First Short Film - Please Help

D

DallasDKnight

Greetings –

My name is Dallas and I am a young amateur film-maker from Canada. This summer I will be shooting my first short film, using my Canon XL1 Camcorder.

This film is mostly intended for television/youtube viewing so I have decided to use a 4:3 perspective.

Beyond just shooting this as an experience in film-making and to get some practice under my belt, I am curious - Do short film festivals usually accept digital films shot and presented in a 4:3 perspective?

Also can anyone suggest a good Boom Microphone that I will be purchasing for use during this production, something that will record quality sounds and are about an equivalent production value to that of my XL1.

Any suggestions on a lighting kit? I would like to fetch both these items for the 1500 range, Canadian dollars – but I might be willing to pitch more as I recognize they will be used again in my future productions, also I might upgrade my Camera in the future. So please keep all that in mind if you suggest possibilities.

The film will 90% be shot inside during the day. There are some shots outside, one of which is at night-time (I am hoping headlights and streetlamps do the job), and one of which is during the day.

I have already cast the film, and I am using actors I am familiar with and who are familiar with one another. Can you please help me, I am somewhat of a stubborn and passionate person. I would really like however to be a Director in the soft-spoken style of François Truffaut or Fellini. How can I go about getting that sort of performance out of my actors?

What sort of crew would you suggest I try and maintain on set at all times. I was hoping I could find friends so it will always be the actors, hair and make-up, lighting, camera. If it was a possibility to get more bodies on set what sort of titles would you suggest I give them e.t.c?

My script is strong, I understand the shots in my mind, and I will storyboard them weeks before the shootings.

What program would you suggest I edit this on? I would like a system that can operate quickly although I can pick up how to operate the system quite quickly even if complex with a good help manual.

Well I am sure I will have lots more questions if any of you bite to help me out.

Thanks so much for listening to my ramblings; I just want to make sure I get as much of this right the first time for the highest quality picture possible.

- Dallas
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
iris ... wide open will give you shallower depth of field, so it'll take less light, but if you're limited on what kinds of lights you have, get a couple of different Neutral Density "ND" filters that are lighter than what your camera comes with (if it comes with them built in). That way you can afford to slightly overlight and then ND it down afterwards. I like to use a polarizer as well (circular if you use auto focus at all). The other thing that is worthwhile to learn is the "Inverse Square Law". Basically it states that as you move a light away from something it gets dimmer :) So to control the amount of light without a dimmer, move it farther away from the subject...it'll spread out wider as well, so you may have to turn it to prevent spill. Imagine that every light with a reflector casts a cone out from the front of it ... the edges of these cones goes slightly darker as it approaches the part of the cone that no longer throws light (falloff area). Lighting with the falloff allows you to cotrol spill without barndoors :) I have tons more, some based on the physics of light studies that I've done and others based on experience.

Play alot with the camera and lights...figure out what works by experimenting. Put your key light x feet away from your subject, see how it looks in the camera, move it, see what that does. Put your fill light x*2 feet away for a 4:1 lighting ratio (inverse square law will give you these numbers).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sorry, missed the other questions in my flurry of typing:

Frame rate, set it to frame mode in the menus (30p). 60i is the default and will give you "combed" vertical edges where there is motion forcing you to deinterlace and lose 50% of your resolution. Shoot 4x3, but turn on your 16x9 guides in the viewfinder for framing. This will allow you the option to crop later if you want to.

Shutter speed 1/60th will look the most familiar. Faster shutter (bigger bottom numbers) will get you the "Private Ryan" beach look, slower shutter will get you the "Just passing through before passing out at the party" look.

As far as framing goes, make sure to get different framings while you're shooting, since you control the lighting, I'm assuming you control the actors (kinda) as well. Go through each scene a couple of times with different framings, from wide to establish the actors' relationship to one another (break the rule to hide the relationship), to mids to get emotionally neutral views of the characters to closeups to get very intimate shots of the subjects...to XCU to show extreme empathy or involvement on the part of the audience.

For SD Digital, remember to get into the mids and closeups faster than you would on film to hide the lack of resolution form the audience. Shooting with the camera farther back and zoomed in to frame will get some blurring in the background. :) This is a good thing, it helps to hide the digital nature as well by eliminating sharp contrasty edges in the backgrounds and focusing more attention on the foreground. In fact you should probably be running at just shy of full zoom (variation to account for the different framings) almost always unless you specifically want a long depth of field for your shot or specifically want to show something in the background to the audience at its real size in relation to the subject.

Ask more pointed questions, I'll cough out more info.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Awesome!

I've got my actors.

I've got my script.

I've got my set.

I've got my shotgun mic working.

I'm going to be buying my light kit soon and I have a couple of questions.

How many watts is one of my normal light plugs in the wall going to hold? I only have one panel in my basement that has two sockets. But I have two panels upstairs close enough that could give me 4 sockets with the use of extension cords. How many watts do you think one socket will hold? If that makes any sense.

Also do flouresent lights look nice on digital video? If I bought four flouresent lights with diffusers from a camera store, would that work for my film?

Thanks.

