Well, the locations do suck to be honest, but the colour of the walls is not a problem to me. The acting was the real killer. When actors 'act', you're supposed to believe they are a real person, and real people don't behave like they do in your movies? If the actors are doing their critical role right, then there will be no need to even think about the walls, unless you want to use them as reflectors and bounce light off them. I'd produce a priority list - and we'd perhaps all have things in different orders, but most would be pretty fixed.

1. Script. Is it interesting and does it really have a plot and stand up on it's own, without actors.
2. Actors. When they play the character, do you recognise what they are doing as what real people do and say?
3. Sound. Natural capture of what people sound like - OK on a laptop and a fully featured home cinema.
4. Music. Appropriate and mood evoking music.
5. Image. Appropriate to the genre in quality, format and frame rate. Composition following established norms. Movement planned and performed.
6. Lighting. Suitable and appropriate to the image.
7. Costume. Fitting, colour, material, period, style
8. Scenery/set. Appropriate to the locations in the screenplay.

Then you should have something you can edit.

Oh okay thanks. I can concentrate on the script and actors as well, but that doesn't mean I should throw the look of the locations out the window entirely though, does it? I also didn't think that music was above cinematography, but I will keep that in mind. I as also told my sound and music has been good so far, so I felt I should pay more attention to the other areas, if that's true...

A good art director and DP can transform very ordinary locations for not very much. On screen, they can look totally unlike the way they appear in their normal life.

The idea was that you could justify how YOU would rank them Ryan, so some of them are misplaced. However, once you get your order right, the things lower in the list become the ones that can be allowed to be weak, but it's unforgivable to mess up the higher ones.

The music v image one is tricky. I suspect that an audience would notice music before cinematographic tricks. So depth of field, aspect ratio, grading, LUT tweaks and other clever stuff may simply not be noticed if the important thing in the frame is sharp and doesn't wobble.If the actors are poor, then everyone notices.

Movies that few have seen, and are in a foreign language can win Oscars. Some poor devil spent ages getting the audio sorted for that movie, and everybody reads the captions!

Oh okay, I thought that people of course would still pay attention to the audio while reading the captions.

I've been told my the cinematography was bad in mine so far, but not the music. So I thought maybe it was easier for a composer to make music, compared to a DP having to work with not that good of real life locations. But I can work with a DP, and production designer and see what happens.

I wouldn't say it's easier for the composer, usually it's the other way around, getting good music is a problem for many films without a budget.

Oh okay, so far it's been easier for me as long as the composer has a good repertoire of instruments in their computer packages, and are good of course.

I think that to be able to create music for video is a pretty tough process. I can assure you the collection of instruments in the computer is but a tiny part of the process.

Yeah for sure, it's just of all the shortcomings I was told of in my past projects, the composers' music was never one of them that was mentioned, so I thought I had that area probably covered compared to the ones that I was told to work on.

The music requirements can vary from film to film, so you need to ensure that the music composer can fulfill the needs of the film you are making. .

Yep for sure. For this one new one I was thinking of hiring someone different, but then again, I already have a good working relationship with the other composer I worked with a few times so far. So I am wondering should I stick to the one I have a good relationship with, or try someone new... Pros and cons to each. What I could do is listen to samples of new composers and then decide.

timescape titles with audio on Vimeo
chain home titles v3 on Vimeo

Here's a couple of things we've done over the past year or two. Visuals and the music from us.

Oh okay thanks. The first video wouldn't play but the second one did. Very good. Did you use a helicopter or drone for that shot? I also was thinking of shooting a feature in black and white, but thought maybe it's too risky, when trying to attract an audience. When it comes to music, what is the bass brass instrument in the video?

It one of the low brass in Spitfire Albion, but blended with strings and woods too - essentially a trombone but the raspy sort. Drone footage.

Oh okay thanks. A lot of people are using drones now, but it seems to me, that when I do the math on the costs, and the price for a drone licences and drone insurance, that's actually cheapter to rent a real helicopter pilot to fly you around. Is that true? But if that's true, than why are drones more popular now?

You can fly a lot lower with a drone and you don't get the downdraft. Helicopters cant go closer than 500ft to objects without special permission, while drones can't go higher than 500ft.in Europe or 400ft in the USA.

