Spot, thanks for the tips. I'm assuiming wide ap = slower shutter and more motion blur as well?

I don't plan to zoom at all (other than the initial setting). We own a dolly rig & crane, so camera movement is going to be all physical (we'll be weighting down the dolly - the GL2 isn't exactly a heavy guy).

Thanks again.

K

tiffen 72mm Black mist Pro 1/4 and 1/2, SoftFX 1/2 and ND3/ND 6 will help immensely. Softens your image without blooming and the NDs help achieve that shallow depth of field we all strive for. Much easier to shoot it film like than screw around for hours in post.

Peter

pb,

I already use the Soft/FX 1 filter. Do you combine the ones you're talking about?

Wide aperture means more light, so would normally result in faster shutter speeds therefore less motion blur. If you happen to want slow shutter speed and more motion blur, use neutral density filters to cut down the amount of light.

Richard Hunter

Oh yes! Filters make for reduced DoF. I'm now "seeing" this as how my own eye views the World. And isn't this what I'm after? Stuff I want to focus on is, well in focus, stuff in the background is, well, out of focus. Or the other way round - background IN focus foreground OUT of focus - depending on the effect I want. Keep wide and keep iris as open as poss. hence the need for NDs. Light it as well as you can. Light IS everything!

Can I come and help? Please?

Grazie


ps: Richard, thanks for all your help over the past couple of years - it has eventually sunk in .. took time though!

On my GL2 I like to go to Custom Preset and turn the color gain down about half way from the center, throw the colorphase over towards green, reduce the sharpness to nearly match the color gain setting and then leave the setup alone. Mess with that in post.
This gives me what I see as a soft filmic look, and then control DoF with filters as as others have said. Film Look is such a limited term, what are you looking for.. 1930's Technicolor? can't help ya...
To my eye on the GL2 these settings even out the field and give the *illusion* of a larger colorspace.

I guess what I mean by "film look" is more "not obvious video look," which I think hinges heavily on sharpness and nice definition of depth of field. I recently saw an indie that was shot on Beta and it looked like a soap opera. Open Water was shot on video, but it wasn't as obvious. I can watch an interview or a talk show that looks like video. I can't get past the "obvious video look" when I'm watching a "movie."

Thanks for the input.

I disagree regarding "Open Water". The motion blur gave it away right from the start. However, you can more easily "fake" the film look in lower lit shooting such as stage productions where the artificial funky light comes into play and you have to color correct everything anyway. In brightly lit outdoor shots it's a lot harder to pull it off. In terms of "Open Water", almost the entire movie was shot using the same scene so it's not a good example anyway. Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced because I thought it was one of the most boring films I have ever seen except maybe for the lightning scene at night.
Panavision anyone?
John

It seems we had a discussion on the Canon "frame mode" here and decided that it is best to shoot in "normal mode" and use Magic Bullet (or something else) in post. I have a couple of XL1S' and find I get better resolution (and control) this way (FWIW). Also in case you're not aware, you can forget about panning unless it's done very slowly.
Randy
This is a pretty old thread but may be of use to you.

"Wide aperture" -- I'm thinking "bigger number"...doped that one, didn't I?

I've always shot in frame mode and never noticed a problem with panning. I guess I'll grab a few Tiffen filters and run some tests in frame mode and normal mode with deinterlacing in Vegas. I just know I've been fairly satisfied with my results in frame mode without "trying" for the film look, so I'm hesitant to shoot in normal mode.

That other thread had a lot of great tips. Thanks for pointing it out.

I guess I'll grab a few Tiffen filters and run some tests in frame mode and normal mode with deinterlacing in Vegas.
Please report back with your results.
Thanks,
Randy

Keep in mind that shooting in frame mode will be softer overall anyway, in addition to the resolution you've lost. That might be a good thing, might not be. Just remember that somewhere along the line, at the end of the day, it will be interlaced anyway.

I guess, in a nutshell, "soft" is what I'm looking for. Shallow depth of field, more color saturation, less detailed sharpness overall.

You all have been a lot of help. Thanks. I'll report back on (my opinion of) what I find out...

I for one disagree with using cheap dolly substitues. Unless you have a good dolly with nice track the shot will look artificiall -- kind like "they don't have a budget but poor bastards are trying hard to cover up for also pathetic script with those tricks." Again if you do have proper tool though then go ahead and use them. I would say lighting makes the bigest difference. Chose a source of llight and use it as the key light . Just remember to light half of the actors faces so it doesn't look flat. If needed and makes sense add some hairlight to separet the dark side from the bg. Also don't be afraid to use colors. See what's teh predominant color in your shot and look at the color wheel, picking complementary color to light here and there will make the image more beautiful. Also try to add the camera movement to the scene by doing 270 or even 360 if possible. Have actors walk around so the camera moves with them (panning).

In the end rememebr that as a director you are "content producter" so finishing the project is more important then getting all the elements right.

I would say lighting makes the biggest difference.

