Any help would be greatly appreciated....
 

Long time reader, first-time poster. I need your help.

I'm a screenwriter about to embark on the journey of making the first feature. I've had alot of experience working with many other cameras over the years, but am just now getting ready to invest a decent amount of money in a good DV kit.

The XL2 is the camera that I've settled on for my feature, as it is the most vibrant and film-representative DV camera on the market. People won't balk at it's cheapness, is my point.

My screenplay is good. Damn good. My entire film will be built around the screenplay, my actors and my visuals.

What I need from you guys is XL2 expertise. I need a one-stop-shop here as to what lenses, etc are most beneficial to a project of this kind. Now, I'd like to keep the cost of the camera/accessories under $7000 or so, but am very curious as to what will give me a solid picture, being that all the lighting, audio and post-production is top-notch (which it will be).

I have no illusions that my film look is going to be 35mm-quality, I just want it to be within range that people can forget that they're watching a film made with substantial budget limitations.

I have very little cinematography knowledge and am not afraid to say so, so whatever help you guys could offer, would be greatly appreciated.

By the by, I'm also investing in the construction of a nice Steadicam, which will be what I shoot most of the movie with.

Andrew,

For an informed reply, we will need to know what the conditions are. Indoors, outdoors, etc, etc. The camera is $4,000, and you may want a 3x or 16x manual. You did not mention if you need to buy lighting or audio, you just said that it will be "top notch."

Be more specific please.

Mike

Andrew,

As a screenwriter (two optioned features) and a filmmaker (My doc is in distribution) I have to ask you this.

Why do you want to own your own gear?

I'm not putting the brakes on your concept, I'm just asking why you want to shift from being a screenwriter (fulltime?) to attempting to become a Producer/Director/DP and more? It's a lot to put on your plate.

I guess I'm asking you to lay out for us, what your ultimate goal is. To see this particular script realized in the best possible way? To become a DP? To become a Director? Maybe the best way to spend your 6 or 7 grand, is to hire a competent DP, two or three weeks of rental on the gear and good food for your cast and crew?

But if what you want is to own the assets, because you intend to use them to make money (shooting other projects for hire?) Then that's another concern as well.

Believe me, I understand the frustration behind waiting around for someone else to spend money on your script... I even named my fledgling company "Get Out and Push Productions" at one point. Because sometimes that is what it takes. But before you spend the money, decide if buying a car to get where your going is more efficient to than hiring a skilled driver who knows the route. Follow me? What's the destination here?

(Apologies for the mixed metaphors.)

Richard

To answer Mike's questions, the mood of the film is dark but realistic.

More specifically, there are two seperate but eventually colliding storylines. One is dark and noir-ish (outdoor night shooting and smoky bars) and the other is very clean-cut and business-like (clean, well-lit office buildings and day shooting) so most of the film will be indoors, and when it's outdoors, it will be late afternoon/night shooting.

What I meant by all the other aspects is that they're taken care of. I closely know many, many people with the means I need to make the audio and editing top-notch (my roommate owns a recording studio).

Essentially, what I've come here for is information on the only aspect I don't know much about. The XL2.

Sorry I wasn't more specific about conditions. So yeah, the best way I can explain it is in Roger Deakins terminology. Half of it is very Blood Simple/Miller's Crossing/Barton Fink, while the other half is Fargo. But as I said, I don't intend on or expect to have my film look even close to the quality of these films, but it's just the basic idea, you know?

To answer Richard's questions, I'm going to be going into business in my music community doing small music videos and event photography as well, so this is an investment in addition to means to make my film.

I'm only 20, but I've wanted direct a feature for 8 years (sounds ridiculous, but it's the absolute truth) and haven't had the means, so I've been screenwriting, editing screenplays and working on small productions in the meantime, preparing for my first feature. So I'm not really a screenwriter in the Robert Towne sense, more to keep busy. It's like practice. I've never wanted to sell a screenplay (against the advice of my teachers/mentors), because 1) I wouldn't want to see someone else make them and 2) because I don't want to be pegged a for-hire screenwriter, since directing has always been what I want to do. If I write, I write for me.

The other reason I want my own equipment (from video to audio to editing) is because I want the mobility and spontaneity to be a factor in the shoot. Plus, my cast and crew are all going to be friends and actors from local troupes and have schedules to be worked around, so any renting or hiring would be more costly than I could manage.

It sounds odd, but they're the circumstances I've adjusted to.

So anyway, the point is, visual quality isn't #1 priority, but I'm going to be making this movie and taking it on the circuit, so the best quality I can afford is beneficial.

Any help would be appreciated and possibly credited.

Why are you stuck on XL2 ? Why not consider some form of HD/HDV for a better filmout or nicer DVD production? H1, HD100, Z1?

XL2 is the best within my pricerange, at least as far as I know.

Honestly, its not about what camera you buy/have, its about who is using it. If you have a great script, you'll be able to get a great DP to shoot it. Really, save your $ and get someone on board who can shoot, with gear if poss. Better still, use some of your $ to pay them. Cinematography is an art. You'll find that your screenplay will sing with the right person shooting it. And you'll find collaboration can be fantastic. A good DP will bring more to the project. Don't be fooled that the camera makes the difference.

