[Community Project] Cinematography

Discussing all aspects of cinematography for the ongoing IT Community Project.

Topic starters:

  • Image Quality
  • Meta Style
  • Common shot sizes
  • Mise-en Scene
  • Serving the story

Image Quality:
23.976 FPS, 1920x1080 progressive.

Meta Style:
Apply stylistic flourishes in all remote scenes to tie it all together.


Common shot sizes
It seems to me that one thing that will help keep our various efforts looking similar will be the shot framing size. For example, If we define that a Close Up shot has the eyes the upper third line, tight enough to crop the top but not so tight as to clip the chin and we all do our CU's to that specification we will have a nice coherency in our CU.


Mise-en Scene
This basically comes down to production design. Since we have many different locations and varying resources to apply to production design we can instead establish some basic look and feel guidelines for wardrobe and set dressing. Such as no full white shirts, no floral patterns. Wardrobe blues and grays only.


Serving the story
Guidelines for using cinematography in support of the story. I think this will mostly likely be a list of Don'ts rather than a list of dos, but lets see where this goes..
 
Practicle question:

what cameras has each unit access to?
I own a Sony EX1R,
have access to a 5D MkII (with 2.8 24-70mm, 2.8 70-200mm, 1.8 50mm).
(I own a 60D as well, but I'm not impressed)
I can rent a C300.
 
Good stuff.

I think that EX1R or 5D would be fine. Most of the members on here are probably DSLR users, so let's basically stick to that level of camera equipment. I think we can all agree on Wheat's designation about Image Quality.

I think that, maybe instead of being highly prescriptive about shot sizes, we could perhaps get a couple of people to shoot a couple of minutes of test footage, look at the cinematography choices available to us. I think it'll be easier to say to people 'Let's try and imitate a rough style like this...' than 'Make sure the eyes are two-thirds up in every CU'. Although, of course, those sort of rules are very good guidelines for keeping it all unified.
 
Camera specs:
I'm still running a hacked GH2, with vintage FD lenses.
I could limit my choice to only the sharpest lenses I have, or rent newer lenses.
I think that's going to be an area of great difference. Sharpness.
Let start posting "Look" samples so we can talk about what we want our movie to look like..




Shot Specs:
Thats a good approach too, along similar lines we could just agree on an existing film with shots styles we'd like to emulate?
 
Camera specs:
.....
I think that's going to be an area of great difference. Sharpness.
....

That's why I think it's good to know what cameras are available for each unit.
An EX1R has a much larger default DOF (especially on wide shots) than a 5D. But aperture plays a role as well.
But an EX1R resolves about a 1000 lines, a 5D about 700/800, so 5D is softer as well.
I'd love to shoot on C300 (I will have to bargain a bit :P ) : I really like how that footage looks, but I also love my EX1R :)
In the scene we will use an EX1R as the camera for the TV crew: we will shoot with that camera as well as soon as camera is rolling.
 
any thoughts on widescreen? I know some folks round here are not partial to wide screen (wider than 16x9) me, Im for it. I think its more dramatic framing... but that's just me. Shooting 16:9 but editing for wider gives a bit of wiggle room to reframe shots, move eye up etc..
 
My DP and I have recently made the switch to the Sony FS700…but before that we were getting some really great stuff with the 5D mark iii ML RAW…though the workflow can be a pain, I highly recommend it to people who want top quality for a limited budget.
This trailer was shot almost entirely with the 5D RAW..
https://vimeo.com/89414990
 
jjvr,
Im on the west side, Hillsboro a bit west and north of Portland. Ill be using locations even further north and I have access to a large talent pool here in PDX. I think Ill stay with the GH2 simply because of familiarity.
 
Camera: I'm shooting a GH3 with vintage lenses. I'll use the sharper lenses I have.
One issue worth raising: The crop factor of the GH3. I'm going to be in a tight space due to the bedrooms I have available to me being student flats. Personally I'd solve this issue by shooting with my Canon FD 24mm and my Zenitar 16mm. However, 1) these are not amazingly sharp, and 2) the distortion that comes from shooting on wide angle lenses. Personally I don't have an issue with it, but it may cause issues with different looks between units...

I think the distortion could be nice and add to the creepiness of the film, but others may disagree. Similarly, the tightness of my other lenses could make it nice and claustrophobic.

Mise En Scene: The locations I have available to me are 70's/80's built houses with quite ugly interiors for the most part. White/beige walls and curtains in a lot of places. I could 1) Use this as is, and make it more visually interesting with a grade (since it's night in my scene, there's room for this I think). Maybe chuck some posters up?
2) I have one location I can think off the top of my head, which is quite pretty, and has a nice soft blue wall with a window seat and so on. But the other walls are white/cream in there too.
3) Do some more location scouting!

