What Creates Production Value?

cameronchapman

cameronchapman

I have a vague idea of what goes into production value (talent, cinematography, editing, SOUND, etc.), but not really any concrete ideas as to how to improve production value, short of spending millions of dollars (which I would gladly spend if someone wants to give them to me).

I'm planning to film a drama feature next fall (and will hopefully be shooting a handful of shorts and possibly a web series between now and then), and want to maximize production value to increase my chances of getting distribution/getting into festivals/not embarrassing myself :cool:.

So, going on the basis that this is a drama film without any complex sets, no special effects, etc., what would you do to increase the production value? What gives you the most bang for your buck? What's the least effective thing to spend your limited funds on?

Let's also assume that the budget for this is likely going to be under $50,000, though possibly could go as high as $100,000. And let's also assume that I'm not opposed to begging if that will get things done/get me things for free. :yes:
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
It's a style and aesthetic choice for sure. What I like is not what everyone else likes, but all static or even worse all handheld shots, to me, screams "amateur". The fact that jibs, cranes, dollys, etc... tend to up the "production value" is precisely because they take a while to set up, and require a large measure of planing. Spray and pray filming has it's place for sure, and digital has made that style possible, but that doesn't make it the best approach. To each his own.
Click to expand...

I fixed my post. When I said "move the camera", I meant move the camera and tripod after every shot. Static shots can look "active" if there's an edit with an angle change every few seconds.

IMO Long static shots kill audiences as quickly as needless shakey cam shots! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Allow me to use some examples...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfprSp8_BR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT3Fi_RYYio

In "Apricot" (the first video), except for the flashbacks it is all essentially a dialogue scene. But it looks exceedingly expensive (and to some degree, it probably was). All of the pieces of the puzzle fit for it -- stellar acting, lighting, script, and set design. Also notice how both still and handheld camera movements are worked skillfully into the scene to convey the pace of the conversation, and later the man's mental instability.

The same sentiments are true of the second video "Some Static Started," although it falls more into the "horror" genre than "romance" or "drama." But notice the difference in the camera's movement from "Apricot." In this one, all of the shots are very still or very slowly tracking. This type of camera movement is equally effective -- it just accomplishes a different effect. It isn't personal this time, it's ominous, deliberate, and menacing. The point is that how you move the camera (and how you do pretty much everything else) should be for a purpose.

The biggest thing that's apparent in these videos is what most everyone in the thread has already mentioned -- DETAILS -- which undoubtedly meant loads of pre-production.

It sounds like you're on the right track!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pete said:
Allow me to use some examples...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfprSp8_BR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT3Fi_RYYio
Click to expand...


So far I think there are two common traits to production value
1. Depth of Field
2. Tracking/Dollying/Craning or whatever you'd like to call it.

The first can be achieved quite cheaply. If you can achieve the second cheaply, you've achieved something most others can't afford to. That I think is production value, achieving shots and locations that only the big guys can.

.....
So many people, making so many good films....
It should motivate me shouldn't it...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Brians mention is interesting. I used to think the same thing then realized that white walls are a reality of life. It comes down to lighting and hanging a few pictures, breaking up the apace, and you may never notice a white wall.

My advice would be to hire a good editor if you want producion value. If all else fails in the process, a solid cut will hide most everything from performance to bad set design.

And knowing what you're shooting--not hosing the scene down with coverage--is production value in itself. It's the value in ray and every moment you spend shooting, and it shines in the editing bay.

So, IMO, you want production value then get an editor that can cut your material into pretty lil pieces.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
I think static shots are safe, as long as you don't hold on them forever. Handheld is tricky IMO, if everything else is right, they're so effective, but if it starts to look cheap, the cool hand held stuff starts to look like home video.
Click to expand...

This depends on who's shooting and what it is.

If you haven't seen Drive you should watch it.

It's a semblance of how I'd shoot and cut more serious content. All the way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
My advice would be to hire a good editor if you want producion value. If all else fails in the process, a solid cut will hide most everything from performance to bad set design.
Click to expand...

Let me add to this: YOU should become a good editor. With plenty of coverage, a GREAT film can be created in the editing suite.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Brians mention is interesting. I used to think the same thing then realized that white walls are a reality of life. It comes down to lighting and hanging a few pictures, breaking up the apace, and you may never notice a white wall.

.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but if you decorate the wall, Gobo it up, create textures, then it's no longer the "white wall of death" -- the flat, ignored and unloved space you see in some low budget stuff. For sure, a good DP can take a white wall and make it interesting.


@Pete
Those two samples I found interesting, the first, Apricot, is well crafted but mind numbingly dull. Nothing is happening, it's not cinema, it's radio.
The second, I preferred. By far. Right out of the gate, again, two people sitting but one has a bullet hole in him. My head was off to the races. What happened? What will happen? It's static, but there's a huge chunk of visual information that doesn't have to be talked about "Look here, I'm shot".

