Shooting a Webseries on 35mm / Super 8mm??

[jnoahu]

Hello!

I'm helming an upcoming web series about a spoiled Parisian who winds up in L.A. and pursues his crazy comic dreams. We aim to start shooting in eight weeks. We have a bottom-of-the-barrel low budget. Yet we won't let that stop us! Most everything is in place, expect for one epic decision:

Can we shoot this project on film?!?

As it centers around a French protagonist, our series is steeped in the narrative style and film grammar of Nouvelle Vague and cinéma vérité. 35mm / Super 8mm film would be a natural cinematographic extension of our theme, our protagonist, and his worldview. We know that most low-budget web filmmakers opt for digital production. But we want to stand out from the crowd. By (almost) any means possible, we will shoot on film, not HD!

Our project aims to produce 10 2-5 minute episodes, for a total of 35 minutes at the maximum. Most episodes only feature the lead character; a couple of them include another character. We do have a balance of indoor and outdoor locations, but nothing outlandish or requiring SFX. We also plan on improvising several scenes (which we know can require an additional camera and an abundance of film).

We do know that Super 8mm film is silent. We have some ways around that (extensive slating, miking the performers, rigging XLR connectors... if you have any other suggestions for this, don't hesitate!).

Because film is so precious and expensive, we plan on doing EXTENSIVE prep well before every shoot: (storyboarding, shot lists, location scouting, rehearsals, the whole she-bang).

We have our dream equipment as well: a Bell and Howell 35mm Eyemo, or a Canon 514 XL for Super 8.

We're not naive. We understand that film isn't the cheapest option. If you're an experienced filmmaker, please help us out with your answer to any (or all!) of these questions:

- exactly how much 35mm film stock, or how many Super 8mm cartridges will we need?
- is there an inexpensive way to purchase 35mm film stock or Super 8mm cartridges? (i.e., bulk purchasing, eBay, the black market... anything!)
- how do low-budget filmmakers successfully and economically use Super 8mm / 35mm?

Thank you so much for reading this -- if you've made it here. We realize this is an audacious and (some might say) impractical gesture. But we'd at least like to give this a shot before settling for digital.

 

[jax_rox]

I commend the fact that you want to shoot film, but I do have to clear these misconceptions up:

- it is WAY easier to light film than to light video!

That's not true, in fact it's harder to light film than it is to light video. Firstly you have slower stock (fastest film stock is 500 ASA), which means you need more light to make your shot. On digital, you often have a base ISO(ASA) of 800, and even then bumping to 1600 if you need to generally gives you pretty decent results, even on a DSLR. Plus, on video you can see exactly how your light looks and exactly what it is doing, and exactly whether it's over-exposing. You can't see any of this on film, so you need to know your meter, and you need to think about exactly how you're going to light it, and you need to test your stock so you know how much under/over exposure you can get away with, if in fact you want any under or overexposure.

- these cameras require stabilizing in order to pull off dolly, tracking shots, over the shoulder... pretty much anything a film camera can do naturally

If you pull off a dolly, steadicam or handheld shot properly then they shouldn't need any post stabilisation. As well, an eyemo or S8 camera in general are going to be harder to keep steady than some digital type cameras that aren't DSLRs/don't have the DSLR form factor.

- our research shows that there are a 1,000,001 things you can do to approximate the 35mm look with digital (long focal length, wide aperture, neutral density filters, lens adapters, etc.).... but you have to do 1,000,001 things to make digital LOOK like film. Why not just use film?!?

I agree here, but the reasoning is that film is more expensive and the DIY crowd in general don't have the money to shoot 35mm.

we believe we can nab our 9500' of stock for approx. $1000.

Of 35? S8? S16? depending on the format you'll find that the runtime of 9500' differs. Which is why I suggest S16, because 9,500' of 35mm is about 1.5 hrs, whereas 9,500' of 16mm is not only cheaper than the 35mm equivalent, but also gives you 4.5 hrs.
Also, where are you getting the $1000 figure from? Pulling it out of a hat? Make sure it's a realistic figure that you've actually gone out and priced properly, otherwise you'll find yourself disappointed. It's all well and good for me to say 'I think if I sweet talk enough people I can get a Ferrari for $4000' but I'm only going to be disappointed when I actually go out there and attempt to get my $4,000 Ferrari.

