Why is it indie films looks like video?

"How important is lighting for the film look ?"

Again, it's absolutely critical. Probably has more influence than frame rate or DOF.

You do realize right that in most cases a hollywood film crew shooting outside in broad daylight has gigantic 25' square silks hung from cranes and probaby a half a dozen 12K lights thrown on the scene? Films don't look like "reality", they look films.

Edit: Some of the beauty of DSLR with fast lenses is you don't have to have a ton of wattage (on an interior), but you have to have some, and way more important, you have to know how to use it.
 
Last edited:
Roman G said:
wow that looks great. thanks for the example. this looks really cinematic. Now replicating it on t2i is a whole other story.

Roman
Click to expand...

It does look pretty good, and you can tell it was graded well in post, and in the comments the filmmaker noted he "only had a few Arris", so probably an Arri softbank kit. Which for DSLR in a smallish interior is enough. He didn't say "It was all natural practical light".

You'll also note the shot composition. It's not a bunch of handheld, it's not a bunch of masters, it's well constructed mostly out of a series of well composed medium and close shots.
 
brettzdamn said:
These are just ones i found on youtube when looking for a good indie flick to buy If any ov these belong to any one on hear im not trying to offend.

Im not talking about how the trailor is put together im talking about the actual footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67581wuhi1g&feature=related


Thats just one of the ones i could remember ill look on youtube if i can find any other examples
Click to expand...

Don't have time for a full critique of that at the moment, but take a look a the shot of the priest ~17-20s in or so.

See how there is no visual separation between his head and the panel behind him? Makes the scene look flat. IMNSHO, lack of separation is one of the most common things I see in the kind of work that I think you are referring to. Stuff that looks like "video" tends to because of flatness. A screen is a 2D plane. In order to render 3D spaces in a 2D photograph, you have to create a sense of volume by using light/shadow to render shape.

And before anyone points out 3D projection and how screens aren't necessarily a 2-d plane anymore; you have to perform the above to an even greater degree to shoot in 3d, which is still notoriously light hungry. :D :P

See how the brightest thing in scene is the top of his head Okay, fine, it's a top-light, it's hard to get something in there. But it would be nice to have at least gotten his eyes with a little something.

Or gone with less top light and cheated in a little light for his face from somewhere. Heck, some bounce in his lap might have helped if nothing else. Especially since he keeps looking down, I guess to look contemplative. Idk. I had it muted. :lol:

I will say, the shots of the guy confession looked nicer, and that's about as far into it as I got. But yeah, separation man. One thing that you are probably seeing when you think 'video' is lack of separation, flat images rendered without volume/shape.
 
Last edited:
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
It does look pretty good, and you can tell it was graded well in post, and in the comments the filmmaker noted he "only had a few Arris", so probably an Arri softbank kit. Which for DSLR in a smallish interior is enough. He didn't say "It was all natural practical light".
.
Click to expand...

There was a 1K and two 650's, and China Balls on Lantern Locks with 500w Bulbs in them on dimmers.

Gel, Diffusion

Shot at night.

GH-1 had three anamorphic lenses to choose from.

Carpet was bought specifically to bloody up.

Slider was a tiny little cheap slider, some of it was handheld.
 
Last edited:
Lighting, grading (not magic bullet, real manual grading), set design, makeup, lenses, camera, format,

it all matters. In one example, a standard hollywood film will use upwards of 250k in lenses. You don't really expect a $120 lens to provide the same look. Camera matters, even though everyone will tell you it doesn't. Mainly camera is about color depth, resolution, and compression. The reason so many people think a dslr will produce a solid theatrical movie, is that they see their own footage in a youtube window. In a 6 inch window, it looks great, but 40 feet tall is a different story.

Most important is the vastly increased time, effort, resources, and motivation of pro filmmakers. With sometimes hundreds of millions on the line, they don't take half measures and cut corners like indie filmmakers have to.
 
Roman G said:
So once more, how come our shots come out looking faster, video like, vs say a film camera. Take away pricing, talking strictly frame rate! Or perhaps shutter also has a lot to do with it?
Click to expand...

Shutter speed does have a lot to do with it. The classic 'video look' is 60 fields per second, shot at 1/60th shutter speed. What that essentially means is that all of the motion that happens in front of the camera is recorded. Film cameras were never capable of this - the shutter always had to close for a short period of time while the film advanced to the next frame. Traditionally the standard is to have the shutter closed half the time - hence the '180 degree' shutter, the shutter in these cameras is a rotating disc and it was open for half of a revolution. So with a film camera only half the motion in front of the camera is actually recorded to film, and the motion therefore looks less smooth than video.

With electronic shutters though it's possible to have a video camera that shoots at 24p, like film, but with the equivalent of 360 degree shutter, like video. The result is something that looks more like video than film - because all of the motion is recorded and it comes out too smooth. So if you want to mimic the motion rendering of film you need more than just 24p, you need to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/48 as well - or as close as possible, with the Canon DSLRS that's 1/50th.