-D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
thanks john...but, lighting...knightly sniffs around...I smell lighting questions :)

http://ebtx.com/mech/ampvolt.htm

watts=volts x amps

ergo, amps = watts / volts

Normal household circuit is 110, normal household circuit is 15 - 20 amps (check the circuit box). Depending on where your location is , it could be a 220 installation, amperage would be different there...again, check the circuit box.

80% is safe tolerance for a circuit...90% is pushing it. Don't ever hit 100%, you'll have nothing but headaches.

Bring lots of long extension cords so you can draw from multiple circuits if need be.

Flourescent lights look fabulous on camera...see everything I've done...except streamcavejimdave (who named that thing) which was all sunlit. You'll want to white balance to the lights using a white card...and possibly add some minus green gel (magenta, 1/2 should do ...roscoe makes great gels) to the lights (gets rid of the green spike in the flourescent world, it's normal there). I didn't gel and used preset indoor WB in "Scare Tactics", so the footage turned out slightly yellow from the green and the reds mixing. I'm using GE Softwhite Spiral Compact Flourescents (CFL's). $5/bulb...can't complain with those prices. I can put 3 of them on my car with an inverter to do location outdoor lighting...only one worklight though :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi Dallas:

I can't offer help with the film aspect of your project but would like to offer my assistance with any sound design, composition, SFX, or Foley for you. Let me know if you are interested.

Richard
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I actually have a question (or questions) relevent to this discussion. I finally watched my "Ultimate Guide to the XL1s" a couple of times so I know the camera pretty well now (including what I was doing wrong with the audio). knightly, you recommend turning on the 16:9 guides in 4:3 mode. Why this method and not anamorphic (squeezed)? I was planning on using the 16:9 mode and monitoring the framing using an external LCD screen so I don't lose any of the resolution through cropping. Even the host of the "Guide" mentions this is not the best method. In your experience, why the guides and not the "squeeze"? Incidentally, if Dallas has an XL1 and not the XL1s, I don't think he has the guides. He only has the squeeze. I'm pretty sure the guides were new to the XL1s.

On other forums, 60i was the recommended shooting method because even shooting in frame mode the data is still stored on the media as interlaced since it's NTSC. Frame Mode supposedly just simulates the appearance of progressive through software in the camera. With this in mind, you would still need to deinterlace after capture and you are at the mercy of the camera to properly interpret what you are shooting. I planned to shoot 60i and use software (e.g. DV Film Maker) in post to get the film look. Is it really preferred to shoot 30p?

Thanks.

BTW, this is where I got the info about shooting interlaced and not progressive:

http://www.dvfilm.com/fx1/

Even though this references HD material, I thought it might also be relevent to SD. Perhaps it is just the algorithms that the software uses where it prefers 50i or 60i input.

--Vince
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
16x9 in the XL1s crops anyway, the host of the video is misinformed...the XL2 is the first Canon prosumer to not crop its 16x9. You can get an anamorphic adaptor for the front of the lens to use the whole 4x3 area to store a optically (not digitally) squeezed image, which can be unsqueezed with the click of a button in post...33% resolution horizontal resolution gain over setting the 16x9 option in the camera.

Interlaced vs. Progressive:

The issue isn't with storage, it's with motion of light over time. In interlaced, you are taking 1/60th of a second time slices and putting them together odd lines, then even lines. If there is any horizontal motion between those timeslices (i.e. panning or subject moving their body at all, wind in the trees), you *will* see the combing effect. You can reduce this in post by throwing away half of your image through deinterlacing.

With progressive (frame), the timeslice is a 1/30th of a second (NTSC - XL1s)...the digital magic that happens is that the even fields' information is stored in a buffer from the previous 1/60th of a second (the same one that the odd fields are from) and then stored to the next field write to tape. What you end up with is the odds drawing on screen, then the evens and persistance of vision (which is used to blend the fields in our eyes with interlaced) stiches the two together. Until you get to your editing where you can use the 2:3 pulldown to make it real progressive.

Since you're going for the "Film Look" (which is a term I've grown to dislike since it means different things to different people). Shoot progressive (frame) to get the real life motion that a film camera would grab. This is one of the main things that gives away video vs. film...30p or 24p is a negligible step and having people rant about 24p is somewhat annoying, the real reason they're so happy about the aesthetic is that it's progressive rather than interlaced. People who do nothing but stare at footage all day (myself included) can tell the difference between 30 and 24, but the rest of the audience won't care. Interlaced combing, however, is painfully obvious...and in the XL1s, you throw away less information shooting frame mode than shooting interlaced.

