Jonathan Benny

Low budget movies often suffer from a lack of camera movement.

The ultra low budget choice has been to go hand-held, which actually creates more camera movement than the average film.

Is it worth it? How often do you think the camera should track, crane, or pan/tilt to give enough production value without going overboard?

Will a distributor be more likely to buy a low-budget film that has multiple crane/dolly/steadicam shots? I'm not so sure thats what they are looking for in a low-budget film at a festival. Festival films that get a buzz get a buzz based more on story concept and characters rather than camera movement.

In answer to your question: Its not worth it if you are only doing it to increase apparent production value. If a producer or director is dedicating precious dollars towards a dolly just because it will raise the production value, then I feel he/she is doing a disservice to the film - the money could be better spent. If however, the film really needs a smooth look as a necessary element to tell the story, then of course, one should try and make it so. But that is an issue related to story rather than production value.

Just my opinion,

AJB

Landon,

I agree with you in part.

I believe the relative physical sizes of the screens between ratios is secondary to the actual shape of the boxes that the images are framed in. It is an artistic choice related to composition. Yes, originally scope was designed to wow viewers with its width. But I believe filmmakers' approach to the "scope" ratio has evolved and has rendered its original purpose secondary - not obsolete, but perhaps secondary. An anamorphic 2.39 western which features panoramic views of the desert is clearly approached in a different way than a super35 2.39 character-driven film taking place in a prison. The prison film might actually benefit from being projected shorter than 1.85. And perhaps the western would benefit from being projected wider than 1.85. What is of importance is that the film is shown in its original aspect ratio. Not that it be bigger or smaller.

A theater, though, that is designed so that the 1.85 image is taller than the 2.39 image could be viewed as having a design flaw as it relates to the original purpose of the scope experience.

Just one opinion.

Jonathan

I DO NOT think that the film industry should strive to reduce the costs of making films and reduce the costs of distributing films.  I think it should push the boundaries of what a film is, doing what it has never done before in terms of the stories it portrays and the places that it takes people who flock to theatres. 

The film industry by nature, like any industry strives to stay competitive by keeping costs as low as possible while at the same time distributing products to the most people as possible using the easiest and cheapest available method. That is the industry's mandate which is different from the film artist's mandate.

The film artist must strive to push boundaries and carry forward the evolution of the artform. Many of the filmmakers who are currently pushing those boundaries are using digital cameras and perhaps won't be horrified at the idea of their films being digitally projected.

film is the art of depicting tangible-real world images in a way that is artistic.

Personally, I feel that film can also be the art of depicting intangible-unreal, unworldy images in a way that is artistic (on any format). But I suppose that's another topic...

Digital origination, like film can be a valuable and absolutely valid way of achieving your definition of film. My most recent film was shot in 35mm. I'm shooting my next one on the sdx900. It seems unfortunate that one would assume that the 35mm one has more artistic merit by virtue of its format. That would be kind of like saying an oil painting has more artistic value than a charcoal drawing - and making that statement before even seeing the works themselves.

Just one opinion,

JB

How did you do that? Unless you use a very specialized anamorphic lens when shooting, you are ultimately going to get a stretched (horizontally) image because you are taking a 16:9 (1.78:1) image and stretching horizontally to achieve 2.35 - everyone will look short and fat.

From my experience the only way you can achieve a proper 2.35 image from a true 16:9 original is to letterbox (unless you are using a special anamorphic lens). What do you mean by "it worked?" - what exactly did you do to achieve a 2.35 image from a 16:9 original without letterboxing and without ultimately ending up with an image that appeared stretched horizontally?

Thanks and regards,

JB

I worded it incorrectly. I just wanted to box the 1.78 (edit, it wasn't academy flat) video to 2.35, without manually adding black construction boxes above the video. I knew there was a correct way to do it so the video would display correctly. I wanted an authentic 2.35 video.

 

Thanks guys, it worked! Never saw that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a different aesthetic..but here all they are trying to achieve is the "FILM LOOK"

 

Manu Anand

Bombay

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the objective isn't to find a new aesthetic, rather, to find a way to get a film look (particularly on a tv display) without paying the $$ of film origination.

