Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Why do most shorts and reels shot on Red don't look Cine at all ?

Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I invested a lot of time in Cinematography (but im not that good yet that I will trust on myself) , so far I did not have a posibility to shoot with a Red Camera and I feel I will need an experienced Cinematographer when I will start shooting my first serious production what I'm planning as we speak. It's not any luxury to have specialized people on set if want to succeed. I will learn from it. Ofcourse I want the best for my film I can do this just 1 time and It cost me a small fortune. I think the right place to ask for advise would be this forum and I hope you understand the underlaying tought of my question.

There is one specific thing what makes me very nervous. We all know how good a red camera is and what it can do and overall no matter what professional film we watch it feels FILM, the look is just right but I have not enough experience with Post production to tell if it directly has the right impression or additional steps in post make it look like what we consider as a film look.

What I use as a reference are shorts and reels from indie filmmakers who own a red "one, scarlet or epic"but shoot low budget indie film. Who probibly also know how to set up a lightplan or how to edit their footage. Ofcourse every individual video has a different approach and I have seen many shorts and reels (for example on Vimeo) what have an amazing image quality and certainly I can see that these filmmakers have passion and know what they are doing but I miss a very essential detail.

In fact none of these video's no matter how high the resolution, quality and working lightplan. It never feels like film.

What I personaly consider as one of the most convincing filmlooks is "The Amazing Spiderman" The first film. I Never saw this warmth and depth in a single film shot on red. "Maybe I missed it ? But this realy convinced me that digital film can look like that warm "real" film look I love so much. Every type of film needs it's own approach so beside this spectaculair look there are many different looks what all convince me as a professional film.

So How is it possible that so many red owners have the right camera, capture interessting shots and come not even close in any way to this same results as we can consider as a film look?

Do they use a red camera with cheaper lenses ? Is the lighting not good afterall ? Bad post production ? Settings what don't match to the environment ?



The camera i prefer to shoot on is the Epic-X, my other option is the Arri Alexa

Light = all from Arri

BUT ! the lenses what could be hired with it are from Zeiss (Ultra and Master Prime and Zoom lenses) and not from Red. These lenses probibly are more then fine but for these the same as a Red Camera, I need to hire and I never had any posibility to work with it. I can not afford to choose "wrong" I need to be a little bit safe with my choices I make. I feel the best lenses come from the same manufacturer who understands their camera the best but pure and alone based on my feeling. What do you think ? Can you mention examples of films what are shot on red with these Zeiss lenses so I can have a look at these films to get a right impression of it ?

Please understand I am a writer, starting producer and director, I will have a more experienced crew on set with me but I realy want to understand why, how, etc. I want to understand how Cinematography works and why a specific lense should be the best choice for a specific situation. Who jumps in the deep without learning to swim ?


Last question: Is there some kind of guideline to follow what type of combination between lenses and camerasettings (also based on environment dark / light in or outside) will probibly give good or less results and combinations better can be avoided to come as close to a film look ?
 
Last edited:
DP, Lighting, diffusion, filtration, LENS and Colorist.
It either takes time, or budget to knock on all cylinders.

Skipping on any of those disciplines affect the shot and usually hurt.

Some nice stuff here no?
https://vimeo.com/63060016
 
I think it starts off with a "cinematic" vision of sorts, and then reach for that in all parts of the production.

Lighting, composition and "focused" shots (not as in "sharp" but shots intended to tell a specific story) are more cues to cinematic images than a lens/shuttersetting...
 
This Reel covers my exact point, It can look on many different ways but they all have the film look those 99% of all reals and shorts of Indie filmmakers don't have while they use the same Red camera. Thank you so much for this one I missed it :)

DP, Lighting, diffusion, filtration, LENS and Colorist.
It either takes time, or budget to knock on all cylinders.

Skipping on any of those disciplines affect the shot and usually hurt.

Some nice stuff here no?
https://vimeo.com/63060016
 
I invested a lot of time in Cinematography (but im not that good yet that I will trust on myself) , so far I did not have a posibility to shoot with a Red Camera and I feel I will need an experienced Cinematographer when I will start shooting my first serious production what I'm planning as we speak. It's not any luxury to have specialized people on set if want to succeed. I will learn from it. Ofcourse I want the best for my film I can do this just 1 time and It cost me a small fortune. I think the right place to ask for advise would be this forum and I hope you understand the underlaying tought of my question.

There is one specific thing what makes me very nervous. We all know how good a red camera is and what it can do and overall no matter what professional film we watch it feels FILM, the look is just right but I have not enough experience with Post production to tell if it directly has the right impression or additional steps in post make it look like what we consider as a film look.