If only. If only...

Ify ou are planning on making this film, and then using the XL2 for corporate vids and such to make money, it is a good bet. Don't simply buy it for one film. Mine has paid for itself, and I do independant film as well, but make sure you use it! otherwise it's a waste.

I appreciate it all, but I really don't need confirmation or otherwise about whether or not the XL2 is a good idea. It's what I'm going with.

All I need from you guys (what I REALLY need from you guys) is recommendations for lenses that would suit a film shoot in a general sense. What are some good wide angle lenses? What will achieve for me the non-camcorder-y, family video look (other than what is done in post).

I know it's pretty easy to set myself up for a good position in post, and I'm aware that good quality doesn't come without effort and hard work, when it comes to lighting, audio and the quality of your material... Those are all taken care of. I just need to know what add-ons will be beneficial to the XL2 on this venture.

Once again, the look for the film is two-fold. One is very darkly neo-noir and the other is somewhat bright and plain. Futher down the road, when the two storylines collide, it's a fusion of the two. Mostly indoor shooting, with most of the outdoor shooting at night/late afternoon.

I'm pretty sure I'm alright with the packaged zoom lense, as the whole film will general be wide shots, no zoom. But that said, I'm still interested in learning about some nice zoom lenses.

And yes, I'm using this camera for other financial purposes as well.

Thanks,
Andrew

PS Make sure you've read all my posts, because pretty much my entire case is explained.

The 20X lens is great, but not condusiver to theatrical film making. It is super sharp, but focusing is a pain. the 16X is a fantastic lens, with repeatable rack focusing, but has no autofocus. It also has the widest aperture available on an XL lens, allowing the shallowest DOF. The 14x manual (hard to find) is also quite a good little lens, but has no IS and breaths quite heavily when racking (zooms a bit).

The 3X is a great little lens. I couldn't live without mine. But be warned, it will appear a little soft compared to the 20X lens, and is hard to focus.

Any EF lens you attach with the EF adapter will be magnified by 7.6 times, so unless you are going super telephoto, forget it.


I would check out www.redrockmicro.com or www.letus35.com or http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/sg35.htm

These are 35mm adapters allowing you to use actual 35mm lenses with the XL2 for real 35mm DOF and rack focusing. A must for a real indie film maker.

Good Luck

Imho!
 

Andrew,

Ok, now we have more info. The XL2 is just fine, and you said that "is" what you’re getting, so that point is moot.

As far as the lenses go, the 20x is just fine. I would add a 3x wide angle, because you will be shooting a lot indoors, and it will be a total necessity. And it is a great lens! Both lenses have autofocus, and the 20x has optical IS. IS on the 20x may assist you in your steadycam shots, and with the 3x you won’t need it.

Rack focus is nice on the 16x manual, but I don’t think you need it for your project. The 20x has a feature that will give a similar effect. You can focus it on one subject and set the preset, then focus on the second subject and start shooting. Then, with the push of a button, it will quickly return to the preset and focus on the first subject. You could then manually focus back on the second subject, or better yet change angles and repeat step one. That would give you good rack focus shots.

I would go to this site and download theXL2 features movie, and watch it over and over.

http://dvestore.com/theatre/index.html

Some have trouble downloading it, I did, so let us know if you have any problems. This movie is excellent and will introduce you to all of the features and setting of the XL2 you will want to adjust or change to make your movie more CINE like. The XL2 records in 24p at 48fps, which is identical to film. Then you change the GAMMA CURVE to CINE like, and the COLOR MARTIX to CINE like, and then adjust BLACK STRETCH, COLOR GAIN, SETUP LEVEL, and MASTER PEDESTAL to achieve the total movie look you want. It will not be exactly like film, but then no DV or HDV camera will!

After that it is your lighting, sound (very important), shot composition, framing, and creativity that will make it movie-like. If you want to direct, you should know this by now. Make your movie so engrossing that no one will notice or care what it was shot with.

Someone mentioned that the 20x and 3x are difficult to focus, but I have never had that problem. Both autofocus’s work quite well, even if you just want an assist and shoot in manual, and remember that movies have a softer focus anyway, video is sharp! If you want a sharp focus, try getting a B&W, CRT viewfinder, FU-1000. It is better to help you focus, but I don’t believe you will need it.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I have all of the lenses and viewfinders and all, 20x, 16x auto, 16x manual, 14x manual, and 3x auto, plus adapters. So I am saying that the 20x and the 3x will serve you just fine.

You technique, script, lighting, sound, and camera settings will be the key to make a movie that looks like film.

If you have additional question, don’t hesitate to ask.

Good Luck!

Mike

Andrew, I share your passion too (and at 17… it looks like I am getting a head start!)

As far as my limited experience proves, the AF on the 20x isn’t that great anyway… so you are not losing anything in that regard with the 16x (would you need auto focus for narrative filmmaking anyway?).

For more robust lens performance, definitely invest in a wired remote (perhaps even a 3rd party product better than the one canon makes), and also a substantial monitor to make accurate focusing decisions .

