• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

109 Post Production

OK, restarting the thread here to use as I move through the post production process. I'm going to start it off with a few production photos.

You guys have heard me refer to this slider before. It's pipe with a bracket for each end that mounts to a combo stand. These are the 8' pipes, we have a 4' set we borrow as well. The pipes just interchange. We are using a set of skate wheels and cheese plate that's part of a rig my friend sells under the brand "filmtoys".

5936034630_1d4f5e3f37_z.jpg


Rare (for me) use of a Glidecam.

5936033976_7bd66f0fd4_z.jpg


Three days prior to this, this room was totally empty.

5935471871_7d7f6b51c6_z.jpg
 
The editing process is moving along. My editor in LA (he's mainly a commercials. "industrials" guy) and I banged through the first 4 revisions. Now I'm letting it sit for a day or two before I hit him with the next set of notes.

Music recording is underway. Much foley, ADR, and color correction yet to come. The cinestyle really pops one you apply the S curve to it, but we have several shots with bad white balance and have to smooth out some differences between wides and closeups.
 
Three weeks working with the editor in LA (whose paid work has to come first) and we are about to lock the video.

Couple of things, one, commercial editors are not guaranteed to be good narrative film editors. I really had to lead him by the hand on a lot of stuff, particularly transitions. My old editor just seemed to know what the right transition was. With this guy I had to be very specific or everything just tended to be hard cuts. When to cross fade, when to dissolve to black then fade back in, etc... I wasn't expecting that.

I will be really happy when someday (I hope) I can actually shoot all the coverage we need. Some of it I just dropped the ball on, but sometimes I wanted more, but knew there just wasn't time in the schedule. Everything edits together fine, but definitely scenes where we really only had one option on the edit.

It looks like it will run right at 12 minutes with credits. The "festival friendly" length I set out to shoot.

I guess it's becoming a stylistic thing for me, in a 12 minute movie there is essentially no dialogue for the first 4:30.

Music is a little behind schedule. We have two complete songs to record (one rock one country) plus the incidental music. It's all written but only 60% recorded and not mastered. Crunch time for the sound guy soon as that isn't finished and the foley/ADR bomb is about to drop on him as soon as we lock video.
 
First time to shoot on DSLR. Some of the limitations of the tool are becoming very very apparent as I look at the locked video.

The worst by far, far worse than moire or aliasing is the tendency to blow out the highlights. On a production that wasn't under a huge time crunch and had more budget it's certainly fixable. However, shooting 10 pages in 4 locations in 2 days, there wasn't always time to say 'OK, we need to throw about 3K of light at this scene so I can stop down the lens and drop the ISO to prevent that lamp on the table with a 40 watt bulb in it from blowing out like the surface of the sun".

In the future, just have to make time. lesson learned.
 
Last edited:
Couple of things, one, commercial editors are not guaranteed to be good narrative film editors. I really had to lead him by the hand on a lot of stuff, particularly transitions. My old editor just seemed to know what the right transition was. With this guy I had to be very specific or everything just tended to be hard cuts. When to cross fade, when to dissolve to black then fade back in, etc... I wasn't expecting that.

At least you learned this earlier on! Also, television editors may not be good for short film or narrative films. You'd think opposite, but television's definitely different in more ways than one. You really want someone who cuts short form or long form dramatic narrative that isn't television or commercial.

If anything, it's a learning experience for yourself anyway so it's valuable.
I will be really happy when someday (I hope) I can actually shoot all the coverage we need. Some of it I just dropped the ball on, but sometimes I wanted more, but knew there just wasn't time in the schedule. Everything edits together fine, but definitely scenes where we really only had one option on the edit.

Good reason why these things cost money. However, there's an advantage to doing it this way: you learn to either script or storyboard what you need for a good cut, and you make your day that way. I've learned to do it now, but it's from editing other people's material down to the bone that I've recognized the kinds of things you just HAVE to shoot or you'll end up with a flat cut.

