All this reminds me of someone who used to phone me every couple of months about buying a video camera. In the end he never bought it, but the conversation was the same as these threads.

With the amount of time spent discussing this policeman's office, the scene could've been shot and everyone gone down the pub. .

Maybe? It's conceivable that someone could have saved money.
He’s filming with 2ti and an antique sound recorder and cant buy a power adapter. Maybe he’s a Howard Hughes. Who knows. I just think he fits an insecure type of person who wants to be taken seriously. He’s been caught before with inconsistency in what he says.

Just remember this is the same rape thriller that he can’t find anyone who wants do it.

You could be right. I feel with the things he's chosen to reveal that he's nigh incapable of deception. But I do think all the past problems and criticisms have to led to a serious case of decision paralysis, where any move he makes on anything could be the wrong one leading to no moves at all.

Yes - it is bad. 100% bad, and usually horrible to look at.

I'll try to explain. Let's assume you have one light in a room 20ft x 30ft with a ceiling height of 10ft. You put up your key till it touches the ceiling. You are shooting across the room to fill the frame left to right with the usual picture ratio. The best place for natural lighting would be half way from the wall - at 10ft. If you have multiple actors you could spread them left to right at the 10ft distance but that isn't practical. If you want them in a group 15 ft from the camera, then their shadows are going to be very visible on the wall. Let's send the actors, bar one to get a coffee. At 15ft, he will have a quite prominent shadow on the wall. Bring one more actor back and stand him in a position where he's in shadow. Stick up your next light to light him, but then this creates another shadow. with two actors, you now have 4 shadows on the wall. Add more actors and the shadows multiply. Oh dear - we don't want shadows on the wall, what can we do? Lets add some light to make the black shadows lighter. We don't want them to come from the front of course, so it has to be side light, but that means it's bright ones side, but not the other. So we stick in another, and put it on the other side. Now we have shadows centre, but less in the brighter wall at the left and right. If it was old days, we'd put a half scrim in, so we could make the light closer to the fixture dimmer. That doesn't work with LEDs that well. Before long we have a lot of lights on stands and every time actors move, the shadows do too. We've also got a very bright background which probably bleaches out if exposure is right for faces. we cannot up the face light brightness because the shadows increase again. If we were doing a documentary and the ceiling was white, we'd bounce loads of light off it and get an even bright soft coverage. You hate this, so that option is not open to you. Low ceilings in bigger rooms mean lighting is far from easy.

You cannot just fill shadows with light. It works for interviews fine, but if you want the actors to be able to move, it falls down very quickly.

Shadows you deliberately create are good. Accidental shadows are usually bad, because it might look good until people move, and when you move from the wide shot to the closeups, things can get very strange looking, so you have to change the lighting rig to match the look but probably by a different technique. The setup above goes horribly wrong as soon as you change camera position. In a real studio with proper lights, then every camera position can have kit hanging in the right place. That means rigging trim height is dependent on camera to subject distance to get the angles right.

Lighting is either for mood or illumination. Often mutually exclusive. If you really have 50 grand to waste - you're on a good path.

You also need to think about audio. The scenario above is boom unfriendly, so it's hidden lavs probably. Yet another complication for you to juggle.

Oh well I was going to use a different camera for shooting, probably the bmpcc but waiting for a DP's input. Is that ad to use the antique sound recorder? I was told before that the technology has hardly changed, and to still use it, unless I should get a new one?

I am still looking for a good DP and good actors to work with, first, in order to make it good. Those were the reasons for the delay, because I don't want to settle for just anyone, since I need more experienced people to work with.

Yes - it is bad. 100% bad, and usually horrible to look at.

