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 (http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=220043). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[Andrew Wilding]

There are no magic answer or quick fixes. There is no "Film look". There is a "professional look" and an "unprofessional look." There are stunning films and atrocious looking films. Both shot on film. On the same stocks with the same lenses. It comes down to technical ability and taste. This is not dependent on the type of lights, type of camera, type of lenses, or any criteria other than the person tasked with creating images with these tools. He or she must know the strengths and limitations of various lights, lenses, formats, etc, must have the taste and talent to conceive appropriate images, and finally, must have the technical ability and know how to make these images a reality, no matter what tools he is given. Within reason, of course.

No one wants to hear that the reason their stuff doesn't look professional is down to there own lack of knowledge or ability. Its nice to imagine that "x" camera or "x" lenses will suddenly make there work on par with the masters. The responsibility is, unfortunately, on you, the artist. Lights, Lenses, Cameras etc are tools. They are brushes. Caravaggio, Vermeer, Rothko are not great artists because they have the best brushes. They have the most talent, technical ability, and above all taste.

Of course, one wants to use the greatest tools at ones disposal. Of course, given the choice (and its appropriateness for the project), I want a stock with lots of dynamic range, low grain, and good color fidelity. Or a comparable digital camera. But if the budget says you need to use 16mm or a lower end digital camera, you need to know how to produce outstanding results within the limitations of the format. Maybe that means lighting within a very small amount of dynamic range. This calls for very precise lighting and metering to get a good, dramatic image that squeezes every bit of range from the format. Or, perhaps it means embracing the limitations and letting highlights blow or exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows go black. Its all a matter of expertise and taste.

[Erik Franzén]

Seriously, the 'film-look' is a big damn thief that needs to get the hell out of your head -- it is robbing you of your creativity and good ideas...and planting atrociously bad ones instead!

This imaginary 'film-look' that so many non-working proffesionals (disclaimer: I am not working...nor proffessional!:willy_nilly:) seem to be searching for is really non-existant. I mean, seriously, have you thought what the film look really is all about? It is basically the averaging of every major movie made in recent memory that is then condensed into the most basic elements as experienced by you as a viewer and then, finally, portrayed as the 'ideal' to look towards. All this is then portrayed as the look of film because, you know, every major movie is shot on film! Oh, the irony in all that.

Embrace the limitations and be free! Sometimes a limitation is a killer for your movie. Fine. Find something else that works for you (and I assure you, there is) or reconsider the monetary requirements of that particular script -- maybe you are chewing more than you can swallow? I know I do.

In the end, from my perspective, you should focus on what you can and what you want to achieve in a particular scenario instead of chasing down equipment that achieves the film look. Shallow depth of field, shaky cam and etcetra -- that is the 'film' look. Or no! Wait. That is the new 'hollywood look'! I meant to say that smooth panning, incredible expensive crane jobs and smooth highlights is the 'film-look'!

Don't listen to me. I am just a poor student trying to get his passion into the making! But listen to everyone else here, they know what they are talking about. And, more importantly, find some zen in the knowledge that not every movie needs this 'film-look' of yours -- it just needs to appeal to the eyes of the audience, aka. no vomit-inducing jello-hell footage!

P.S. I also agree with "experienced crew is more important than equipment" - that is 110% true! You'd be amazed the difference it can make putting the same cam with two crews with difference experience levels - the results are stagggering! :eek6:

[Gunleik Groven]

Bribe, schmoose, carry coffee, do anything to be 3rd AC for a DP you really like the look of, then the next, and one more - while simultainously shoot your own stuff with whatever equipment you have.

That way you'll learn the two best ways:

1. Seeing what others do
2. Doing yourself

Both are equaly important.

There's no other way than a mix of these....
Equipment is important, but you don't need it if you don't know how to use it.
I know that is a circular argument, but it is meant like: Try to make the best out of whatever you have access to instead of making nothing/the worst out of what you don't have.

It's more fun that way, too...

And fun = good if you want to do this for a couple of years....