What I use as a reference are shorts and reels from indie filmmakers who own a red "one, scarlet or epic"but shoot low budget indie film. Who probibly also know how to set up a lightplan or how to edit their footage. Ofcourse every individual video has a different approach and I have seen many shorts and reels (for example on Vimeo) what have an amazing image quality and certainly I can see that these filmmakers have passion and know what they are doing but I miss a very essential detail.

In fact none of these video's no matter how high the resolution, quality and working lightplan. It never feels like film.

What I personaly consider as one of the most convincing filmlooks is "The Amazing Spiderman" The first film. I Never saw this warmth and depth in a single film shot on red. "Maybe I missed it ? But this realy convinced me that digital film can look like that warm "real" film look I love so much. Every type of film needs it's own approach so beside this spectaculair look there are many different looks what all convince me as a professional film.

So How is it possible that so many red owners have the right camera, capture interessting shots and come not even close in any way to this same results as we can consider as a film look?

Do they use a red camera with cheaper lenses ? Is the lighting not good afterall ? Bad post production ? Settings what don't match to the environment ?

Last question: Is there some kind of guideline to follow what type of combination between lenses and camerasettings (also based on environment dark / light in or outside) will probibly give good or less results and combinations better can be avoided.
With ofcourse the main goal to get this hollywood film look.

Everything Big Lu said. But let me add that as a beginner your career will not be shaped by how filmic you production is, but by how cinematic it is.

You are comparing SpiderMan to Indie movies. It doesn't matter if you shoot on 70mm film if you don't have the budget the Spiderman look will be out of your reach.
I know you are here to learn so I'm praying I don't sound condescending.

The Red cameras are your best choices to achieve your look. Lighting is very very very very very very important. Not just the lights you point at the subjects but the lights and illumination in your shot
 
I have exact the same equipment available if it comes to camera's (lenses I mentioned above from Zeiss what I don't have knowledge about), but lighting and all other equipment no matter what I need I have available. (in Europe) for U.S. Production I'm still searching.

For me a film has to feel right, and this comes by the look so I don't agree that I can consider a final result as sastisfying as it doesn't look like a professional film but the light was set up the right way, no matter how good the acting is.. We don't build sets to dissapoint with the final impression.

Why would a look of a Spiderman film wouldn't be possible ? In fact within a livingroom type of shot ? This should be possible to look exactly the same don't u agree ?

p.s. I speak no VFX / CGI scenes, just a normal shot. Spiderman was just the most impressive look I have seen. there are tons of other films with different looks what impress me and it can be 1 shot about somebody in a car without any acting involved.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, if you have the budget, the equipment, the skilled people to use it a great post production workflow in place and a good eye then there's no reason why your film can't look like Spider Man.

However, by saying it's a low budget indie thingy you quite obviously don't have the budget or the people - and probably not the equipment.

Take for example this shot from Inside Llewyn Davis

uI12rJo.jpg


That's a shot most people would have an idea how to light, and a shot that even a low budget feature could attempt. However, when Bruno Delbonnel shot it he was using massive 18k fixtures and a great award winning lighting team. And at almost $1000 per day to hire jut for that one lamp, what low budget film can sustain a shoot with cost implications like that? And then of course he worked hand in had with the colorist to work on the overall grade and especially that signature diffusion in the highlights. All while being paid. Now as I said, there's a ton of lower budget workarounds, but if it gets you 'almost there' and then you apply the 'almost there' philosophy to every aspect of a production where budgets are a factor... Well, it all adds up.

That's why a low budget indie short doesn't necessarily look like a $70m studio movie. But then of course it doesn't HAVE to. There's room for a multitude of looks and feels out there.
 
Shot on Epic X >>>>>>

The Making of ‘Making a Scene’

BY CATHERINE SPANGLER November 25th, 2013

A behind-the-scenes look at the year’s best performers starring in 11 original (very) short films

directed by the Oscar-winning cinematographer Janusz Kaminski.


http://www.nytimes.com/video/making-a-scene/
 
To be honest, if you have the budget, the equipment, the skilled people to use it a great post production workflow in place and a good eye then there's no reason why your film can't look like Spider Man.

However, by saying it's a low budget indie thingy you quite obviously don't have the budget or the people - and probably not the equipment.