This is just a personal preference, but I would also encourage you to shoot your desired looks IN camera (assuming that you bought the XL2 in part for its versatility in this regard). I am just a kid and could be wrong, but ‘look to tape’ effects always seem to have more texture and vitality to me. Since you are going for a whole gamut of visual style here, I thought perhaps that would be something to consider, depending on how concrete your vision for the film is now.

To everyone else: One more thing (and I have seen this quite a bit lately)…

I was thinking that, when someone asks for help in regards to an Xl2 (or any other camera), let us not merely respond… “well, why don’t you go out and buy an XLH1, HVX?”, etc. That kind of advice doesn’t help in situations like these!


Anywho, my blessings to your film!

EDIT: Okay... Mike just convered all my measly points... and much better I must add. Sorry about that. :)

Jeff,

That is an excellent point, as I too am tired of everyone trying to get people to switch to HD cameras. I have considered one for myself lately and have decided to wait. But, I see so many people try to talk new wedding videographer’s and others into HD, and I think that it makes little sense at this time. Perhaps for an established business with a specific need for it, it is a good idea, but not for starting out.

I recently posted some replies to a person wanting suggestions on equipment for a new wedding business. Some were quite honest and said that cameras like PD150s, and PD170, GL2s, Sonys etc. were great for that purpose, but the majority said that he should get an HD camera and then wanted to argue over which one was best.

That kind of irritated me, so I went through the Wedding and Events section of this forum and went through the entire first four pages of posts, over 100+ posts, and examined what equipment those posting had listed in their profiles. Not one person had a HD camera listed. There were all of the cameras mentioned above and XL1s's and XL2s, but not one HD camera. When I asked one of the more vocal proponents of HD if he shot HD, he said yes and changed his profile to show 2 FX1's, but admitted to only shooting one thing in HD and of course, could not deliver it to his client in HD.

I am not against HD, just the opposite in fact, and I have an older JVC HD camera. But I never use it, as I prefer the versatility of the XL1s and the XL2, and the great variety of options for them. I have studied and watched this forum for months and months now, trying to learn as much as I can about all of the new HD cameras, and I have learned a lot! My conclusion has been to wait another year or so.

Funny side note to the above! I went to an Indiefilm club meeting last week, as they were going to be discussing the cameras that are available to the Indie Film maker now. I thought this would be a place to really get some more useful information! Guess what, I didn't learn a thing! They had professionals discussing DV cameras, and 4 HD cameras, Pany, Sony, JVC, and Canon. At first I felt disappointed that I did not learn anything new, and then it hit me. I did not learn anything, because I had learned sooooo much on this forum!!!! :) Then I felt really good, knowing that the time I have spent on this forum was not wasted. That was a good feeling!!!!! :)

Keep up the good work Jeff!

Mike

Man, that was informative.

Let me start out my reply with a response/question about something Jeff said...

What are the benefits of shooting the desired look in-camera as opposed to tweaking in post?

I would think that - in metaphorical terms - creating the desired look primarily in post with Magic Bullet or After Effects, etc would be like making up an ugly girl to look prettier, whereas achieving the majority of your desired look in-camera and simply PERFECTING it in post would be like putting makeup on Angelina Jolie.

My question pertaining to that is this: what can be done while shooting, and what should be left for post? That's one vague question for you.

On a similar subject, a more specific question... B&W... One of the two main characters in my film is a pickpocket and I'm going to be shooting a Fellini-esque sequence of the character ripping people off on the street, which I've been toying with the idea of having in B&W. I've read opposing points of view, some saying that if you want an authentic/old-fashioned B&W, shoot in-camera, while others say to keep your options open and shoot in color and change it in post. I suppose it's a judgement call, then? Any thoughts?

Now, on to Mike... First, you're the man. I learned more in that reply than I thought I'd learn this whole thread. That was so specific, you may have just made my film. As Ali G would say, Respek.

Now, you mentioned the 3x wide angle lens. That's something I figured I'd end up with, because my mentality as a director is very much Scorsese/Fellini/early Spielberg when it comes to shooting technique (in that zooming, for me, is pointless. Everything is the wide shot. When I AM coming in slow on someone, the camera will be easing forward.)

But that said, it's also the only lens I really know anything about. I've been told that it's what my style would benefit from, but at the same time, I know nothing about the other lenses. And you all have explained the general intricacies of the lenses very wellm but I don't know about the even MORE general generalities of the lenses in question. So here I go, ready to prove myself as the true "know-nothing" of DV filmmaking...

What's the difference between the 3x, the 20x, the 16x, 14x, etc...? I know they all differ in magnification, but what purpose does each individually serve?

Based on what you said though, Mike, I'll probably stick with the 20x and the 3x. And we move on...

Moniters and remotes. What exactly are the benefits of the two, and how much do they generally run, respectfully priced?

Adaptors. Will I need any for the two lenses in question?

What's rack focus?

Manual focus for me, as well, is a must. I have scenes where the foreground is focused on, while important things are blurred in the background for suspense purposes, as well as other scenes that play on the same technique, in different context. So is manual focus a pain? Is it something that takes years of practice and intense instruction by monks to learn? Or will a quick learner like myself be okay?

Anyway, count on me being on this forum alot more as filming approaches and more than likely even more as filming commences. I'll probably have more questions to ask rather soon, as I start buying the equipment.