Does anyone have an idea of how much it would cost to complete post-pro on an indie feature from approx. 9500' of film stock?

Call your local labs. If you're talking 35mm, then you're probably looking at anywhere from 10c-35c/foot to process and then telecine is charged by the hour, so with 1.5hrs hours of film, you'd probably need 2 - 2.5 hrs in the telecine room, which will cost you anywhere from $350-$800/hr, then they usually charge $80 or something to copy your footage to a hard drive.

Then you've got your grading which again can be $400-$800+/hr, and you better hope your Cinematographer didn't 'leave it all to post' or you'll be spending more than a couple hours in there.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Indie filmmaking is full of difficult decisions. It feels to me like you're placing one aspect of your film above all others.

This film must be shot on actual film, or else it is going to suck! Is that your mindset? Then I guess you're a cinematographer at heart.

Now, just for a moment, allow your inner producer to enter the conversation. Your inner-producer can't afford to allow your inner-cinematographer to dominate everything you do. The producer has so many more things to take into consideration.

Do the benefits of shooting on film really outweigh the benefits of being able to hire a talented and professional cast/crew, instead of begging for volunteers? We've all gotta make our own decisions, but in my opinion, this question is a no-brainer.

Unless you happen to be super experienced and talented, and you're networked with a whole bunch of people who are also super experienced and talented, both in front of and behind the camera, and that all of those people are willing to volunteer --

As a general rule, I think your money will always be better spent on people, not equipment. Get the equipment you need, but make people your priority.

The subway scene in "Black Swan" is friggin brilliant, not because of the equipment they used (DSLR), but because of the talent that went into producing it, cast and crew alike.

Bye bye, film. You'll be missed. By about 1,000 people, and they're all cinematographers. General audiences don't care.

 

[SinEater]

More reasons why we DO NOT WANT DIGITAL:
- it is WAY easier to light film than to light video!

This is not really true, especially if you're going to be adding a DoF adapter and an anamorphic adapter. They both cut the amount of light making it to the film.

 

[jax_rox]

This is not really true, especially if you're going to be adding a DoF adapter and an anamorphic adapter. They both cut the amount of light making it to the film.

Whilst I have pointed out already that film is not easier to light, I'm intrigued as to why one would want to use a DoF adapter and/or anamorphic 'adapter' on film. You've got the filmic DoF from the sensor size and lenses, and you can simply use PL-mount anamorphic lenses, or crop your 4-perf image to 2.40 if you want anamorphic, so I'm not 100% sure why you'd use an adapter..

Certainly if you're using filters like colour correction filters (ie using daylight light(s) on tungsten film), or softening filters, then you'll be cutting the light

 

[jnoahu]

I commend the fact that you want to shoot film, but I do have to clear these misconceptions up:


That's not true, in fact it's harder to light film than it is to light video. Firstly you have slower stock (fastest film stock is 500 ASA), which means you need more light to make your shot. On digital, you often have a base ISO(ASA) of 800, and even then bumping to 1600 if you need to generally gives you pretty decent results, even on a DSLR. Plus, on video you can see exactly how your light looks and exactly what it is doing, and exactly whether it's over-exposing. You can't see any of this on film, so you need to know your meter, and you need to think about exactly how you're going to light it, and you need to test your stock so you know how much under/over exposure you can get away with, if in fact you want any under or overexposure.


If you pull off a dolly, steadicam or handheld shot properly then they shouldn't need any post stabilisation. As well, an eyemo or S8 camera in general are going to be harder to keep steady than some digital type cameras that aren't DSLRs/don't have the DSLR form factor.


I agree here, but the reasoning is that film is more expensive and the DIY crowd in general don't have the money to shoot 35mm.