I'll try to explain. Let's assume you have one light in a room 20ft x 30ft with a ceiling height of 10ft. You put up your key till it touches the ceiling. You are shooting across the room to fill the frame left to right with the usual picture ratio. The best place for natural lighting would be half way from the wall - at 10ft. If you have multiple actors you could spread them left to right at the 10ft distance but that isn't practical. If you want them in a group 15 ft from the camera, then their shadows are going to be very visible on the wall. Let's send the actors, bar one to get a coffee. At 15ft, he will have a quite prominent shadow on the wall. Bring one more actor back and stand him in a position where he's in shadow. Stick up your next light to light him, but then this creates another shadow. with two actors, you now have 4 shadows on the wall. Add more actors and the shadows multiply. Oh dear - we don't want shadows on the wall, what can we do? Lets add some light to make the black shadows lighter. We don't want them to come from the front of course, so it has to be side light, but that means it's bright ones side, but not the other. So we stick in another, and put it on the other side. Now we have shadows centre, but less in the brighter wall at the left and right. If it was old days, we'd put a half scrim in, so we could make the light closer to the fixture dimmer. That doesn't work with LEDs that well. Before long we have a lot of lights on stands and every time actors move, the shadows do too. We've also got a very bright background which probably bleaches out if exposure is right for faces. we cannot up the face light brightness because the shadows increase again. If we were doing a documentary and the ceiling was white, we'd bounce loads of light off it and get an even bright soft coverage. You hate this, so that option is not open to you. Low ceilings in bigger rooms mean lighting is far from easy.

You cannot just fill shadows with light. It works for interviews fine, but if you want the actors to be able to move, it falls down very quickly.

Shadows you deliberately create are good. Accidental shadows are usually bad, because it might look good until people move, and when you move from the wide shot to the closeups, things can get very strange looking, so you have to change the lighting rig to match the look but probably by a different technique. The setup above goes horribly wrong as soon as you change camera position. In a real studio with proper lights, then every camera position can have kit hanging in the right place. That means rigging trim height is dependent on camera to subject distance to get the angles right.

Lighting is either for mood or illumination. Often mutually exclusive. If you really have 50 grand to waste - you're on a good path.

You also need to think about audio. The scenario above is boom unfriendly, so it's hidden lavs probably. Yet another complication for you to juggle.

Okay sure, I will allow the DP to sort out the lighting more then. However, why can't I use a boom? I've used booms before in office settings. What about the location would make it boom unfriendly, since it's worked before? Are you saying the ceiling would be too low for a boom?

No (engaging patience control). The scenario with the one light, one actor, that gets out of control quickly would be simply awful with a boom wouldn't it. Virtually nowhere for the boom to be operated from that would not be in one of the beams, and then casting a very obvious shadow. You'd perhaps get away with it in the tight shots, but even then - if you have multiple keys and loads of fill, its a boom nightmare. The usual ideal boom position would be right where the light is coming from.

Oh okay, well in the other shoots I have done before, I couldn't see a shadow in of the boom, in the shots, so I thought as long as you deal with the shadow then it's okay I thought. But I would be sure to go over that with the DP and tell them that I want the to be able to use a boom, and to light so you cannot see a shadow of it. Sorry, I don't mean to test your patients, it's just in the previous post, you didn't explain why the boom would be a problem, you just said it would be unfriendly. So I just wanted to ask why, that's all.

I really do appreciate all the help! I just only want to ask questions on points that are not touched upon, cause if someone says something like 'unfriendly', that is not very specific, so I just want to ask what was meant by those things, that's all. Sorry, I really do appreciate all the input.

But in the past, we would always light the scene in a way, in which you wouldn't see the boom, so I didn't think that would be a problem, if we did that.

Low ceilings, mean shallower lighting angles, light travels to the subject through space that needs to be clear of anything that can cast a shadow. Where exactly do you think a boom could go? Your plan to add lights means more problems with shadows. With lights higher, the shadows don't travel so far and land on the floor which may be out of shot.

If you find a good DP, do you think this person will wlecome you handing him the camera you can't work yet, with your lens choice and smile when you expect your predetermined results.You WANT a team, but a team who will do exactly what you say.That isn't a team it's a disaster. Roles come with responsibility. You need to micromanage.

Let assume we lived near you. Do you think that based on what we know, we would be your team. I think it would be a pretty good team if you let us get on with it, but you won't. You just have this weird obsession with unusual or perculiar production techniques and your list of importances is upside down.

Oh okay, I have no problem allowing a a team make the decisions since that is what they are hired for. I just thought I could have some input as to how I feel the movie should look.

I could just allow the team and the DP to light for the boom correctly, if that's best.

