Short Film shot entirely on 550 / T2I

[John Owen]

Hi guys,

Thought this might be of interest to some of you -

Below is a link to a trailer for my newest short 'Goodbye Winter'. It's shot entirely with a 550. Any questions comments welcome.

Goodbye Winter: Official Trailer on Vimeo

John x

[Luke Oliver]

john this looks utterly brilliant. very inspiring

Would love to know some lenses you used, coloring technique, platform

If you have time

great stuff man

Luke

[John Owen]

Hey Luke, thanks for that!

So here's a rough kit list

Body:
EOS 550

Lenses:
Tokina 11-17mm, f2.8
Canon 50mm, f1.8
Sigma 30mm, f1.4

Glidetrack Shooter

7" Lilliput on-camera monitor (the ebay version)
LCDVF viewfinder

A couple of daylight temperature lights and softboxes (can't remember their name)

Cut and Grade
iMac running Final Cut Studio 2 with Magic Bullet Looks.

Nothing especially impressive, a fairly standard DSLR shooting kit, but nothing in that list that I wouldn't absolutely swear by. Reccomend every item. I did suffer a little from having no follow focus on this shoot (an assist had to pull focus using the focus ring which meant a lot of takes for some shots)

As far as the grade is concerned (and this is no area of expertise for me), I worked with a Looks preset and spent a long time adjusting its properties until I got some pleasing colour. Wanted to get the contrast as high as possible so desaturated to compensate (might be berrated by DVINFO colour grade experts for that, but I'm happy with the result!)

John

[Bruce Foreman]

Looks like a very compelling human interest story, video techniques all looked very good.

However the audio was a problem for me, at 72 (I can identify with some of the folks in your film) my hearing isn't what it used to be and I had trouble picking up the spoken lines due to the music. Your actors delivered their lines in a very soft spoken manner and the music really tried to "dominate" the vocal audio.

Music is supposed to help set the mood but where there is important other audio like foley, voice, and some sound effects the music should not seriously "compete". I read somewhere a few decades ago that the best music scoring was so unobtrusive most people would not even be aware of it, yet it still sets the mood.

I try a music level about 50% of where you have it now and see how it works with spoken audio. Your music selection is a very good one for the "atmosphere" of the film.

[Bruce Foreman]

Looks like a very compelling human interest story, video techniques all looked very good.

However the audio was a problem for me, at 72 (I can identify with some of the folks in your film) my hearing isn't what it used to be and I had trouble picking up the spoken lines due to the music. Your actors delivered their lines in a very soft spoken manner and the music really tried to "dominate" the vocal audio.

Music is supposed to help set the mood but where there is important other audio like foley, voice, and some sound effects the music should not seriously "compete". I read somewhere a few decades ago that the best music scoring was so unobtrusive most people would not even be aware of it, yet it still sets the mood.

I'd try a music level about 50% of where you have it now and see how it works with spoken audio. Your music selection is a very good one for the "atmosphere" of the film.

[John Owen]

Bruce,

Thanks for flagging that up. Yes, I think you're quite right. Haven't done the audio mix for the final film yet, but will keep your comments in mind when I do.

Thanks for watching!

John

[Jef Gibbons]

Hey John, looks amazing! I've had ideas for a short with a mysterious rotary phone, but mine's black ;)

As for the audio, the music does seem a bit hot, but the actual dialogue was captured excellently, and that's usually the worst part on indy shorts. I'm a music/ sound guy by day, so if you need any tips or help just let me know.

Well done!

[John Owen]

Jeff,

Thanks for that!

Yes, the rotary phone is perhaps the most enjoyable prop I've ever worked with - and from a sound perspective even more so (can't beat that whirring as the the phone is dialled!). Yeah, the sound mixer / boom op seemed very happy with the raw audio for the dialogue - Might well be back here for audio tips as the sound mix progresses though!

Thanks for looking.

John

[Dennis Hingsberg]

First I am not a writer or editor and can not criticize your story as such. I only offer my opinion based on my experience as cinematographer and DOP:

I like the overall look and feel of the trailer & your film, here are a few comments from a cinematography point of view:

I could tell use of lens wider than 50mm on some shots and recommend when you shoot people in particular to avoid going below 50mm for shots, in fact I would go 85mm or higher but that involves getting very far away from your actors and can be difficult in small shooting locations. If you have no choice to shoot an actor close-up over 50mm I would re-stage the entire shot to trick the viewer, as a last resort you can try to un-distort the image in post, plugins can be found for this.

