Jump to content

shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras


Recommended Posts

I am not a huge fan of rotoscoping either, especially as an alternative to actual animating. But if you don't view it as such, it can be a very visually interesting representation of the material that was shot. Besides just being a potential stylistic choice, there is some deeper difference in experience between a normal/rotoscoped movie. Some subtleties get exagerrated and some are lost in the process of tracing, and of course a skilled animator won't just trace the image, there will always be some intentional reinterpretation and exagerration. Whether an algorithem could do that is honestly not relevant to me, because even if it could do it, I would much prefer an actual human being making the decisions and doing the tracing.

Maybe rotoscoping can be looked at as another way to render reality, rather than a form of animation. Eg., you can decide to shoot movie on film, digital, with this or that lens, you can trace the result on the cels (in various ways), etc. If you look at it in this way, then it's use can be much more easily justified than if you compare it to animation processes where there is exclusively your mind that is interpreting reality.

Edited by Peter Bitic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe rotoscoping can be looked at as another way to render reality, rather than a form of animation. Eg., you can decide to shoot movie on film, digital, with this or that lens, you can trace the result on the cels (in various ways), etc. If you look at it in this way, then it's use can be much more easily justified than if you compare it to animation processes where there is exclusively your mind that is interpreting reality.

 

Oh yeah. I agree. One can read it, not so much as animation, but another way of mediating/rendering an image. And doing so by hand means the image passes through an artist's body which allows for all sorts of compelling results.

 

The work done by algorithms isn't necessarily any less compelling. It's just that the artist proper becomes the developer of the algorithms, rather than the holder of a brush (pen, mouse, etc). If we feel excluded by such art it's possibly because we can't relate to how they are doing their work. Are algorithms art? I think so, but I also understand how alien that can be to many.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohh music has been dead since the Beatles. LOL :)

 

Off topic (not cinematography) I know, so I'll be as quick as possible:

I'd say the Beatles evolved into something very mature besides pioneering - and left the stage prepared for the 1970s - which produced both: utter crap and some of the best pop/rock music ever made on this planet - by people who actually worked their butts off because they were in for the music, and brought it to a truly professional level. Then came three big catastrophes in a row:

1) punk music - the first underground movement starting roughly around 1976 (it was never against "the system" - it was meant to be bad and B.S. music from the word go, it was made by untalented "musicians" who were frustrated by some of the fantastic, gorgeous, finely crafted virtuoso rock music of the first half of the 1970s on both sides of the Atlantic).

2) Mtv - they shifted music from sound to image (bringing all the wrong people and lobbies into pop/rock music, as if we didn't have enough of these already back in the day)

3) Technology: namely synthesizers, drum boxes and the first digital effects: all used in a wrong way: not to compliment but to replace. Didn't work out obviously - and we were left with post apocalyptic wasteland until this day.

 

So I'd shift the death of music exactly one decade ahead: from 1970 to 1980. That's exactly when I came in: oops, missed it.

 

 

I don't talk about jazz because the time line is different and there are too many "experts" out there. But it died before the Beatles, somewhere in the '50s. It never truly evolved after that.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that has died is just a rotting corpse, wrapped in nostalgia, and destined for oblivion.

 

History, on the other hand, is an altogether different beast. It is that which survives the deathly strangle hold of nostalgia, and by such means informs the future. The means by which it does so is by "haunting" the future. It seeks out those trapped in the past, and shocks them out of their desire to disappear.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it another way, one can be inspired by music - be it the Beatles, or Jazz, or classical music, or punk - it doesn't matter. Whatever haunts you. Otherwise the day the music died will be at some mythical moment in time, the date of which you may as well mark as the day you also died.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it another way, one can be inspired by music - be it the Beatles, or Jazz, or classical music, or punk - it doesn't matter. Whatever haunts you. Otherwise the day the music died will be at some mythical moment in time, the date of which you may as well mark as the day you also died.