Of 35? S8? S16? depending on the format you'll find that the runtime of 9500' differs. Which is why I suggest S16, because 9,500' of 35mm is about 1.5 hrs, whereas 9,500' of 16mm is not only cheaper than the 35mm equivalent, but also gives you 4.5 hrs.
Also, where are you getting the $1000 figure from? Pulling it out of a hat? Make sure it's a realistic figure that you've actually gone out and priced properly, otherwise you'll find yourself disappointed. It's all well and good for me to say 'I think if I sweet talk enough people I can get a Ferrari for $4000' but I'm only going to be disappointed when I actually go out there and attempt to get my $4,000 Ferrari.


Call your local labs. If you're talking 35mm, then you're probably looking at anywhere from 10c-35c/foot to process and then telecine is charged by the hour, so with 1.5hrs hours of film, you'd probably need 2 - 2.5 hrs in the telecine room, which will cost you anywhere from $350-$800/hr, then they usually charge $80 or something to copy your footage to a hard drive.

Then you've got your grading which again can be $400-$800+/hr, and you better hope your Cinematographer didn't 'leave it all to post' or you'll be spending more than a couple hours in there.

Thanks for addressing a lot of what I'd mentioned earlier, and clearing it up with some cold hard truth.

As for which is more difficult to light, film or video? I obviously have NO real clue and cannot hold a candle to your years of professional and excellent work. However, I garnered that insight from an article that cited Rodney Charters, DP of the TV show, "24," who allegedly said something along the lines of, "digital video’s poor handling of high-contrast lighting conditions makes it unsuitable as an acquisition format in episodic TV, in which there simply isn’t enough time to spend on making video look passable."

(Quote from the article): "Hence he still prefers film, not just because it looks better, but because it is actually easier to light. It is interesting to compare this with the widely held (but totally incorrect) view that video is easier to light than film. Nothing could be further from the truth."

What do you think?

About the handling of the DSLR cameras: I meant that (I think) these cameras have to be stabilized during production to achieve these shots in order to avoid issues like "Jellocam." They also heat up very quickly, have poor battery life, and can only store up to 14 minutes of footage on any given drive.

You're right about the Eyemo and Super 8. We've officially ruled them out of consideration. Now we're focused on finding an Arri BL4, a good sync camera. As well as a quality DP!

About that $1000 quote for 9500' for fllm stock: yes, that was made in reference to 35mm, via short ends. If we did use Super 16mm, we would adjust our purchase to accommodate our 3:1 shooting ratio.

We definitely plan to do our homework in terms of getting actual price quotes on the film stock before laying down a dime for it. Some of our pricing info came from this link, and some of it came via quotes on this post.

$1000 to process, $700 telecine, $800 for grading / editing. A little on the expensive side, even at these extremely conservative estimates. I really hope we can find either a miracle for film, or a miracle of a digital camera. Would be quite sad to toss the project after having come so far.

 

[jnoahu]

Indie filmmaking is full of difficult decisions. It feels to me like you're placing one aspect of your film above all others.

This film must be shot on actual film, or else it is going to suck! Is that your mindset? Then I guess you're a cinematographer at heart.

Now, just for a moment, allow your inner producer to enter the conversation. Your inner-producer can't afford to allow your inner-cinematographer to dominate everything you do. The producer has so many more things to take into consideration.

Do the benefits of shooting on film really outweigh the benefits of being able to hire a talented and professional cast/crew, instead of begging for volunteers? We've all gotta make our own decisions, but in my opinion, this question is a no-brainer.

Unless you happen to be super experienced and talented, and you're networked with a whole bunch of people who are also super experienced and talented, both in front of and behind the camera, and that all of those people are willing to volunteer --

As a general rule, I think your money will always be better spent on people, not equipment. Get the equipment you need, but make people your priority.

The subway scene in "Black Swan" is friggin brilliant, not because of the equipment they used (DSLR), but because of the talent that went into producing it, cast and crew alike.

Bye bye, film. You'll be missed. By about 1,000 people, and they're all cinematographers. General audiences don't care.

