Need help getting look of 1700's for short film

[Sam Frazier]

I'm making a short film that I want to have the colors of films that are meant to look like the 1700's. The set and the characters will be modern, but the narrator is reciting a famous text from the 1700's, so hopefully it will make sense.

Anyway, checking out a few films that were supposed to take place in days or yore, I've noticed 2 basic looks. The first are Technicolor films like Ivanhoe and The Vikings. Then there's the more modern rich, dark, and subdued look of things like "Juana la Loca" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead". Two pretty different looks, granted.

I'm shooting this on super 16mm and was wondering 1- if there's a particular stock that might help achieve either look? 2- if these looks might depend more upon color correction in post, or 3- if lighting is more than anything else used to establish these looks?

I'm guessing lighting plays a part, but the real magic takes place in the stock or color correction. But, I don't really know how to do this kind of thing with color correction and know next to nothing about film stocks.

Sorry for the long post, but any help is greatly appreciated!

[Jonathan Spear]

You could check out Carravagio paintings for referrence. His paintings are 'lit' with that old world feel so that might help.

I think Carravagio was an Italian Baroque Era painter (c. 1571-1610) but that style might be close to what you're after.

 

Good luck!

 

 

:D

 

 

-TSM

[Mike Welle]

I would highly recommend that you view "The Draughtsman's Contract"--which was shot in Super 16 with a Cooke zoom. It takes place in 1694. Ebert gave it 4 stars and it's directed by Peter Greenaway.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

I would second the "The Draughtmans Contract" It was the first Super 16mm to 35mm blowup considered to be a commercial sucess. When you consider the stock available in the early 1980's the quality of the finished film is excellent. The first use of the Cooke 10~52 Varokinetal designed for Super 16. The DP was Curtis Clark an American. The art direction and use of locations was a step above the typical "made for TV" BBC style production. Peter Greenaway's first feature and precursor to where he would go next.

 

I purchased the DVD from a Miami DVD seller. Look on Ebay and you can find it.

 

Only about 15USD

 

Your objective in selecting a stock is to use the emulsion which delivers the sharpest, most grainless image with maximum shadow detail.

 

Doing heavy manipulations and filtration while shooting limites your creative options in the editorial.

 

A sharp, properly exposed color neg can be color-corrected and manipulated in transfer and editorial process into a over/under exposed, grainy, over/undersaturated, blown out/stepped-on, jumpy mess with infinite control. While a over/underexposed, blurry, heavily filtered, jumpy negative will only ever be just that.

 

If you are shooting film (very excellent choice to chose a format that has a future) you should search the top film transfer houses in your locale. They will most graciously provide you with a tour of there operation and demo of there capabilites which will result in a defacto education into the entire process. This is a key activity, you need to understand the workflow and nuances or you will spend money needlessly.

 

For instance what are the length of prep rolls? When you consider that most labs charge $50 to prep with leader and ultrasonically clean a roll , a maximum roll length of 800 feet as opposed to 2400ft will cost you $100 extra-you need to understand the practical issues.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see how if everything in the frame is modern, a photographic technique will make it look like 1700, since that pre-dates photography. If you said "1916" that would be a different matter. The 1700's has no photographic look. You could use natural window light from one side ala Vermeer, Rembrandt, or Caravaggio but that's not going to remind the viewer of 1700 because we have natural window light now.

 

>Doing heavy manipulations and filtration while shooting limites your creative options in the editorial.

 

I'm not sure if the definition of good cinematography is allowing maximum ability to change the look in post. If a heavily-filtered look is what he wants, and he tests to determine the strength, then what's wrong with doing it in-camera? Taking the attitude that one has to have the ability to undo in post all the work you did on the set only leads to the blandest sort of photography. Be bold and pay the consequences -- you'll learn more and grow as an artist. Cover your ass all the time and you'll hardly learn anything except how to play it safe.

[Elhanan Matos]

If you want a look that resembles something from the 1700's take a look at a style of art from the 1700's, For example you can look at Rococo, which had a very soft and light feel to it, and used alot of pastel colors, lots of light blues and light pinks. A good painting to look at is "The Swing" by Jean Honore Fragonard.

 

The Swing

 

Taking the attitude that one has to have the ability to undo in post all the work you did on the set only leads to the blandest sort of photography. Be bold and pay the consequences -- you'll learn more and grow as an artist. Cover your ass all the time and you'll hardly learn anything except how to play it safe.

 

Well said David!! Now if only more cinematographers were comfortable doing that with HD cameras...

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

">Doing heavy manipulations and filtration while shooting limites your creative options in the editorial.

 

I'm not sure if the definition of good cinematography is allowing maximum ability to change the look in post. If a heavily-filtered look is what he wants, and he tests to determine the strength, then what's wrong with doing it in-camera? Taking the attitude that one has to have the ability to undo in post all the work you did on the set only leads to the blandest sort of photography. Be bold and pay the consequences -- you'll learn more and grow as an artist. Cover your ass all the time and you'll hardly learn anything except how to play it safe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"

Your point is well taken David and I looked with admiration upon the finely tuned filtration and processing instructions you developed in the shooting of "Northfork"

 

But really, wasn't it possible to acheive the same net effect in a final color correction and DI?