 

C

Well one can't really override emotions with reasoning. And life is one long string of farewells and small deaths anyway.

A huge part of me died back in 1980. The music I so dearly loved was no more. Just old, worn vinyl albums and their covers reminding me of times when I was still able to dream big.

 

All the rock groups that were (and still are) such a huge part of me either quit or went with the flow and made bad music (I can pinpoint this exactly to 1980).

Just a couple of years later Super 8mm (I was very active making films at the time, starting back in 1975) died and 16mm for television news gathering and documentaries was being replaced by portable video cameras and U-Matic recorders (sure, grainy Kodak Ektachrome VNF, processed with boiling hot chemicals as fast as possible, slapped together on a Steenbeck under pressure never looked really good - I literally "ran" many a spool (a pair of 16mm image and matching 16mm fully coated sound) to the room with all those machines where film was aired live). Sometimes I kept scrapped 16mm reversal film snippets from the cutting room floor - I knew it was about to lose its importance (= dying) but for me it was like a small row of precious paintings, and I am by far not the only one who thinks and feels the exact same.

 

Recently in an email group dedicated to 16mm film cameras, out of nowhere, some clown posted: "Oh real film! Light leaks, grain, scratches, very artsy!". I replied by saying: "Naw. You can have all that much faster and easier", posting links to digital plugins and "after effects" that emulate all that (poorly but whatever...). - No reply. Good!

 

Back to the topic at hand: there I was: 19 years old - all about creativity - not only trapped in a country that doesn't care one bit about creativity (Germany) but also with my entire world disappearing in just a few years.

Sure: a huge part of me died. I moved to Portugal for a fresh start and I actually managed to make a living in music. But all that also died a slow death. Once again: we were forced to use a certain type of technology - if we didn't want to play free or poorly paid club gigs (which I did and still do).

I have seen a few highly talented sound engineers leaving the business because all their knowledge, all their passion: crushed by prematurely released digital technology and clients who demanded its use. "Digital" was the magic word since the late 1970s. I never went for that B.S. - not for a second. Digital/computer technology is brilliant for crushing numbers and to help and assist us in many ways. But it is not the solution for everything. Not by a long shot!

 

I already had to gave up film (no chance here in Europe anyway). I was lucky enough to also be a musician and it turned out to be a good choice for me. Not a good choice for making a living - but we don't chose the arts - they chose us.

 

I'm too old now to live my dreams (which never changed). But I can make the best out of it all. The world isn't made for truly passionate creative people (at least where I live: Continental Europe with its image and status obsessed, humorless, fun-less self promoting "culture"). It is made for people who function and fit the mold. I support all young talented musicians and aspiring film makers I see on the interwebs. I am actually very happy to see people just as "crazy" as I am. Let's see how my step-by-step adventure with film goes.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is that when Super8 "died" it only did so in terms of the mass market. If we use the mass market as our benchmark, then the only thing of relevance today is what the mass market produces. Many people, of course, just assume that's the only way of assessing the present moment in time. Their clocks, if you like, are syncronised to a narrative in which the mass market is the central protagonist in some modernist dream of indefinite technical innovation,. An ongoing "out with the old, and in with the new" philosophy.

 

But if Super8 died, it also returned the very next day in the form of a ghost. Ghosts are far more powerful than their particular day in the sun, and the resulting corpse. Because you can't kill a ghost. It's already dead. It's understanding this ghost (rather than it's corpse) which is far more important than reliving the sixties and seventies, or appropriating such in some retro-nostalgic fantasy of such.

 

The power of this ghost is embodied in those who have continued to shoot film, and who learned how to process it themselves, and who created a camera such as the Logmar, and inspired the Kodak camera, and those who have returned to such. This is not some retro-nostalgic impulse. It's recognition of film as a contemporary medium. In the same way that a guitar is a contemporary instrument, despite it being ancient technology. Or the wheel for that matter. It's not a question of denying other ways in which history inspires. The emergence of digital technology is inspired by equally powerful ghosts.