You can discuss the look of the film, a good DP will do that, they'll also tell you what isn't going to work once you've established the look. Gordon Willis did this with Francis Ford Coppola on The Godfather during the filming..

How exactly will they do this, if the room doesn't allow it? Finding experts often just produces a simple answer "no, we can't do that"

EDIT

I spotted this video in another topic Ryan.
https://youtu.be/lDSXj7yFEq4
I've no idea of the thought process or technical aspects, but just nicely shot video, nicely edited video, with a sort of story. I suspect it was made because it could be made, with little real need, just a good idea - which was the kids.

Shot and edited then published. Why you don't do things like this is a mystery - you'd learn so much about telling stories.

If the DP says no we cannot do that, then we can do something else instead. We would still try to get the look as best we could within the location available, wouldn't we? It's not going to look as good as a studio, but the DP would still try to get it as best they could, no?

I spotted this video in another topic Ryan.
I've no idea of the thought process or technical aspects, but just nicely shot video, nicely edited video, with a sort of story. I suspect l

Shot and edited then published. Why you don't do things like this is a mystery - you'd learn so much about telling stories.
I’ve been addicted to Tiktok lately so many funny interesting videos shot with a phone. This is one of my recent favorites tells a story in like 30 seconds. And then we have Ryan planning years at home...

https://vm.tiktok.com/tC1nWh/

When working with a DP, is it bad to give them examples from other movies though, just to help? What about when it comes to working with other department heads... When I worked with a composer before, I would give him examples of how I want the music to feel from other movies, but is it bad to do that, and I should describe the music I would like all verbally? I just thought that giving examples were good, but is that copying too much from other movies then, just by showing examples alone?

You can use examples from other films, but it's best to keep it general. For example, the director of a short I was DP on wanted to have it looking like Amélie and I managed to set up the camera for that look. However, you don't need to go through it shot by shot. You can also use paintings or other visuals as a general visual reference.

For music, putting in temp tracks is common during the edit, however, some composers don't want to hear them. There it's comes down to discussion, plus there's a wide range of music other than film music that can be used as a reference.

Oh okay, I don't have temp tracks in my edits, but I just feel I can explain what I want better through visual or audio references from other examples.

There is another thing I was wondering about. Since I have had trouble controlling the colors of locations, not being able to repaint walls, or not being able to control colors of cars, outdoors, and people say they find colors of things in the background distracting... what if I colored a movie in monochrome color, like old silent films? Every scene is just one color tint then, so it doesn't matter if there are uncontrolled colors in the background because the audience will not see them then? Would monochrome color be a good idea therefore?

All this depends on if you're trying to make a pastiche of a silent film or a contemporary film. You just can't throw in a tinted look unless it's part of the overall telling of the story. Like "The Lighthouse" uses black and white.

The Lighthouse | Official Trailer HD | A24 - YouTube

Who are these "some people"? They seem to reoccur in all your threads.

If a location has an inappropriate colour, don't use it, you go around various locations to find the right one. I know that here the same farm house has been used on a number of films and it looks different in each film because of the art direction.

Oh okay. It's a crime thriller set in a modern times city.

They are just people I have shown my work to, to get opinions. Sometimes I am forced to use a location that may not have something ideal about it though. But then again I could try to change the distracting color only in post, if a color grading program can do it, without creating much noise issues.

Or maybe better, what we could do is light the locations so there is light on the actors, but try to avoid lighting the background a lot, if that's best.

You should be aware of the background when you're filming, if it's distracting you should be aware of it at the time, you shouldn't need other people to tell you.

You can rearrange the furniture and/or bring your own furnishings to avoid an inappropriate background.

Lighting can be used to reduce the viewer's eye being attracted to the background and/or you can use a shallower DOF to reduce the background detail. However, the method used must fit in with the overall look of the film.

Okay thanks. I don't think that shallower DOF is an option for the master shots, unless it's okay to rack focus a lot between a group of actors, but not sure if the viewer will mind that or not.

It's done all the time. I think this has already been covered in another thread.

Okay thanks, it's just when I see the master shot in a movie, everyone is in focus, and I don't ever recall seeing a movie with rack focusing in a master shot. So as long as it's acceptable, or I am not doing something too weird.