Mike, Jeff, Matthew... Thanks alot. Extremely, extremely helpful. Sorry about the shameless barrage of questions.

Oh, and by the by, Mike... The computer I have right now can't handle that video for some reason. It just freezes. I'm sure if I could download it to my computer, it would work better in standalone.

(I'm getting a new Mac for the project, so don't worry about the computer issue.)

Andrew,

Ok, lets see where to begin?!

If the video that you mentioned in your last post, that freezes up, is the DVCreators XL2 tour Video, first try just waiting a long time. It is very long, about a half an hour and takes a long time to download. Hit it and walk away for an hour!!!!!!!!!! If that doesn't work, let us know.

As for the other questions, I will do the best I can. I assumed you knew more about cameras and lens than you do.

The focal length of the standard 20x lens is the 35mm equivelent of 42.3mm to 846mm, minimum to maximum zoom. The 3x is 26.6mm to 79.8mm. The 20x is difficult to use indoors, as you are too confined by the available space, and this is where the 3x comes into play. I will say that if you did not understand this before, definetly stay away from the manual lenses. And, these two lenses are both made for the Canon Xl series cameras and need no adapter. The 20x, in fact, is the one that comes with the camera.

As far as whether to shoot the movie look in camera, it is a decision that many have to make. On one hand you can do most tweaking in post, but everything you do in post degrades the image to a small degree. The closer you get to your desired look in the camera, the less you have to do in post and the less degredation you will have. It depends on the software you have and your skill at using it, you have to make the decision. The basis factor in this is that you can change color, contrast, etc. in post, but you can't restore detail that was never recorded. Ie, if you blow out whites or have no detail in the dark areas, you will not be able to restore them in post, if you want them.

As far as shooting in B&W, most I have heard say to shoot in color, then change it in post if that is what you want. This is always possible, but if you shoot in B&W, you can't put it back to color! Manipulating it to look old, etc. is a matter of what effects you apply in post.

As far as remotes, they are used to start and stop recording, zoom, focus, etc.. Companies like Varizoom and others make LANC controllers that connect to the cameras. Maybe the biggest advantage is that you do not have to touch the controls on the camera, and risk moving it during the shot. The XL2 inself comes with a romote that does many things, like start, stop, zoom, etc., study it.

A monitor, if it is a good one and set up properly, will allow you to see what is actually being recorded to tape, as opposed to what the less accurate viewfinder is showing you. They help you set the color and such. At your level, I'm not sure I would worry about it at this time. Besides, a good one is very expensive!

Do a search here and elsewhere on rack focus, but basically it is rapid change in focus from one subject to another, causing one to become clear and the other to blur out. Study it, but I would not worry about it for you first time.

In your paragraph on manual focus, you are basically talking about DOF, or Depth Of Field, not focus. DOF determines what is in focus and how much is not in focus. The less DOF, the less is in focus, which is what you want. Play with your camera and the 20x lens, but generally open the lens up as much a possible, (lowest iris number, like 1.6) zoom all the way in, (as close-up as you can get), and this will give you the "Least Depth of Field." You need to play with it to learn.

I wish you the best, but you need to really keep reading all of the posts on this forum, especially using the search feature and keys words.

Helping you helps me so I'm happy to do it.

Mike

As for the video, that's what I did. I may not know much about XL2s, but computers are my thang.

I've owned a few DV cameras, but really just used what I had and didn't really ask too many questions. I admittedly don't know much about lenses, other than how they work. From not having each at my expense, I don't know what individual purpose each serves, but I'm starting to get it. I'd buy them all and find out, but my budget doesn't allow that. Possibly by shoot date, but not right now.

Yeah, that's what most have said. And as I haven't liked alot of the images shot clean and messed with in post, that's what I had my sights set on. I know Papert and Danny Boyle have both said that they do as much as possible before post, and they got amazing results, so it doesn't leave too much question.

I believe I will be buying both a remote and a monitor, as those two materials sound very much like something I'll find much use in for my type of shooting.

My answers are very much completely answered for what it is I'll be buying camera-wise.

Now let me ask you one more question on a very related subject... I want to make sure the lighting I'm intending on is the correct one. For my darker tone, I've settled on a 2K or 4K soft light, depending on the budget I have come film shoot in August. But since I have a darker tone AND a much lighter more realistic tone, I was curious as to what would be more beneficial.

On one hand, the darker tone's half of the film follows a thief just released from prison, going back into a life he's not proud of. The shot process is very slow, almost foreboding... It would benefit unquestionably by careful, meticulous (soft) lighting. On the other hand, the feel of the more realistic side of the film follows a character whose life is predictable and whose marriage is hollow. The shot process on this half is alot of tracking shots, and a sense of urgency. The look is intended to be very-hyper real. I'm wondering if for that if I should use the same soft light, a stronger one or no artificial light not available on location. I really would like to go with no light, because how often in real life does an artificial light follow you around all day? That said, I'm not sure what affect that will have on the end product.

Any suggestions?

4k is a LOT of light for an interior DV shoot. It would be extremely hot from a single source, even blowing through a soft box. That's just a god-awful ammount if what you are looking for is a 'low key' "Noirish" sort of look. 2k is pretty hot too.

