Indie filmmaking strategies?

[GlennChan]

Just throwing an idea out there about a potential way of shooting an indie feature with Red...

What if you shot your entire movie with very minimal lighting, and let Red's exposure latitude + color grading in post take care of the lighting?

By doing this, the production saves time + money by spending less time on lighting setups. Very minimal color grading could be performed for screening the movie. If it receives distribution, more detailed color grading work can be performed. This defers your costs, which is a good thing if the film doesn't receive substantial distribution (and chances are, would happen most of the time). Shooting this style allows good screenplays/stories to rise to the top and go through with distribution + polishing.

How much would you need to light?

You'd certainly try to take advantage of natural light a lot, and shoot fast before the sun changes too much. Possibly shoot with two cameras, to shoot even faster. Shooting in Hollywood helps too, since they tend to have more days of sunlight there.

Play location lemonade to get locations with good light. A single light (or a few) could be used to add particular lighting effects where needed. Certain lighting 'flaws' could be finessed in post (although this would likely be more expensive than doing it right in the first place). For example, if it was an overcast day, it would be possible to re-light the shot in post to add some modeling and light onto the faces of the talent.

Definitely see the following article to see where I'm coming from (/ stealing this idea from). Dale Launer talks about his experience in indie digital filmmaking.
http://www.dalelauner.com/press/digitalcinema.html

Where this won't work

The problem with shooting a film this way is that it may be hard to get a big theatrical release. Movies with star power are much easier to market and are profitable. But if you're paying for stars, then you might as well:
(A) Shoot like how Hollywood movies have always been shot, with big production values and lighting and so on and so forth.
(B) Shoot it all in a green screen studio and use virtual sets, like Sin City. Shooting in a studio probably allows you to shoot faster + cheaper than shooting on location with mostly natural light.

[Finner]

Hi Glenn,

I have found the below principles to be true.

If you can light, it doesn't matter what you shoot with.

If you can't light, it doesn't matter what you shoot with.


I have always found without question the light is the key to good images.

[Brook Willard]

Since this isn't specifically RED related [sort of a D.P. 101 post...], it's heading to OT.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Yup, that's my WHOLE strategy . . .

• Find locations that are already lit right, and shoot it there.
• Find locations that already look "just right" at a certain time of the day, and shoot there.
• If you're shooting in a location where you need four 18Ks, a 20' x 20' silk AND a crane to hold it, plus a truckload of other grip equipment, you're either shooting in the WRONG location, or shooting it at the WRONG time of day!

My daily life is occupied with, "Hmmmm . . . that parking lot is REALLY well-lit, AND it's all Mercury-vapor! Note to self . . ." "Wow, at 4:47PM in the spring, the sun hits that location at JUST the RIGHT angle . . . Note to self . . . etc." My basic location rule to myself is, "If I can't light it with a Kamio, a Diva, or one HMI, I simply can't shoot it." This applies of course mainly to locations I am STEALING (basically, all of them).

[Ralph Oshiro]

I was recently on the set of a major network television show (1-hour drama) doing some BTS. The sun and the sky were cooperating (plus they had the luxury of shooting on 35mm film), so the entire exterior scene looked like 100 Musco lights through a giant half-grid and a celocuke. They had a major location exterior scene with Steadicam, dolly track, principals, extras, stunt players, mechanical effects, high-speed cameras, etc. Not a single HMI or silk or ANYTHING was used by the DP. It was already "right."

[Brook Willard]

To throw a brief two-cents into this discussion, I think there's a time and place for everything. Not every shoot can be lit in post. With that said, not every shoot needs a sun on a condor. Just know which battles to pick. Is it a day exterior? Maybe a few shinys and a big silk will do it. Is it a one-line insert of some unimportant character? Maybe their light can suck for all 3 seconds they'll be on the screen.

But what if it's an important scene? What if it's a key moment? What if it's a night exterior? Being a D.P. is not just being a camera operator. Equipment is necessary, but know when to bring it out. You can do a lot with a little or a lot with a lot. Put it in the right place.

Case in point... here are a few production stills from a shoot I just completed. The day interiors? A few kinos and some bounce. The day exteriors? Some shinys, mirrors and cards. All fast, cheap stuff. But the night exterior finale? You can't do everything in post. If you need to spend the money, put the money on the screen.

I blame the director.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Well, just to make myself clear [cool BTS photos, Brook!] . . .

I would NEVER condone or practice, "making up for bad/inadequate lighting in post." My strategy is basically, "don't shoot anything that isn't already 'okay.'" Does that kinda make sense? Brook's advice is excellent, "Just know which battles to pick . . ."