I saw this bhs from a movie. Look all the equipment and they even have big blue screen bkgd.
https://vm.tiktok.com/tpuNMe/

If it's a shorter focal length lens you may not be aware of any focus adjustments, especially if you're not looking for them.

If you're worried about the background, you'd be using a slightly longer focal length and this is where a dolly comes in for your camera moves.

Oh okay, but what does a dolly have to do with the focus pulling in a master though?

You don't need a static master shot, so you can use a bit longer focal length lenses if you really don''t like the background if using shorter focal length lenses, but still follow the action.

However, in the end, you've got to select the right location and that can take weeks to find.

Oh okay, but why don't I need to a static master shot? Are you saying to move the camera during the master? How does moving the camera help though? Wouldn't I still be pulling focus if the camera was moving or not moving?

The master shot just covers all of the action in the scene, who says the cameras has to be static?

You will always need to pull the focus unless it's a very simple shot.

Oh it's just before I was told maybe make the cameras static in order to save on dolly set ups, that's all. So I was now having static shots in mind more, or panning and tilting on a tripod more than a dolly.

All this depends on the scene, some may only consist of a single dolly shot, so a static is a waste of time, Others could be a mixture of dolly shots and static shots.

Oh okay, it's just I wasn't going to budget for a dolly though. Just a tripod and a gimbal, I was thinking. Should I go for a dolly as well?

If you're being serious about making a feature film or anything attempting to be cinematic a dolly is something you want to have for many films. The look is different to a gimbal.

Oh okay, but it was said before that I was getting too carried away with camera movement, and to not concentrate so much on it. So I thought I would just stick with the gimbal shots for some of the shots, and not have movement in the rest, if I was getting too carried away?

Or should I really get the dolly to look cinematic now?

You're more likely to get carried away with camera movement with a gimbal than a camera dolly.

Oh why is that? I have the shots laid out where I want a tripod, and the ones where I want a gimbal. Not sure if the amount would change if I was using a dolly. What if I got the one of the proaim tripod dollies, like this one:

https://www.proaim.com/collections/video-dollies/products/proaim-portable-dolly

With a flex track perhaps?

If shooting a feature film I would hire a more serious dolly. A number of the short films here have used a Doorway dolly, you can run it on tracks if you want, but it's surprisingly smooth just on the pneumatic tyres. It's also handy for moving the gear around,

It's something that rental companies may carry in their inventory.

https://www.msegrip.com/collections/camera-support/products/doorway-dolly

There are other manufacturers, you could also make one,

DIY Doorway Dolly - YouTube

I notice that by joining the Filmpool in your state you can hire kit at a cheap price. Although, I suspect there may be demand for their kit. The dolly they have isn't too expansive to buy.

Master shots can be static or not - surely it depends on the purpose of the shot. They set up the location so closeups make sense. If you can do that and add interest it's a win. I always tend to find that a master shot that gets wiped out with the closer shots, was a waste of time. If the master shot is a genuinely useful one, surely that's better? If movement and even height changes makes the shot better - use it!

Oh okay, well I could use a dolly of some sort, maybe something like that. I was going to use a gimbal for the walking and running shots. And maybe I would use a dolly for push ins, and push outs, since those might look better on a dolly, than a gimbal.

There is also another shot where I wanted the camera to circle around someone on a long lens, which a dolly is probably better for than a gimbal, as mentioned before.

But as for shots that change height, I was planning on using the gimbal to change might, just by moving it up or down. That way I don't have to invest in a jib. So is that good, or no?

You can be more precise with a jib.

I can, but I don't want to get carried away with all this equipment. Can't I just use a gimbal for the vertical movements, to save money and do a few takes if necessary, or is a gimbal not accurate enough?

Ryan, I'm wondering if you actually watch movies thoroughly enough? You seem to locate scenes you want to copy, but don't appreciate how they were actually shot at all. If a movie has a steady cam operator then ask the question why they also had dolly shots.

I'm confused as to why you cannot determine the correct tool for the job? Hand-held, gimballed hand-held, stabilised, jib mounted, dolly mounted, cable flown, remote headed.