You're right. The general public doesn't care about the death of film. The general public doesn't give a crap about Barry Lyndon, or Breathless, or Gordon Willis, or Wally Pfister, or... on and on and on. But it's nice to know that the people who really know movies actually do care about what they look like, and why that matters. Granted, it's a small community. Smaller by the day. But it's a beautiful one.

The hardest part of conceding to digital, particularly as a director and creator of this project, is that I just cannot SEE how the world of this story can really live via a DSLR. Yes it's cheap and practical. But it's such an ugly thing. No beauty or history to it.

We are still ironing out the kinks in our bid to capture this project on film. If indeed the prospect of film prices us out, we will either have to shelve the project, or start an entirely new thread on Indiewire inquiring into how beautiful cinema can spring from the cold, electronic loins of digital. 'Cause we have no freakin' clue.

Obivously filmmaking is an exercise in collaboration and no, cinematography shouldn't necessarily override the whole operation. That said, the #1 asset we will need for this thing- film or digital- is a genius DP who'll work with us for low-cost or free. That will be the key step in steeping our story with meaning and texture that extends into the viewer's eyes.

The #2 asset? A genius editor. But we'll save that for another thread

 

[jnoahu]

Whilst I have pointed out already that film is not easier to light, I'm intrigued as to why one would want to use a DoF adapter and/or anamorphic 'adapter' on film. You've got the filmic DoF from the sensor size and lenses, and you can simply use PL-mount anamorphic lenses, or crop your 4-perf image to 2.40 if you want anamorphic, so I'm not 100% sure why you'd use an adapter..

Certainly if you're using filters like colour correction filters (ie using daylight light(s) on tungsten film), or softening filters, then you'll be cutting the light

I definitely wouldn't want to use a DOF adapter on 35mm film. It already has that gorgeous depth of field. With Super 8 however, it can create gorgeous results. Just google "super 8 and dof adapter" and watch those vimeo videos. Sumptuous.

I would however like to use that anamorphic. This link has some fairly wise things to say about it: http://nofilmschool.com/2010/11/using-anamorphic-lenses-with-hdslrs/

 

[AudioPostExpert]

thought the old adage was that sound is 70% of the movie experience.... do people truly not realize how important sound is anymore? is it really that bad in your professional ears?

It depends on who you mean by "people". There are still many filmmakers (albeit in the higher budget sector) who use sound to it's fullest potential but even in the highest budget sector there are those who don't understand it well. Spielberg (and many others) is a master of using sound but Michael Bay (for example) is not so good. The technical quality of the sound is still excellent but the use of sound is not so good. The same is true of TV, at the very highest end the standards are in general stable or even improving but at the lower end it's getting worse.

When we get to the lo/micro/no budget indie sectors not only is the use of sound extremely poor but so is the technical quality. In these sectors yes, "it really is that bad"! Imagine an average 10 year old editing the picture and no grading or colour correction, IMHO, this is the visual equivalent of the sound in many shorts and low budget films.

G

 

[jax_rox]

I would however like to use that anamorphic. This link has some fairly wise things to say about it: http://nofilmschool.com/2010/11/using-anamorphic-lenses-with-hdslrs/

Hm.. I'd personally see no reason to shoot your project anamorphic. However, you could shoot 2.40 aspect ratio on 2-perf 35mm, essentially saving you 50% on your stock and processing costs.

As for which is more difficult to light, film or video? I obviously have NO real clue and cannot hold a candle to your years of professional and excellent work. However, I garnered that insight from an article that cited Rodney Charters, DP of the TV show, "24," who allegedly said something along the lines of, "digital video’s poor handling of high-contrast lighting conditions makes it unsuitable as an acquisition format in episodic TV, in which there simply isn’t enough time to spend on making video look passable."

(Quote from the article): "Hence he still prefers film, not just because it looks better, but because it is actually easier to light. It is interesting to compare this with the widely held (but totally incorrect) view that video is easier to light than film. Nothing could be further from the truth."

What do you think?