 

Once again I admire the result however the person who started this thread seemed to need a more basic approach. Being bold and avoiding bland work is what experienced DP's live or die by. Someone without a lot of experience might endeavor to get it in focus, get it exposed properly and deliver it to the lab without physical damage. In other words K.I.S.S

 

If you want to play it save you become an insurance salesman :D

Edited December 5, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes and no -- a DI would not have been as effective as art directing the movie in monochromes, for example, because there is a difference between pulling out the color digitally from a colorful image versus one designed in monochrome.

 

But certainly it would have been easier to do it with a DI. On the other hand, I have a skill set with doing this stuff photochemically. Now maybe in the all-digital future no one will need these sets of skills...

 

It's also easier to desaturate an image digitally without gaining artifacts than increasing saturation, etc. That was more what I was talking about in another post, that photo-chemical and optical manipulation may sometimes produce better results even for telecine or DI because you can only push a digital signal so far before you get artifacts like noise. Especially if you're talking about a compressed recording like HDCAM.

 

It doesn't really matter if you do it in post or in production as long as you understand both approaches. But that's really an argument for doing something in the most effective manner as possible, not about giving yourself maximum flexibility to change your mind later, which is what I object to. We should have an artistic concept before we record the image. We may decide the best way to achieve that concept will be a post step, but that's not the same thing as putting off the decision of what that artistic concept will be until post and leaving all your options open until then. That would be like shooting the scene in IMAX so that you could digitally zoom in and find all your coverage in post.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

Skill set is really the issue concerning this thread. When some one asks for advice we make an assumption concerning the askers skill set. The suggestions and references to various painters are a good approach to defining a look.

 

On a practical level Super 16 while finally at the point where it can tolerate on camera diffusion and not loose all detail still can't tolerate throwing away lot s of resolution as with 35mm.

And that is a key issue that need to be understood.

 

Best to establish the look with lighting and leave wiggle room. My opine.

Since I direct and edit as well as shoot I see the editorial process as the stage where the look of a show is shaped. It reduces complaining about the DP during the editorial. I have fired myself so many times I am always suprised when I hire myself again -nepotism in the industry no doubt :rolleyes:

 

DI fferent ways for DI fferent plays

[Sam Frazier]

Thank you everyone for the help. Lots of good thoughts. Experimenting with looks- reminds me a lot of the Visions of Light DVD. I'd love to experiment, but I don't own the camera and don't even know how to load it. I know, this isn't the way to do things. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go to film school or do an internship for a production company. Perhaps at some point I can sneak away to one of those Maine summer classes or Kodak's 2 week crash course. Until then, the only experimentation I can do is really with my pd150 or post stuff. I do have Cinelook and Magic Bullet, if that would help at all. So basically, for me film at all is an experiment and obviously I need to find a good DP.

I'll definitely check out the paintings for ideas about the look. Good advise. David, I was meaning I wanted the colors of films made to look like they're older. Kind of like a lot of Shakespearian films. Deep and rich, not vibrant, and with a somewhat limited contrast range. I?m still checking out the Kodak site. They have a couple of products that seem to be designed to help you get an idea of what they?re different stocks will do. Here?s the link:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...gerSystem.jhtml

 

Perhaps my browser, but there?s no mention of pricing or anything terribly in depth. But, maybe this will begin to give me an idea of what looks to expect.

 

Overall, it does seem like I should be thinking more about lighting and having a solid product to work with in post. Still, just off the tops of people?s heads, are there any certain filters (both camera and post) that I might want to try, or possibly different film stocks?

Thanks again for all the help!

 

ps- David- D.E.B.S. came to the festival I work for, but unfortunately I was running a different venue and couldn?t see it. Actually, my movie was playing just before it and a lot of people ran out at the end to catch D.E.B.S. Definitely had a good buzz about the film. I?m looking forward to its wider theatrical showings.

[DavidSloan]

I recently shot a short on Fuji 64D and I'm in LOVE with the look...shoot it all Fuji 64D!!!!!!!!! LMAO j/k. :D

[Christina strohl]

I'm making a short film that I want to have the colors of films that are meant to look like the 1700's. The set and the characters will be modern, but the narrator is reciting a famous text from the 1700's, so hopefully it will make sense.

Anyway, checking out a few films that were supposed to take place in days or yore, I've noticed 2 basic looks. The first are Technicolor films like Ivanhoe and The Vikings. Then there's the more modern rich, dark, and subdued look of things like "Juana la Loca" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead". Two pretty different looks, granted.

I'm shooting this on super 16mm and was wondering 1- if there's a particular stock that might help achieve either look? 2- if these looks might depend more upon color correction in post, or 3- if lighting is more than anything else used to establish these looks?

I'm guessing lighting plays a part, but the real magic takes place in the stock or color correction. But, I don't really know how to do this kind of thing with color correction and know next to nothing about film stocks.

Sorry for the long post, but any help is greatly appreciated!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should post this production on haydenfilms.com. Great site for collaborative film. Also film festival!