The only reasons I would recommend you shoot interlaced is if you are printing to film and your conversion house recommends it, if you want a segment that looks like a news cast or if you intend to turn the footage into slow motion using the alternating fields as separate frames through a field > frame conversion with deinterrlacing (I wrote a script once and have footage posted somewhere).

so 4x3 with guides, and 30p unless you have an artistic reson to shoot 60i. The name of the game is to keep as many pixels represented in the final product as possible with SD Video. Light well and expose properly, consider every piece of what goes into each frame and you will get the film look without having to spend the extra time post processing the footage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
knightly,

Okay, I think I understand. If I pull a 4:3 image into a 16:9 sesson, I will need to zoom in on the image and cut the top and bottom portions off (I'd probably leave out the overscan in the horizontal axis to get a little vertical resolution back). If I pull a 4:3 image that is optically sqeezed, I merely stretch it to the 16:9 size; I don't have to zoom in on it, thus maintaining the vertical resolution. I just read elsewhere what what you're talking about. The XL1 series cameras merely stretch the image vertically to give it the anamorphic effect, so it's cutting off image resolution anyway. I was thinking that it was maintaining vertical resolution and squeezing it as though I had an optical anamorphic lens. Perhaps this is why the the host of the "Guide" was saying that using the squeezed method wasn't the best way to do it. He should have clarified the vertical stretch, but I believe his project was subsidized by Canon so he wasn't going to air dirty laundry. Dang, I need an XL2 now. :lol: I wish I had the money for the XLH1.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Depending on your distribution method, you may want to consider letterboxed output as well. DeathBed got uploaded to alot of the video sites, and a couple of them didn't do that 16x9 at all. They squished it back to squeezed anamorphic looking footage (like an old 70's movie credit roll as seen on TV during the 80's). So consider your destination when planning how to shoot and post your project.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
knightly said:
Depending on your distribution method, you may want to consider letterboxed output as well. DeathBed got uploaded to alot of the video sites, and a couple of them didn't do that 16x9 at all. They squished it back to squeezed anamorphic looking footage (like an old 70's movie credit roll as seen on TV during the 80's). So consider your destination when planning how to shoot and post your project.
Click to expand...

I knew I had seen some contradictory info, which is why 60i stuck solidly to mind:

http://www.jkor.com/peter/tipstricks.html

I definitely don't use the "Movie Mode > Frame" setting on the Canon XL-1. It will halve your resolution, and introduce jerkiness, or a strobbing effect, with motion! This will be extra especially noticeable when "blown up" to film, I would imagine. Although this option is said to give a more "film look", don't be deceived. It is really a facility designed for still-image capture, and it is not a true progressive scan as the literature (or other people) might suggest.

What I understand is happening with the XL-1 in this mode, is that the camera captures one field (i.e. half the 480 lines = 240 lines in the NTSC system), and then fills in the missing half "electronically". So it fills in the missing interlaced lines to produce a sort of fake "progressive" scan, but at the expense of half your available resolution. When going to film, you need all the resolution you can possibly get hold of ........ so this is not such a smart idea. Not to mention the problems with the jerkiness or strobbing effect in this mode. However, this mode works great when (1) you use "freeze frame" during video playback (i.e. the result is better than in "interlaced" scanning mode) ....... and (2) when capturing a still frame for use in a computer etc. I'm told it also looks O.K. if you stay on tape (and some people tell me they prefer the "look" of the video in this mode ...... several people have told me this, in fact). And I know of one production in Seattle shooting in frame mode, that intends blowing up to film.

Too much information = too much confusion. Sometimes I hate the Internet. :weird:

He does confirm that we should stay away from 16:9 digital anamorphic, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Everything I've read has pointed to 30% res loss in frame mode vs. interlaced...I just hate the motion of interlaced footage, so I'd be de-interlacing anyway which would get me 50% loss...lesser of 2 evils. As for the motion. The strobing is motion blur taken at intervals of 1/60th of a second (equivalent of a 180 degree shutter at 30fps in the film world) There is a missing 1/60th of a second there which accounts for the shuddering.

This points to an improper use of the camera while in progressive mode. Pans need to be eiter really slow or really fast. In the ASC Manual (American Society of Cinematographers), there are panning speed charts to keep the shuddering away. In film, the same thing exists as it's shot 24p with a 180 shutter (normally) giving 1/48th of a second shutter speed...with the same 1/2 of every second gone in 24 distinct slices. I've read all of the information you're finding and weighed it against my own testing and personal preferences. Shoot some footage 60i, shoot some 30p...see which you like better. Pan with it at varying speeds, test, learn, repeat...

I started out convinced that I could learn everything I needed to know through the internet, until I started shooting a feature...then I realized that hands on experience is the only teacher in this biz. Tapes are cheap, keep a tape for shooting tests in your camera at all times...use it constantly. When you hear some claim, test it...see how the claim holds up...be skeptical. I could be filling your head full of fluff just 'cause I like talking, don't trust me either...test it for yourself! Take charge of your learning. Know that camera like the back of your hand before you start shooting that feature.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
First Scene, First Movie

Well this is the first scene, of the first movie I ever made. So take it kind of easy, if it is complete crap.

We filmed this, obviously I need to secure my camera to the wheelchair more if I re-shoot this scene. I used three flouresents for all of it - yes I know you can see them reflecting some places, I might leave it in...we need to get moving.

If you have any tips or pointers to help out the new guy, about anything you see that I could fix let me know.

By the way I uploaded this just in the lowest resolution it would let me, and it has no audio. It was more an experiment to see all my equipment worked, and I could edit it, upload it e.t.c. I will upload it in high quality for the final cut, and the editting will be different.

Anyways any constructive critisim is welcome.

http://dyinglove.com/Movie.wmv

-Dallas
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top