The rotate around the subject shot we did to death ages ago, didn't realise you still had it planned. We said dolly and track back then. I don't think we changed our mind, but of course you still want to do it your own way. we thought it was unlikely to work with a long lens, but did you ever try?

As for your gimbal accuracy. It's down to the gimbal and importantly the operator. Can you do the movement with it. My own limited experience with the things is that controlled panning is a weak link - fine on wider angles, but on a long lens, less controlled i.e. jerky!

I can, but I don't want to get carried away with all this equipment. Can't I just use a gimbal for the vertical movements, to save money and do a few takes if necessary, or is a gimbal not accurate enough?

This isn't all this equipment, it's pretty basic stuff. Many of the short films made here have this type of kit.

You can do without it, but you need to stop pretending you're making a 1960s Hollywood thriller. You could make an edgy Paul Greengrass style thriller, which could be better than the one you're planning.

Ryan, I'm wondering if you actually watch movies thoroughly enough? You seem to locate scenes you want to copy, but don't appreciate how they were actually shot at all. If a movie has a steady cam operator then ask the question why they also had dolly shots.

I'm confused as to why you cannot determine the correct tool for the job? Hand-held, gimballed hand-held, stabilised, jib mounted, dolly mounted, cable flown, remote headed.

The rotate around the subject shot we did to death ages ago, didn't realise you still had it planned. We said dolly and track back then. I don't think we changed our mind, but of course you still want to do it your own way. we thought it was unlikely to work with a long lens, but did you ever try?

As for your gimbal accuracy. It's down to the gimbal and importantly the operator. Can you do the movement with it. My own limited experience with the things is that controlled panning is a weak link - fine on wider angles, but on a long lens, less controlled i.e. jerky!

Oh well I didn't think that I was copying scenes, if I am using a different tool, am I? I thought that all my movements, had purpose, rather than copying.

I can use a dolly to rotate around the subject, if that's better. I thought that I could save money if the gimbal operator was skilled enough, but I could get a dolly for it. I did a similar shot with a long lens before, and it worked, but just need more practice.

This isn't all this equipment, it's pretty basic stuff. Many of the short films made here have this type of kit.

You can do without it, but you need to stop pretending you're making a 1960s Hollywood thriller. You could make an edgy Paul Greengrass style thriller, which could be better than the one you're planning.

Oh okay, but who says I am making a 1960s Hollywood thriller though? I never thought of it that way. I don't want to use Paul Greengrasses style though. I mean his style has several lens zooms and it was said on here before not to use lens zooms because they look cheesy. I only wanted to zoom in one shot so far, for something, but Greengrass's style has zooms all over the place. So wouldn't those zooms look cheesy, as it was said on here before? Plus I would have to get a zoom lens then.

Greengrass's shots are also all handheld all the time it seems, and I would really like to use a tripod for a lot of the shots, and a gimbal and/or dolly for smooth movement, rather than go all handheld. Plus I am trying to come up with my own style rather than duplicate Greengrass. But am I taking a bad approach by coming up with my own?

A lot of the references you've used has been from the 1960s, with back lights, deeper focus etc. Even thinking about using black and white.

The use of the zoom isn't something that springs to mind with a Paul Greengrass films, since a lot of it is handheld, although he does cut in the middle of the zooms at times. However, you don't need to cut on zooms


The Bourne Supremacy (4/9) Movie CLIP - Fighting Close & Dirty (2004) HD - YouTube


The stony itself comes up with its style. driving what you need to do. Given the very basic way you're thinking, getting something that's watchable over the length of a feature film may be the real issue, rather having your own style. ,

Oh okay, the were a lot of zooms in The Bourne Ultimatum and Green Zone. It's been a while since I've seen Bourne Supremacy, so I can watch it.

I don't remember saying I would want to shoot in black and white. I said monochrome color before, as in scenes being tinted one color. I never saw that in a 60s movie before.

I thought a lot of movies after the 60s have had backlight as well. But I don't want to copy Greengrasses style, and thought I would use my own more. Plus that kind of style Greengrass use I find to be limiting. For example, the rotating dolly shot I talked about doing, you would never see in a Greengrass movie. So some of the things I want to do, he wouldn't do, but is that okay, to use my own ideas?