 

It is history in operation here. Not nostalgia. History is that which survives the past. Nostalgia is that which (intentionally or otherwise) attempts to send history back into the past. To bury it. But you can't bury a ghost. You can only bury a corpse. And even then something survives, as archeology testifies.

 

Nostalgia is looking at a rusting car in the backyard and dreaming of it's day in the sun. History is pulling the tool box out, and getting the engine going, and taking the car out for a drive.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem: in my native Germany, when Super 8mm died, also all photo equipment shops/stores ceased to deliver and just dumped rests of stocks for a while, monthly publications/magazines ceased to exist, film stock disappeared, no way to find groups still using and supporting Super 8mm, and the Kodak 200m (roughly 10 minutes) sound film cartridge (which I loved) became officially unavailable. It was not just a mainstream thing. Super 8mm literally disappeared all around me.

To be honest: I never was a fan of that fragile material and adding sound on a projector causing a lot of wear. Handling the precious camera original for editing picture and sound didn't lead to satisfying results - as hard as I tried,as carefully as I was. Splices were always visible and audible. Wet splices (acetate) shrunk in a short period of time and dry splices ruined at least two if not four frames (depending on the pre-framed transparent tape) - and over time they become sticky and fall apart.

All of my friends who used Super 8mm simply abandoned it and went on with either video or gave up on making "films" of any kind.

 

16mm was so incredibly out of reach at the time. All thise Arriflexes: disappeared. They could not be sold because television was state owned and cannot sell or rent anything. Not stages and no equipment. The price of a used (pretty beat up from field work - saw them) say Arriflex BL around 1982 (if someone could get me one) was estimated around (today's exchange rate) USD 10.000 (no tripod, no extras, just one zoom lens and not even sure if the chargeable battery was inlcuded) - that was a fortune back in the day and bought you a nice car. Not to mention film stock and lab service. Too little information available even where to start searching. People were way too protective and evasive - in fear of competition. Very different times: road block after road block. No chance. I had to let go - like some other film enthusiasts I met at the university. Add to that the fact that (Western) Europe was not united back in the day. Each country was its own world, so you were basically stuck within your own country.

 

It was probably all a matter of where you were located.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with film, like any medium, it helps to have a bit of an affinity with it. One needs to enjoy the material. Not just the image on the screen, but the means by which that image is created. If it's all a bit of a chore, one may as well find some other means of making a work. Many find video and digital attractive because they like both the ease with which a work can be made as well as it's very clean (sterile?) aspect. They like the control that digital provides. And I do too. But I also like the earthy organic nature of film. Even when it's scratched and dirty, and splices jump in the projector. Once you know that is what is going to happen (because of your means) then you can work with that rather than against it. You exploit it. The lo-fi sound of 6Mhz optical sound tracks can be made to sound completely and utterly awesome if you understand those limitations.

 

Art can be made with anything.

 

But typically you'll make it with whatever materials and technology suits you. Film isn't for everyone.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Super8 is very big in Germany - much bigger there than it is here in Australia. Or at least that's what german artists here in Australia tell me.

 

I don't know if that is due to it having never disappeared, or it having returned in some way. It all depends, I guess, in which circles one moves. The art scene is probably the best place to make connections and find out where one can get one's hands dirty. The commercial world is not necessarily the best place to start. One can easily become battered by too many loud mouth "professionals", with condescending attitudes grounded in nothing but hot air, and rule of thumb formulas they think were chiselled into stone somewhere.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I never thought that handling Super 8mm was a chore. The technical limitations were too much for me and damage of some sort was inevitable. I don't think there is a rule in life that says: either accept everything about a given format and work around the problems (if you can't: live with it) or leave it. This simply doesn't make sense. I did do something about it: spending a lot of time and effort (and the money I made from small jobs) to do the very best I could. I also read a lot of articles about separate sync sound to get more professional results. There was a system made by Erlson (a small firm) which was based on professional 16mm and 35mm systems at the time. Waaaaay out of my budget.