Style: I think it's a bit too early to think about style? I personally like to think I use interesting shots a lot, but I haven't thought about that yet until the script is finalised. Story should lend the style, not the other way around.

With that said, maybe a mix of high/low angle shots can make it seem a little more creepy, like the characters are being watched. Framing characters dead centre can be unnerving. Top down shots. Unnatural camera movements. All of these can make things seem a bit unnerving, I think. It could also move the other way with a (more subtle and maybe harder to pull off) reserved style. Every shot is dead still, overly normal sorta thing. Audiences come to expect more movement, flashy cinematography, shaky cam in this kinda thing - so doing the opposite may be uncomfortable by just being so normal.
 
Is there particular reason that you both are considering erring towards sharper glass than you normally would use? If it is for the purposes of coming closer to "matching" the various units, can I offer a counterpoint?

Don't. :) Instead perhaps concentrate on the strengths of what each unit is working with (personally, I think vintage glass on the GH cameras looks great) to give the basis for a look for each of the units/locations?

Just a thought, all the locations are quite visually different to begin with so there is a bit of a basis to work from.


- so doing the opposite may be uncomfortable by just being so normal.

Agreed here. For our part I'm thinking our characters are beginning from the mindset that their world is set, stable, particularly Mark - solid job, friends, etc - so I'm working with that as a basis. Sticks mostly, punctuated with the occasional slow, contemplative move; perhaps find a way to gradually introduce that things are little off. OTOH - the script nicely ratchets the tension before coming back to us, so I figure a traditional hand-held (not shaky-cam, good operating, or as good as I can do, which is probably just average!) approach there may be appropriate.

This is all pending a meet with my director, who had to fly back to Texas for a family emergency. He'll be back on the weekend though.

Speaking to camera, I have some options and have not quite decided.
 
Last edited:
I think there's definitely merit in people shooting the film the way that they're most comfortable with, and with the equipment that they consider best for the task (so long as it fulfils the technical requirements outline in the OP). Having different cinematographic elements in a single film is not unusual, many DPs juggle influences and styles, and this would be an extension of that.

But, equally, I think it's important that we're all pulling in the right direction. If you know that you've got to go from point A to point B, then it doesn't really matter how people get there. But if we are all meeting at point B and someone ends up at point C or, God forbid, point D, then that's where it'll get sticky. So, in addition to agree on obvious things like a 34fps, 1080p, aspect ratio...etc, I think we should make sure that we're all shooting for roughly the same purpose.

Here are the key things, for me, that the cinematography needs to work with:

Realism: the film should be lit and shot in order to look as 'real' as possible, so nothing expressionist or abstract.
Natural: most of the scenes are shot outside and we should take advantage of nature, and natural lighting, in order to give the film an organic feel, which also reflects the themes about the Earth.
Environment: everyone's shooting dialogue scenes, but rather than just simple OTS set-ups, I think we should encourage directors to pay due attention to the environment, as well as the characters.

For obvious reasons, these things feed into one another rather neatly! At the same time, I'm not going to be shooting anything and the aesthetic decisions are up to those people who are actually going to be taking the camera out.
 
hum... realism.. how about realism x 10.
I live in the real world, warts pimples and all. Id prefer to watch and shot something that is BETTER than real. Do you know what I mean?

Elaborate a bit on "Environment" I worry that this will move people to shooting more wide's then normal. In my opinion most indies are shot too wide. Not enough emotional content is conveyed to the camera. That might just be me, I love those moments of non-verbal communication that require CU's to really sell.
 
Elaborate a bit on "Environment" I worry that this will move people to shooting more wide's then normal. In my opinion most indies are shot too wide. Not enough emotional content is conveyed to the camera. That might just be me, I love those moments of non-verbal communication that require CU's to really sell.

Sorry, that's not what I meant at all – I agree that indies often go too wide and that CUs are a great way of conveying emotion and also masking production values.

My point was more that, because these are lots of short dialogue scenes, the cinematography needs to establish each new environment. Show what's different, what's interesting, and help orientate the viewer as to where we are. Not in wides, but in having the characters play with, and interact with, their environment, and by trying to make each new locale a distinct character within the scene.

If that makes sense ;)
 
Okay, I'll say it --

Should he want it, I formally nominate wheaty to take the official position of cinematographer. This position would of course work differently than if we were all on the same set, but some important boundaries would be drawn. The way I see it working would be like this:

Just like in a "normal" production, wheaty would communicate with the director (Nick) about the overall look they're going for. The only way our production would be different would be in the fact that the DP would then have to communicate with all of his assistant-DPs to best achieve what we're going for, using the equipment and skills that are available to each unit.

I'm definitely keen on keeping things as unified as possible, and I think a pecking-order is a good way to achieve that. :)
 
Back
Top