I know gauging your lighting from shot to shot can be especially difficult shooting on a DSLR but I noticed some differences in subject brightness (for example 0:26 and 0:29) and this is especially important when shooting a master shot and close-up shot for the same scene. This very fact alone is even more reason to use a light meter to check your lighting when changing shots. A light meter is useful especially when you use SLR lenses which may vary in f stop but you want to ensure your lighting is the same between shots. This is also the beauty of shooting with cine lenes with all the same f stop rating but I understand they are expensive and out of reach for many.

The framing and composition of a few shots I felt cut off too much of the actors head and in one frame the actors eye was nearly cut out of frame when he moved - that is bad. Most of the shots appeared locked down on tripod and left to roll. For example at 0:09 when the actor leans forward and is coming into the shot, this would have been a perfect place to "follow" the actor and tilt up slightly on him and then back down on him. Moving the camera is very important I feel to lose the feeling of a locked down camera.


Question:
What mic did you use and what did you record sound too? The music is dominating the voice track right now, but I still found the voice loud and clear and like that.

[John Owen]

Dennis,

Many thanks for your comments;

1) Yes, you're quite right. Many of the shots of the characters were taken with a Sigma 30mm 1.4. This is a favourite lens of mine. I'm quite new to cinematography and have never trained - Could you explain why I should avoid using a lens wider than 50mm for shooting people? (Obviously, the 550 has a 1.6 crop factor so the Sigma effectively acts as a 50mm) - Does your rule of thumb apply in the case of APS-C sized sensors?

2) Gauging light is a challenge indeed - Would you reccomend buying a seperate light meter for use alongside the exposure gauge on the camera? Am I confusing concepts here - i.e the connection between exposure and consistent lighting?

3) Ah yes - One difficulty was that we we were shooting in 16x9 with a view to the final film being in 2.35, which meant I occasionally got the framing wrong. You're right to say that my approach was generally to lock the camera position - Shooting at apertures of 1.4-2.2, I was constantly worried about compromising focus and thought the best solution was to keep the camera static.

The truth is, I love playing with my 550, but I am most certainly no pro. For my next short, I'm planning on collaborating with a cinematographer - But I'd still very much like to hear your answers to these questions if you have time

Mics were senheisser G2 wireless and a Rode NTG-2 on the boom. Not sure what the mixer was (I think the sound man had a custom built one) but he output to a ZOOM H4N.

Thanks for your time!

John

[Dennis Hingsberg]

The truth is that any lens once you get a subject close to it where you can still maintain focus will start to inherit the curve properties of the lens. It can't be avoided when you think about it, because after all it is the curve of the lens bending the large image of what it sees down to the small area of the sensor or film plane.

The reason I use 50mm as a guide (and again there are no real rules) is 1.) because that is what the eye sees in equivalence of field of view. For example, how your eye sees a subject in real life in relation to its position and everything around it is how a 50mm lens sees it and captures it. So it is "ideal" to capturing images that best represent what the human eye sees. 2.) If you use a 50mm lens, you are forced to be a certain distance from your subject in order to fit them into the frame. Again, this prevents the subject from being too close to the lens which in turn prevents your subject from getting any lens distortion even if mild. My opinion is its ok to distort somethings like landscapes, rooms, buildings, etc.. but not people, animals, cars, or things that have distinct features and we easily recognize.

Unfortunately when using an APS-C sensor unless you are using APS-C optimized lenses, you are not getting 50mm properties by using a 35mm lens. A 35mm lens even with 1.6 crop/zoom-in factor still requires you to get closer to your subject to get the same size image as you would have with a 50mm lens. Because you are putting the subject closer to the 35mm lens you are distorting it more than if you had used a 50mm lens. Anyway 35mm is not going to kill anyone, but when you fill a frame with a headshot for example it means the subject is pretty close, and with 35mm it can look funny and slightly distorted. (I once did some still photography work headshots and made a model with narrow and long face appear "wider" by purposely shooting below 50mm - she loved the proofs and had no idea why she looked different and so great in them...)

