my film look for my first independently produced film which I'm also directing

[s. swift]

Hello I'm a first time user, who's first question is a large and broad one that may result in people being extremely irritated . But I'd appreciate if - instead of telling me to look elsewhere - you could help a truely enthusiaitic person.

I'm gearing up to produce and direct my first independent feature film, and have some questions, primarily about achieving the fundamentals of a film look. However this question is far more specified than just how do they get the film look - I mean I've learned that the staple of a film look is shallow depth of field high dynamic range etc.

Before I begin ( and I will get there) I want to shoot digitally - so I don't have to waste my limited cash on film stock - and so I have greater control and can take repeated shots/takes etc. Also I want to achieve a professional look with the minimum fuss as possible; what I mean by that is I don't want to buy a camera, wheer the quality is good but not good enough ( meaning that then I'd have to search high and low for a setting - indoor or outdoor - that's good enough to register on my camera). And also a camera that I can use without needing any lighting equitment. Basically what I mean is I want the type of lenses and camera combination that will give me a film look with as little work as possible, also if these conditions coul be achieved with the cheapest price as possible that would be good, but not essential.


So here are my question(s)

1. on a percentage basis how much importance are the relationships between the lenses, camera's, lighting equitment and colour grading for getting a pro movie look.
for example is 10% down to lighting 20% lenses 10% colour grading 60% camera used. or is it something like 23% camera 70% lenses, 2% colour grading, 5% camera.
well that's the type of answer I'm looking for.

2. what are the best (and possibly cheapest) combination of camera and lenses to give the best pro look for example I know 28 days later was shot with a really cheap camera and expensive lenses ( I think they were expenss). so can anyone give me a good combination of camra and lenses hat could give me a pro look

3.What are the colour grading programmes that most american film studio's use - when and if - there in the process of using them.

Thanks. I'd really appreciate your response and expertise thank you.

 

[s. swift]

possibly

 

[Daniel Dols]

I don't think you can make an estimation like that. Parts can compensate eachother. Also, if you have a 'good base quality', other aspects are becoming far more important.

For example, for some projects, the ($600) Canon 550D would give as good results as the RED, so in that case, camera use would be important, but the choice between RED and 550D won't be important. It depends on your experience, knowledge, and simply what you want to do. You have to set a 'baseline of quality'.

I'm working on a short with a few people which will run in a cinema for about a week which really is entirely shot with a 550D with kit lens and $99 50mm 1.8, which is perfectly fine for the project. However, if i were to to make the camera choice there, i would probably have used - indeed - a red, simply because i want the higher resolution and raw files. That does not mean at all that the 550D is bad for the short, but it does mean that in the way i personally want to work, the red would've been a better choice.

Why you also can't give percentages is because bad lighting can totally ruin a film, but a bad camera or bad grading can do also. It's the complete package which just has to fit and work with eachother. The choices you make in that package don't really matter.

Of course, there are some expectations and standards for quality, but those are just the 'baseline', which is achievable really quickly these times.

 

[Richard Foster]

Good equipment is important, lenses, camera, lights, etc., but MOST IMPORTANT is TALENT, TASTE, EXPERIENCE and SKILL as a DP and as a Director. Preproduction - planning every shot, scouting every location, rehearsing with every actor, being so prepared you know everything forwards and backwards will make your production go smoothly.

What you are asking is really too general. More of the "look" of a film is determined by lighting and camera angle and lens choices and camera movement choices than by what specific light brands etc. are used. A lot can be done in post these days, but the most important choices are made on set.

Hope this helps.

 

[s. swift]

well I appreciate the replies, though they haven't truely helped. I respect the whole technology is now substitute for talent.

But to be honest I've gone out of my way to capture quality images based on my talent and compositional skills, and while I agree that's important - I was still using a really cheap consumer dv camera that really did not help me.

So I'd really appreciate further input, and imo if it gets the job done then I don't care - because I'm good at picking my images out anyway, it's the camera and lack of lighting or lenses that completely let me down, fully limit my scope.

so please help, and do give a percentages with - regard to that question - if you can thanks

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

No one is going to be able to give you a formula for how to make your film look good. It all depends on what you are trying to do -- one film might need dozens of lights, another could be shot with available light and a bounce card.