 

I also was never truly satisfied with the image quality (I had a Beaulieu 6008 S in the end, which yielded much better results than the modest Agfa Movexoom I had before - yet is just wasn't "there".

 

I think Super 8 was kind of half heartedly updated until its oficial demise. I wouldn't for example have minded working with grainy black and white work prints to try out the exact edit. Then sync sound to it in a mechanical way (super 8mm full coated in an editor would have been nice and similar systems actually existed, but they always involved touching the irreplaceable camera original. Once edit and soundtrack done (I had access to nice equipment and i could have done audio mixes with music, sound FX, voiceovers, location dialog, dubbed dialog etc. (all of which I actually did - but with a Bauer T 600 you can only do so much). Then I would have edited the camera original with frame accuracy and it would have been it. More work, more costs - I wouldn't have minded. Hassle is one thing. Impossibility is another. It's the latter that bothered me with Super 8. I really worked my butt off, including animation and trick work of all sorts.

 

The Bauer T 600 and the last model produced: T 610 were at the time the best machines I heard of (except for the Beaulieu which was fantastic and way too expensive - there was even a xenon lamp version with a high voltage transformer to fire up the lamp). Until, later into the 1980s I heard about Fumeo, Elmo and other machines, used by collectors which were even better (less wear, high precision, better registration, built-in ring for anamorphic lens. I had one (2x) with external support btw! etc. etc.) (again: completely out of my budget), but very hard to come by and sought after. I really did my homework and never thought of anything as a chore or hassle. I just didn't like roadblocks impossioble to overcome. I was doing everything to come up with half decent movies. That was simply impossible with even expensive Super 8mm equipment at the time.

 

Also: at age 20/21 it is hard to choose the right crowd to hang out with. Too few information about what other crowds there are and how to get into these - and even what to look for. There simply wasn't enough information available at the time. The concept of social skills and networking wasn't even that clearly defined as it is today.

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Super8 is very big in Germany - much bigger there than it is here in Australia. Or at least that's what german artists here in Australia tell me.

 

 

Super 8mm was even big back in the day in Germany (between 1965 and 1982). Lots of German made equipment and film stock (to be frank: all inferior to the classic Kodachrome II and later 40). Just to explain: I simply wanted - at one point - to make decent films with a decent soundtrack. It was well known and talked about that Super 8mm simply doesn't offer the technical possibilities (lack of hardware except for small companies ranging from toy-like to high precision) to achieve even half professional results at the time. In-camera fades and dissolves for example looked nice, but the outcome was not 100% controllable. I even tried to remove the transformer of the projector and move it into a separate box to get rid of the hum - which was caused by electromagnetic induction into the sound head(s). It was too complex in terms of wiring - otherwise I would have done that and much more. I am a "hands on/DIY" guy (within my skill level) - I am not a whiner.

I even knew some truly professional guys who really provided me with most valuable information. The answer was almost always: "You need 16mm" and even a used 16mm Bolex was offered to me at a very reasonable price - but the sound was always the problem: a decent mix of dialog and/or voice over, sound effects and music.

I was unable to get the gear together to achieve that - and I really tried.

 

I hope it is O.K. to post a 2011 show reel I assembled from lo res working image files I had access to. A friend of mine (non-professional) did the best he could in Final Cut Pro. I provided all material and the complete soundtrack (including sound effects and restoration of older material) was done by me inside Cubase 5 software: All music is original by yours truly and the commercials actually were approved and aired (except for director's cuts where indicated). This is NOT self promotion (I am not selling anything!!!!). It is what clients allowed me to do - so please forgive me some of the cheesy bits :-)

 

If this is against "house rules" please let me know and remove the link:

 

 

I already set up another channel (no film footage uploaded yet) for my Super 16mm adventures. Will keep you posted.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Christian.