I think newbies would find film much harder to light. As I've mentioned previously, I accidentally over exposed a shot by three stops because I forgot to adjust the aperture the first time I shot film. If you forget on digital, you'll be reminded the first time you look through the viewfinder, and most definitely once you hit the false colour check.
I'm speaking generally about high-end digital. Film does certainly retain the details in the highlights a lot more than say digital would, but I personally think it's folly to not light, or underlight simply because you know you can bring the highlights back in post. What might take 20 minutes on set to fix could otherwise potentially cost you $500 in grading time to fix. In high end digital, you're lighting a lot like you are for film (especially on say an Alexa), but you also have the added benefit of real time feedback on what things are going to look like on the other end.

If you're talking a typical micro budget film - unlimited time (to an extent), but limited money, it's easier to look at a DSLR screen and spend 4 hours perfecting the lighting in a shot until it looks perfect. Now, I don't think anyone should spend 4 hours lighting a scene, but it inevitably happens in micro budgets anyway.
With film, you're looking at shooting it the way you set it up and then not finding out until telecine that it isn't what you wanted, and then having to spend another $xxx either in post, or re-shooting.

I believe Rodney Charters' comment would be in regards to the slightly older video cameras that simply couldn't hold a flame to film in any sense, and would therefore require much more time to light to look okay because of their limited dynamic range. On top of that, episodic television runs on a very strict timeline, and you quite often don't have the time to light as you would've needed for video. Shooting on film means you can light as you need, and be confident that it wil lcapture all the information, and that no matter what the image will look nice.
It's slightly shifted a little, I read a statistic about the number of episodic TV series' shooting on Alexa. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but it was a hell of a lot - I'd even go as far as to say most.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is: it depends. Nowadays, you can light a scene as you generally would for a film camera, and shoot digitally on an Alexa and get a similar looking image - add grain to Alexa footage and it's almost indistinguishable from 35.

The reason I'd say it's easier for newbies to light digital is because they can see exactly what they're getting as they're shooting it, whereas with film you don't.
When shooting low dynamic range digital ie digital from the time up until DSLR/digital cinema cameras (ie prosumers, broadcast cameras, varicam etc.), then yes it'd be harder and take longer to light high contrast scenes because you have to take the high contrast and bring it in to within say a 4-stop range, but things have changed now with cameras getting much more dynamic range.

can only store up to 14 minutes of footage on any given drive.

Not quite, just that DSLRs will only have maximum take lengths of 14 minutes (I think it might actually be 12). SO you can store up to say 45 minutes of footage on a 32GB SD card, just that your individual files can't run longer than 12 minutes. With film it's similar anyway - your one reel of 400' 16mm or 1000' 35mm is going to roll out after ~11 minutes anyway.

$1000 to process, $700 telecine, $800 for grading / editing. A little on the expensive side, even at these extremely conservative estimates. I really hope we can find either a miracle for film, or a miracle of a digital camera. Would be quite sad to toss the project after having come so far.

The first S16 short I shot was at film school, was super low budget, and it was a 10min short shot on a 5:1 ratio (ie 5 rolls, 2000' of film). We bought stock from Kodak, processed and telecined at Deluxe. We got a 40% discount on stock, processing and telecine. Our final cost was close to ~$2500 - $3000 without a colour grade.
Now, we don't have as many short ends available and out costs are a little higher here than in the US, but we also got a 40% discount, so it evens out a little.

You should look into shooting 2-perf 35mm, especially if you want that anamorphic look, but even cropping the 2-perf image to 1.85:1 aspect ratio gives you a pretty good look. Otherwise, I'd suggest 16mm if you're looking to save money.

You might also look into shooting a lot on digital (say on a hacked GH2) and then shooting select scenes on S8. But that's a discussion for you and your DP to have. The look of S8 vs 35mm is completely different, so you'd probably want to decide on that as well - 35mm is nice, S8 is... well, I kinda describe S8 as 'dirty' It works for some projects, doesn't for others. 35mm can be impressive, whereas S8 is probably more.. vintage.

16 is pretty much the middleground - I've seen 16 that looks like S8 and I've seen 16 that looks like 35. I've also seen 16 that just looks like 16. It all depends on how you shoot it.