(.... or: Film whatever and add Magic Bullett, but I am afraid you won't learn much that way... LOL )

[George Butterfield]

Lighting and colour grading have nothing to do with the "film look" you are talking about.
To realize the "film look" you must shoot onto a receptor ... film or chip, which has the dimensions of 35mm film .. you must use lenses that cover this format, and you should shoot at 24 fps. This will give you 100% "film look".

[Gunleik Groven]

Lighting and colour grading have nothing to do with the "film look" you are talking about.
To realize the "film look" you must shoot onto a receptor ... film or chip, which has the dimensions of 35mm film .. you must use lenses that cover this format, and you should shoot at 24 fps. This will give you 100% "film look".

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

To me a film looks like a film if it is told like a film.
A S35mm sensor is a much overrated parameter for that IMHO, even though I have one... -:)

Is a FF35mm more "filmlook" than some old S16 stock and an old Angie?

I think it's silly to say filmlook = specific equipment.


(And I am so tired that I am rapidly becomming Grumpy Old Man...)

[Jeff Coatney]

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.


1. I don't think you can quantify these elements in this way because they are subjective. To achieve what you want, all must be equally weighted. Your desire is to have your film appear as a technical and aesthetic equal to any other film in the marketplace- at least in the minds of the audience.

This requires that your film have the components you mention. In this way, all the components are important and no one component has a greater numerical or percentage value than another-- because taking even one of them away affects the perception of all the others. In short: taking just one factor away could result in overall failure in the perception you want to achieve, thus the value of one component is disproportionately weighted when viewed separately from the others combined. They are all required, and at a professional competency level.

2. The best, yet cheapest combination, is to use a Red One with either Red Pro Prime lenses or a Red Pro zoom. Feature films are almost universally shot using the 35mm format, so this aesthetic is what your audience expects to see in terms of quality, resolution and depth of field. The only camera system that can give you all of the components for a professional, unbiased feature film "look" affordably is the Red One with PL mount cinema lenses. However, you must edit and finish with native r3d's to get the most bang for your buck.

3. As for grading, very professional level results can be achieved using Final Cut Studio's Color suite.

[Scott Crawley]

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.

If you staged your shots cinematically; correct angle, appropriate camera motion, good composition and lighting etc., then your shots will look cinematic regardless of your equipment.

Sure grain, frame rates and sharpness will effect the overall appearance, but if the other elements of cinema are present, your film can still look cinematic... Even on consumer mini DV.

You've heard the expression, "We have good, fast and cheap... You may pick any two."? Well in my experience you can run a similar equation on gear:
gear + skill= outcome. So if you want your outcome to equal 10, but your gear is only 3... Then you have to bring more skill to the table. It really is that simple, and I think that is what Jeff is also saying. If you are not getting the 10 you want, it might be wise to focus more on the skills.

[Gunleik Groven]

But of course, if you have a set of S4's, a MB 20, an FF4, lights and diffusion, filters, grip and a crew + talent all around - it's fun in a different way.

But I just don't go with the "filmlook" paradigm...

[Richard Foster]

In the end you need to decide what your look is. Trying to define something subjective objectively is limiting. For example many feel that shallow depth of field (T 2.8 or so ) is part of the film look. But then look at Greg Toland's superb deep focus look in "Citizen Kane." And many feel that soft light is the look, but then look at the great use of hard light in "Film Noir."

As Gunleik said work for the best and observe and try your own ideas at the same time. It takes both. It's a journey and there are no shortcuts.

[s. swift]

thank you for all the answers. some of you have given me specific answers which is great; like useing red pro primes with red one. and leica lenses are one of the top 3 etc. i've seen leica consumer digital the saturation and colour is execptional.

keep it coming. by the way about film look being a thief in my head please lets be real - your talking thrash. sure the differnces between films in the 70's like rocky 2, chinatown etc. look nothing like twilight 1 or city of god in the same way that those films look hugely different to films like raise the red lantern and being john malkovich - BUT - they all (and this inlcludes EVERY film released or shown on t.v.) have clearly a professional cinematic look that's clearly noticeable.

please keep helping, and I'll keep sshowering you with praise in return

[s. swift]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

composition and lighting skills are all you need

gear is gear..

