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.