But as others have mentioned, that's just a starting point - if you want your film to look like it's professionally shot you need to do the things a pro would do. Lighting, composition, depth-of-field, production design, color correction - these all contribute to the 'film look', and that's just within a single shot. You also need good editing, writing, acting, etc. In an indie film you don't have to get these all perfect, but you do need to think about them. The majority of indie trailers I've seen that look amateurish are due to it being obvious that someone wasn't even aware of some of these things.

Nate North said:
The reason so many people think a dslr will produce a solid theatrical movie, is that they see their own footage in a youtube window. In a 6 inch window, it looks great, but 40 feet tall is a different story.
Click to expand...

I've actually seen quite a bit of my DSLR footage projected 20ft high (40ft seems pretty big for a standard theater) on a Christie 2k and was very happy with the way it looked - and the audience certainly wasn't complaining. I'd say DSLRs are absolutely capable of producing a solid theatrical movie as long as you've got a handle on the many, many other things that are necessary to do so.
 
Last edited:
Nate North said:
it all matters. In one example, a standard hollywood film will use upwards of 250k in lenses. You don't really expect a $120 lens to provide the same look. \.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes: Zeiss lenses were basically still copies rehoused twenty years ago. The coatings are slightly different, optically you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until you noticed breathing.

Similar to how, now, Zeiss CP.1 and CP.2's are rehoused Zeiss ZF's with large elements. The lenses produce nearly the exact same results.

Cinema Lenses provide a few benefits that are marginal, it depends on who's paying for them: Color Matching, Flare Reduction, MTF Sharpness, Housing (designed to withstand heavy duty use), and breathing.

Those are negligible, for the most part, and have become "taste oriented". Shoot Cooke's, get a Cooke look, shoot Nikon's, get a Nikon look. The latter is great for period projects, the former for crisp yet soft images.

All in all, what I mean to say, is that as much as I agree that gear matters... in the grand scheme of thing it is the lowest denominator for people at our level.
 
ItDonnedOnMe said:
I've actually seen quite a bit of my DSLR footage projected 20ft high (40ft seems pretty big for a standard theater) on a Christie 2k and was very happy with the way it looked - and the audience certainly wasn't complaining. I'd say DSLRs are absolutely capable of producing a solid theatrical movie as long as you've got a handle on the many, many other things that are necessary to do so.
Click to expand...

True Story. If the footage isn't mixed with something "better" and you did everything in your power to make it look great (production and post) then nobody's going to care.

I've seen DSLR shorts on the Kodak screen, 35mm Adapter shorts, they all look plenty good when used appropriately.

That, however, did not save them from laughable scenes and stories. xD It's a process.
 
"If the footage isn't mixed with something "better" and you did everything in your power to make it look great (production and post) then nobody's going to care. "

This is really the main takeaway. We nerd out WAY too much on this stuff.
 
ST:OGAM is an Indie film, and it looks similar to the original! It's amazing and doesn't look like video at all.
 
@ace To be totally honest aside from the rack focuses the color looks a little different from film. Just my personal humble opinion... Put that up against something like Dark Knight or Inception which seems to be Brettzdam's standard...
 
ROC said:
Put that up against something like Dark Knight or Inception which seems to be Brettzdam's standard...
Click to expand...

What's wrong with high standards? Those films look terrific. What better to emulate. Shooting for the middle and hitting low is the Hep C of the film world.
 
Kholi said:
Actually, yes: Zeiss lenses were basically still copies rehoused twenty years ago. The coatings are slightly different, optically you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until you noticed breathing.

Similar to how, now, Zeiss CP.1 and CP.2's are rehoused Zeiss ZF's with large elements. The lenses produce nearly the exact same results.

Cinema Lenses provide a few benefits that are marginal, it depends on who's paying for them: Color Matching, Flare Reduction, MTF Sharpness, Housing (designed to withstand heavy duty use), and breathing.

Those are negligible, for the most part, and have become "taste oriented". Shoot Cooke's, get a Cooke look, shoot Nikon's, get a Nikon look. The latter is great for period projects, the former for crisp yet soft images.

All in all, what I mean to say, is that as much as I agree that gear matters... in the grand scheme of thing it is the lowest denominator for people at our level.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't buy CP2's, they look quite, average

I really like the Cooke look, with the S5i lenses providing the extra brightness and per frame digital post data I need for flawless compositing. Combine that with rugged construction, high resolution glass, smooth focus gears, etc, and you have something remarkably better than a stock still camera lens.

And breathing and color matching are both important, not sure why they would be seen as minimal issues.
 
Nate - You misread. I never said it was bad to have a standard that high. I stated my opinion on Ace's film compared to high-end films like the op is asking about.

Funny you mention the Cooke lenses.

Best looking film I have seen produced on the RED yet was with Cookes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top