[Zakaree Sandberg]

your talking thrash. sure the differnces between films in the 70's like rocky 2, chinatown etc. look nothing like twilight 1 or city of god in the same way that those films look hugely different to films like raise the red lantern and being john malkovich - BUT - they all (and this inlcludes EVERY film released or shown on t.v.) have clearly a professional cinematic look that's clearly noticeable.


70s films dont look like 2000's somethings films because the stock has graduated to many different levels..

before your fastest stock was 100 asa.. Now look at it..

plus the color rendition, resolution, dynamic range, and grain levels have improved dramatically.

if you want the "film look" go shoot on film.. panavision offers many student programs as does kodak.. youll quickly learn that if you dont light the scene properly or shoot it right, that "Film look" wont save you.

digital may be a little harder to light because of dynamic range restrictions, but that is quickly changing

[Andrew Wilding]

Pensioners?


What a little brat you are. People are trying to help, and are giving you honest answers and attempting to educate you. Sorry if these answers aren't the ones you were looking for - but they are the correct ones.

Ok, you know what?

Shoot on Anamorphic 35, with Master Primes and only use Arri lights.

Thats it, thats the secret. I expect you will be thanking me when its time to collect your academy awards.

[Gunleik Groven]

LOL

I really didn't feel THAT old...

But I stand by what I say: Get out and work on your own and other projects and see what they do with all that lovely kit.

The kit inself is not generating much of a filmlook.

But now I am off!

[Stephen Strangways]

Also I want to achieve a professional look with the minimum fuss as possible... And also a camera that I can use without needing any lighting equitment.
There is no camera or lens in the world that can magically overcome poor lighting and deliver a professional look all by itself.

Here's a behind-the-scenes shot from The Nothing Men showing what goes into lighting a "simple" outdoor shot to achieve a professional look:
http://www.red.com/skin/img/nothing/big_scene4.jpg

That might be an extreme example, but the point is this: you'll be much farther ahead with a serviceable camera and adequate lenses combined with a small lighting/grip kit and some skill in setting it up, than you would be by expecting a RED with Leica lenses to miraculously give an un-lit shot a professional look.

[Bryce O]

The answer is really simple these days... Get a 5D/7D and start making some shorts. If you cannot achieve the "film look" with one of these cameras, quit. If you CAN achieve the film look with a DSLR... then start saving up for a Red or rent one if your project is bound for the big screen. While the DSLRs may not give you film "quality" (which is still subjective), they most certainly can give you the high-budget cinematic "look" if used in the right hands.

[Richard Foster]

Also an obvious resource - American Cinamatographer magazine. Stephen's jpg brought that to mind. Articles and lighting set-up diagrams and commentary from the best - every month. And you can go see in the theater what you've read about.

[Craig Parkes]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.

I was happy enough giving you help in my first reply, after this post I now regret wasting my time.

Learn some manners and grow up, then worry about what it takes to shoot a film.

[Brian Petrie]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.


As many have stated it is nearly impossible to give a quick direct answer. There are way too many variables to take into account. No simple equation will work for everything. I find it rude to make a remark like that about people trying to share their knowledge and help you out. While sensor size can help to make a movie look more "filmic", it is not an end all be all, just take a look at the past academy award winners for cinematography .

My advice would be to listen to people here, read alot and get experience. The only short direct answer would be get a 50 million dollar budget and just buy the best talent/gear/production team, even then it isn't gauranteed. Otherwise, as others have stated, use some ingenuity, get some good talent and surround yourself with experienced people all while learning as much as you can.

[Mark Collins]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.


Pensioners? Pensioners?

Oh wow....most of the people here have years and years of experience in the film industry. Would you call Roger Deakins a pensioner?

As someone above me posted, and as I have posted before. You want something to look like film, shoot film. Kodak supports students to the point that they will occasionally give out free stock, especially if it's their Vision 2 stock.

Panavision is also extremely supportive of the student and independent world. If you talk to any rental house and tell them your budget, they will work something out for you, guaranteed. PS Production Services here in Toronto has been amazingly helpful with student films.

It never hurts to ask.

[s. swift]

i'm sorry if i offended people by calling them pensioners.
the person who called me a brat is only the 2nd person other than my father who called me one last summer to call me a brat.