[Tom Lowe]

I plan to shoot my Red feature with basically all natural light, ala my hero Terrence Malick. If I can get away with it, it will be mostly shot around magic hours and at night lit by candles, practicals and firelight.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Wow! You had a Technocrane? Cool!

[Ralph Oshiro]

I plan to shoot my Red feature with basically all natural light, ala my hero Terrence Malick. If I can get away with it, it will be mostly shot around magic hours and at night lit by candles, practicals and firelight.Sounds NICE! Yup, a million shoot days of magic hour! That's purdy stuff! Like Days of Heaven, huh?

[Tom Lowe]

Sounds NICE! Yup, a million shoot days of magic hour! That's purdy stuff! Like Days of Heaven, huh?

Yep! But imagine Days of Heaven shot in Yosemite, Tahoe, Moab, Arches, Mojave, Joshua Tree, Baja, etc, plus toss in about 40 motion-controlled timelapses, ala Baraka, and that's the insanity I'm hoping to pull off. :)

[Steve Gibby]

Capturing and harnessing the right lighting conditions (in the case of natural light), and creating and capturing the right lighting conditions (in the case of artificial light) are something we all need to do on a regular basis. Either way, we have to manipulate the technology we're using in a way that will most accurately record what we're trying to say to the viewers with the shot. I love working with natural light as much as possible. To me, nature is the original and greatest artist by far, and all we as artists can try to do is manipulate, copy, record, and/or present it accurately.

Narrative cinema is but one of the many potential genres of production of RED One, and narrative cinema with artificial light is one option within that genre, when a script calls for it. I really like the quote about lighting that Finner made, and I've heard it before. It’s very true – working effectively with light is the foundation of all image making, whether still or motion. One observation on that: in artificial lighting we create and manipulate the lighting, but in natural lighting we don't create the lighting, but we do manipulate it. I think an experienced shooter, who shoots multiple genres and styles, can readily shift gears between creating images in natural and artificial lighting, and combinations thereof. Time is money on any set or production of any genre, thus a shooter must quickly and accurately choose, setup, and record images in the proper lighting for each shot.

None of what I've said above is any news to seasoned pros in the image recording business. But there are also some intermediate and novice shooters who visit this forum, so I've summarized those concepts for their benefit.

[GlennChan]

I have always found without question the light is the key to good images.

Obviously this strategy isn't about making your images look good... it's about focusing on story. The light (and shadows) just have to be good enough to not detract from the story. Beyond good enough, I don't think that good lighting makes too big a difference on the final product. Things like reality TV show that audiences will watch something even if it has mediocre-looking images.

Certainly if you have a big budget, then it would make sense to put some time into lighting and you'll likely attract a slightly larger audience with your higher production values. But at the same time, it's still the content that makes or breaks a production.

EDIT: I don't mean to be condescending here, just throwing some ideas out there for discussion! :)

[Steve Gibby]

Glenn, I think you've hit on a valid point of the image marketplace, and that is that what we as artists conceive as good images/lighting, and what the public will readily watch and enjoy, don't always coincide. Whatever production values support and compliment the genre and storyline can be the correct choice. Certain projects, genres and content simply don't call for "filmic" image properties, and its economically and aesthetically impractical to spend the time to put them into such projects.

"Look & feel" are determined by genre, content, budget, end-user preferences, and aesthetically-dictated needs of each project.

[P Andersson]

With a good eye, you should be fine with a minimal package. Sven Nyquist (or somebody) gave an example between big budget Hollywood and low budget European lighting going from inside to out using a couple of branches to produce shade outside the door, rather than lighting up the whole interior.

I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.

[Joel Kaye]

I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.

That's a good point. RED appears to be very clean. If there was a way to push the gain it would be nice.

Also, I'd recommend anyone interested in natural lighting rent the Soderberg movie "Bubble" and listen to his commentary. I think only one scene in the movie was lit with anything other than what they found on location. Can't say I always liked the lighting - but I found it to be a very compelling way to work.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It has been discussed that shooting in 4k and then downrezzing to 2k or 1080 for edit will have the effect of adding a stop of latitude in the shadows. I cannot detail just what the physics are on that but if true it will be great for shooting with fewer footcandles.

The right type of light coming from the right places, falling on the right places, adding the right atmospherics is still a part of how we tell stories. My hope is to be smart about the use of available light, as many in this thread have suggested but I also plan to add light quite often - what I am hoping is that I can use smaller instruments.

