180º (1/48 for 24p) if you slow down the shutter to get more light, action will get all smeary and video-y.
 
The question would be how it looks in the work you are doing.

Does it fit the story, does it look out of place, will you run into problems with logos/releases if any "unexpected elements" are clear enough in the shot to see what they are...


As long as everything else checks out, for the purpose of making the production better, why not use it for the benefit of the project?

But others have raised good points that would suggest it's probably best not to use them for a reel...


Don't expect the unexpected, but be ready for it when it happens :-)
 
Sure. My shutter only goes to 50 on the DSLRs I've used so far. I have been trying to find lights that are really bright for microbudget costs. Any kinds of lights that are good, that I can shoot at a low aperture with, that are cheap though, and don't need special generators to run them? I got some 500 watt lights but I could use brighter.
 
I'm having trouble understanding why you can't just watch the scene and decide if the shot is right or not? If it works or stands out like a sore thumb, etc.

Get a second opinion from someone you trust if you're all torn up about it - but describing these shots as "situations" - describing the events that led to getting the shot - is meaningless in the long run. Who cares if it was an accident if it works in the edit, in context? Sure, film makers have happy accidents, they're part of every profession, particularly creative pursuits. You embrace them if they work out. You file 'em away if they don't. The American Graffiti Motorcycle Incident has nothing do do with your scene beyond being an anecdote. The scene matters, nothing else.
 
I think with mistakes or happy accidents that are left in movies that they were already set for the shot, resulting in not having to make the choice of production value over shot quality. In Dr. Strangelove George C Scott trips while he is ranting across The War Room, Kubrick left that fall in the film, but it's a given that when they were shooting that they were already getting top production quality.

Another thing to remember as a director is that the people who are viewing your work for possible purchase are well aware that they can raise production value with their investment in your film, thus raising access to better equipment and support staff. It's the ideas that they are looking for. Also, if you are shooting documentary type film, you are never going to be able to predict a shot, or control the action. These little happy accidents you catch might demonstrate that you have a knack for having the camera in your hand at just the right time to catch one of a kind material. Nothing in my reel was planned. It's posted in the new users section under "metal \m/."

Having a DP that quick and accurate on the focus depth with an understanding of the mechanics, and proper lighting - both indoors and outdoors - is the best thing you could ever do for yourself. But even something like focus depth is something that can be worked out quite quickly if your DP takes the time to do some experimentation with mid shot focus pulling. Also, you can try story boarding out your shots so your DP has an idea of how to set up shots from the script. Then, when happy accidents happen your character is already in the correct depth of field, and catching that little moment of magic is only a few minor camera adjustments.
 
It's hard to determine, It depends on your content before and after and how fitting it is to the particular project.
 
Shoot like Sam Raimi or Stanley Kubrick - If you're getting a hundred takes from 5 angles for every single scene, you're bound to luck into something.

But if like most indie shooters you're shooting at a ratio of 10-1 or less, you're far less likely to get a happy accident.

BTW, production value to me means one thing - name actors in your movie.
 
Happy accidents are fine, but they mustn't look like accidents. If they are out of focus or have bad camera movement then forget it, those are accidents, not happy ones.
 
I don't see anything wrong with using a happy accident, but if it's not as the same quality as the other shot preceding, or following it, then i wouldn't use it. But there's not anything wrong with using the concept from an accident to turn it into a planned shot as long as there's time and budget to get the new shot idea. Usually on big budget films, everything is blocked off, everyone knows where they should be and what the next thing to happen. Therefore accidents are not all that often, there's no room for them as they try to prevent accidents from happening.
 
No such thing as a happy accident. Either it fits with the rest or it doesn't go in. If it does fit, then it was you who put yourself in a position to get it, to notice it and to use it. If it doesn't you don't use it. The trick is being conscious enough to recognise the latter.

Is it a happy accident when an actor gives you something unexpectedly good and out of your control? No. You have set up the context in which that was able to happen, and you noticed it. Good directors put the actors in a place where they are able to give up control, stop watching themselves and allow the imagined reality to create new possibilities that fit within the context of the film. You cannot micromanage their job. It would become wooden and lifeless. The same is true for camera work. If the context is sufficiently defined it will always allow for hidden possibilities to spring to life. It is the DP's job to recognize them. Those moments are the ones that editors are always on the lookout for.

The important question has already been posed in a previous post. Is this shot stylistically consistent and coherent with the rest? If it is then use it. If it isn't then don't or you may have to alter the rest in order to make it so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top