The other thing I'd say is don't abandon the idea simply because you can't afford film - if your idea is that bad that it wouldn't stand up shooting on digital, then shooting it on film isn't going to help You can get that kidn of aesthetic out of even a DSLR, it's just a matter of getting a good DP, and potentially a good colourist.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Haha, I saw the DP of 24 a few years back at the Canon booth at NAB raving about DSLRs in cinema (still fairly new then) and showing a lot of examples and how he used then as B-Cameras on his sets.

Many digital cameras have a lot of latitude and aren't contrasty at all. Actually, the GH2 is a little contrasty, but you can load cinestyle on a Canon DSLR and go crazy flat. The Black Magic camera and RED cams all shoot RAW, giving you even more latitude and flexibility in post.

Regardless of who says what, on a budget when you only have so much for lighting and can't afford three grip trucks loaded with 16k fixtures and the generators to run them, lighting for low-light-friendly modern DSLRs and digital cinema cameras is way easier. The C300 can handle 12,000 ISO with just a bit of noise (looks like film grain) and 20,000 ISP with more noise, but again mostly acceptable noise.

 

[jax_rox]

Yeah, pointing back to my previous point: Bump the ISO form 800 to 1600 and you've gained yourself a whole stop of light and the noise hasn't increased all that much.

In film you can't even get to 800 ISO, and bumping a whole stop in post introduces a heck of a lot of grain.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't light, but it does mean you can get away with a few 650's, some kinos, etc rather than a grip truck full of 18ks.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It really frightens me that A: the majority of people who might consider working for us low-cost or for free will NOT have either the skill set or the appreciation for excellence in sound design, and that B: most people ignore the fact that SOUND is the #1 sign of a truly top-notch cinematic endeavor!

...there are several elements to our story that REQUIRE excellence in sound production and design:
- a beach scene
- a claustrophobic suspense scene (bad sound design = all suspense DOWN THE DRAIN)
- a party scene involving loud, bass-heavy "house" music with dialogue (aaahhh!)
- several scenes involving cooking and eating food

...What would you recommend that low-budgeters do to handle this obvious need for great sound, without the financial resources to afford Steven Spielberg's sound pro on his or her off day?!

Paragraph 1, Point A: I wouldn't say the majority, I would say all. Given time, an imaginative and talented DOP and Director can do wonders with filming equipment costing 100 times less than top of the line cameras and accessories but there comes a budget point where even the most talented of DOPs and Directors can't get good images. All the same is true of sound but there are two considerations:

1. Top of the line audio post equipment/facilities cost about $20m (or more), so 100 times less is still $200k! This is obviously a very rough figure but even so, considerable investment is required and has to be recouped. The guy with ProTools on a laptop in his bedroom is just not going to be able to do it, even if he/she is the most talented sound designer on the planet.

2. Directors study the script (probably with the DOP) and use all their talent, knowledge and experience to get the highest quality and most imaginative/evocative shots possible with their budget/equipment. And, foremost in the Director's and DOP's mind is always; how the shots will appear in the final edit, because even the most talented picture editor has their hands tied if there are no decent shots to work with. I'm sure everyone would agree this is a fundamental of filmmaking?! Well, it's just as much a fundamental with sound but indie filmmakers never do it, why is that?? Notice I said in the first paragraph, "imaginative and talented DOP and Director". The simple fact is, that virtually without exception, indie filmmakers are neither talented nor imaginative when it comes to sound!! Apart from recording clean dialogue, the vast majority don't even consider sound until it's too late to do anything much about it.

So the whole premise of using sound to it's potential crumbles to dust from the outset, before audio post even starts, regardless of budget!! Obviously you're going to get decent sound if you go to a $20m audio post facility but still their ability to create great sound is restricted to squeezing some sound design into a product which was never designed for it. The biggest mistake made by indie filmmakers is believing that sound design is a post-production process, it's not, a major part of sound design is a pre-production process!