You also need the camera mount in the helicopter.

Oh okay, it's just that the drone cameras they use have such wide lenses, does the ability to go lower really matter if you have a telephoto?

You need a high end gyro mount to remove the vibration on telephoto lenses, quite apart from the look of a wider lens is very different to that of long focal length lens.

Get a high end drone, which allows you to change the lens on the camera.

The perspective changes as you move in closer.

The choice between a helicopter and a drone will depend on the subject matter, how high you need to go, the speed you require and the loiter time.

I am by no means an expert and fly mine entirely for pleasure now the rules make commercial operation far too expensive, and of course, the market is saturated - but helicopters are far too expensive, and often charges are down to the minute! They also suffer from severe vibration, so using them for movie making, rather than news gathering means engaging a firm with proper gyro stabilised pods, and permanent internal fittting - plus more people, who are always expensive.

Dronse fly in limited vertical airpsace, but this is exactly the right place for a wide angle lens to look good. Helicopters would be as Brian says, higher, and need to be tighter, which causes lenses to need stabilisation. In non-pod fitted helicopters shooting from them is horrible. Many pilots are not trained at things camera people ask for. Helicopters can fly sideways so allowing the camera to approach objects - but ask a pilot with 5000 hours in the logbook how many hours he has flying sideways and you'll discover the answer is painfully few. Some notable crashes over the years caused by pilot error carrying out aerial video work. Flying around a lighthouse - a common request - is a particularly dangerous activity to a lower hours pilot, but a common request from the video people.

Drones have typically short range - the rules mean that if you can't see them, you're too far away, and you can't go high - 400ft is the highest most will fly due to the geofencing and protection built into the popular ones. They're great things for a limited range of stuff. I gave up 6 months ago because of the hassle, rules and misunderstanding from members of the public - plus the understandable attitude of those who have spent thousands doing training. The new registration system here which I did, and took the test, still makes the damn things a pain. I now pass this to poeple local to me who do it better, have better gear, and carry the can if it goes wrong.

Oh okay thanks, that's good to know. I think for my projects I will just forget about aerial shots, as I won't have enough on the shotlist for it to be worth it, I don't think.

Also when it comes to deciding on a new camera, what about night shooting? Do the blackmagics, which I was told to get have as good of an ISO for shooting at night, like the Sony A7s II for example? I know I keep being told to light at night instead, but when it comes to shots of an entire street, it's hard to light the entire street.

What about how these scenes are lit, in Dirty Harry I noticed. There is a scene in a park, where as a script I want to do, also has a scene in a park at night. In Dirty Harry, they light the park like this:

Dirty Harry - The Cross Scene - YouTube

They still leave a lot of the park dark, especially in the opening wide shots of Harry walking through it.

Also in the scene, at 1:07 into the clip, they show a view of the street:

Dirty Harry - Suicide Jumper Scene - YouTube

The street is still quite dark. So do you think with this kind of cinematography, I can pull off shooting at night, since this type is still darker than usual for movies, and does not have near as many lights by comparison?

This depends on if you're using basically using the street lamps for lighting the background, which you can do these days. With "Dirty Harry" they were using 100 ASA film, which they possibly could force develop a stop to give 200ASA, so using street lighting for part of your lighting was more difficult. You could use the small number of fast lenses like the Angénieux f0.95 50mm, but the options were a lot more limited compared to today. However, "Dirty Harry" was shot with Panavision C series anamorphic lenses, which are T2.3 to T3, depending on the lens.

Yes, you can do it the same thing as in the park scene, but you'll need a generator. With today's more sensitive sensors, you may get away with 2k or 5k fresnel spots

With the BlackMagic, I would go for 2k lamps for the street and try to get mains tie ins at a building, allowing for the power limitations you have in N. American wall sockets,. You should get an electrician to do this, neither that or get a generator. This will allow you to either use the street lighting or just let that lighting drop off towards darkness, if just using close shots.