Big grip trucks and gennys can make great images but are expensive and make permits mandatory. I'm thinking a 5 head Arri kit, a couple of peppers and plenty of bouncers can accomplish a lot. I also think that IF the handling of blown out highlights is smooth enough that exposing for the skin tone (or whatever makes sense in your scene) and letting the top end go could work for a lot of material. If the RedOne can deliver 11+ stops of latitude and the lens/filtration you choose mellows any harsh edging then perhaps we can use more of the film approach where you properly expose the shadows and let the highlights blow.

Add in the power of RAW image manipulation...

[GlennChan]

For low-budget projects, perhaps a better approach would be to light with just one or two lights (with the exception of scenes that need more light)? One light takes less time to setup compared to multiple light sources.

To avoid nasty shadows on the talent's face, you only need a single light (e.g. a soft source near the camera lens, or above it). If the overall light levels are too low, then you can likely get away with a single light for night scenes (that light = "moonlight").

To get decent close-ups, you only need two lights. The first light is the key, ambient light (or a reflector) provides fill. The second light can add rim light, hair light, back light, or it can light the background. With two lights, you should be able to get good modeling on the subject's face with separation from the background.

Most of the time, a soft light source won't create too many additional problems (i.e. shadow) that would require time or another light to fix. Go hard light where you want stylistic shadows. If you look at Dale Launer's movie, ~45% of the shots were lit with a Kinoflo.

2- Power:
Unless you're shooting lots of day exteriors, a modestly powerful HMI should be powerful enough for your needs.

Day exteriors are difficult to do to begin with. Perhaps the best thing to do is to hope that the weather behaves, and shoot quickly before it changes too much. If there are no clouds, bounce light into the talent's face.

If it's partly cloudy, then the light is probably nice (do nothing). If it's cloudy, then you might need to fix that shot in post (which may be expensive and the time/money deferred until you get distribution); or use a single HMI to add some modeling. Or, just wait or shoot another day.

[Tom Lowe]

I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.

It should be able to. Semler was quoted in AC saying that the Genesis was doing something like 1200-2500 ISO on the Apocalypto shoot!! Even if red could do 800 or so, that would be fab for night firelight scenes, etc.

[Ken Hendricks]

I obviously believe that the Red is going to be an excellent camera, but I don't think that it will be good enough to make it unneccessary to do things right in the first place. "We'll fix it in post" is never a good thing.

[GlennChan]

Not that this applies to low-budget productions, but if you look at the production dairies for King Kong, they have some of the worst fix-it-in-post type shots around. For example:
- Painting out the reflection of the camera crew on a sheet of glass
- Rotoscoping moving branches and hair

I believe it works out that (for LOTR) each shoot day is so ridiculously expensive that it's cheaper to fix things in post than to shoot it right.

[Steve Sherrick]

I'm one that tends to get taken out of a story when the production values are bad. I think practical lighting is fine, as long as the camera is seeing the shot properly. For example, you are using a single table lamp in a scene, and you love how it's casting a subtle light on someone's face, it is really working for you as you look it over with your own eyes. But then the camera is unable to reproduce that for you, perhaps due to its technical limitations and it no longer feels right, then the practical is not working. You have to augment.

Lighting and choice of lens are keys to how filmmakers tell stories. They are equal partners with script, sound, directing, etc. Good films can be made lacking in some of those areas, but great, memorable films often have that perfect balance.

I'd love to see Red be capable of a nice dynamic range that will allow all kinds of styles to work.

[P Andersson]

Stu Maschwitz

http://prolost.blogspot.com/

"The foundation of the DV Rebel approach is that you can make your film look great with the right off-the-shelf tools. But remember, you are starting from a huge deficit. Your camera, your wardrobe, your locations, your actors all cost a tiny fraction of those in the movies you want yours to look like. The one leg up you have is that you can match or beat the big boys in post. Don't compromise your one advantage—treat onlining as the part of the process where you can craft your Rebel production into something beautiful and expensive looking, and avail yourself to the best (but cheapest!) tool for the job."

[Robert Niessner]

@ GlennChan
The reason why for LotR or King Kong fixing it in the post is cheaper is simply because it is cheaper to pay for some guys working internship, than the whole crew on set and the rent for the equipment.

@ stevesherrick
One should not think that the Red cam can replace the need for some adequate lighting. At least you need to model the light and showdows interestingly to give the post something to work with.