Plus I don't like the way Greengrass composes a lot of his shots, because a lot of his shots, are shot from the side more of characters, and there is less intimacy that way, with the characters, at least for me. Not all of his shots, but a lot of them. I also find the shaky cam during fight scenes and action scenes to be really annoying, and want to reduce that, if possible.

Ryan - we often forget you can't process figures of speech - it's hard to remember you take everything literally. When I say copy - I mean you see a scene in a movie, like it and want to replicate the components indoor movie, not copy a complete scene - just steal the important bits, and Brian (if he'll forgive me) doesn't mean you really are trying to make a 60s movie, just that much of what you say and do would fit that genre rather accurately.

You also have started to constantly mention budget as if it's a killer factor when you told us money was fine. Saving money is a sensible thing to do - but thinking you can avoid essential hires by doing things with a gimbal is not saving money - probably wasting it.

Let's go over your circular camera move (despite having done it to death) with a dolly on a track the camera points to the centre of the circle where the actors are, so panning will be gentle, only needing to keep the subjects in frame if they're not dead on centre. If you are doing it with a gimbal then the gimbal's normal mode keeps the camera locked to the compass direction by default. If you want to keep it centred on the actors, you will need to add in control movement that is effectively a continuous pan in one direction. My modest one would struggle with this. My basic gimbal seems to be able to do this smoothly only if the circular movement speed matches the gimbals speed. I tried to do your shot walking in a circle in the garden, and it was pretty horrible. I can almost do it on wide angle with a hand held camera. I cannot do it on a standard lens setting and it's no use at all on telephoto. Have you tried this shot with a gimbal yet?

Ryan - we often forget you can't process figures of speech - it's hard to remember you take everything literally. When I say copy - I mean you see a scene in a movie, like it and want to replicate the components indoor movie, not copy a complete scene - just steal the important bits, and Brian (if he'll forgive me) doesn't mean you really are trying to make a 60s movie, just that much of what you say and do would fit that genre rather accurately.

You also have started to constantly mention budget as if it's a killer factor when you told us money was fine. Saving money is a sensible thing to do - but thinking you can avoid essential hires by doing things with a gimbal is not saving money - probably wasting it.

Let's go over your circular camera move (despite having done it to death) with a dolly on a track the camera points to the centre of the circle where the actors are, so panning will be gentle, only needing to keep the subjects in frame if they're not dead on centre. If you are doing it with a gimbal then the gimbal's normal mode keeps the camera locked to the compass direction by default. If you want to keep it centred on the actors, you will need to add in control movement that is effectively a continuous pan in one direction. My modest one would struggle with this. My basic gimbal seems to be able to do this smoothly only if the circular movement speed matches the gimbals speed. I tried to do your shot walking in a circle in the garden, and it was pretty horrible. I can almost do it on wide angle with a hand held camera. I cannot do it on a standard lens setting and it's no use at all on telephoto. Have you tried this shot with a gimbal yet?

Oh okay, sorry if I wasn't understanding. I just didn't think of this project as a 60s style, aside from a lighting reference from a movie, and a blocking reference from another. But yes, I should have taken it as a figure of speech :).

We did a similar circular move around a subject in the one short film I did. It's at 5:09 into the movie:

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

That was done on a gimbal on an 85mm lens. I thought you could unlock that mode though, unless I am wrong. But is that shot good enough? If not I can get the dolly. For this current project, I want to do a shot going around the actor, but don't want a wide lens, to avoid barrel distortion. The shot is in a completely different context though of course, but with a similar move of going around the actor.

As for money being fine, well it depends. I am trying to save in a lot of areas, so camera movement wise, I thought I would just go for a pan and tilt tripod, a gimbal, and a car mount, for the car shots, but not anything more like a jib, etc. Unless I really could use more?

The circular shot doesn't look the same as one on a dolly, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve and the nature of the scene. It's more in the Paul Greengrass style than a classical circular track.

I didn't find it worked, to be honest - it started good with the rotating around the subject but then the pull away to wobblycam of the graves spoiled it for me - looked uncontrolled. When it finishes there's that awful edit from similar shot to similar shot - and that one wrenches - and of course all those war graves that aren't vertical - that's weird. A dolly would have sorted that out wouldn't it?