Take for example this shot from Inside Llewyn Davis

uI12rJo.jpg


That's a shot most people would have an idea how to light, and a shot that even a low budget feature could attempt. However, when Bruno Delbonnel shot it he was using massive 18k fixtures and a great award winning lighting team. And at almost $1000 per day to hire jut for that one lamp, what low budget film can sustain a shoot with cost implications like that? And then of course he worked hand in had with the colorist to work on the overall grade and especially that signature diffusion in the highlights. All while being paid. Now as I said, there's a ton of lower budget workarounds, but if it gets you 'almost there' and then you apply the 'almost there' philosophy to every aspect of a production where budgets are a factor... Well, it all adds up.

That's why a low budget indie short doesn't necessarily look like a $70m studio movie. But then of course it doesn't HAVE to. There's room for a multitude of looks and feels out there.

Thank you for making it clear.
The curse of having modern affordable equipment, beginners often forget that filmmaking is an apprenticeship based art form. If you want to make a big movie, you have to at the minimum work on a big budget production as an intern.
 
To be honest, if you have the budget, the equipment, the skilled people to use it a great post production workflow in place and a good eye then there's no reason why your film can't look like Spider Man.

However, by saying it's a low budget indie thingy you quite obviously don't have the budget or the people - and probably not the equipment.

Take for example this shot from Inside Llewyn Davis

uI12rJo.jpg


That's a shot most people would have an idea how to light, and a shot that even a low budget feature could attempt. However, when Bruno Delbonnel shot it he was using massive 18k fixtures and a great award winning lighting team. And at almost $1000 per day to hire jut for that one lamp, what low budget film can sustain a shoot with cost implications like that? And then of course he worked hand in had with the colorist to work on the overall grade and especially that signature diffusion in the highlights. All while being paid. Now as I said, there's a ton of lower budget workarounds, but if it gets you 'almost there' and then you apply the 'almost there' philosophy to every aspect of a production where budgets are a factor... Well, it all adds up.

That's why a low budget indie short doesn't necessarily look like a $70m studio movie. But then of course it doesn't HAVE to. There's room for a multitude of looks and feels out there.


+100
 
I can't tell you how many times I've had to say this here but If you really love the look of film why not just shoot film? Film has inherent qualities that you won't have to work as hard to get with digital because it's already there. Not that all the other things everyone mentioned don't matter, they do matter. But if we are just talking about the characteristics of how film captures light versus digital why don't you save and fight to shoot film? There are many benefits to shooting digital but at this point shooting film has an advantage to giving your film a different feel. Whenever I go to a film festival there a ton of digital movies but the one or two that always stick out and feel more "cinematic" if you will are the ones shot on film. And I bet all of the other digital shot movies wanted to look like film but let's face it, it's not film, it's digital and it doesn't feel exactly the same.
You want milk you go to the cow, not the chemist.
 
I can't tell you how many times I've had to say this here but If you really love the look of film why not just shoot film? Film has inherent qualities that you won't have to work as hard to get with digital because it's already there. Not that all the other things everyone mentioned don't matter, they do matter. But if we are just talking about the characteristics of how film captures light versus digital why don't you save and fight to shoot film? There are many benefits to shooting digital but at this point shooting film has an advantage to giving your film a different feel. Whenever I go to a film festival there a ton of digital movies but the one or two that always stick out and feel more "cinematic" if you will are the ones shot on film. And I bet all of the other digital shot movies wanted to look like film but let's face it, it's not film, it's digital and it doesn't feel exactly the same.
You want milk you go to the cow, not the chemist.


I thought this thread was about capturing the look of Spider man, shot on Red.
 
I actually think good actors are important for achieving the "cinematic look". So many micro budget and student films hire their friends to act, or don't bother with auditions and casting calls. To me, the difference between a totally unschooled, amateur actor and even an unremarkable but serviceable professional actor is like night and day. You don't have to be an acting aficionado to notice the difference either, I think. Audiences pick up on it. You can masterfully light a beautiful interior set but if you plop a bad actor in front of the lens it's going to be a dead give-away that you're watching a student film.

If you've noticed a lot of "un-cinematic" indie/student film reels that shot on RED it has everything to do with the size of their budget (and their own skill) and nothing to do with the camera. Even if they could have shot on 35mm or even Imax I can guarantee you a project produced on a micro-budget by amateurs wouldn't look any more "cinematic" for it (sorry if I offended any micro-budget amateur filmmakers out there).
 
Last edited:
I thought this thread was about capturing the look of Spider man, shot on Red.

No I mean general film look, I just mentioned that I consider The Amazing Spider man as the best I have seen but that is a personal thing :)
 
Back
Top