In pre-production think about about your master or establishing shots and about set design and decoration from a sound design perspective, rather than just from an image perspective. Use an establishing shot to establish sound, not just image. I'm not talking about reducing sound in order to capture clean dialogue, I mean having items who's sound can later be used to manipulate the audience's interpretation of the scene. Let me give a few examples to illustrate what I'm talking about:

In a sitting room you could have a clock on the wall. Clocks have all sorts of different ticks, mellow and relaxing or harsh and annoying. A good Sound Designer can choose/change the tick to manipulate audience response to the scene, even if the tick is almost hidden in the background of the sound mix. An imaginative Sound Designer might even gradually speed up the tick during the scene, not so it's noticeable but to sub-consciously create tension and/or unease, to enhance the story telling! Alternatively, even with a clock in the establishing shot the Sound Designer and Director may decide not to hear it in the final mix but if you've designed for it in pre-production at least in post you have the choice. You literally only need to establish the clock's presence for a fraction of a second in the background of the shot, this will be enough for a good sound designer to work with.

In an office, have some office machines, in a kitchen have something boiling on the stove (in the establishing shot), a washing machine or other utility with sonic character. In an exterior master shot, include a factory, school, workshop, construction site, intersection, railway (etc.) nearby, which would provide a rich palette of sound design potential, even when used muffled in the background of the interior shots. Establish the presence of some exposed plumbing in a run down inner city apartment, so if necessary we can have something nasty running through them at some point. These are one or two of an infinite number of possibilities, for the imaginative director and sound designer, just listen to the real world around you for inspiration, and when designing your shots at least consider sound design and the story telling options it can provide.

Always remember though that great sound design goes beyond the real world to enhance the story. It's not about recreating reality but rather about creating the utterly convincing illusion of a fictional reality. This is where most indie filmmakers and lo/no budget sound designers fail miserably. It's not just that they don't have the equipment (or knowledge) to deal with the many technical demands of creating a good sound mix but that they don't have the knowledge or experience to even appreciate that sound design is fundamentally a sophisticated and collaborative art form, not just a technical skill.

Think of the scene in the Godfather where the screech of the train outside becomes a scream of mental anguish as the novice hitman has to carry out his execution. Genius sound design throughout that film and surprise, surprise, it's regarded as genius filmmaking, even though the sound is rarely mentioned in the praise heaped upon it. This is how it should be though, we don't want the audience consciously aware that we are trying to manipulate them!

With one exception jnoahu, the scenes you have mentioned maybe the ones where the audience is most consciously aware of sound but depending on the story, they may not be the scenes which would benefit the most from sophisticated sound design. "Sound" is driven by what we see in the scene but "Sound "Design" is driven by what you want the audience to experience emotionally from the scene! I hope I'm making this difference clear because beyond the obvious technical mistakes in the sound of many indie productions there frequently just isn't any "sound design" at all!

It's a kind of double whammy for the indie filmmaker. Not only do they not know much about sound design themselves but this lack of knowledge means they can't tell if the Sound Designer they are thinking of employing does either. Without exception, in my experience those advertising their services as low/no budget Sound Designers come from a music production background or music/sound college courses and while they may understand the technology well, they usually lack even the most basic understanding of the technical requirements of cinematic sound. Let alone the artistic implementation of sound design as a cinematic story telling tool. If you are hiring (for free or paid) a Sound Designer, don't you think you should actually get some sound design, rather than just some cleaned up dialogue and some roughly appropriate SFX edited together???

I've ended up getting carried away again but hopefully this post might cause a spark of realisation in some of the filmmakers reading it. Hopefully leading to a new perspective on what it really means to be a creative and imaginative filmmaker. Sure there are some huge budget obstacles to overcome but isn't this the definition of lo/no budget indie filmmaking? In many cases there is either no solution or only an imperfect solution but when it comes to capturing images, indie filmmakers are masters of the artistic/creative solution. All I'm suggesting is learning a little about sound design as a film making tool and giving it a proportional amount of consideration in the film making process as is given to the art of image capture and creation. Even recognising that sound design is an art would result in a great leap forward for many indie filmmakers!

G