GregBest

I was branching off David's mention of story and context. maybe my limb was too far :)

Thanks for all that feedback, David, I REALLY DO appreciate it! Read every bit of it, twice. :) I absolutely agree EVERYTHING begins and ends with the story being told - or there is no point filming no matter what the medium or desired look may be. And that mantra will ALWAYS be my first reason for filming (don't count ANY of my current work since it is only camera tests). But, usually for me now that I have gotten picky, I prefer whatever visuals I am watching to be the absolute best looking visuals they possibly can. Couple things here jumped out at me: IMAX seems to be the Epitome of quality, yet it has the least grain - which is fine, so I kinda of assumed most would want to get as close to IMAX quality as possible, be it 35 or digital whichever. Another angle I just thought of, what if someone made a new OLD NOIR looking movie that was NOT grained up to look old? Like, if they had the modern clean gear back in 1938? Might be a weird off putting, sterile, looking black and white show but I think it is only weird because we are used to it being a certain way and expect it. Yet, there are other ways things can be, like clean, old, noir. Back on topic (if possible!) of Interstellar, for me, I was pulled into the story much faster when I saw the versions with less grain. I know, that is just me. :) (I've been adding grain to most of my videos anyway!)

Grain reminds me that it is on "film" and subject to the flaws inherent with that, but I've never had a reaction to it - other than: "ok, this one is made to look aged on purpose". I do understand "one person's art..." etc, but I'm kinda watching the evolution of all the visuals that are happening... hearing from various camps: don't like change (indie film forums), and all the amazing options that are coming out. It's been difficult for me to wrap about directors wanting the grain, verses: "that is simply what film does and there are no other options" pre digital. I've read of directors cleaning up grain on some blu-rays... to the viewers contempt... but doesn't that mean the director wished, wanted, and preferred a non-grainy film initially? And that it was simply not in the cards at the time? Now that I am attempting to make films (digial video really) myself, I've gotten super sensitive to coloring, lighting, contrast, judder, and grain. I apologize guys, I am just a new film guy and I realize many of you are industry professionals, so thanks for putting up with my awkward perspectives and questions. I'm soaking it all in!!!!

What sort of feeling or emotion should I be getting from "Grain"? I don't want to be close minded, I just don't understand it.

I thing I don't understand... how does "Extra Grainy" or ANY grain for that matter,help tell the story better? I feel motion pictures are "Motion" "Pitcures" of real life things: people, locations, sky etc, and that is part of connecting us too it. And I don't see grain in real life. Seeing through a layer of grain used to be the only option for motion pictures, but now it is not. How does dirtier looking help it be better? Serious question about respect for grain.

I use Sony Vegas Pro 13 - it has 5.1 Surround mixing and encoding, and I been studying the controls there. I have Yamaha HS80's for main stereo monitors (120 w bi-amped or something), then got a Logitech 5.1 computer surround system for $150. It actually sounds half decent and I use it MOST of the time now. It's obviously not "pro grade" but helps me sort sound field, and I can check on any home theater system - but still working out the bugs of making a 5.1 Blu-Ray disc (as in: I haven't done that yet) Usually, I download current trailers or reference my BluRays or DVDs for levels, eq, RMS, surround placement etc. I'm just here seeing if anyone here mixes real movies and has some basics they follow :)

hahahaha noted. :) I do plan to use some "sub" enhancers here and there.... where fitting, of course. Just watched a couple movies.... shocked how quiet the standard dialog was compared to the big music and loud/exciting parts.

Cool thanks, good to know. I DEFINITELY am a "listening" type guy. Vegas seems really capable audio wise, I'm enjoying it.

I'm an amateur film maker with a background in music mixing and mastering, which is all about slamming peaks. Now, getting into "Movie mixing" and observing things in commercial movies like most dialog is between -25 and -18, and the action explosions my hit peak and dynamic music between the two. Are there any basic rules of thumb any can give me like: start with all channel faders at -30 and work up from there?? Feeling lost and alone - no one around me knows movie mixing at all. Also starting to test the waters of 5.1 surround, but that is a whole other philosophy. I'm using Sony Vegas Pro 13 FYI Here's an example of my last "complex" audio production... It works, but I was still in LOUD MODE. Anywhere from 5 to 20 audio tracks in this one: http://youtu.be/d9ZNlI92uYw?t=7m9s (apologies for the amateur EVERYTHING in that video.. these are sandbox testing videos for me to learn everything) I would love any hints, tips, tricks, to aligning my audio with commercially finished blockbuster movies. Am I aiming too low? :D Sure, Skywalker Sound has 100 channels with full automation, and many professional full time staff members, but I want to give it a shot.