Currently, there is no digital system that can do what film does in terms of look, and I'm not convinced that there ever will be. But for better or for worse, for some people the simple objective is still there: to find a way to get a "film look" without using film.

Just one opinion,

JB

... but everyone there was shooting video or DV and calling it filmmaking.

I think we've reached a point where the term "filmmaking" does not relate to a particular format.

Indeed, "Dancer in the Dark" is a great film by a great filmmaker who shot it on video. And yes, I imagine his ratio was quite high.

Additionally: it is my opinion that it is not the format (ie film or video) that makes a particular job challenging, rather, the requirements of the scene itself.

Both film and video each offer advantages for making the job "easier" - it's more about what the filmmaker and cinematographer do with those advantages to create something memorable.

Just one opinion,

JB

If you want the tunsgten-lit scene to look "a bit" orange, it would be better (in my opinion) to use tungsten stock and add some orange (or straw) color to the lights, or add a filter (say, a 1/4 coral) to the lens. Shooting a daylight stock under tungsten lights gives a certain type of orange that goes beyond the "bit" you might be looking for.

Just one view on the matter,

Jonathan

Hello Riku

thank you for your answer.

So I can just use tungsten film stock with tungsten lights which will basically provide neutral colour and with the usage of gels on lights can add the colour i need. Is that right?

 

If i would like the scene to be a bit orange, i could just use daylight film stock with tungsten lights which give the same effect as using tungsten film stock with orange gel on lights, isn't it?(Please, correct me, if i'm wrong)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can use a china lantern to key your walking subject. Light the walls and the ceiling of the church from below: place units on the floor (hidden behind pews or along the wall) pointing upwards to create a sense of ambient light coming from below. The light can also illuminate walls this way.

Just one way of doing it,

Jonathan

I'm shooting a very technically complicated shot in a church on 16mm.

 

The shot is a dolly back frontal medium close up on a man as he walks down the aisle all the way to the altar.

 

-No side balconies to light from above

-Also, the further the camera pulls back, the more of the church is revealed (therefore, nothing on the sides or on the ceiling can be seen)

-No cutaways

 

How on earth do I light this?

 

-Sean

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For me, this would be more an issue related to contrast than exposure. A spot meter can be usefull to get an idea of where those beams of light are sitting relative to the subjects you want lit in the forground or background. Also, depending on how hard or soft your back-lighting is, and how you are flagging it, will effect the overall contrast of the scene. Interior haze doesn't really dictate the exposure setting, in the way I work, unless the haze specifically has to sit in a special way for story. If the haze is being used for atmosphere, usually I'll get an idea of where the exposure is going to sit without it first, and then the haze and backlighting are added and adjusted to that depending on how prominent I want the effect to be - and if you know the stock you are using well enough, you can do it by eye.

Just one view on the issue,

Jonathan

hey everyone.  i have a shoot coming up where we plan on shooting in areas where we plan on creating a light haze atmosphere with a fog machine, nothing too thick, but where there is enough fog to create a smoky atmosphere and you can see the lines of the lights.  my question is: how does this kind of atmosphere effct exposure?  do i have to compensate at all for the fog, or will everything be ok if i simply trust my light meter?  thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's actually a very simple operation. Aslong as you have had a bit of experience, know what you are doing, then it's no problem at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The actual operating of the equipment might be simple, but I see the colorist's work as being kind of like that of the post-production sound-mixer. Sure, there are lots of colorists who can give you a "safe" and "legal" image (and even just achieving that can be in itself a very slippery slope). But the ones I like to find and work with are those who really, really understand what color can do to the story in the same way a DP understands it. That takes a lot of experience and I'd even say some intuition that I'm not sure can be "learned".

Just my opinion,

Jonathan

It's good to have ideas of what you want and when you talk with you dp, show him/her scenes from films that you like and remember to be open minded and ready for those ideas to expand or change as a result of the dp's input.

Based on what you want, you might want to experiment with diffusing the image at the transfer stage rather than at the camera stage. This, unfortunately, would not allow you to achieve the same look on print as on the transfer, unless you go through a digital intermediate.