I think though it's quite noticable that in every post I thanked everyone for their answers - and took nobodies help for granted.

anyway I'm very much interested in further help.

are there any red one camera's that cost less than 17.5 grand (I can save up but could get one quicker if it was maybe 2-3 grand cheaper) , as in 2nd hand that are in reasonable condition. also what are the cheapest lighting kits I could get.

sorry for sounding like an amateur - my knowledge of cinema/production/writing/film business is greater than my knowledge of being able to instantly make a scene look filmable.

Could someone perhaps help me answer this question also: when a director is choosing a scene to film, does the cinematographer take into account what the image already looks like; as in would they say that this location is wrong beacause wer'e not able to make it look filmic, or does a modern day d.o.p./cinematographer instantly know how to make every scene look filmable and automatically tell the gaffer/ grips to place these lights there or there etc. or do this do that etc.

Basically can they instantly turn any interior/exterior into a film look?

[Scott Crawley]

Being appreciative goes beyond a mere "thank you". You should demonstrate real thankfulness by being kind and respectful of anyone who bothers to offer aid, whether you agree with them or not. If you ask with arrogance you are likely to get a poor response. When you clearly lack expertise and criticize respondents who do have some, you come off as arrogant.

If you deal with your DP on set in the same manner, things are likely to go poorly for you.

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but if your own father has called you a brat within the last few months, then that lends credence to Craig's assessment.

[Gunleik Groven]

As to 1
I guess you could pick up a minimal executed R1 M package at bellow 17,5 k.

As to 2
You're starting off in the wrog end IMHO...
Any location can give a "film look". Just playing with moving the camera an inch or a foot, up, down or to either side may quickly change the "look and feel" of the scene.

A main difference (if one can generalize on these subjects - which you know I think you can't) between a "TV" and "film"-look is that you take into consideration your intended format. A big theatre, or a 20" - 50" screen.

Going "all close and shallow DOF" can be quite annoying and privatizing on a big screen (but if intended, that's just cool), while TV photographers tend to go that direction, because it suits the format (i.e. smaller screen...)

Also I think film-photographers tend to be much more "brutal" in their exposure practises, letting things burn out and go black without worrying too much, while TV photographers more often are affraid to expose "out of the limits".

This can give some really interesting looks.

Start playing with shooting through things, like windows, doors, branches and furniture to give your image richness and depth and enjoy the compositional oportunitiest offered by the larger screening-format. Just basically: Test and have fun and find out what YOUR film should look like, rather than going for a "filmlook".
I still think that the best advice I can give you is to schmoose yourself into sets with DPs you respect and see how they compose their images. You might get surprised at how practical they are, as to achieve what they want....

I was in Iraq with a really fantastic DP doing a local independent film. We basically had no lights, little grip, to few assistants, no useable filters, had to cook up reflectors etc as needed, and crap lenses, but every single frame I have seen from the film screams "Film for the theatre".

It's really not magic, just photography.
And what makes a look is knowledge and confidence as to your artistic toolset.

Kit won't give you that. Practice, persistence and analyzing skills might...

[Tim Hole]

The internet is full of pages on this. Study a little.

The question is not the film look. What you are looking for is what is cinematic. There is a few ground rules. 1/48 or 1/50 shutter. Add some ND to knock down the light so you can open up and decrease DOF a bit (don't go crazy like all these DSLR DOF whores who are basically not only showing they are amateurs but also have no grasp of follow focus and come off looking evenmore amateurish).

Its not about what lighting, more about how you control the light.

We shot a film in Poland last year with several HV30s and only available light. The film looks fantastic. We could have shot on a variety of formats including RED but for practical reasons we didn't.

Shoot Progressive.

The grade is gonna be pretty restrained if you can't get a nice clean image.

Denoise a bit and add some grain to stop banding and other issues.

Giving a ratio of importance is pointless.

[Richard Foster]

Learn to see, not just look. Expose yourself to great films, great paintings, photography, sculpture, etc. Learn by observing what works in other media. Learn to see the world as if you were filming it.

I used to give this as an exercise to my assistants when they first started. Take a black 8x10 piece of cardboard and cut a 1.85:1 rectangular 7" wide hole in it.