Sounds to me what you are looking for is a good set of Fresnels for the noir sequences. Something you can model the light with as oposed to an open faced, broader light. With a good set of fresnels, you can set some hot spots, highlights, and create 'pools' on the set that the characters move in and out of. Much more texture. (And yes, you can throw a softbox on them too.)

A couple of 1k softboxes will give you a broader light for your 'high key' sequences. If you have your 2k or 4k boxes, then that's where they will come in.

That's how I would approach it. Your mileage may very. (You can rent a good set of fresnels.)

The long tracking sequences for your real life section, will reguire either lighting a 'path' that the track moves through, mounting a light on the dolly , or a boom pole-china ball style,(in movies, artificial light DOES follow you around all day). Of course, using natural light and suplementing it is also acceptable. But if you are shooting outside, suplimenting it will mean HMI's, or Dichroic filters/gels on your tungstens, or at the very least, travelling bounce cards.

Word Richard.

I will definitely reconsider the 2k-4k. I had no idea they were so strong. If I did get a 2k (which I probably won't), isn't it possible to mute the brightness with anything? Anything to create shade?

I see where you're coming from on the pools of light aspect, but that idea is a little too vintage for this film. Dark, grainy and smoky is this guy's life. It's neo-noir because of the character's profession, but not because of how he feels about his profession... making the look so defined and classic like that would make it a little too glamorous, you know?

And about the china ball lighting, that was something I was definitely thinking about.

I'll comment more thoroughly when I get back from work. Thanks.

andrew.. seriously look into getting a 35mm adapter.. ive got one (letus35) for my xl1s. i am a huge cheerleader for these and conistently recommend these to anyone and everyone looking to get a great "look" out of their minidv cam. With some cheap fd still lenses you can give your cam setup alot more flexbility for an extremely low price. check out the Alt imaging forum.. good luck with your shoot

Depending on the type of light you get, yeah, there are ways to 'dim' it. One way being to actually use an electrical dimmer to turn down the voltage. Make sure you have one rated for the light, and understand that color temps change once you start to lower the light beyond a certain point.

You can also dim the light 'mechanically' by using scrims. Again, depending on the brand and style of light, you can slip a scrim in the holder and cut down the light by a stop or two. Ditto with ND gels.

Graduated scrims also exist. These are especially usefull when your subject is moving away from or towards light sources. Because as they move towards the light, the intensity will increase exponentially. (Light falls off at the inverse square of the distance). If you simply ride the iris, the exposure to the background will change in the shot. With a graduated scrim, you can 'shade' the light from the forground to the background. Scrims come in full, half, and graduated versions. (They look like pieces of screen stretced across a frame.)

Andrew, most of these questions can be answered by reading a couple of really good books on basic cinematography and filmmaking. Check out the forum for recommended books.

Andrew & Andrew,

With all due respect to both of you let me say something, and ask a few questions!

Mr. Todd, please carefully reread Mr. Padilla's posts then, ask yourself this question: Does it sound like Mr. Padilla is ready to jump into this, or any new camera, and a 35mm adapter? This will be his first attempt to shoot anything and his skills run toward writing and directing, as stated by him himself.

I applaud Mr. Padilla's desire and willingness to tackle his first real movie, and know he is going to enjoy the process. But, his skill in actually shooting a film is very limited. He doesn't understand the cameras, lighting, lenses, and I bet the sound part of it! This is not a put-down of him, it is just reality! Mr. Padilla is a very enthusiastic 20 year old. (I wish I were!)

So let’s try to be totally realistic in our advice and assistance. I am waiting for someone to jump in here and tell him that he needs a new HD camera, and he surely does not!

Mr. Padilla, you said you have the sound part covered, but it sounded like you were talking about in post, with maybe someone assisting you. Do you have good sound equipment to film with? In post you can add music and Foley etc., but you will not be able to correct bad captured audio from the shooting. It must be captured well in the shoot, and that means that the stock on-camera mic will not suffice for about 90% of the shoot. You will need booms and shotgun mics, wireless outfits and much more. If you don’t have these items, you will need to acquire them somehow, buy-borrow-rent! I just wanted to make sure you understand this.

So far, Mr. Padilla, you have listened to the advice that has been offered to you and I really applaud that! Sometimes it is very difficult for people to do. I hope that what I have said is good advice, and that if it is not, I hope that someone will jump in and correct me. It won’t hurt my feelings a bit, I am just trying to help you. I was very glad to see Mr. Alvarez jump in, as he is much more knowledgeable than I. And, I hope others add to this post also.

Let’s try to remember one thing though! Let’s concentrate on answering specific questions from Mr. Padilla, and I’m sure he will come up with many as this continues.

Mr. Padilla, please read as much as you can in the appropriate forum sections, and this will give you a lot of information and lead to more specifically directed questions.

The Audio section is, “Now Hear This,” and has a lot of great info. The cliché is, “Audio production -- it's 70% of everything you see,” and it is definitely true! I was at a film school a couple of weeks ago, and one the instructors, whose main skill is Audio production, made a statement that was very telling. He said that people will sit and watch a movie that is good, even if it is slightly out of focus, or the picture is not just right. But, if the sound is bad it has been shown that most people will leave within ten minutes!