If you are going to place diffusion at the transfer stage, make sure you talk to your colorist/grader about the color-saturation you want and also about the contrast - and always include your dp in those discussions.

I would not suggest using Fuji 400 or Kodak 5277 if you are going for the look you described (if I understood it correctly) especially if you are doing an optical blowup - not because they are bad stocks, but because there are other stocks out there that might take you closer to where you want to go with this. Your dp will no doubt have his/her favorite stocks and methods for achieving the look you want.

There's nothing wrong with using filtration at the camera end if you are going telecine. However, when and how you filter can be different depending on whether you know you are going to do a contact print, or if you know you are going DI, or if you know you are just transferring for broadcast.

On one of my films, I shot a 35mm 500asa stock, pushed it a stop, transferred it with diffusion in the gate and had the colorist boost the saturation a bit - the look was somewhat grainy, dreamy and clean (I know you don't want "clean" but the graininess worked nicely against that). I made extra sure to keep the highlights under control.

Just one idea. There are others...

Jonathan

If you are shooting on film, a daylight balanced stock would be useful.

Do you want most of the light to be motivated from the daylight coming in from outside?

If you have your main lightsource coming from outside, it makes things a little easier, (especially if you are going for a natural look). You can use existing daylight coming in (and/or supplement it with an HMI) and make that your main key source. Inside, turn off as many of those existing practicals you can (or have them removed) and only keep the ones you absolutely need, on. Hopefully, either all of the aquariums are lit with the same types of light and therefore will have the same "commited" color, or, if you can, outfit the aquariums with your own kino units. As your shots move deeper into the shop, use smaller daylight balanced units to "continue" the daylight source you have established earlier on. (I'm making some assumptions about the scene you're shooting) or the HMI outside might do this for you if it big enough.

Use bounce cards or smaller daylight balanced units for fill (and even add a bit of straw or something like that to them so they have more of an interior ambience feel).

If you don't have any lights at all then go with a fast daylight stock and try to make the daylight ambience coming from outside do the work for you while you turn off unneeded practicals (except for those in the acquariums). Using a shallower depth of field can also make strange colors in the background seem less-distracting - especially if the audience does not associate them with objects.

Just one idea - I'm sure there are others.

Jonathan

Hi All,

 

I have the challenge of filming a scene in an aquarium shop in a few weeks. I've been to the store and they have every light you can think. Fluoro lights, UV lights, Incadescent lights, DAYLIGHT...it looks like a nightmare as far as colour temps go.

 

Has anyone been in a similar situation ? Any tips?

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are a number of sources online that indicate 2 frames per second.

You might have to find an original article about the film to get confirmation on this.

Jonathan

Okay,

These are not bad. But here is my 2c worth:

Take a look at the picture furthest to the right (oranges). To me that's the best one and the reason is that it has what I feel to be a "commited look" - contrast in the image that "grabs" me. You know what I mean? I realise that perhaps you didn't have the equipment to do this, but what I feel the other frames needed was for you to take a bit more of a "risk" in creating contrast on your subjects.

When you light the scene, look at your monitor and see what happens when you use what you would think is "too much" light from one side or another and then work from there to achieve a look that you like. Don't play safe. Take some risks. The oranges and glass shot works for me because the lighting is commited to something. See what happens when you use the same approach on your subjects - particularly the 2nd from the right could have used such an approach. Also, don't forget that the background is as important as the foreground when making choices. Not only can you build contrast on your subjects, but you can choose to build contrast between your foreground subject and your background.

Just my opinion,

Jonathan

An 85C used outside instead of an 85 can take you closer to where you want to go. Remember though to shoot your chart with an 85 and then replace the 85 with an 85C before you start shooting the scene.

An 85C gives a partial correction towards tungsten and therefore will yield a result that is more "bluish" than if you did a correction with the 85 (or 85B).

Try to get your hands on some 48 or 12 and use an 85C (exteriors). Then play in the telecine suite.

This advice applies only to exterior daylight scenes.

jb