I will say that I've noticed people just trying to get started with filmmaking tend to overestimate the value of a camera and underestimate good lighting and sound. I've seen many an amateur with a prosumer camcorder and an expensive wide angle lens, and no microphone, no lights, and a shitty tripod.

Best cheap(ish) camera for your money: RED Scarlet 2/3 fixed. If you need to start shooting right away a DSLR might be the way to go as long as you understand its limitations.

 

[s. swift]

thanks but for dslr's are quite bad, and look more suited to documentaries imo.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

... it's the camera and lack of lighting or lenses that completely let me down, fully limit my scope...

Once you've realized that I think you can best answer the question yourself.

On the other hand that statement could also mean that you are relying less on your own skills and more on the equipment.

10 years from now when you have had a lot of experience you will look back at this question and still wouldn't know the answer. But by then you would have worked with DPs, Production designers, Art directors, etc. and realized that they are more important than most of the equipment used.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

There is no quite and easy way to get a film look otherwise everyone would be doing it. It takes time, money, and considerable talent. That being said however let me try and answer your question:

You will need a good camera. If you are shooting now I'd recommend the RED One. For the price, you're not going to beat it. Otherwise you're stuck going with DSLRs (which you seem to not like).

So you bought a RED but it's not going to look good at all without proper lighting. You can be cheap and do everything outside during daylight but I'm guessing you'll need some lights for interiors. I personally like soft lights such as Kino Flos but it's really your personal choice. If you look around you can find pretty affordable lighting equipment. Don't skimp on lighting because you will regret it.

And finally for the best picture quality you are going need a colorist. It can be you or your best friend, it doesn't really matter, as long as the person knows what they are doing. Color and DaVinci are pretty popular but even basic color correction in Final Cut or Avid is essential. I can't stand seeing a properly shot film but the person did absolutely no color grading. It's quite revolting.

Obviously there are many other things to consider such as lenses, your DP, and others but those are the essentials. If you leave out one, you will hate yourself for it. When it comes to a Good Camera, Good Lighting, and Good Post, shortcuts can't be taken without sacrifices.

 

[s. swift]

please keep the answers coming, i will say that so far you seem to have given me an oprah winfrey style answer whereby- '' you cant do one thing without the other'' - without giving me the helpful specifics I want.

also wouldn't lighting outdoors, - where your surrounded completely by natural lighting (like your in a secluded park) - be odd if you used lights or is that what they do.

well that question above is n't that important but please give me a hand with the others thanks so far.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

Sorry I realize I didn't answer your original questions:

1. This is hard because everything is important and certain things vary between different shoots and directors but if you want my PERSONAL opinion forced into your percentage question, I would say:

Camera 30% Lighting 25% Color Grading 20% and Everything Else 25%

That's probably a horrible answer because I am just setting myself up for people to disagree but if you must have a specific answer to the question, that's the answer I'd give.

2. 7D, 5D, HVX200, EX1, and the EX3 are all really popular cameras for a budget but definitely have their limitations. Zeiss, Cooke, and Leica are the popular Pro lenses but also come with hefty price tag. Nikon/Canon glass would probably suit you just fine.

3.Color and DaVinci are the main ones I hear about around here. And studios ALWAYS do color grading.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

also wouldn't lighting outdoors, - where your surrounded completely by natural lighting (like your in a secluded park) - be odd if you used lights or is that what they do.

You certainly don't HAVE to use lights outdoors and most times people don't. However you will most definitely want a bounce of some kind. You can use a lot of different things to bounce light onto your actors and many methods are pretty cheap.

You could also use lights outside but that depends on the looks you're going for. Probably don't want to do that if you aren't familiar with the technique because it can definitely look odd if done improperly.

 

[Steve Das]

also wouldn't lighting outdoors, - where your surrounded completely by natural lighting (like your in a secluded park) - be odd if you used lights or is that what they do.

Lighting outdoors is to fill in the shadows or at times to provide backlit
edges. But if you have to ask such a question about lighting
outdoors...then you are probably not ready to be trying to direct
a feature just yet. Give yourself some time..couple of years or so..
it's ok...you're still learning..and this is a good place as any for it.