Great example: Some people will tell you "You don't need to have them walk into the door again."

Good editor will ask you: Why didn't you let them walk into the door again on this shot?



First time to shoot on DSLR. Some of the limitations of the tool are becoming very very apparent as I look at the locked video.

The worst by far, far worse than moire or aliasing is the tendency to blow out the highlights. On a production that wasn't under a huge time crunch and had more budget it's certainly fixable. However, shooting 10 pages in 4 locations in 2 days, there wasn't always time to say 'OK, we need to throw about 3K of light at this scene so I can stop down the lens and drop the ISO to prevent that lamp on the table with a 40 watt bulb in it from blowing out like the surface of the sun".

DSLRs are a serious bust ,man. I like them, and I know how to work with them, but avoid them at all costs.

For future reference, your ISO should ride around 400-640 during all situations, and you just need to under expose with ND's or stop depending on what you're doing. Also, using old glass can be really helpful.

You do have to rely more on post with digital, but even more so with DSLRs.

Looking forward to checking it out after the festival run.
 
"For future reference, your ISO should ride around 400-640 during all situations, and you just need to under expose with ND's or stop depending on what you're doing. Also, using old glass can be really helpful. "

It was all shot on vintage glass from the early 70's. Shot mostly in the 320 to 640 range though I did shoot 1250 on a couple of scenes. From the noise charts for the 5D you are pretty good up to 1250, after that it drops off badly.

The real issue is the dynamic range. It doesn't matter what the ISO is as much as the fact you can only practically shoot with about 4 to 6 stops (no matter what bullshit you read about 11 stops on the internet) beween the highest highlight and the deepest shadow. I used lower wattage bulbs (going around replacing bulbs with 40 watt and 25 watt all weekend) when practical, but the lamp in the corner just turns into a blown out orb unless you overlight the reat of the scene to close the number of stops bretween the talent's face and the lamp.

The lesson is that DSLR teases you (and has many people) into thinking you can use more simple lighting setups. It's false gold, you have to light MORE not less when using DSLR to narrow the dynamic range between all areas of the scene. It doesn't have the dynamic range of film. I don't think it even has the synamic range of a good 1/3" CCD chip.
 
The real issue is the dynamic range. It doesn't matter what the ISO is as much as the fact you can only practically shoot with about 4 to 6 stops (no matter what bullshit you read about 11 stops on the internet) beween the highest highlight and the deepest shadow. I used lower wattage bulbs (going around replacing bulbs with 40 watt and 25 watt all weekend) when practical, but the lamp in the corner just turns into a blown out orb unless you overlight the reat of the scene to close the number of stops bretween the talent's face and the lamp.

That's close but not entirely accurate: the higher ISO introduces noise into the image before it gets recorded (at the DSP) and gives you a slight edge in highlights. VERY slight.

The Lows succumb to noise easier. So technically, if you ride @ 640 ISO as much as possible, you're netting the best image for your money on Canon DSLrs.

From extensive work with them since the day before the D90 hit, a lot of the stuff I've got on my Vimeo that's video related showcases this really well.

The lesson is that DSLR teases you (and has many people) into thinking you can use more simple lighting setups. It's false gold, you have to light MORE not less when using DSLR to narrow the dynamic range between all areas of the scene. It doesn't have the dynamic range of film. I don't think it even has the synamic range of a good 1/3" CCD chip.

Film? Nah. You're just now getting that close with Alexa and RED EPIC in HDR mode. The Range is there in comparison of an updated 1/3" sensor like the new Canon camera. It's just a matter of the combination of glass, etc.

On Fixed lensed systems you're getting a piece of glass that's optimized for the sensor itself. Here, you've got to choose which one works best for your means.

The best DSLR workflow is going to include hiring someone that knows how to shoot the format properly, and even more so a person that knows their way around manipulating the post image. That has to be prepared for up front.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff.