The effects were planned from the start, but where and how much will be dictated by flow of the scene edit. It's an off kilter comedy so the police lights will show up in bizaar, unnatural ways*. But, heck, this is all no budget learning fun and I am learning a ton from you guys! So, thanks for this valuable input! * I had two more police lights, but they fell over the side and the lamps broke :(

Yeah, I HATE HATE HATE the ceiling look, but my location options didn't exist - maybe I can put some "smoke" over it. Love the flashlight idea but doesn't fit the script. Bad guys have guns with lights on them, but his tools were taken. It sure is great hearing some helpful, valuable ideas! Thanks so much!

welp, nothing turned out like I wanted, but it will be usable. Thanks so much for the input!! Primary reason I try this crap is so I can learn what not to do and how to see ways to do things better! :D I'm adding lots of FX like lights flashing, bullets flying, smoke and explosions, but here is a very bad quality, low res, poorly graded quick test of one of the 10 takes. In the end, focus isn't didn't matter a bit and it looks way better in 4K. https://copy.com/FmOfNT0BBQHI0Hsi

No, my friends are all married. :D

That is probably the only realistic answer, but I am shooting wholly alone. :) I think physics is against what I think I want to do. I'll try a few different lens and go with whatever is closest to working.

I'm doing the cliched run down dark hall toward camera with bright spot light behind. There will be a few flashlight LEDs on the walls, and 3 cheap rotating police lights that are no very bright. Being a new amateur filmmaker, I'm unsure how to keep it all in focus shooting alone. I know my f1.4 lens will be too small DOF, and cranking it up to f10 will be too dark, so I thought I'd reach out for other ideas? Adding light isn't my option since I don't have any and I want dark shadows as well. I've got a toy fog machine I have never fired up yet, and that might enhance the effect, but I worry about triggering smoke alarms. But I think FOCUS will be my real problem - maybe focus for the end of the run? The shot will end up maybe 2-3 seconds max (and that might be too long) and, although transitions scenes, is really designed for me to screw around with my camera and learn something. Any trick I am not thinking of to get larger stretch of focus in a dark hall?

Yes, it was extremely warped looking. I only went to see the FILM projected. :( Also saw Dark Knight there and missed half the action looking around. Never again. I'd prefer the cheapo theater over big roundy image. Defenitely a UNIQUE experience! ... that I don't recommend to anyone! :D Oh well. I guess the locals think it is cool and support.

Watched Interstellar on a flat Imax screen (unsure if digital or film) and enjoyed it. Especially enjoyed the audio. Then, watched it in on 70mm real film, IMAX dome, seated near projector, worst looking movie I've seen in a long while. Maybe it was the dome seating where it seems you are too close to the screen, but the contrast was lost on the black hole travel scenes, and any darker scenes, color seemed dull, grain was too present, and focus was bad due to distance to the screen. Missed half the action looking around the dome, and spent time POINTING out something I knew my friends were not looking at. Also, didn't enjoy HEARING the clickity of the projector. Dialog was sometimes buried by music, but I am getting used to Nolan movie poor sound mixes. Sadly. Judder/flicker seemed about the same. Personally, after two movies I saw at this IMAX Dome, I won't be going back. And "Film" no longer looks great to me. I hope to catch INTERSTELLAR in 4K next, as well as a typical digital theater just as a comparison. Just my opinions.

ooh good point! Here's my DIRECTOR'S LIST: 1. safety first 2. safety first 3. safety first 4. ALWAYS feed the talent and crew 5. have fun

START with a great story! Directing actors in scenes with sets and lighting and audio and action is a yawner if the story does not develop and resolve in an attractive way for the audience. - my four cents (inflation)

Went better than I was expecting for my first studio experience!

Excellent point. Thank you David.

anyone? no hidden gotchas, just point and light?

I see the brush marks on the rear projection screen in the "sky" during the monkey scenes. :) Not sure if it was dusting, painting or cleaning but now I can't NOT see it.

Sunday, I'm filming girls dancing silhouettes with a white background for a fun personal / learning project. I've rented a studio with a white wall. My goal with this session is having fun learning my new lights, and creating a title sequence for my spoof. Since I have no real lighting experience (other than reading and looking online), thought I'd post here to see if anyone has some good advice. The studio is for stills only so they have no lights to use. I have 3 CFL soft boxes with stands, one can do an overhead thing, 3 1000x leds (colors are kind of off-ish), and 2 cheap fresnels: 350w and 660w My goal is to splash bright light on the back wall, girl dances in front seeing only her dark outline figure. In the end, I will be replacing the background with various overlay colors and effect - exactly like most James Bond title sequences. My best guess is: point the softboxes in from the side, out of view, try to keep the lighting smooth and even, maybe use the LEDs to fill any weak spots? The girls don't need any light on them, I want them to JUST BE well defined dark "shadows" infront of the bright back ground. Could probably be all Black and White filmed as well. I'm filming with a Pannasonic GH4. Any and all input appreciated! (Safety First are the first 3 items on my "Directors" list, so I will be briefing everyone about lights getting hot, posting warning signs, covering wires with tape, keeping people away from electrics etc) going for something sort of like this, girl wise, not the background:

thanks for this BTW! I found it most interesting and educational.