Light meter-wise: There are different ways to use a light meter. You can set your light meter to the same ISO, shutter speed or FPS and take a meter reading once you get the "look" or proper exposure for your camera. The f-stop value on the light meter will probably not match the f-stop set on your lens but who cares, now you know exactly how much light was on your subject when it gave you the "look" you wanted and if you move your lighting or camera setup you can easily recreate the same level of light with ease, even if its a month later! Also important is measuring the light in your background and getting it consistent between shots. The light meter I use offers a feature for comparing meter read values and displaying them as a ratio. I work with 2:1 or 4:1 lighting ratios between subject and background depending on the look I want.

Yes, don't be afraid to let shots float a little. Focus adjustments are usually not needed for small tilts and pans. Also with longer lenses and practice small subtle camera moves will not be very apparent. A good tip/trick or learning study for good cinematography and camera work in general is to watch a well shot film without the sound. Really look at what you see, and see what is going on with the camera and how it moves.

Don't get me wrong, your work is very great and it is only going to get better from here - that's for sure!! I recommend you try shooting your next film on either a full frame DSLR or a 35mm adapter with video camera because in either scenario you can work with lenses without the annoying crop factors that make shooting on APS-C a compromise.

[John Owen]

Dennis,

Many thanks for taking the time to write that response, that clears things up nicely. Very much appreciated.

John

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Only problem with what I wrote with respect to using a light meter, is I'm not sure if with the 550 / T2I camera you can lock the ISO & aperature. I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that some DSLR's will adjust ISO on the fly to adjust for proper exposure. I hope what I wrote applies in your case.

[Heiko Saele]

John I really like your grading, the lighting and the locations (good backgrounds). The story seems interesting as well. I will definitely want to see the whole thing when its ready!

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

Unfortunately when using an APS-C sensor unless you are using APS-C optimized lenses, you are not getting 50mm properties by using a 35mm lens. A 35mm lens even with 1.6 crop/zoom-in factor still requires you to get closer to your subject to get the same size image as you would have with a 50mm lens. Because you are putting the subject closer to the 35mm lens you are distorting it more than if you had used a 50mm lens. Anyway 35mm is not going to kill anyone, but when you fill a frame with a headshot for example it means the subject is pretty close, and with 35mm it can look funny and slightly distorted. (I once did some still photography work headshots and made a model with narrow and long face appear "wider" by purposely shooting below 50mm - she loved the proofs and had no idea why she looked different and so great in them...)

When the lens is basically distortion free, like for example the Canon L 35mm f1,4 - shouldn't it be okay to shoot a close-up with it? And by the way, the 30mm Sigma f1,4 that John listed is an APS-C lens, so it should even be corrected for APS-C like you said.

I know that shooting close-up portraits with 85-125mm looks more pleasing, to be honest I really like 125mm even better than 85mm - but as you said, as a low-budget or no-budget filmmaker, you can't always have the kind of sets that you'd like to have... and you don't always have all the lenses that you'd like to use...
I just shot a no-budget short with basically a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 - we wanted to have no static shots, so no tripod, only a shoulder rig. Today I compromised on shooting some half-close-ups with ~25mm because I had to walk a lot in the same shot. Of course I could have used a 50mm lens on a steadicam with a focus puller in a much bigger set. Oh wait, no, because the budget wouldn't have even covered renting the rig! ;)

[Dennis Hingsberg]

No wide angle lens, including the Canon L 35mm f1.4 can be completely distortion free per say. Once you get close enough to it, it will start to distort perspective. ie. Images are stretched wide, close objects appear much larger than objects only inches behind it, etc..

Let me please correct myself however with what I said about using APS-C optimized lenses to get 50mm like properties: Even with APS-C optimized lenses a 35mm APS-C lens acts like a 35mm wide angle lens but since your angle of view is cropped by 1.6 times, you end up getting what 43mm (50mm rounded way up) looks like in traditional 35mm SLR photography terms.

Therefore, a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens, with 35mm lens properties. The only way to get 50mm SLR-like properties is to use one and inherit the crop factor on the angle of view; x1.6 for APS-C, x1.3 for APS-H, x2 for AF100...

Hope this helps. The subject can definitely be a bugger to get your head around.