 

Yes, 16mm is a good medium to work in. I like it a lot. It's also obvious that 16mm of a particular stock is going to have better image quality than Super8 of the same stock. I mean it doesn't take many brain cells to work that one out. But by the same token one could say 35mm would have even better quality, so why shoot 16mm? Or taking it another step: 65mm has better quality then 35mm, so why shoot 35mm? One begins to realise that "image quality" is only one consideration amongst many many others. Eventually one begins to appreciate different gauges for what they are rather than relative to some idealised concept of image quality.

 

Working with any gauge requires one understand and appreciate the limitations of such. Be it Super8, 16mm or 65mm. It's not a rule as such. It's just a way of ensuring you are able to make the best of a particular gauge, and are not getting too fustrated by it. You find which medium feels right and exploit it. Which might indeed push the boundaries on what was considered it's limits - if only because you realise it's not as limited as others might have argued. That it's limits will be elsewhere. This is a way of understanding limits - that assumed limits need not be real limits. One experiments with a particular medium to find it's real limits.

 

Myself, I've developed an appreciation of Super8, 16mm and 35mm, but in different ways, and for different reasons. There's no single framework or set of principles to which I ascribe that determines which one is better than any other. A lot of it depends on what kind of work I'm being motivated to do. Currently it is a Super8 project, for blow up to 16mm. Tomorrow it might be a digital animation project, for completion to 35mm. The day after it might be a painting. Or a comic book.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Christian - thanks for the video you posted. The music is great. Love it.

 

Carl

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

 

And yes: each film gauge/format has its own look and feel. I am not a: "the bigger the better" -guy. My issues with Super 8 were just that it could have been treated with a little more love by the manufacturers. Not everybody was an unpretentious amateur. Beating a dead horse: there should have been at least the choice of an alternative "open" cartridge (similar to single 8) - so that cameras with a precision pressure plate could have been manufactured. Or a single cartridge for all cameras with a removable part - for more demanding film makers with "high end" Super 8mm cameras such as the Beaulieu 4008 through 7008 models - that either couldn't afford 16mm or actually like Super 8 but just would have wanted that one step higher in consistency and image quality.

Not that much more hassle - but much more consistent image stability and focus. The aesthetics still would all be there. And they could have done something about the sound. 18 frames in advance is simply too few. just, say, an additional four frames (=22) aloowing for at least one guide roller - and the lower loop wouldn't hammer directly against the sound head in the projector or camera - leading to that typical Super 8 sound flutter. The capstan with flywheel and pinch roller are placed after the sound head - so the lower loop always hammers away - no space to tame it....

 

Thanks again for your kind words regarding my music for TV commercials, more to come (without getting off topic!).

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, 16mm is a good medium to work in. I like it a lot. It's also obvious that 16mm of a particular stock is going to have better image quality than Super8 of the same stock. I mean it doesn't take many brain cells to work that one out. But by the same token one could say 35mm would have even better quality, so why shoot 16mm? Or taking it another step: 65mm has better quality then 35mm, so why shoot 35mm? One begins to realise that "image quality" is only one consideration amongst many many others. Eventually one begins to appreciate different gauges for what they are rather than relative to some idealised concept of image quality.

Sometimes its not just about quality. Modern super 16mm cameras have the same accessory/user benefits of 35, but are smaller, cheaper to rent/own, cheaper to use (stock/process/transfer), simpler to use (most are cartridge magazine style) and deliver resolution higher then most cinema projectors. The only downside to S16 is the grain at higher ASA's, but some filmmakers like that. Since MOST films never see a wide theatrical run, Super 16 is a great way to get the filmic look, with extremely high quality.