The lighting section is Photon Management, and there is a wealth of information there also.

Spend every spare minute of your time reading all that you can, and when you have specific questions or do not understand something, then ask. We are all happy to help, and that is what makes this Forum so great!

I’m ready for the next question anytime. I will be away the 1st thru the 9th though, but many others will help you. Just remember to be very specific with your questions, and not ask something like which is better, that just doesn’t work well at all.

Good luck guys,

Mike

lol.. sorry mike.. hes looking at spending a good deal of cash.. id like to see him get his $$ worth.. but yeah...

Hey mike, you beat me to it@!

Andrew, have you considered hiring a cinematographer and technical crew as opposed to spending so much on equipment? I am fesitval director, and bought my own stuff, but only because I really really know how to use and get the best. I am not suggesting that only experience techies get equipment, but I didn't start out on an XL2. I worked my way up.

You can't pick up a guitar and expect play like Eric Claton. I am very supportive of you making films and getting the right tools, but I strongly urge you to read EVERYTHING you can about film making. The Filmmakers Hand Book is a must. it covers everything you could ever want to know about aperatures, lighting, colour correction... all the nitty gritty.

If you feel your strengths are directing and story, focus on that and hire an experienced camera guy with his own stuff. It won't make a huge dent in your pocket book (if you get the right guy) and I promise you your film will be better...

Good luck. Just trying to help you out...

if this is your first go at it all maybe look into renting a cam or buying a cheaper one and try your hand at making a few shorts first... a feature is a big step.. better to learn from your own mistakes than to make them on something big.

Gentlemen,

See my first post in this thead, where I suggested he lease and hire, and Andrew's response to those suggestions.

(It's good practice to read an ENTIRE thread before posting, so old info and suggestions aren't regenerated)

I think Andrew is planning on commiting his resouces in both time and money to acquiring production assets. I applaud him for doing reasearch ahead of time.

Just as PRE PRODUCTION is where you save money in actual production costs, pre purchase research is where you will save money in acquisition costs.

Read all the books and manuals you can get hold of. Post questions here, (AFTER you do a search for the topic). Before dropping a bundle on a high ticket item, consider a little expenditure in rental time to give it a test ride. (Assuming you can't just borrow it from a friend).

The reason I like shooting ‘In Camera’ is because it forces me to have a concrete vision of my end product, from which to work around. I have the attitude that if my approach to DV is as filmic as possible, then my results will look much better. This sense of finality compels me to plan more efficiently… which may sound stupid, and is just a matter of personal ethics. So, take my advice in this regard with a grain of salt, as it is definitely neither the safest nor smartest way to work. As in all things, the best course of action would be to find an effective middle ground; one where you will provide yourself with a safe degree of versatility in post, and yet maintain enough of a sense of direction so as not to get lost in a sea of visual potential.

I recently did a noir-ish narrative film just for fun, which I shot using a B&W custom preset, from which I tweaked further in post. Perhaps you would like to see it? (Not sure how I would get it to you… perhaps email?)

As Mike said, you are talking about achieving shallow depth of field.
You are never going to get the excellent dof control out of your camera that is afforded to 35mm motion pictures, but, for your purposes, you should be able to do yourself well if you are smart about it.

Yesterday, I went to my local park and shot about two dozen gulls all lined up along the seawall in perfect file (excellent for some interesting focusing varity). I was full telephoto (20x) with my iris as open as possible, applying both ND filters as to not over-expose the image. If I remember, I will post some screens after I capture the tape, as it covers the whole spectrum of potential in this regard.

As for me, I absolutely love long lenses, such as used in Red Beard, where like every shot is super telephoto. I am also obsessed with extreme wide angle close-ups… especially when shown in contrast with the aforementioned telephoto shots. I guess I just like extremes.

Now, technically, the 20x lens does not offer true manual focus. Instead, it is electronic, with a free spinning focus ring that mimics a ‘manual feel’. However, this is only referring to the technical means by which your lens functions. For your purposes, yes, you will be able to “manually” move a focus ring to achieve or change your desired point of focus with the 20x or 3x. If you want a true manual lens, which accomplishes changes in focus, focal length, and even aperture by mechanical means, the 16x manual will allot you just that (and is advertised as such). From the sounds of things though, I don’t think you really care by what means or exact precision, so long as you are able to focus for narrative effect.

To be honest, the 20x is a great piece of glass, and, for your stylistic purposes, the 3x looks to be a good accompanying investment. At your budget and experience, I wouldn’t go more technical than that (ie, the 16x manual), as this is a whole lot of stuff to ingest.

Please Read This Post!!!
 

Okay.. Wow.

This is my mission for this film... I want to make this film for under $15,000, not because that's all I have, because I have more... I would like to make a movie on a very low budget look as good as possible, so I can sell the movie on it. My writing and visual creativity is my strong-suit, so that will be top-notch... The idea is to take this movie on the road and all, but eventually sell my talents on it. Paraphrased goal outcome as follows:
"I made this film for $15,000"
"Wow, you made this for $15,000?"
"Imagine what I could do with just $1 million"

So obviously, I don't expect film quality or even amazing DV quality, just quality that doesn't distract from the film.