[Steve Sherrick]

That's exactly my point. Light, lens, etc are all crucial to telling the story. Red isn't going to change that. What it might do is allow you to see more information with less light than some people are used to with say, a middle of the road DV camera. But lighting is always going to be important, whether it's natural light or lighting that you carefully add to or subtract from a scene.

I have yet to see footage from Red projected on a big screen, but I'm looking forward to it at NAB. Should be very enlightening.

[Michael Struthers]

Hopefully you'll have a script, unlike "Days of Heaven"...

A nice camera like Red will allow you some leeway and allow you to get some shots on the run like inserts without lighting, but you'll still have to hire a grip and his truck. Even a bounce card needs someone to hold the card...

[Manfred Lopez]

Has anyone thought about what the minimum number of crew you can get away with to shoot this hypothetical rebel film? I'm talking about the minimum number of people to still get great lighting with enough equipment. The reason I am asking is that this is very much on my mind as I intend to take the production into a far away land and each aditional person represents a greatdly added expense.

I am thinking the following (in no particular order):

1. Red One Camera Operator
2. HD Footage wrangler
3. 1st AC
4. Grip Man
5. Gaffer
6. Grip / Gaffer Assistant / Best Boy
7. Sound Mixer
8. Boom Operator
9. AD
10. Wardrobe / Art person
11. Continuity Supervisor (Can't the Director do this on his / Her own?)
12. PM
13. PA

...and that's it... oh, yeah, and the director and DP of course... but then again that could be the same person as the Red One camera operator ;-)

[Steve Sherrick]

Continuity should be assigned to someone who is very skilled at that position. Director should be focused on story, actors, working with DP, etc. To me, a good continuity/script supervisor is worth a pot of gold. They save your arse in post. If you've seen a good one work, they are truly amazing. What they are able to keep track of and the notes they take will make an editor all warm and fuzzy.

[GlennChan]

TheThe, take a look at the following article. Dale explains how many people he used for his $100k film, and his philosophy behind it.
http://www.dalelauner.com/press/digitalcinema.html

If I read correctly, his crew would be:
1- Director
2- DP / camera operator
3- His/her intern
4- Costumer
5- His/her intern.
6- Production designer
7- His/her intern.
8- Sound
9- His/her intern (boom op)
10- Line producer, AD, UPM
11- Craft service / catering
12?- Grip? (or is this counted already in 3?)
- If he had to do it again, he might throw in a few more interns.

Now his goal wasn't to have great lighting, but rather to shoot fast/cheap. You can take a look at stills of his movie and the trailer on his website.

[Steven Parker]

I try to let the script dictate the lighting... if it's all night exteriors, even 800 ASA will be tough - at some point you'll need big lights unless you want a movie of only closeups. On controlled sets, I've found that less is more - unless your director wants a glam-Hollywood style; then it's backlight and eyelight for every mark... time consuming and expensive....

Regarding RED, we can't know til we get our hands on one, but I suspect the 3-ton grip package and 3-ton lighting package I get on low-budget F900/950 features will serve me just fine for whatever movie I shoot... and don't think for a minute the crew will get any smaller... unless it's dictated by the script.

[donatello b]

at some point you HAVE to make decisions ..and those decisions MUST fit in the budget .. if you decide your script is ready and you are going to GO for it ... then you do the BEST you can with what you have available...

these days i either get a 10 ton or nothing .. paying jobs ( commercials) might be a couple 10 tons but on projects i shoot for friends since 2000 have been no trucks ... we find locations that have good natural light ( daylight or practicals) .. we keep night street shooting to a min and tend to shoot the wide shots around magic hours( keep sky out of shot)...

if the choice comes down to either shooting using available light or not shooting the project = shoot ...

once i test red 103 to see it's limits - i'll then be using it to to the max and beyond..

[Tom Lowe]

1. Red One Camera Operator
2. HD Footage wrangler
3. 1st AC
4. Grip Man
5. Gaffer
6. Grip / Gaffer Assistant / Best Boy
7. Sound Mixer
8. Boom Operator
9. AD
10. Wardrobe / Art person
11. Continuity Supervisor (Can't the Director do this on his / Her own?)
12. PM
13. PA


My current thinking, for my feature, hopefully at a 200k budget shooting with two REDs, is this:

1. Director
2. DP/#1 camera op
3. 1st AC
4. #2 camera op/steadicam op
5. 2nd AC (pulling focus on camera #2)
6. Producer/UPM
7. Producer/Problem solver/Dolly grip (my brother) :biggrin:
6. AD
7. Second AD
9. Sound Mixer
10. Makeup/Wardrobe girl
11. Scripty
12. KeyGrip
13. Grip/Intern/Boom Op (he's boomed before)
14. Grip/Intern
15. HD Tech/Intern

I originally wanted to keep the crew at 10, but that notion went out the window when I added a second camera. I think I can get away with my grip/intern boom opping because my picture has very little on-location dialogue. And my DP basically acts as the gaffer. My crew-to-actor ratio is going to be extremely lopsided, because I only have three actors in this movie 90% of the time, with a few side characters coming and going. Better than my last shoot, which had like 25 actors and 8 crew. :(

[donatello b]

"my DP basically acts as the gaffer"

so when does your DP get a break ?