Oh okay thanks. I can use more than the streetlight, I just don't think I could light a whole park I'm guessing. However, the problem with fast lenses, is since I am shooting a horror thriller type genre, with a chase and fight, through the park, I am going to want to have more than one actor in focus at a time, right? So would fast lenses be an option therefore? I was also hoping to shoot on telephoto lenses, to pan with the characters during and get much longer pan tracking on them, if that's possible as well, which also means probably not a fast lens, I am guessing, if I want a deeper DOF for the actors?

Longer focal length lenses are slower, so you need more light.

If you don't have the resources don't come up shooting plans that you can't do, that's where creativity comes in. The best ideas are often the result of overcoming restrictions or limitations..

Okay thanks. I was wondering if the Dirty Harry method was creative for this type of shooting though, since those scenes do not light the entire scene, and a lot of the location is left dark? If that method will work for not wanting to use fast lenses?

Not Lighting the entire scene is the creative approach. The darkness shows Harry as being isolated in a place that he (and we) can't see what's around him; the unknown is more scary than the known.

Okay thanks. I did a couple of tests at night with lights on my Canon T2i. The ISO starts to look bad when you go over 800, it seems, so at that ISO, I can put the aperture at 2.2 it can still look overall good, with lights at night. However, would a blackmagic have a high enough quality ISO, that I could open around maybe f5.6 at least or deeper?

What difference is that extra couple of stops doing for you? I suspect you'll need to try the camera to find this one out. I doubt the published spec will help in this case.

You mean what different is 5.6 doing for me than 2.2? I just figure the deeper the DOF the better, and wonder if there is a camera with a higher ISO, where the DOF can be pushed more.

If you use a higher ISO you will get more noise in the shadows. I'm not sure why you want 5.6, although I do know a DP who used that stop with 400 ASA film,. However, I suspect it's because he was used to using 100ft candles as a lighting level, which gives f2,8 on 100 ASA film. If you want a deeper DOF and have limited funds, the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera may be worth checking out. How much noise is acceptable varies from person to person, so it's up to you to test this, There are reviews of the BlackMagic cameras online, so the information is out there, but it's up to you to decide if you can live with the noise.

A point to in mind with the "Dirty Harry" footage is that in the cinema you probably saw some detail in the shadows of the park scene, while in the YouTube it's black. YouTube videos are highly compressed, so shouldn't be used for comparing cameras/lighting other than in a very general sense. One high end has TIFF files for its camera and lighting tests, so that users can what is reality going on.

Oh okay thanks. Well I was trying to ball park how much deep DOF I may need bare minimum, so f5.6 was a ball park. However, the Sony A7s II has a really good ISO, but do the blackmagic pocketcams have ISO that good? I shot a scene once for a project with the Sony A5s II at night on a lit street, at F11 and it still looked good with the ISO that high. But can you do that with a blackmagic pocketcam?

The pocket cinema camera won't be as sensitive, but it has a deeper DOF you're after that - it has a smaller sensor. It also has a more robust codec, it really depends on what you want to do in post and the funds you've got available.

Yep that's true I like the smaller sensor. Is there a camera out there that has as good of ISO as the Sony A7s II, but with a cropped sensor size?

No, the physics would be against that. The Sony A7s II is probably more of a documentary camera, especially for productions that work at extremely low light levels at night, such some BBC documentaries about the universe or their "Sky at Night" programmes.

My current cameras for theatre work are my two JVC ⅓" chip 750s. I've used these types now for quite a few years, 100, 200 and not got the budget at the moment for the 800. Every review tells how awful these are at low light and how useless they are for stage work. I have never had issues with these at all, and just proves to me that specs on paper can hide true performance. With no dialled in gain, they hover around 4/5.6 but even in a very dim scene with the lens wide open they manage really well. On paper, the results ought to be very noisy.

See if any of the dealers will loan you one, or buy from somewhere who offers returns and try the BM out. It could be perfect for you.

In some ways a night scene is no different from any other, it needs to be properly lit and then most any modern camera will work.

Oh okay, I don't mind lighting at night, it's just the wide establishing shots, I have trouble with, cause if you back up the lights far enough for those, than they no longer work anymore. If I wanted to light a building at night for example, lighting the whole building for an establishing shot, is the problem. Close ups I can light, I just have trouble with wide establishing shots, hence why I thought a camera with a higher ISO, might be better... But I need the light to match, so if I move it closer for the close up, compared to the wides, than won't the audience notice, hey how come the lights are brighter for the camera in the close ups... So I have to have them in the same place as the wides to match, I figure?