(I didn't watch either clip in it's entirety -- just about 3 min)

I think that's a hard thing, to visually story tell in static frames. Silence Of The Lambs did a good job of it IMO wiht the Lechter/Starling jail sequences.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
Let me add to this: YOU should become a good editor. With plenty of coverage, a GREAT film can be created in the editing suite.
Click to expand...

You should sit in on editing sessions, I dont think a director should also be an editor though. At least not the first person to cut your own material.

I say this because editors (good ones) have very vey good ideas for your content that you probably will never think of. I believe you should try to have an editor that likes your material whom you give first and third cut to, at least.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
This depends on who's shooting and what it is.

If you haven't seen Drive you should watch it.

It's a semblance of how I'd shoot and cut more serious content. All the way.
Click to expand...

And I've seen your hand held stuff and it's really good. Gosh, a guy could make a quick video tutorial on it and become a folk hero around here...a demigod even.

:D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
You should sit in on editing sessions, I dont think a director should also be an editor though. At least not the first person to cut your own material.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree. While getting input from other people, such as other editors, is always a good idea, (as are frequent test screenings), as an artist, there is no way I will let an editor touch my film.

Let me put it this way: Yes, I directed my own feature film, but that position was only secondary to my primary role -- FILM EDITOR. I had a final vision for a film when I started the project so directing was a necessary step to obtain footage for what I really wanted to do -- create a film in the editing suite.

------------

Of course, the more money (from investors) in a project, the less likely a director can edit his/her own film, but for most of us toward the bottom end of the budget range, a filmmaker will be several notches above the competition if they learn to be a great editor as well as a director. Yes, great editor/directors have to be strong enough to kill their babies and cut entire scenes like non-directing editors -- this goes without saying.

Let me go out on a limb here and suggest the idea that filmmakers who want to direct but take little interest in the editing part are likely not the best directors for their own films -- they are actually FILM PRODUCERS.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
I have to respectfully disagree. While getting input from other people, such as other editors, is always a good idea, (as are frequent test screenings), as an artist, there is no way I will let an editor touch my film.

Let me put it this way: Yes, I directed my own feature film, but that position was only secondary to my primary role -- FILM EDITOR. I had a final vision for a film when I started the project so directing was a necessary step to obtain footage for what I really wanted to do -- create a film in the editing suite.
Click to expand...

You sound like an editor first, though, not a director first. That's a different story. It also sort of makes sense that you suggest hosing down a scene for coverage now that you mention that you're primarily an editor.


Let me go out on a limb here and suggest the idea that filmmakers who want to direct but take little interest in the editing part are likely not the best directors for their own films -- they are actually FILM PRODUCERS.
Click to expand...

I said sit in. Cutting is not the same as sitting in.

I'm pretty sure every director takes interest in what they're doing in the editing room... I specifically said first and third cut.

So, we'll disagree for sure on those things. I don't think you should ever walk into a scene and hose it down, and I don't think anyone who's a director first should assemble the first cut of their feature film, short film, or anything that is not episodic.

Fresh eyes are important to the process of evolving, but I'm not saying anything new... it's been said by the greatest of greats already.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In counterpoint I read that some of the great directors do their editing right on camera while shooting the scene. I saw a documentary where Speilberg was using some device to cut scenes during a shoot. They said he couldn't tell whether he was getting exactly what he wanted without being able to see how the cuts worked together.

In addition to all the solid advice above, I'd say focus and uniformity across a project is key. In example if you look at Cube, they didn't spend a lot of money, but because they set the story itself within a repeatable enviroment, they were able to constantly suspend disbelief for the entire film. In a sense, production value is overall continuity across all aspects.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nate North said:
In a sense, production value is overall continuity across all aspects.
Click to expand...

That really makes sense. Disparate elements stand out, so making sure everything is the same level of quality makes everything look planned, which makes it look more polished. Even if you have the capability of doing one thing at a really high level, if you can't do everything at the same level, it makes all the less-than-awesome parts stick out. If everything is a little less-than-awesome, then they all look the same and you don't notice so much (though of course there's a bottom threshold where less-than-awesome just becomes crap).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Money!

Money removes all barriers. The more you have the more experienced the people you can hire to cover every deprtment. I kid you not my cast was initially shocked when I told them they had to take care of their own hair and makeup. I just pointed them to the actress who worked with me before for makeup tips.

A seasoned production designer can do wonders for your set as can a seasoned DP.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
Another,
Get really good looking talent, properly dressed, made up, and lit.
Click to expand...

Yes. So important. I also forgot to mention audio.

Kholi said:
I used to think the same thing then realized that white walls are a reality of life. It comes down to lighting and hanging a few pictures, breaking up the apace, and you may never notice a white wall.
Click to expand...

I was wondering, what is the cheapest way to go about filling up a 'white wall'? What should I look for to fill it up with so I don't get sued later?

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