But honestly there are 4,000 films submitted to Sundance festival in
competition each year and they accept only like 25 or so. If you are
really determined to make a feature now..go for it..you will learn alot..
just be carefull.. and don't blow up a bunch of money on it.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, it sounds like you made up your mind already.

But the question itself indicates some misunderstandings about what makes good films.

Talented, trained and experienced cast and crew are 80% of the solution.

The people are the most important part of the puzzle. With good people you can make a crappy camera and limited resources look great.

Without good people, you are just screwed.

Also, crew does things no gear can do. Like finding and securing locations, set design, and make up and planning, and acting and... it goes on.

Camera systems are important, but not paramount. 8%

DSLR's are great... if used properly. If you think they are only good for documentaries... then you don't know how to use them. As a person who has shot both RED and DSLR, both to accolades, they can both get the job done.

They have limits, but to my mind some of those limits actually allow you to implement better solutions.

As an example, sound recording sucks on DSLR's... which immediately justifies second system sound. The result will be much better sound than any in camera sound system. Of course, you must have a crew that understands how to work with second system sound.

A RED MX is better than a DSLR under almost every circumstance. The notable exception is where small size is a critical factor.

All that said... crew matters far more than gear. Why bother with a RED Epic and Arri Master Prime lenses if your 1st AC can't keep the show in focus?

Camera support and movement is a huge part of what makes a picture look good too... but I include them with camera in this breakdown.

I would say lighting is very important. 3%

First off, as it says in the Box book... a film without light is radio. As a corollary a film with bad light will look bad no matter what camera you use.

So, you need lights, but you also need the trained and talented crew to use them. Both grip and electric.

There is a point though where you should cut your camera budget if it means keeping the appropriate lighting budget. Your DP is the best person to consult about this.

Sound is definitely important, just as important as camera 8%

All the fancy mics and other junk though pales in comparison to the sound crew.

1% of your picture can be put down to all the rest of the technical crap we have to use to do the work of film making.

 

[David C]

I personally think lighting is most important, but it's all very important. I'm sure you've thought of this already, but sound is very important also. Bad sound can ruin even the most beautifully shot scenes.

But yeah, lighting, composition, lens choice, angles, movements... get these down and you'll have some great looking shots.

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

also wouldn't lighting outdoors, - where your surrounded completely by natural lighting (like your in a secluded park) - be odd if you used lights or is that what they do.

If you are shooting on an overcast day you are often fine without lights. But direct sunlight gives you way too much DR. You will need to fill the shadows, either with lights or with reflectors, unless you want them to look totally dark.

 

[Sid Idris]

perhaps rather than asking for the film look you could drill down on what aspect of the look your searching for... Sometimes you can solve your problem more simply. For instance a decent stabilizer along with a few well timed shallow depth shots can force the audience to focus on a subject and give them a "cinematic" experience??? An effect that can be achieved successfully with any number of cameras (HDSLRs included). Check out Anders Overgaard's video (http://vimeo.com/11043263) You might find it useful.

 

[Bruce Watson]

...have some questions, primarily about achieving the fundamentals of a film look.

A hugely broad question. The "film look" question.

Old engineering adage: If you can't define the problem, you can't solve it.

That said, here's a thread that hits on this topic. Maybe this will give you a place to start. IDK.

And here's something that you might consider way off topic, but is in fact very much on topic. That is, half of the "film look" is good quality sound. Nothing will rip a viewer out of his/her suspension of disbelief faster than bad sound.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Spend money on a DOP, who is enthusiastic about your project, and time talking these things through with them.

The percentage of what is important to achieving the look of a film, changes literally from shot to shot, so even if you took the budgets of every film you ever liked the look off, averaged out the money spent in each department, and used that for your percentages you wouldn't get a true indication of the actual percentages for regular use. This is because they might have spent a ridiculous amount on a crane and associated grip gear for one shot, or a huge amount on lights for one scene, and very little on those things in other scenes.

Sometimes a film look is defined by having lots of smooth camera movements - in which case grip gear becomes more important than lighting equipment or camera (especially when out doors)

Sometimes it's defined by having particularly well defined shadows, 'painting with light' as they say, in which case lighting equipment becomes very important.