 

By contrast, a guaranteed theatrically bound film with a decent budget (50M+) has zero excuse to be shooting on 35mm in today's world. The cost difference between anamorphic 4 perf 35mm and spherical 65mm is about double. So your budget would add an extra million for a 12:1 shooting ratio on a 120 minute movie, including all the photochemical finishing and 15 prints struck. That seems like NOTHING in the grand scheme of things, what's another million to get FAR BETTER quality? Sure the quiet panavision and arri 65mm cameras are unruly in size, they also tend to have more down time then 35mm cameras, according to cinematographers I've talked with who've used them. However, in the grand scheme of things, being able to project your masterpiece on 70mm 1:1, is pretty incredible and FAR better quality then any digital presentation currently available. So yes... if you want quality, why not just go for 65? The downsides are worth the results on a big movie.

 

When you're just messing around at home, screening things for a few local people, who cares what you shoot on. I know it's fun to experiment, but in the long run, if you aren't getting paid, what do you gain by making something only a hand full of people will ever see? In my book, the whole point of making entertainment is so people from around the world can see it. This way you can get feedback, learn from your mistakes and next time around, make something better. Plus, filmmaking is all about telling stories, so if you're not sharing those stories, what's the point of telling them? So where it's cool to have special film-only projects, what you do with them has little to no bearing on the rest of the world, unless the rest of the world can see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Nobody is shooting 12:1 ratios these days. More like 100:1 on those big movies. 'Hateful 8' was apparently 30:1, which is atypical and impressive: http://vashivisuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ShootingRatiosC3.jpg

 

That kind of discipline doesn't really exist anymore, too many other factors at play. From actors not wanting to do camera rehearsals and hit marks, directors not willing to previsualize scenes and shoot for the edit, etc. There is a ton of fear that you will 'miss something' if you're not constantly rolling, often with multiple cameras. Hard to see any film shooting 12:1 or lower these days unless it is a low budget indie film with a strong creative team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard there was a photochemically made print of Carol running around, but the BluRay is absolutely the DI.

 

 

 

There is indeed one – which was what played at the film's opening in Cannes, and will be at Metrograph next week in NYC. Though it is not photochemical, it's a digital-out. NY Film Lab closed before any possibility of answer-printing and they weren't budgeted for it (Lachman and Haynes personally paid for the print).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're just messing around at home, screening things for a few local people, who cares what you shoot on. I know it's fun to experiment, but in the long run, if you aren't getting paid, what do you gain by making something only a hand full of people will ever see? In my book, the whole point of making entertainment is so people from around the world can see it. This way you can get feedback, learn from your mistakes and next time around, make something better. Plus, filmmaking is all about telling stories, so if you're not sharing those stories, what's the point of telling them? So where it's cool to have special film-only projects, what you do with them has little to no bearing on the rest of the world, unless the rest of the world can see them.

 

Agreed 100%. That's why I chose Super 16mm. It' the smallest format you can get that professional film look. I watched a lot of recent Super 16mm on Youtube and Vimeo and I'm 100% convinced: that's what I was always looking for. I'd say as a rule of thumb: no higher than 200 ISO/ASA. The grain becomes distracting. BTW: I must be nuts, but I just bought a 100 ft reel of fresh (2009) fridge stored Kodak Ektachrome 100D (E-6) from a trusted seller on Ebay (already established communication - very nice guy!). I can get it processed and scanned at top notch quality for about half the price in the UK (only serious drawback: one splice in the middle because it's hand processed. I'll keep it until I know my camera and know it won't harm the film stock. The only cheaper option to do test footage is the Wittner (it's 200D, I'd love having the choice of finer grain100 ISO - but that's not going to happen I guess) and it is estar based, but if it runs smoothly it will be just fine (E-6 process also). Kodak Vision 3 50D is the way to go (for me) for sunny days or with a lot of light, but I have yet to find a turnaround deal which doesn't drain my account.