Oh okay, I don't mind lighting at night, it's just the wide establishing shots, I have trouble with, cause if you back up the lights far enough for those, than they no longer work anymore. If I wanted to light a building at night for example, lighting the whole building for an establishing shot, is the problem. Close ups I can light, I just have trouble with wide establishing shots, hence why I thought a camera with a higher ISO, might be better... But I need the light to match, so if I move it closer for the close up, compared to the wides, than won't the audience notice, hey how come the lights are brighter for the camera in the close ups... So I have to have them in the same place as the wides to match, I figure?
These are all good questions but if you really are going to hire dp he's the one who needs to figure this out maybe when you're looking for someone qualified these would be a good questions.

Lighting the building is the easiest since many buildings use landscape lighting to light the facade. Obviously you'd either pickup these lights at a home improvement store or set up fresnel lights hidden in the bushes... One of the issues you probably haven't thought about is powering any of these lights, since most likely there will be no outlet to plug into which would mean running a generator, sure there a battery operated lights but powerful ones are expensive.

You also have to understand that big budget commercial movies have all sort of lighting solutions that you won't have. I was watching a behind the scenes of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and there was a highway shot where there was 20 mobile crane lights (20ft high) lining the road for a night scene.

That being said this is something you are going to need to research and ask people with working knowledge of approaches that you can afford.

Let’s be realistic there isn't going to be a lot you can do for wide angle shots, maybe a few strategic placed fresnels on key areas. This is where experience and creativity are going to come in to play. If you don’t have the camera and lights to experiment with I wouldn’t spend too much time playing what if. My take is you’ll need use fresnel for shaped side lighting for close ups that match what you expect from street lights and when you pull back wide the viewer will not be aware the closeup lighting isn’t there.

Shooting wide shots at night is a lot easier than it used to be, especially compared to the 1970s, when some films didn't have big Hollywood style lighting rigs, yet managed to pull off daring stuff.

These are all good questions but if you really are going to hire dp he's the one who needs to figure this out maybe when you're looking for someone qualified these would be a good questions.

Lighting the building is the easiest since many buildings use landscape lighting to light the facade. Obviously you'd either pickup these lights at a home improvement store or set up fresnel lights hidden in the bushes... One of the issues you probably haven't thought about is powering any of these lights, since most likely there will be no outlet to plug into which would mean running a generator, sure there a battery operated lights but powerful ones are expensive.

You also have to understand that big budget commercial movies have all sort of lighting solutions that you won't have. I was watching a behind the scenes of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and there was a highway shot where there was 20 mobile crane lights (20ft high) lining the road for a night scene.

That being said this is something you are going to need to research and ask people with working knowledge of approaches that you can afford.

Let’s be realistic there isn't going to be a lot you can do for wide angle shots, maybe a few strategic placed fresnels on key areas. This is where experience and creativity are going to come in to play. If you don’t have the camera and lights to experiment with I wouldn’t spend too much time playing what if. My take is you’ll need use fresnel for shaped side lighting for close ups that match what you expect from street lights and when you pull back wide the viewer will not be aware the closeup lighting isn’t there.

Yeah for sure. I am revising the story of the script, cause I need locations that are going to work for a DP, lighting wise, so I am trying to write a story to fit these locations. Just not sure if they would work, since I need more ISO, than what I have now on the current camera. But I am just trying to write for what I think might work at night, location wise, at this point, but not sure, what will.

For a drama don't go for anything that requires more the 1500 ISO. Assuming you;re not going to go for f11, that will capture a wide range of buildings and locations, assuming you're shooting in an urban environment.

Oh okay, but for the telephoto lens shots, won't I need f11 for those shots though?. It's a thriller, where during the night scenes, a character is being chased by other characters, but wanted to use the telephoto lens to pan with the actors as they run, just for those shots, if possible.

I've shot at f2.8 with telephoto lenses. f11 tends to be more a bright day stop. If you want deep focus, don't use telephoto lenses. What you want and what is practical can be two different things. You can get the actors to run in an arc instead of a straight line, so that you don't need to pull focus. The camera lies wonderfully.