Also, the reason I want to make the movie now is because I can strike while I'm still young. Scorsese made Who's That Knocking... at 25, and was considered a prodigy, not because of the look of his film, but because of the maturity and vision of his film. I'm not saying I expect to be Scorsese, but simply that, the younger, the better.

Essentially, my approach to the visuals of this film is this... I've been building up my directorial "style" in my head for 8 years, and it's so specific at this point that I want the visuals of this film to just basically resemble what I see in my head. This film, in my head and in the screenplay, has been custom-fit for DV, as to not get too far ahead of myself.

-----------------------------------------------

Now...

Umm, let me respond to most of these by saying that yeah... I'm pretty much technically knowledge-less at this point, but I'm not shooting my actual film until five months after I get the basic equipment. In the meantime, I will be shooting short films non-stop, when I'm not working on for-hire videos.

I have ABSOLUTELY no intention of making my film without being fully learned with my camera and my equipment. This project/screenplay is way too important to me. My vision for this film is way too defined and specific for me to let myself ruin it.

I come to this forum almost everyday. I read a good deal of it, but I wanted to start this thread for specific recommendations for my film. There are a few basic things I still don't completely understand that I don't think are possible to understand until I have the camera in my hands.

I really wish I could afford/coax a cinematographer, but it's just not in the cards.

Another thing is that what I'm buying now isn't necessarily what I'm going to be settling with for my film shoot. I'll be spending another $5,000 or so come August when I'm more knowledgable about my camera and what I'll need, so I will probably be buying some more equipment.

The 3x and 20x lenses are the ones I'm sticking with for now.

Now, Mike... I appreciate your compliments and no offense was taken, as I admit my great inexperience. Sound-wise, I have a Sennheiser boom that fits me pretty well. If it doesn't fit the film, I'll change... I'll be getting some nice wireless mics, as well. Also, my best friend and roommate has an extremely nice recording studio, as that's his profession. I'm a musician and have recorded two albums and countless other my projects as producer, so sound is my strong-suit. I won't settle for crap in this category, because I know plenty about it. I know music and film are two different beasts, but i understand the physics of sound and the quality of sound recording very well.

To answer my fellow Andrew... On the case of a 35 mm adapter/lens... It seems to be a bit steep for this project monetarily. I don't really want to rent anything, because even doing that is too expensive, and I don't want to risk inflating my budget if I go a little over schedule. If there are any fitting the budget as stated above, I'll definitely strongly consider it before shooting the film, based on your recommendations.

Which brings me to another point. My cast/crew are all friends, being that almost all of my friends are professionals in creative fields. Professional actors, recording engineers, electric engineers, musicians, the works... Payment will only come for them if the film makes money. I won't be taking any profit/reimbursement, my cast and crew will.

So shooting will not be on a schedule, it will be very much piece by piece. The only time it will be on a strict schedule is when I'm shooting in a location, like a bar/office building. So renting is a bad idea, as is hiring a professional. It would be a pain for me to spend that kind of dough and it would be a nuisance for a professional to work with no defined shooting schedule.

That might all sound really bizarre to some of you, but it will absolutely produce the best film possible. This freedom will allow us many perks, namely having the freedom to shoot in as many locations as possible in a day and completel comfort with cast and crew.

Matthew, I really do see where you're coming from and I hope this post has helped you better understand my choices. Like I said, I wish I could hire a cinematographer and shoot this film on 35mm... This film would kick SERIOUSLY major ass if that were the case. (Right now I'll settle for the major ass that it's going to kick, as is)

Jeff, I would be extremely interested in seeing that video. My email is andrewpadillafilms@yahoo.com. Your post helped me better understand lenses in-context. I do have more to learn about DOF.

Thanks alot for understanding my POV, Richard... And I agree with you, I do still have alot to learn from other sources and will undoubtedly have more questions to ask afterwards. Thanks for the lighting enlightening.

I hope I haven't upped the retard level of this forum too much... The fact that you guys didn't just simply PM eachother laughing at how stupid I am is admirable on it's own.

A few of you are definitely getting thanks in my credits. You all have been fantastic. You have no idea how comforting it is to know I have somewhere to turn for educated opinions and answers, because I won't lie... This is scary.

Thanks.

[QUOTE]
project/screenplay is way too important to me. My vision for this film is way too defined and specific for me to let myself ruin it. [\QUOTE]


That is why directors hire DOP's... the vision is too importanty for them to ruin. Scorsesse, Coppola, Spielberg, Kurosawa, Ozu, The Dardenne's, Hanike...

They all hire DOP's. I am director and I love to shoot my own stuff, but I try and keep a DOP around because I need someone else to do lighting and occasionally shoot. It is hard to direct actors from behind the lens...

I know this is a technical help forum, but as a film maker, and a fairly succsessful one, I am just offering some advice from one Director to another.

If you really are passionate about this film (which I can tell you are!) then you might reconsider your strategy.

Also, $15,000 is a lot to pay for a film at this level. Last year I made a 15 minute short on colour SUPER 16 with an Arriflex SR3 and fantastic lighting, with a cast of 20 for only $5000. That includes film and processing (you need to be good at getting deals). Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it, sometimes creativity does.