 

If I'm satisfied with my results I plan on uploading the footage to YT (Vimeo costs money when any kind of self promotion (commercial use) is involved, and in my case it would be (mostly music videos and behind the scenes footage from our band - always a great subject) and make it available as downloads in BluRay quality/format. To be frank: on my old graphic card in my 2009 PC it doesn't look better than YouTube, just different and even a bit harsher regarding grain.

 

The restored (looks to me like taken from either very low generation or camera neg - very likely before the optical printer stage where the image is converted to anamorphic for 35mm "Panavision style" 4 perf full image height screening) versions of Leone's Spaghetti Westerns look fantastic (it's spherical Techniscope, 35mm 2 perf not including the optical soundtrack area - meaning: not that much larger than S 16 and 1960s film stock with it's gritty look and muddy colors).

 

Here is Kodak E 100D footage processed and scanned/graded by the "boutique" UK based lab with the great deals (about half the cost of a normal "industrial" lab, scanning is Muller 2K (yeah, it's boring amateur footage, looks like 18fps(?), but I love the look: lush greens, rich blacks, nice white balance and pleasing orange-ey skin tones):

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is shooting 12:1 ratios these days. More like 100:1 on those big movies. 'Hateful 8' was apparently 30:1, which is atypical and impressive: http://vashivisuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ShootingRatiosC3.jpg

 

That kind of discipline doesn't really exist anymore, too many other factors at play. From actors not wanting to do camera rehearsals and hit marks, directors not willing to previsualize scenes and shoot for the edit, etc. There is a ton of fear that you will 'miss something' if you're not constantly rolling, often with multiple cameras. Hard to see any film shooting 12:1 or lower these days unless it is a low budget indie film with a strong creative team.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Recently re-watched the classic John Ford Western "The Searchers" (VistaVision - that's roughly the image size of 70mm camera 65 (?). Very static camera, just some pan and tilt (didn't see the entire movie this time but what I saw had no tracking shot of any kind) and the composition/framing is just great. The indoor scenes are meticulously done (definitely all with marks). Takes a lot of discipline indeed.

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're just messing around at home, screening things for a few local people, who cares what you shoot on. I know it's fun to experiment, but in the long run, if you aren't getting paid, what do you gain by making something only a hand full of people will ever see? In my book, the whole point of making entertainment is so people from around the world can see it. This way you can get feedback, learn from your mistakes and next time around, make something better. Plus, filmmaking is all about telling stories, so if you're not sharing those stories, what's the point of telling them? So where it's cool to have special film-only projects, what you do with them has little to no bearing on the rest of the world, unless the rest of the world can see them.

 

Even when messing around at home, screening for a few local people, it doesn't hurt to care about what one shoots on. More important than which gauge you shoot on is making the most of whichever one you do decide to shoot on (for whatever reason you do shoot on it).

 

Its not only fun to experiment there is also an audience for such. Entire film festivals are devoted to experimental films, all around the world. Not everyone's cup of tea but it's an existant audience. There are all sorts of film festivals. Animation festivals. Science fiction festivals.

 

If you are not getting paid, it doesn't mean only a handful of people will see the work. It depends on how well you distribute it. Multiple screens world wide isn't a bad result for a short film.

 

Film making is about telling stories, but it's not only about that. If it were only about that, why bother with film at all - just write a novel. And with experimental films (for which there is an audience) the story aspect is not necessarily that important. Music videos are examples of film making where the "story" is not that important. All films tend to have a story of some sort whether you, as the filmmaker, intend it or not. The moment you start to write about any film (including music videos, etc) you are writing some aspect of it's story.

 

The rest of the world can see your films. There are film festivals across the entire planet screening short films and feature films. Start there and work back to what you want to show there.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is shooting 12:1 ratios these days. More like 100:1 on those big movies. 'Hateful 8' was apparently 30:1, which is atypical and impressive: http://vashivisuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ShootingRatiosC3.jpg

 

That kind of discipline doesn't really exist anymore, too many other factors at play. From actors not wanting to do camera rehearsals and hit marks, directors not willing to previsualize scenes and shoot for the edit, etc. There is a ton of fear that you will 'miss something' if you're not constantly rolling, often with multiple cameras. Hard to see any film shooting 12:1 or lower these days unless it is a low budget indie film with a strong creative team.

