"In Frame" Konvas Feature

[Andrew E. Malecki]

I just finished editing my feature film "In Frame" Shot with a Konvas camera with all LOMO lens and using only natural lighting. I really wanted to capture a 70's independent look with a french new wave feel so I pushed the stock two stops.

 

Camera: Konvas

Lens: LOMO

Film: Kodak Vision2 500T

 

Trailer link:

 

In Frame Site: http://inframefilm.com/

 

Production Site: http://philmreelfilms.com/

 

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Guest]

Congratulations getting a feature done, and shot on 35mm. I feel your pain from first hand experience. :)

 

I watched your trailer, is there sound in the film? Just curious because there is no dialogue in the trailer.

 

R,

[Andrew E. Malecki]

Congratulations getting a feature done, and shot on 35mm. I feel your pain from first hand experience. :)

 

I watched your trailer, is there sound in the film? Just curious because there is no dialogue in the trailer.

 

R,

 

Thank you so much Rich. I feel very strongly for 35mm. I have never really felt a connection with digital. And yes there is sound. For the trailer I just wanted it to be more of a teaser. I will say though recording all the dialogue in the studio was definitely a task. I feel it fits perfectly for the film though. It gives it the 60's foreign independent feel that I was trying to achieve.

[Bruce Taylor]

I think you were successful in getting the look you were after. I liked the look of the trailer, but I would like to get more of a sense of the story-- I like the plot idea, and having it take place in a theater. Please tell us more.

 

Did you record all the sound in post? There are a number of ways people have handled sound while shooting with their Konvas. Did you shoot short ends/recans? Shooting ratio? Post path-- workprint or telecine? Any challenges with the Lomos? I'd love to see the film, how is it going to be released?

 

From what I saw in the trailer the lighting and grain looked good. I share your lack of feeling for digital. Nothing against it, I just personally prefer the way film looks, including the physical artifacts (like you used in the trailer).

 

Best of luck!

[Andrew E. Malecki]

Thanks Bruce. The look was very important to me. I could never capture the same feeling with digital. For me personally digital gets to the point where it becomes so clean it feels sterile. It's just not the format artistically I want to work with. I choose film.

 

Set in a movie theater, In Frame follows Paul, a theater employee who weaves his day through different fantasies about his co worker Anna. One of the direct influences on the story would be that of Billy Liar. In the end he has to make a choice. Does he continue living in this fantasy of his or does to take a step into reality and make a move. Being in movie theater is just an extension of the plot. We all go the movies to escape. Paul escapes into his own mind much like we escape into movies. In many ways the film is a love letter to film. I wanted the viewer to know they are watching film. So I purposely left in film artifacts in the cut, over exposed and under exposed key scenes, pushed the grain, used the tail ends of the reels to cut between certain scenes.

 

Yes I recorded all sound including dialogue in post expect for one scene. The scene takes place in the projector room with the film projector running. So I just recorded it as normal with the camera noise and all. It fit perfectly and I didn't have to touch a thing.

 

My shooting ratio was 2 to 1 at most. I would say for about 90% it was 1 to 1. I had the actors rehears through the scenes till they got it right. Being the independent film maker, I had to pay for everything out of pocket. So I used mainly recans and some sort ends to keep costs low. I shot the film as a feature length. I ended up with a 80 min cut of the film. But ultimately I felt like it just didn't work as a 80 min film. So I just gutted out the fat and stuck to the core theme of the film. Much like how Woody Allen cut all of the detective plot out of Annie Hall. Of course he had the luxury of not shooting it unlike me. Overall though I ended up with a 22 min cut that I am in love with.

 

I love the lomo lenses. I wouldn't change a thing. The look it gave me was exactly what I wanted. My favorite is my fast 1.2 28mm. I used it for about 85% of film.

 

I did a telecine for the film. Edited in final cut pro. I just finished my final cut so I started to enter in all the spring and summer festivals. If I get accepted to at least one I have two options. Either do a negative cut then DI of that or just DI what I need for my cut. The problem with the latter is that I think the cost of having the post production house go through my reels to find the scenes I used would end up being more then just doing a negative cut. If anybody has any suggestions or experience with this type of work flow please let me know. It's the one thing I'm still up in the air about.

[Bruce Taylor]

I applaud your cutting it to 22 minutes. I'm sure it made the film much better. So it sounds like you were shooting something like a 6-1 ratio in the end.

 

I have happy memories of my wife-to-be managing an art house theater (having started at the refreshment stand) and the quirky and interesting characters she hired that staffed the refreshment counter and the ticket and projection booth. A great setting for a story amongst great films!

 

I have only dim memories of "Billy Liar" (though I am a Schlesinger fan), I'm putting it in my netflix que.

 

Pulling selects from reels or cutting a selects reel with handles seem to be the economical way to go toward a DI. Or what about cutting the neg and contact printing? I guess the other question is whether you want to end up with a projectable print. If not, HD telecine would probably be cheapest?

[ryan knight]

congrats on getting a feature in the can! any feature completed is an achievement, but one captured on 35mm, and anamorphic no less, is even more commendable.

 

your trailer certainly has the spirit and spark and a french film from the 70s (especially the lensmanship).

 

and although i only saw a minute and sixteen second of the picture, i feel as if you may have been even more successful with referencing the look of the piece to french cinema if you were more daring with your exposure.

 

the images seem perfectly exposed (which is very commendable - good work) and with very shallow contrast. this contrast is most likely attributed to kodak's super-wide exposure latitude. perhaps, if you give the film a more aggressive look, and give it punchier contrast in your grade, the aesthetic may reference 70s film stock and cinema even better.

[Andrew E. Malecki]

Thank you for the kind words Ryan. I wish I could show it you in person where I didn't compress it. The grain and aggressive look really comes out better on a monitor. Before I shot the film did tests with Kodak and Fuji film and you are absolutely right about the super wide exposure latitude. Fuji just didn't have the right feel and look I was going after. Since I am doing a DI I could even push the envelope more which I might do. I have to call some post houses tomorrow to get some quotes. I am looking at Duart right now since that is most convenient to me and I have worked with them before.

[Vincent Sweeney]

Give Postworks a try too. If I were you I'd not bother making a print. Get an HDCam master as any decent festival will screen it that way (many prefer that) and you'll not have to worry so much about how it is handled too. Also, at 22 minutes it is considered a short film. Features start around 70 minutes at a minimum but anything commercial, for the most part, is 85+.