First time with decet camera

Rob White · August 4, 2007

Hey, i've been reading the site for a while and decided to finally join in!

I've been making short films on a low end miniDV cam since i was 12 (i'm now 17), and this is my first attempt with a decent camera (an XL1) and even a couple of lights for one scene!

The film was a 5 minute "Tales of The Unexpected" thriller, and was shot in and around my college (which explains the dodgy locations).

Let me know what you think...

Greg Johnson · August 4, 2007

Not bad man!

The first shot has nice framing the kid "pops" pretty good, I'd like to see maybe just a little more highlights though.

The second shot doesn't do anything for me. Although there's highlights, and depth,.. the composition has no context. But maybe I need to see the entire scene. But as a still, it doesn't "say" anything to me.

The man could use a little fill and eyelight,.. depending on what you're going for. In my opinion the back light is a little "sourcey".

And the last shot is pretty decent, nice shallow DoF for the XL1. Soft highlights.

Looks a heck of a lot better than my stuff when I was 17! Way better. Also you'd be surprised how much $$$ can make everything look better. It's definitely hard to get good looking stuff on no budget, even with a XL1. I personally hate shooting low budget stuff because it makes me feel like a bad DP, when in all actuality it's just bad actors, lights, locations, camera, etc. So keep up the work!

I suggest getting a bounce card of some sort, that its a super low-budget tool that may have helped with the man, and the kid on the phone "pop" a little more. It may also create an eye light. If you can get good eye light, it makes the characters seem more "alive" when they have light in their eyes. It's not a super big deal, just a helpful trick.

Also, for medium and tight shots move the camera way back and zoom in. It's a way to milk the what little shallow DoF the XL1 has. Of course you have to have the Iris all the way open. It looks like you did that with the hands anyway, so I'll quit preaching.

Anyway,.. nice work, keep us informed!

- Greg

Edited August 4, 2007 by Greg Johnson

Chris Keth · August 5, 2007

Also, for medium and tight shots move the camera way back and zoom in. It's a way to milk the what little shallow DoF the XL1 has.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that will leave you with exactly the same depth of field as being closer with a wide lens. ;)

Every time you double your distance from the subject, the depth of field will double. Also, every time you double the focal length of your lens, the depth of field will be halved. So, as long as you keep the same framing on your subject, the depth of field will be exactly the same at a given f/stop.

Greg Johnson · August 5, 2007

I hate to burst your bubble, but that will leave you with exactly the same depth of field as being closer with a wide lens. ;)

Every time you double your distance from the subject, the depth of field will double. Also, every time you double the focal length of your lens, the depth of field will be halved. So, as long as you keep the same framing on your subject, the depth of field will be exactly the same at a given f/stop.

My bubble is always bursting. Thanks for clarifying. Any comments for Rob? I'd hate to hijack his thread.

- Greg

Rob White · August 9, 2007

Thanks for the feedback Greg.

I really do need to buy a couple of reflectors, every time i shoot something i swear i'll buy one before next time.

The phone shot is rather bland, it was one of those occasions when we only had an hour at the location.

as for shadow man, he was meant to look quite, well, shadowy... plus I only had one light. gotta love low budget.

when i have the room, i do try and pull back and use a longer lens, it doesn't change the DoF that much, but getting closer to a 85mm/100mm portrait lens is nice.

Anyone else?

Cheers

Rob

Rob White · August 14, 2007

I hate to burst your bubble, but that will leave you with exactly the same depth of field as being closer with a wide lens. ;)

Every time you double your distance from the subject, the depth of field will double. Also, every time you double the focal length of your lens, the depth of field will be halved. So, as long as you keep the same framing on your subject, the depth of field will be exactly the same at a given f/stop.

True, but though the depth of field stays pretty much unchanged, the background is more magnified, making it more obvious that the focus is soft, and therefore appears more out of focus.