Which 3 focal lengths for my film?

[moonshieldmedia]

I have the budget for 1 Canon L series prime and maybe 2 other ~$400 ones. Which sizes should I get?

I will be shooting on a 60D.

I used to have an 85mm for my portrait photography, but I feel like having to stand that close to my actors will be distracting for them.

Everyone seems to recommend 50mm because it's closest to human eyesight, but that's not necessarily important to me.

I'm definitely going to need to shoot a lot of scenes in a small bedroom and I'll want to be wide enough to get my actor and an entire wall in frame. Will a 35mm do that?

Also, sometimes my actors will be eating on a restaurant patio, and I'll be across the street stealing some shots (medium would be ideal).

Which 3 would you recommend and which of the 3 should I spend the extra money on?

 

[IndieBudget]

One issue I found with affordable zoom lenses is they are too soft and have aberrations. You could cheaper buy primes and get better quality over a good zoom say like a 35 - 200 . Now a good prosumer camcorder with a good zoom ..much better.


Yeah JaxRox, I hate it when the talent jumps out of frame and or I move and the lighting is not working due to angle . I agree, it is pretty tough to get a great image when you are moving too much and the lighting is not working, cuz with my cheaper cam, I need good lighting or else it all goes to heck !









.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

I'm curious how you're going to give it a 'doco' look and feel with primes? How you're going to follow the action properly if you have to change lenses all the time? And, how the hell you're going to achieve any kind of continuity between mid's, close ups and wides if it's all improv.

It's not all improv. The script is complete with dialogue, but I said my actors will have room for improv. Watch any movie Vince Vaughn is in, he improvises all over the place on top of the dialogue he's already memorized.

Also, when I say my actors will be free to move around the space, I'm not talking about a chase scene or something crazy, it's movement around in a bedroom, or inside a bookstore. It's really not that difficult to follow someone walking and adjust your focus as they move, especially if the style of the film doesn't require everything be in focus all the time. It's art, not science.

As for continuity, the style that I'm going for does not require tons of cuts. I'm going for long takes, and sometimes I'll even have 2 cameras running.

One recent example of a film similar to what I'm going for is "Like Crazy." That was shot on a 7D (although they had better lenses than I will) and was completely improvised. I think they had something like 40 hours of footage that the director just went through and cut into a concise film. Like crazy got into Sundance and was purchased by Paramount for $4 million.

It can be done.

 

[jax_rox]

You could get a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for ~$900 and then buy whatever else you need, whether that's a Tokina 11-16mm or a 70-300mm and you could still sell them when you're finished if you wanted to.
f/2.8 is a far sight better than f/4.0 and if you really needed, bump your ISO to 800 and do a little bit of NR in post. ISO 800 on a DSLR can give you acceptable results anyway.

Exactly, lighting is a major part, and creative lighting goes a lot further to making your scene and film look like a film much more than shallow DOF, especially when using available light. That's why rehearsals are important. I generally go through with the Director the exact actions that he's rehearsed with the actors so that when we get on set, I have an idea of what the action is and where I can set up lights. Having a shot list you design with the Director helps too. Even if we haven't had a chance to catch up before the shoot, I'll always ask what the action is so I can set lights in the right spots. Having it all improvised would be tough.. Not to mention the lost time when actors just get stuck.. Improv is hard and some can be good at it, but only the real masters can keep it going for a whole scene or film. You sometimes find it hits a point where the actors just get stuck. Also, improvised dialogue and improvised actions are two differnt things. Many comedy actors improvise a lot of their dialogue on top of the script, but they still stick to the blocked actions generally.

Edit to add:

Like Crazy was shot with Ultra Primes which are really nice and also 100x easier to pull focus on. ALso Like Crazy had a 250k budget (iirc) so they had the money to bring in lights or at least reflectors and the like.
Secondly, if you're in a bookstore, are you really going to need to open up to 1.4? Even a bedroom, you should be able to have practicals on and light outside as if it were moonlight. I don't see how giving them free reign of the space means you can't light the scene?

 

[Cracker Funk]

It's not all improv. The script is complete with dialogue, but I said my actors will have room for improv. Watch any movie Vince Vaughn is in, he improvises all over the place on top of the dialogue he's already memorized.

Also, when I say my actors will be free to move around the space, I'm not talking about a chase scene or something crazy, it's movement around in a bedroom, or inside a bookstore. It's really not that difficult to follow someone walking and adjust your focus as they move, especially if the style of the film doesn't require everything be in focus all the time. It's art, not science.

As for continuity, the style that I'm going for does not require tons of cuts. I'm going for long takes, and sometimes I'll even have 2 cameras running.

One recent example of a film similar to what I'm going for is "Like Crazy." That was shot on a 7D (although they had better lenses than I will) and was completely improvised. I think they had something like 40 hours of footage that the director just went through and cut into a concise film. Like crazy got into Sundance and was purchased by Paramount for $4 million.

It can be done.

From earlier posts, it sounds to me like you're making mumblecore. Cool! You'll catch no grief from me.

I wouldn't look to "Like Crazy" as your model for success, though. That is, unless you've got a couple big name actors/actresses in your pocket, and you're shooting your movie for half a million dollars. I think the most recent movie you should be looking to for a map to success is "Tiny Furniture".

There are a couple things I'd like to address, though, and they do apply to your original question.

First of all, in which genre does focus not matter? It's annoying when the subject goes out of focus. Your audience is doing a lot to suspend disbelief, and you're not helping them when you remind them that what they're watching is artificial. Losing focus takes people out of your movie.

For that reason, though I doubt you'll consider this, I almost think it might be wise to ditch DSLR and just get a really nice video camera, and let auto-focus do it's thing. Either that, or shoot for as wide a DOF as possible.

I'm basing that on your plan to ask the cast to improvise. I love improv. I love Vaughn, but I really doubt he's just going all loosey-goosey. Improv normally has a structure to it. If you want your movie to be visually interesting, I think you should at least have blocking well-rehearsed. Needless to say, this would greatly help you pull focus, especially since you seem to be fond of shallow DOF.

Anyway, all things considered, I agree strongly with jax_rox, in that I think you should get a zoom. With the nature of your shoot, versatility will really be your friend, and there's no reason why you need a prime for every damn shot.

Lastly, though this doesn't really apply to the question of focal lengths, dude, though the style of film your making fits well with lots of long takes, the manner in which you plan to make it does not. Improv is incredibly difficult to edit, and long takes are going to be rare.