I give you my blessing on an XL2, as it is my favourite camera out there. The 20X and 3X lenses are great, and it seems like you'll be getting great equipment. I wish you luck on your project and you can take my advice or leave it. Trust me, even if you buy the stuff, hiring a DOP for a shoot that is only a few days long shouldn't cost you more than a few grand (I usually do $300-500 a day with equipment), and you don't want a short production going longer than that.

Anyway, just my two cents. I mean no disrespect and am just trying to be helpful.

Good luck.

Matt

Matt, I appreciate your recommendation.

I disagree with you, though... Almost all of those directors you mentioned funded their own projects in order to work their way towards getting the projects that you're describing.

Honestly, the thing I know more about than anything other than writing and directing technique is filmmakers' careers... Film school has little affect and most of the time you have to suck in your dignity and do whatever you can to get a decent budget for a film. Unfortunately, my town has no interest in funding a film, so it's up to me completely.

I know what I can and can't do in my situation, and this is the best option for me. All I need is assistance in these technical decisions, which I've been getting an amazing amount of.

I was not suggesting you do not fund a project, merely use some funding to hire a DOP.

:)

And I was just saying that most of the directors you mentioned started off as their own DPs, shooting their own work, before they were able to hire anyone to do it for them. The others either knew DPs or got funding from the get-go.

I don't have the extra money or the patience to hire anybody. Learning it for myself will be more beneficial financially and more beneficial in my knoledge of photography and my relationships with DPs in the future.

My film is a roughly 1 hr 30 min/1 hr 45 min hour picture... So multiply your 5k for a 15 minute short by 7 and we'll have a better idea of what that method would cost me.

Shooting and editing digitally allows me the freedom and the spontanaity I need.

And like I said, I don't shoot for another 5 or 6 months, and by then it's possible that I might have changed my mind and gone to hire a DP. You never know.

I appreciate your suggestions, though.

I have helped a lot of people with their XL2 looks and settings and would gladly assist you but let me say in advance that they XL2 is the hardest camera to use in its class. Judging by the way you talk about your film and how you want it to look, I doubt you will be able to master it in the time you have allowed, at least to the level you are thinking.

Also, you say your script is actor driven and I can tell you from 1st hand experience there is almost no way for ANY director, much less a 1st time director, to properly direct the actors AND operate the camera properly. If you want doc style, Full Frontal, maybe... but cinematic? Forget it. Either the performance or the cinematography will suffer.

Spend and extra $5k and hire a DP for a couple weeks, it will be money well spent.



ash =o)

My sentiments exactly Ash.

They only guy who directs and shoots (as far as I know) is Stevem Soderbergh, and he picks actors who are autonomous and need little direction. When I am using the XL2, it is a handful to operate. If you DO NOT want to compromise your vision, just get someone to operate for you, even if you buy an xl2. You will thank yourself later.

As for technical help, that's what this board is all about! :)

I will have a crew, and I will not be shooting everything. For some of the long tracking shots, though, I will be manning the camera.

As for mastering the art of cinematography by August/Early September... I don't expect to. I hope to achieve an above average level of understanding, but I don't intend on mastering anything in 5 or 6 months.

Since when does film have rules or any level of definity? To say I can't do something is assuming you know me well enough to make that assumption and is also assuming that cinema is an artform based on certainty. And if you believe that... well, then we're bound to disagree.

I think you should brush up on your film history, guys. An extremely vast amount of directors shoot their own scenes. Some of the greatest directors in history at that. It's a matter of trust to be able to have someone else incorporate your vision onto the screen, but sometimes, with some people, the matter transcends trust and they're just more comfortable doing their own shooting.

I intend on keeping you guys up-to-date on what I end up doing. As I've said, everything could change drastically come shootdate. But no matter what I decide, this movie's getting made and will be in the can and on the move by Christmas. I appreciate all the help.

Peace,
Andrew

nobody ever said anything about definity or rules in filmmaking andrew. they're just giving you some common sense. having someone else around with some experience for a second opinion during your shoot is probably a wise idea. All anyone here is telling you, and im sure they are speaking from experience is some tips.. and thats what you asked for.. no need to go on the defence. no one here is attacking that filmmaking genius that you know you have inside. thats for you to prove.. they say hire a DOP. if you feel that having DOP around will negatively impact your shoot (which it probably wouldnt) then dont hire one.

And i dont think anyone is attempting to challenge your film history knowledge :)

Hahaha.. That comment may have come off sounding more defensive than I meant it too. Text on the internet is hard to interpret.

Trust me, I wouldn't get mad about someone testing my film knowledge... I was just commenting on something Ash posed as fact that has been proven many times to be incorrect. Saying that something can't be done one way or another is assuming there's a great deal of certainty in film, which I highly disagree with.

The reason I love film and music and art in general is that anything is possible for anybody. There are no limitations, especially in an age where consumer technology approaches professional technology.

But as I said, I consider absolutely everything I hear (which might be my downfall). I'm just still not thinking that a DP will be good for this shoot under the conditions that I've concieved. Buuut you never know.

[QUOTE=Matthew Nayman]Just out of interest Matt, did you pay your actors and crew within this budget?

Regards

Stephen