Directors come up things that are easy in their heads. but in practice are hit or miss in reality and require quite a few takes to nail.

Ryan and his obsession with telephoto lenses, maybe he should be an astronomer instead

I've shot at f2.8 with telephoto lenses. f11 tends to be more a bright day stop. If you want deep focus, don't use telephoto lenses. What you want and what is practical can be two different things. You can get the actors to run in an arc instead of a straight line, so that you don't need to pull focus. The camera lies wonderfully.

Directors come up things that are easy in their heads. but in practice are hit or miss in reality and require quite a few takes to nail.

Oh okay, thanks, I was wondering this as well, it's just the location I was going to use is not quite shaped in a way, to run like that, at least that running in arc, might not make narrative sense, but as long as the audience does not noticed, that the actors are running in an arc? Cause every time I try to trick the audience in the camera, in the past, they spot the trick. And I feel if I have the character running in an arc, the audience will say "hey, why is that character running in an arc, it makes no sense, when being chased". I guess I am just skeptical it would work, since when I tried cheating things like that in the past, it didn't work. But I can try.

However, the telephoto lens will not open wider than F5.6 though. The rental store also does not have a telephoto lens that can open that wide either, and I don't want to order lenses since that can cause scheduling problems. Is there a way I can make it work with what I have and shoot at a lens that cannot open wider than f5.6 and just get a camera with a really good ISO to compensate?

Ryan - sometimes you have to just spend money and try things. You cannot learn all you need then go and hire something and expect it to go well. You buy a camera, hire a lens and shoot your movie first go on every item - you just cannot work like this.

The arc thing is simply not am problem at all. The audience only notice if you shoot it from the wrong angle. The point of the arc is to maintain the same distance from subject to lens. If you have the camera in this position then from the camera's viewpoint, they will look as if they are travelling left to right - the arc is hidden. Obvious from above, obvious to a camera at the side, but panning with a long lens, with the actors reasonably tight - it won't be seen as a mistake. If you cheat badly, people notice. So don't do it badly, do it well!

Choose your camera, get the lens, and budget for a couple of days and nights of learning how to use the combination. You don't know the depth of field you will get till you mate the two items and try them out and spend some time evaluating the shots. f5.6 might be perfectly workable and the image quality very usable, or not. We don't know,

Oh okay thanks. It's just I don't want to buy the wrong camera and say this will not work at all, like I did with the wrong lens before, only to find out about the hidden catches later. That's why I wanted to rule out all the hidden catches in the blackmagic pocket camera, before I bought it. Every time I buy a new piece of equipment almost, there is a hidden catch and I think to myself, well I wish I would have caught that before buying it. So I want to catch them this time before buying. Or I could just buy the camera, and if I am not happy with the night ISO, return it and get my money back I suppose?

There's always something hidden, especially if you don't have the funds to buy the accessories or the kit designed to do the job. The ISO is given in the specification, so you should know the ball park.

Oh well it's just that with ISO, the quality is not listed. For example on my camera, once you go over 800, it gets to be too much noise. But with the blackmagics do they list how far the ISO can before there is too much noise? Is the noise quality listed anywhere? It says the ISO goes up to 25600 on that camera, but at what point does the quality become unprofessional?

Extremely high ISOa are more for documentary type work, rather than dramas. Professional productions will use them, but it's unlikely in a drama unless it's for a particular look.

The noise will be more noticeable on a large screen. Having a quick look ISO 200 and 1250 would seem the range for the 4k Blackmagic pocket cinema camera regarding the noise levels. This would be the range I'd expect to use on a drama.

No one shoots night exteriors at f11 unless it's a model.

Oh okay thanks. Well if I want to use a telephoto lens that only opens up to f5.6 then, is there a camera with a high enough ISO, that is good enough quality to support that? Or what if I just shot it with high gain at night, like The French Connection did?

In The French Connection, they said they shot with high ASA film stock, cause they didn't have a lot of light at night, and even though it's a drama, could I use that type of documentary style then therefore? I was also told by another filmmaker to get the GH5 maybe instead or a camera like that, cause he said you can go up to 12800, and it will still look pretty good, if he is right on that camera?