I've been following this thread waiting for someone to say this. Kudos to patreb for hitting the nail on the head :-)
The bottom line to making video look more like film is to light it like the film folks do. His (her?) suggestions are something to be followed as much as possible. If you take the time to light the set properly, you'll be amazed at how much better it looks.
Do filters help? Absolutely. I'm a big fan of pro-mists, etc. but, if the set is not properly lit, all you'll end up with is soft video.
Just my opinion.

Mike

Great tips all around, IMHO lighting possibly the most important of all.

Being one who is often confronted with tight budgets and less than the stellar equipment I would kindly disagree with patreb's dissuading the use of " cheap dolly substitutes. " Now don't get me wrong, if you can manage to get your hands on better equipment than by all means do so, but tough times call for tough measures and often times us independents have to do the best with what we have. I hate to bring in the " El Mariachi " example but if this aint a testament of what can be done on a budget I don't know what is. And if you haven't read " Rebel Without a Crew " by Robert Rodriguez yet, by all means go get yourself a copy.

It seems to me that there are quite a few subtle things that we can do to make our work look more " big budget ", dolly type shots, crane/jib shots defiantly play a role. Building a cheap " Steadicam " apparatus being another. The phrase "A bad workman blames his tools." comes to mind. It isn't what your working with, its what you do with it. Practice creative problem solving, if you have a vision of how a shot should look make it work. If you look at it after and realize it didn't, well scrap it and do it again.

And my last little tidbit that seems often overlooked in independent film : Get good music ! With so many amazing bands out there that are just dying for their work to be heard there's little reason to use bad/generic music. Go check out some of the bands in your area, I'm sure you'll find some talented groups and artist out there that would love to have their music in a movie. Some would be happy to let you use their music for free or you could offer points or a percentage. Just make sure you get the proper release forms.

With that said, what the hell do I know ? As they say " take what ya need and leave the rest ".

Best of luck.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

I kinda doubt Jesseriah will have a hard time with great music, since he's a great musician himself. He makes loops for ACID all day long, and I've used them in all sorts of shows.
I too, disagree about the dolly. I've seen everything from high end rigs to microdollies to briefcase dollies to suitcase dollies used on hard wood. The dolly isn't as important as the medium it lies upon. A smooth surface is pretty important.
I also second the comment about Rodriguez book, it's a terrific read.
I use a Hollywood Microdolly for much of my work, ti's easy, smooth, lightweight. It won't handle a heavy cam, even though the manufacturer says it will, but for 15lbs and under, it's a jewel.

Hi Grazie. Thanks for your thanks! I am very happy if I have been able to help in any way.

Richard

Guess what we use when we record on a fly in schools or hospitals? Yep, wheelchairs. And it works big time. With relatively wide shots, that is. Not at the end of your 20X zoom...but even with that; if the camera guy can do it...(no coffee before shooting though!)
Some guys who are a little less on the fly make their own plates on which they put the cam on its tripod. Usually, they use a 3/4" plywood plate (around 3'x3' or wider if you plan on sitting there with the cam most of the times: you're the boss so you decide) mounted on skateboard wheels screwed on a 90degree piece of metal "L beam". They use PVC 2 1/4" black plummer pipes for rails. This too makes wonders for the price and weight. Smoother movements? Put some sand bags on the plate to load it (or huge rice bags, or a 50 pounds potato bag, or a car's spare wheel. You choose; you're still the boss).
Squeeky sounds? put some Baby's Own powder on the rails.

Gold Bond works well too, and it's cheaper than Baby's Own. Walmart sells it in trial size, which seems to last forever.

I bet you can get a decent dolly for well under 1000$.

You guys in the US have access to some pretty incredible deals on used equipment. I got a catalog from a place in OHIO offering a gently used Western Dolly for 700 bucks! Spider dollies with seats etc. for 1500$. We have about 10% the population up here in Canada so "deals" on used gear are few and far between. If it weren't for the hideous shipping costs I'd buy all my accessories from the US through eBay.

Peter

I find Soft FX 1 and it a bit too much and don't like the misty look of Pro Mist 1 or even 1/2. Much prefer the Black Mists. I shot a piece a few years back with the Pro Mist 1 (oly time I ever used it) and the editor accused me of fiddling with the camera's black level setting. End result (for my particular show on Mining Trucks and the people who drive them) was c r a p. Had to do a reshoot.

Main reason I use filters all the time is the video from my DSR 500/570 and D50/DNV5 is so sharp it looks almost surrealistic, as in definitely no doubt about it, it is video. So I always have at minimum an 82mm Black Mist 1/4 instead of the more typical 82mm Clear.

Do I stack the 82m filters? Can't. My two lenses are Canon Broadcast so if I screw on more than one filter I see the second in the corners when zoomed out all the way. Sure I can set the lens memo to stop the zoom before max zoom out but as I add filters I get less and less WA. Work around is my old Petroff Matte Box and two slide in filters plus set the lens Memo feature to not zoom quite out all the way (showing the edges of the matte box this time). Hoping to be able to find/afford a 16:9 compatible matte box that will take my 4X4 filters.

I salute you for your ability to get good results from the GL2; it takes a lot of skill and patience, that is for sure. My brief experience with the GL1 in Greenland was not totally bad but not something I'd use in a demo reel.

Peter