First shoot with DSLR (Previous films all HVX200A) and my DP had limited experience with them as well, so a learning experience to take forward. It's going to be a pretty good film, just nit picking a lot of technical stuff that really only matters to filmmakers. The audience won't notice or care about most of it.
 
Good stuff.

First shoot with DSLR (Previous films all HVX200A) and my DP had limited experience with them as well, so a learning experience to take forward. It's going to be a pretty good film, just nit picking a lot of technical stuff that really only matters to filmmakers. The audience won't notice or care about most of it.

Can't help it though, right? It's like an infection or something that you don't ever fully get rid of. Always want the best you can get, and little nuances catch you until you can't do anything about it anymore.

I'm sure it'll turn out fine, and if you get stuck anywhere when post processing the image, feel free to PM me or post up and I'll answer some questions for you. Been through it WAY too many times (and still dealing with it currently) so it's second nature by now.

We had a lot of back and forth about budgets, etc. Were you working with a larger one on this production or did it shrink this go 'round?

I've been taking notes here, guys. A quick thank you is in order.


Anyway I can help.
 
Can't help it though, right? It's like an infection or something that you don't ever fully get rid of. Always want the best you can get, and little nuances catch you until you can't do anything about it anymore.

I'm sure it'll turn out fine, and if you get stuck anywhere when post processing the image, feel free to PM me or post up and I'll answer some questions for you. Been through it WAY too many times (and still dealing with it currently) so it's second nature by now.

We had a lot of back and forth about budgets, etc. Were you working with a larger one on this production or did it shrink this go 'round?

Anyway I can help.

Waaaaaaaaaaaay shrunk. Principal cost about $1000 as opposed to almost 3K on my first film and probably 2K on my second. This film is also shorter at probably 12:15 with credits.

My DP is a film guy from LA. He has made the transition to digital and gotten pretty comfortable around 3CCD cameras, he's still adjusting to DSLR. Biggest issue is the super compressed shooting schedule (factor of budget) that makes it hard to spend the needed time really light a shot properly. We had the motel location foor one day, so at some point as the day wears on you start rushing the setups as time bears down on you.
 
Last edited:
Waaaaaaaaaaaay shrunk. Principal cost about $1000 as opposed to almost 3K on my first film and probably 2K on my second. This film is also shorter at probably 12:15 with credits.

It's always a good thing, for short films, to cap the spending budgets. Adversely, I am now wishing that I had done more short films before going into a feature. Mostly because I would have more work to show, but not because I didn't have enough experience for a feature.

My DP is a film guy from LA. He has made the transition to digital and gotten pretty comfortable around 3CCD cameras, he's still adjusting to DSLR. Biggest issue is the super compressed shooting schedule (factor of budget) that makes it hard to spend the needed time really light a shot properly.

Following your progress, man. Post some stills up so we can see what you got this go 'round in camera!
 
It's always a good thing, for short films, to cap the spending budgets. Adversely, I am now wishing that I had done more short films before going into a feature. Mostly because I would have more work to show, but not because I didn't have enough experience for a feature.



Following your progress, man. Post some stills up so we can see what you got this go 'round in camera!

Will do, probably get a few grabs, maybe some short clips up this weekend.
 
These are grabs from the footage. Rough corrected with an approximate S curve applied to the cinestyle. They are extra crushed after that by the funky correction Flickr does to every photo. The blacks aren't nearly this cruished in the actual image.



5967485034_edfa99247c_z.jpg



5967485104_eeae02b12b_z.jpg



5966929021_2a89d14b17_z.jpg


5967485314_085f984ab0_z.jpg



5966929319_b7477f861c_z.jpg
 
Looks like a good start.

Not much you could've done about that window either way without netting it, honestly. The interior light looks pretty natural and appropriate, trying to bring up the ambience and/or overall wattage would've killed that. The best solution's to take the window down, but like you said... budget strikes.

Still, I'm sure in motion it's not distracting at all.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Back
Top