Observe everything through this mask. Lighting on people and landscapes. Composition. Move your eye closer to the mask and it's a wide angle lens view. Move your eye further away and it's a long lens view.

Do this as often as you can. Believe it or not, such a simple device can teach you more about seeing and developing a film look for yourself than getting a list of the right equipment or devices. When you learn how you like light to look and what angles you like to see things from then you're ready to take the next step and begin to discover how to achieve your look. It's a process, and it takes time. There is much to learn. None of the greats got there overnight, and they all keep seeing and learning all the ttime.

[Mark Collins]

The internet is full of pages on this. Study a little.

The question is not the film look. What you are looking for is what is cinematic. There is a few ground rules. 1/48 or 1/50 shutter. Add some ND to knock down the light so you can open up and decrease DOF a bit (don't go crazy like all these DSLR DOF whores who are basically not only showing they are amateurs but also have no grasp of follow focus and come off looking evenmore amateurish).

Its not about what lighting, more about how you control the light.

We shot a film in Poland last year with several HV30s and only available light. The film looks fantastic. We could have shot on a variety of formats including RED but for practical reasons we didn't.

Shoot Progressive.

The grade is gonna be pretty restrained if you can't get a nice clean image.

Denoise a bit and add some grain to stop banding and other issues.

Giving a ratio of importance is pointless.


It's hard to do follow focus on a DSLR as any slight jitter translates into an earthquake through the lens because the camera has very little mass to stabilize it.

[Charles Angus]

i'm sorry if i offended people by calling them pensioners.
the person who called me a brat is only the 2nd person other than my father who called me one last summer to call me a brat.

[snip]

Could someone perhaps help me answer this question also: when a director is choosing a scene to film, does the cinematographer take into account what the image already looks like; as in would they say that this location is wrong beacause wer'e not able to make it look filmic, or does a modern day d.o.p./cinematographer instantly know how to make every scene look filmable and automatically tell the gaffer/ grips to place these lights there or there etc. or do this do that etc.

Basically can they instantly turn any interior/exterior into a film look?

Not the DOP on their own. Making a film look "professional" (which seems to be what you mean, as opposed to making it look like it was shot on actual film) is equal parts camera, lighting, casting, acting, mis-en-scène (I'm including camera placement and lens choice in here), and art direction (I'm lumping costumes, makeup, etc. into art). Sound is as important as those things, but obviously has no effect on the look (to be literal).

It's a common mistake of gear fetishists / amateur filmmakers that the camera and lighting are what make a movie look professional. You could hire Roger Deakins to shoot your movie, give him every piece of camera and lighting equipment in existence, and the crappy actor with bad skin in the rundown suit in the slum apartment still won't look like a good actor with good skin in a $10,000 suit in a penthouse in Manhattan.

Not to be pedantic, but it does sound like you might be falling into that all-to-common trap.

Lot of good info in this thread, though, to get you started.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

making a movie look like a movie is more than just lights camera and action..
you need amazingly good audio both location and post
set decorating is huge, as is costuming..

if any piece is missing, you may miss the boat on what your aiming for.

[Joe G.]

You should shoot everything with the aperture all the way open, preferably a 1.2 or 1.4. Try and get it so that even when the eyes are in focus, the nose is blurry. This is the hallmark of the film look, and it is called shallow depth of field.

You should also buy every type of film related accessory that you think may be useful. Get them all, as you can always use them on set.

Don't worry about script either, or sound. It's all about that money in the bank shallow depth of field.

[Jaime Vallés]

The tools do matter, to a degree. You give a 35mm movie camera to a 6-year-old and it will look like film. You give a 60i HDV handycam to Spielberg and it will still look like video.

Now, of course the 6-year-old's film footage will be crap, and Spielberg's HDV footage will be awesome, but that's not about having the "film look" as much as it is about having the footage look "pro," which is what I think you're after.

It's the "pro" look that requires lighting, composition, coloring, production values, etc. And to achieve the "pro" look you need talented people working with you, as others have discussed here.

But at the very least, use a camera that shoots in 24p. That alone will make a huge difference in the feel of the footage.