DP has to be there for blocking actors/2cameras, then light it , then rehearse it a few times with actors , then shoot the scene,( maybe check the shot to make sure it's good or playback for director?) - then DP is on to the next shot ?

most of the other crew get to take a few minutes break during shooting the scene or while shot is set up....

[Tom Lowe]

"my DP basically acts as the gaffer"

so when does your DP get a break ?

very rarely!

just like the director.

[Ralph Oshiro]

My crew is a little lighter . . .

1. Writer/director/DP/camera operator/Steadicam operator/1st AC.
2. Boom operator.

[Ralph Oshiro]

My night exterior lighting package is even smaller . . .

1. Mercury vapor street lighting.
2. Architectual building lighting.
3. KinoFlo Kamio.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Examples . . .

http://www.24framefilms.com/rodeo-b-01.jpg
UNCORRECTED SONY DSR450 FRAME.

http://www.24framefilms.com/r6.jpg
UNCORRECTED SONY DSR450 FRAME.

[Manfred Lopez]

TheThe, take a look at the following article. Dale explains how many people he used for his $100k film, and his philosophy behind it.
http://www.dalelauner.com/press/digitalcinema.html


Glenn, thanks for the link. I really looooved the article because that is exactly what I am planning on doing (like maybe half the other people on this site).

My situation is that I already have most of the (basic) equipment. All locations are basically free and great (it will be in Mexico). As for SAG talent, I am planning on invoking the foreign country rule... which is that if the SAG actor signs his or her contract in a foreign country, SAG rules don't apply. As far as my real expenses go, as I figured it, I plan on spending on getting there, crew, catering, some art / wardrope, and tons of post.

By the way, the reason I am somewhat confident of not needing that many people for crew is that I already shot a feature film, where I was the producer, financier, steadicam operator and the DP (how crazy is that). Here are some of the shots we got (all with minimal or no lights) (we just had an Arri softbank kit and that's it).

(Pic Withdrawn)

(Pic Withdrawn)

(Pic Withdrawn)

[Manfred Lopez]

Here are 3 more images:

(withdrawn)

.

(withdrawn)

.

(withdrawn)

[Brook Willard]

Here's a simpler lighting setup that achieves a mood very effectively. This one's a little more achievable than my last post.

The fluorescents are shop type work lights on speedrail wall-spreaders. There's one 4 bank 4' Kino visible. The light through the windows is coming from a few 1K tungsten PARs through a sodium vapor gel pack. The desk is lit with a practical and a Source 4 hidden by the ceiling.

So scratching the Kino, we're talking about a very simple and cheap lighting setup that could run on house power combined with very very effective production design.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Yeah, but what a TERRIFIC set you got to light!

[Brook Willard]

I've tried to edit my post a few times to add more detail but it hasn't worked. Instead, here's a new post:


Here's a simpler lighting setup that achieves a mood very effectively. This one's a little more achievable than my last post.

The fluorescents are shop type work lights on speedrail wall-spreaders. There's one 4 bank 4' Kino visible - I used that through a frame of opal as a soft key for close-ups. The light through the windows is coming from a few 1K tungsten PAR Cans through a sodium vapor gel pack. The light behind the desk is a 1K fresnel through the same gels and a jail-cell-aloris. The desk is lit with a practical and a Source 4 hidden by the ceiling.

So scratching the Kino [could've been a shop light], we're talking about a very simple and cheap lighting setup that could run on house power combined with very very effective production design.

And yes, a very awesome set.

[Ralph Oshiro]

TheThe, take a look at the following article. Dale explains how many people he used for his $100k film, and his philosophy behind it.http://www.dalelauner.com/press/digitalcinema.htmlWow! I just read the article. What a great story! Funny, just like David Mullen . . . the only REAL light I have is a KinoFlo 2-foot, 2-bank!

[Ralph Oshiro]

And yes, a very awesome set.Oh! Forgot to compliment your lighting as well, Brook. It looked GREAT!