Independent Filmmakers and Short Films

[AmarcordPictures]

Since technology is moving so rapidly and great cameras have become accessible to filmmakers with smaller and smaller budgets, I've found getting a unique look for your independent film is difficult. I know lighting is key, but the literal look of the camera has become pretty commonplace, especially when things are shot on the 5D Mark ii by Canon. Its uniqueness has become its trademark, thus defeating the purpose.

After researching I decided to purchase vintage 1960's Nikon lenses and mount them to the 5D. It creates an interesting and less digital look, just some texture in the picture quality without losing sharpness. Also, the color temperature is great for skin tones and is a great alternative to high quality Zeiss glass if you can't afford it.

I just shot my new film using this technique and I'm curious to know what other tricks and inventions other filmmakers have used.

The trailer to my short film can be found here

Check it out.

 

[jax_rox]

When I shoot Alexa or Red, I tend to put a low strength classic soft filter in front of the lens, just to take that digital harshness away.

I personally like very little about DSLRs except their price. They have a very distinct look, and I'm not a huge fan of it, though I do a lot of DSLR work.

I actually think it's better these days, because there are a lot more affordable cameras out there to seperate our work, each camera has a slightly different look, even the difference between the 5D and 7D is subtle, but still there.

Plus, there's this multitude of lenses out there now, and even though I dislike photography lenses for film, lots of people use them, and vintage lenses to great effect.

I actually think there's more variety now. Now, you can have an F3 with Sony lenses, vs a C300 with an Angeniuex, vs a 5D with vintage Nikons, vs a GH2 with vintage Leica, vs a Red with Cooke primes, vs an Alexa with Superspeeds, vs a BMDCC with L glass.

Not all that long ago, the only options you had were 16mm and 35mm, and lensing choices were limited to cinema lenses which were all optically matched to their own set, had very subtle differences between sets and the 16mm lenses were just smaller versions of the 35mm ones.

The one thing you can do with film, however, is get a different look by under or over-exposing, 1, 2, 3, or more stops (depending on stock) and still holding detail.

Nice trailer, some of the shots are really nice. Some of it still has that inherent DSLR look, but it's certainly softer than normla.

 

[directorik]

I know lighting is key,

I have come to a very different realization.

Since technology is moving so rapidly and great cameras have become
accessible to filmmakers with smaller and smaller budgets more and
more movies are truly terrible. Technically proficient but lacking story,
relatable characters and, well, talent. To the general audience lighting
isn't the key. Nor is the camera or the lens or the filters.

I see so many movies in festivals and on Vimeo and YouTube that are
beautiful and technically astounding but simply do not move me, or
touch me or even entertain me. And when I talk to non-filmmakers
who don't know from Ziess or Superspeed or vintage they are not
moved or touched or even entertained.

To me, entertainment is key.

 

[jax_rox]

I have come to a very different realization.

Since technology is moving so rapidly and great cameras have become
accessible to filmmakers with smaller and smaller budgets more and
more movies are truly terrible. Technically proficient but lacking story,
relatable characters and, well, talent. To the general audience lighting
isn't the key. Nor is the camera or the lens or the filters.

I see so many movies in festivals and on Vimeo and YouTube that are
beautiful and technically astounding but simply do not move me, or
touch me or even entertain me. And when I talk to non-filmmakers
who don't know from Ziess or Superspeed or vintage they are not
moved or touched or even entertained.

To me, entertainment is key.

I agree with this. It kinda depends on your role, and your level. If you're making backyard movies, then story should be key, then lighting.
If you're a career cinematographer, then your focus is going to be lighting.
If you're a career Director, your focus is going to be story.

Story is key to making something that people want to, and will watch and enjoy. But then, once you have that story, it comes to lights and camera and mood etc.

I don't think it's just a blanket 'lighting is key', a great story is helped along by the cinematography, whether that's lighting, not lighting, using x camera, using z stock, etc.

A good cinematographer is key to a visually pleasing film, just as a good sound recordist and sound designer is key to an aurally pleasing film.

 

[WalterB]

Making a good applepie is not only about using the right apples.
The whole recepe (spelling?) and proces have to be perfect.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Indeed, so true, unless a film makes you feel something it is lifeless. Moving the audience is key. +2 to directorik and jax_rox. I watched the trailer and I need to ask, what is the story about? Who are the main characters? That is key in a trailer.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Agree on First, make an entertaining movie". Without that, it's all a waste of time.

To your point though, I NEVER shoot on modern Canon lenses on my 5D. I have multiple friends who would let me borrow top of the line L glass anytime I want, but I shoot on 40 year old Pentax lenses exclusively.