[DCC Erickson]

Well all I can say is - if your script sucks, none of this (NONE of this) matters. None of it. No one pays to see the pretty pictures without a story. And no one in the audience gives a fk whether you got the "film look" or not. If you're directing, I'd spend way more time worrying about your script & actors than your choice of lenses or how much attitude you can put on an internet forum. You did say "directing", did you not?

[Mark Collins]

Well all I can say is - if your script sucks, none of this (NONE of this) matters. None of it. No one pays to see the pretty pictures without a story. And no one in the audience gives a fk whether you got the "film look" or not. If you're directing, I'd spend way more time worrying about your script & actors than your choice of lenses or how much attitude you can put on an internet forum. You did say "directing", did you not?

To be fair, people paid to see Resident Evil Afterlife...and that was pretty pictures, but no story.

[s. swift]

i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.

[s. swift]

i've no doubt that someone will say you spent awards wrong, and therefore your script must be terrible - don't bother, thanks to everyone else,

[s. swift]

spelt

[s. swift]

I was just wondering can anyone explain why the red one used to be priced at 17,500 and is now at huge 25,000.

More importantly is it now impossibe to buy one for 17,500?

[Gunleik Groven]

You are good at making friends...

Have you heard about the MX upgrade to the RED now being sold included?

As i mentioned, you can probably pick up an executed un-upgraded-to-MX original R1 minimal package at or below 17.500.

Cheers!

[mike ogden]

What 'independent' department of Warners would that be, then? They shuttered back in '08.

[Mark Collins]

i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.

Ah, the sweet, sweet rage of children...or people that act like children. Here I was thinking this is a professional forum, full of adults, but it's good to know there's at least one who isn't.

I hope you realize there's more that goes into development and pre-production than just the script. Also, scripts rarely win awards until after the film is done.

These people are trying to explain to you that really the only thing you can do on a digital camera to get a film look is set it to 24p. The rest of the "look" is done through lighting, shot composition, etc. This is the truth, and no matter who in the professional world you ask, you will hear the same thing.

[Tom Gough]

i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.

LOL :lol:

Must use this for my next interview :lol:

With that attitude Swifty you're going nowhere fast!!

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

sorry for sounding like an amateur - my knowledge of cinema/production/writing/film business is greater than my knowledge of being able to instantly make a scene look filmable.

So you're basically just lacking 50% of what makes a filmmaker a filmmaker! :rolleyes5:

As David Koepp said: "It's easy to imagine beautiful images, but it's hard to make them work on the screen!"



i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.

With all that money how about hiring a real DP and worrying about what you do best?! :coolgleamA:

[Jaime Vallés]

i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.
Not sure if anyone else in this thread has already linked to THIS OTHER THREAD (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1671695#post1671695), but it's probably worth repeating...

[Zakaree Sandberg]

What 'independent' department of Warners would that be, then? They shuttered back in '08.

heheh

yah im pretty sure warners independent and new lines independent group both took a dive in 08' and thus dont exist anymore..
so either you waited wayyyy to long.. or its a BS story

either way this thread is hilarious

[s. swift]

I read most of that link you provide, if that person is serious than that's hilarious.

That thing I said:

''i've already written the script you idiot - it won {awareds: and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.''

I aimed that purely at one individual who made an incredibly negative and sarcastic remark - not to mention a completely unprovoked and uncalled for remark - NOT AT EVERYONE .

thanks.

that merger may have shut down but warners still finance outside developments if they believe in the quality of what they're seeing - primarily the script; I'm under no illusion they could pull the plug at any time. It has not been greenlit and

has only 50% chance of going ahead on a low,low budget.

thanks Gunleik Groven (http://reduser.net/forum/member.php?u=88)

I know about the sensor upgrade just wondering what 's the big diffference between the original and the new would I be better off with the new

as in is the quality provided by the new mysterium sensor hugely improved versus the original

Also where can I get an un - upgraded original as it sold only 2nd hand and only on the postings on this forum?

peace out.

[Gunleik Groven]

http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/files/MXTesting_Part01.html

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44679


You have a bit less latitude, and you'll need some more lights, it's a bit more temparamentful, but I am really a sucker for the image from the M....