 

The last 16mm film I did, which was also a narrative work, the shooting ratio ended up being 4:1. The previous one was 3:1. So if nobody is shooting with this kind of ratio I must be that nobody. The exception which proves the rule perhaps.

 

A filmmaker I know made a film with the smallest shooting ratio I've ever seen. It was a one second shot, where the print made from such was about 15 minutes long.

 

I quite enjoy the discipline of working to small shooting ratios. I don't have any particular ratio in mind when making the film. I'm just ensuring that the film is worked out in such a way that what is shot, is what is meant to be shot. The only reason the ratio isn't any smaller is due to mistakes that are inevitably made. The performance misfires. An iris left open. A microphone in shot. Some bystanders inadvertently walking into shot. Etcetera.

 

This isn't necessarily the best way to make a film, but it's certainly not the worst. There's a particular kind of film that results from such which I very much enjoy. Its not about saving money. That's just a nice byproduct. It's about getting a particular kind of film on the screen.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Nobody is shooting 12:1 ratios these days. More like 100:1 on those big movies. 'Hateful 8' was apparently 30:1, which is atypical and impressive: http://vashivisuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ShootingRatiosC3.jpg

 

That kind of discipline doesn't really exist anymore, too many other factors at play. From actors not wanting to do camera rehearsals and hit marks, directors not willing to previsualize scenes and shoot for the edit, etc. There is a ton of fear that you will 'miss something' if you're not constantly rolling, often with multiple cameras. Hard to see any film shooting 12:1 or lower these days unless it is a low budget indie film with a strong creative team.

Well, that furthers my point, modern filmmakers don't know what they want, so all they do is waste money. It's not like a documentary where you'll be running the cameras on long interviews to cut out bits, with a scripted narrative, you should only really need to shoot any given scene what? 5 times? PLUS mistakes? That kind of efficiency is so critical when working on film, but not with digital productions. I guarantee you, if you go back to the 90's and before, you'll see ratio's in the 12:1 range on big shows. We've just become sloppy filmmakers today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Film making is about telling stories, but it's not only about that. If it were only about that, why bother with film at all - just write a novel.

Which is the first step to making a movie in a lot of cases.

 

And with experimental films (for which there is an audience) the story aspect is not necessarily that important. Music videos are examples of film making where the "story" is not that important. All films tend to have a story of some sort whether you, as the filmmaker, intend it or not. The moment you start to write about any film (including music videos, etc) you are writing some aspect of it's story.

It's like abstract painters who throw paint onto canvas and call it "art". It's only "art" because THEY say it is. It's the same with filmmaking my book. You can say "experimental" movies have their place. However, a filmmaker who is focused on experimental filmmaking is someone who is basically "telling" you what they're making is "art". This is the problem with anything experimental, I don't want to be shown a pile of metal welded together or a painting that looks like someone opened up a can of paint and it splattered onto the canvas. To me, what makes "art" so special is the fact that true "artists" can do something the average person can't do. When I walk into an art gallery, I want to see works from people who are very special and experts at what they do. When I see something that looks thrown together and the filmmaker says it's "art", they may fool some people, but not me. This is why we have some basic standards to follow and why people expect stories in all visual content from music video's and reality tv, through soap operas and feature films.

 

Yes... MOST music videos have some story they're telling because it's in the music. In my eyes, the best, most brilliant musicians can tell stories without any lyrics, just via mood. Take those same musical instruments and have them yelp out crazy sounds that have no bearing on anything, it's just noise. To some it's "music" but what defines music is the organization of those sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...