Sometimes it's about having the right depth of field, field of view, and camera distance from subject, and the ability to pull focus from one depth to another to change the audience's point of interest in the shot, in which case lenses may be the most important.

Sometimes it's defined by the characteristic of the footage in the way it reacts to daylight and is able to be color graded/timed, in which case the film stock and/or digital sensor might be the most important.

In a given shot it's a combination of some, but not always all of the above that gives a film it's look (that makes it feel like it's professionally made.)

And finally, it's the ability to combine all of the above different elements, and their disparate use from shot to shot, which makes a film feel consistent and polished and allows the camera, lighting and grip departments to tell the story along with the contributions of the writer, the director, the producer, the sound department, post production etc.

The answer to your question can fill many many books worth of pages. In fact, for your individual film a DOP could probably write a whole book on what will be the most important places to spend money for each individual scene and maybe even shot.

So don't think about the project in terms of percentages for a movie as a whole, think about it in terms of either shots and scenes and what is visually most important to you and then ask questions about those shots/scenes -

OR, you can do the reverse which is this - compile a list of gear that you are considerign owning, then lay out the scenes in your story, and ask a DOP/someone with experience how you could effectively block those scenes using the gear you have access to and still achieve an interesting look.

If you really want to know what the film look is, it is this: Versatility. Films that look like films have either the budget, fore thought, or ingenuity to be able to apply the right sort of equipment to any given shot - and usually it's a mixture of budget, fore thought AND ingenuity that has to be used to get the job done. The feature film look is 100% generated by this combination of factors and how they are applied to every individual shot, then every individual scene, THEN to the movie as a whole.

If you have a limited equipment list, then you can use fore thought and ingenuity to tell your story in an effective way, and it will look like a film. It may not look like a big budget film, or like it was shot on film stock, but it will still look like a film.

Things that look like 'video' generally look that way because they have not had as much forethought put into them, because by the nature of most video footage you see (recordings of news or live events) there is intrinsically less ability to spend time thinking about shots before being able to shoot them.

Large budget films and tv shows may in fact also have less time to think about the shots before they shoot them than many independent projects, and they get around this issue with a combination of budget (the more gear/lenses etc you have in the truck you can pull out the more you can adjust to situations on the fly) and ingenuity (the more experienced you are the better equipped you are to come up with an ingenious solution in a small amount of time.)

Now - after that huge diatribe, from my personal experiences in filming I'd say the percentages break down roughly as follows in given situations:

Exterior daylight shot with lots of interesting action in front of the camera - Lenses 35%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 25%, grip gear 20%, Lighting/Electrics 15%

Exterior daylight shots with characters walking/talking but not much of interest otherwise happening.
Grip gear 30%, Lenses 25%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 25%, lighting/electrics 20%

Exterior Night Scenes with lots happening in front of camera
Lighting/Electrics 50%, lenses 20%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 20%, Grip gear 10%

Exterior Night Scene with characters walking/talking but not much of interest otherwise happening
Lighting Electrics 60%, Grip gear 15%, Lenses 12.5%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 12.5%

Interior Tungsten scene with lots happening in front of camera
Lighting/Electrics 40%, Lenses 25%, Grip Gear 25%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 10%

Interior Tungsten scene with characters walking/talking but not much of interest otherwise happening
Lighting/Electrics 30%, Grip gear 30%, Lenses 30%, Sensor/film size+Dynamic range 10%


Bare in mind, the above is not a DOP's perspective but more of a producer's perspective - i.e I don't innately know what would get used in each scene, but I know where I would place relative importance on departments/gear based on the type of shoot it was, if I was trying to make it look filmic.

Also bare in mind each scenes percentage is not, cost wise, relative to each other.

A night time exterior scene is going to be more costly to prep the camera, grip and lighting department for than an interior tungsten scene, so while in both cases the percentages add to 100, you might in fact need to double the cost for the night time exterior scene over the tungsten interior scene etc, and then apply the differing budget percentages as well.

 

[Mark Collins]

They get the film look by shooting film. Film can look like whatever you want it to look like. Shallow DOF is actually more a staple of digital than film, especially with cameras like the 5D and 7D.