[mike ogden]

s.swift - "that merger may have shut down but warners still finance outside developments if they believe in the quality of what they're seeing - primarily the script; I'm under no illusion they could pull the plug at any time. It has not been greenlit and has only 50% chance of going ahead on a low,low budget."

Okay, no offense, but so far you've displayed an awful lot of naivete with your questions, which is okay as you're starting out.

I would honestly just hire a DoP as you seem to be asking to learn a lot in such a short space of time, when really you should focus on the story and direction side of production. I've had 20 years of camera experience but I have no intention of lighting my own film. A DoP will help you decide the best camera/post route, of which Red I am sure will be one. Maybe by the time you have the dosh, Epic will be out.

Also I wouldn't go justifying yourself by saying that the film is financed when it's obvious that it's nowhere near being greenlit, going off what you said. That also just looks silly.

Now take a deep breath, get the film financed AND greenlit (they are actually two different things) and hire a DoP. And good luck.

:)

[Richard Foster]

Jaime - nice link, oh so true.

[s. swift]

also do the origian l red's shoot 4k I thought that was the idea but I've heard that the image can be compressed and loose its quality and be knocked back to 2-3k???

[Bryce O]

What kind of script is it? Action or dialog driven? Because if there is going to be allot of dialog and bantering, you can forget about buying just one camera. No point in having a nice 4k image if there is a chance that performances are going to suffer.

[Scott Crawley]

What kind of script is it? Action or dialog driven? Because if there is going to be allot of dialog and bantering, you can forget about buying just one camera. No point in having a nice 4k image if there is a chance that performances are going to suffer.

There are many schools of thought on this, but unless he has a top shelf ensemble, or a cast of children, I wouldn't be so concerned about covering dialogue with multiple cams. Shoot it with one, and be certain that your editor knows their shit.

[Bryce O]

There are many schools of thought on this, but unless he has a top shelf ensemble, or a cast of children, I wouldn't be so concerned about covering dialogue with multiple cams. Shoot it with one, and be certain that your editor knows their shit.

I was just throwing it out there since he said it was the first film he's directing. It takes some practice to nail continuity with one cam...

[Charles Angus]

i've already written the script you idiot - it won awareds and is being financed by warner brothers independent film department, so please take your unnessecarry negativity and ill will and jump off a cliff.

You need to check your attitude, buddy.

[Charles Angus]

And the rest of us need to stop feeding the trolls.

Because S. Swift is either a troll, or too rude and ungrateful to be worth helping. Either way, I'd say this discussion is over.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

i've no doubt that someone will say you spent awards wrong, and therefore your script must be terrible - don't bother, thanks to everyone else,

You know you can in fact edit your posts, you don't have to make a new one to correct the previous ones spelling.

[s. swift]

YES so can someone please let me know the image quality of red one 4k as in does it stay in 4k or loose the quality, due to compression.

I'm eager and greatful to know

thanks.

[Gunleik Groven]

@ 4k you get ca 3.2k effective pixelresolution. Tis is not due to compression, but a side effect of the OLPF.

I can't mention one other genreally available cam that gives you more resolution than the RED 1, though, and it makes for a beautifull fullrez 1080/2k - which films have been finnished in for almost as long as DI have existed, so this is hardly a limiting factor.

The R1 M and the MX are basically different in many ways. Lowlight latitude being one of the places they differ.

I happen to really like the image from the M, as a matter of opinion.

I also happen to like the MX.

You will have to do some tests and decide yourself. At this level of cameras, there are no really bad ones, but "different".

I think it would be a good idea if you signed in with your real name...

G

[s. swift]

If I was to get a red one and put on zeiss lenses would the desired pro look happen

or simply a mish mash of differing grains and gamma rays???

[Craig Parkes]

If I was to get a red one and put on zeiss lenses would the desired pro look happen

or simply a mish mash of differing grains and gamma rays???

Troll is Troll.

Good one... You got me. :)

[Zakaree Sandberg]

obviously a troll guys

[Brad Webb]

If I was to get a red one and put on zeiss lenses would the desired pro look happen

or simply a mish mash of differing grains and gamma rays???

You really want to avoid gamma rays, especially gamma ray burst.

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/swift-gamma-ray-lg.jpg

If a gamma ray burst doesn't kill you, then it could transform you into this:

http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/images/biological%20effects/hulk.jpg

[Scott Crawley]

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/carrottop-totally-looks-like-troll-doll.jpg

[DCC Erickson]

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/carrottop-totally-looks-like-troll-doll.jpg

Wow. Carrot's ripped. Looks like a carrot.

[Scott Crawley]

No doubt. I googled "troll on steroids". That was among the top ten. ;-)

[Harry Clark]

I can't believe you guys engaged for 9 pages... I just got up for an early call and got hooked reading this thread. Now I have to run!
It was like watching a car wreck in slow motion...
Cheers,
Harry

[Gunleik Groven]

If I was to get a red one and put on zeiss lenses would the desired pro look happen

or simply a mish mash of differing grains and gamma rays???

OK.

I was had for....
Gave the concession of doubt for my last reply.

I can now officially be laughed loudly at!

Shame on me!!!!

[Julian Gerretsen]

You should shoot everything with the aperture all the way open, preferably a 1.2 or 1.4. Try and get it so that even when the eyes are in focus, the nose is blurry. This is the hallmark of the film look, and it is called shallow depth of field.

You should also buy every type of film related accessory that you think may be useful. Get them all, as you can always use them on set.

Don't worry about script either, or sound. It's all about that money in the bank shallow depth of field.

Joe, I think I just literally split my sides... I'll be sending you my med bill.... ROFLMAO

[s. swift]

well actually i have no idea what a troll is.

I was asking a serious question.

why would I go to the effort of writing something down if I'm not serious.

gunleik groven had for? what I'd actually write something and not mean what I say?

I'm asking a serious question If I got zeiss lenses on a red one would I get the pro look or just substandard image, that's incompatible.

AGAIN I'M NOT A TROLL (whatever that is - other than a childs tale) I'm asking

[s. swift]

i quit this is without doubt the most negative site for finding information.

[Mark Collins]

i quit this is without doubt the most negative site for finding information.

You just have to ask nice. Good grammar also goes a long way here. Reduser is actually occasionally helpful if you're looking for info, so no it's not the most negative site. The most negative site for finding help would be something like 4chan, or the Bungie.net forums.

[Julian Gerretsen]

i quit this is without doubt the most negative site for finding information.

In all seriousness swifty (and assuming you are genuinely not trolling this site and are just struggling to get your thoughts across):

- if you want to direct AND shoot this project yourself, I would seriously consider taking a basic photography course for starters. Even a stills course will teach you enough about DOF, DR, lightning ratio's, different lenses, F-stops (virtually same as T-stops) to give you a good grounding in photographic essentials. All of the knowledge learned on stills will translate over to 24fps and you can then practice on a cheap DSLR to perfect your technique
- Get yourself some good books on film theory and composition
- Watch lots of films
- Practice with your DSLR
- Watch a whole lot more films
- I would suggest that you hook up with a pro sound person because you are never going to be able to handle this too, as well as directing, lighting and shooting
- Watch some more films
- Borrow some film books from your library on every film related subject and read, read read.
- Try and get involved with some student films or even better, some professional films
- Practice with your DSLR
- Watch some more films
- Make a few short films with your DSLR (pretend that you are shooting professionally and direct/light/photograph accordingly) and screen them to an objective audience.
- If your objective audience likes what they see, then think about progressing to the next level, i.e. your feature on a more pro-level camera like RED

The chances are that after you have progressed through all of those stages, you will have a good level of knowledge and experience and will be able to ask very focussed and succinct questions about specific film related topics, which will help everyone to help you.

Otherwise, just get yourself a good DOP and focus on developing your directorial and people skills. Once again, a few shorts and an objective audience will help you significantly before you embark on the BIG project.

p.s. This is a real names forum, so please do us all the courtesy of letting us know who you are.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

You just have to ask nice. Good grammar also goes a long way here. Reduser is actually occasionally helpful if you're looking for info, so no it's not the most negative site. The most negative site for finding help would be something like 4chan, or the Bungie.net forums.

LOL

After saying what he said he denies being a troll.

That's troll identification 101!

:emote_hippie: