In the '90s a lot of indie cinema used a particular grain of film stock which separated them from mainstream Hollywood films. I have no idea the technical terms nor reasons. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?
Why is it indie films looks like video?
- Thread starter brettzdamn
- Start date
brettzdam, is it possible that maybe the quality of the trailer is shaping how you make the distinction between "indie" and "hollywood"?
As in, you see a quality trailer, looks great, sounds great, looks like a good movie, so you automatically classify that as "hollywood", even if it might actually be an independent production?
As in, you see a quality trailer, looks great, sounds great, looks like a good movie, so you automatically classify that as "hollywood", even if it might actually be an independent production?
I guess indie to me is like a "No name Production" non famous? low budget? im not really sure how to explain what im thinking
I think I know what you're talking about and it's the last thing given credit for...
...editing. Hollywood editors simply rock. Video editors usually wear 15 different hats and suck at all. I'm a video editor if you think I'm picking on anybody.
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
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
Thats what i was thinking that maby its just in my head?
Second part- yah maby your right im not sure
Last edited:
In that trailer you posted, the main thing I noticed that was different from a "hollywood" movie was the depth of field. That movie in the trailer has a very deep DoF where everything is in focus, which isn't usually the case in big budget movies since they use cameras with bigger chips. However, DSLRs changed all that.
And then, lighting and audio quality is a lot better the higher budget you go.
And then, lighting and audio quality is a lot better the higher budget you go.
The reason that one looks like digital is because it's digital.
I happen to think the actual footage looks good. Well lit, well composed.
I'm at work, so I only watched the first half, and it was on my phone. That being said, it didn't look like it had much if any lighting design. No color grading. Looked 30p, but maybe that was just my phone. It went on far too long, good trailers are usually edited down far more.
Edit: All that said, it still looked interesting. Very low budget, but I wouldn't mind watching it.
Last edited:
The poor guy who made this...anyways, the editing and writing were poor. It reeks of people trying to do a good job with no budget. It's where I am right now.
Ahh i see now, i never realized how importaint good lighting and colors are.
24fps, 180 shutter, good and appropriate lighting, colour correction, colour grading and sound are some of the most common reasons when films fail to look professional.
But yes, like everyone said, there are plenty of indie films on various budget levels which not only look but are a better watch than Hollywood films.
But yes, like everyone said, there are plenty of indie films on various budget levels which not only look but are a better watch than Hollywood films.
A couple nights ago I was comparing my new film with the 48 hour film my Sound guy had also worked on (but I did not). It was shot by a professional (still) photographer on the exact same camera (5Dmk2), at the same frame rate (24fps) at the same shutter speed (1/50) yet mine looked very "filmic" and his looked like video. The difference... mine was lit by someone very experienced in lighting for films. His was lit by a still photographer. His was too even, too diffused and perfect 3 point lit. Mine had some well placed shadows, it had depth, it had subtle well placed camera movement.
Love Like Blood was released in 2004, probably filmed in 2002\3, man thats 8 years ago!
Does my teaser look like video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhWXq5M0GU
Or how bout my buddies film from 2010 (shot on RED admittedly quite upscale budget has some of the actors from my 48 hour film last year, and the same director!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FJ5tq_uJMY
Does my teaser look like video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhWXq5M0GU
Or how bout my buddies film from 2010 (shot on RED admittedly quite upscale budget has some of the actors from my 48 hour film last year, and the same director!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FJ5tq_uJMY
How important is lighting for the film look ?
I was going with Dennis Hopper philosophy : "God is a great gaffer".
At least for now, since I'm only beginning to hone the other aspects of filmmaking.
I'm pretty sure that a good expo, a controlled DOF and storytelling camera movements should be enough ! But I have nothing to show to prove that.
Example : http://www.youtube.com/user/YahvelGonzalez#p/u/4/go2i1aJ0lH4
I was going with Dennis Hopper philosophy : "God is a great gaffer".
At least for now, since I'm only beginning to hone the other aspects of filmmaking.
I'm pretty sure that a good expo, a controlled DOF and storytelling camera movements should be enough ! But I have nothing to show to prove that.
Example : http://www.youtube.com/user/YahvelGonzalez#p/u/4/go2i1aJ0lH4
Last edited:
I wondered the same thing. If “Hollywood” films are shot in 24fps and we shoot in 24fps on our DSLRs, our footage still comes out looking different. I KNOW you need to color grade, correct, so on and on. I know everything in the film has its purpose down to the actors clothe colors (for color correction and to create contrast and so on)
But even then, take away everything. Footage we shoot on DSLRs at 24fps or 23.xxxfps is still way too different than footage shot on film cameras at the same frame rate. Ours comes out looking……faster? Not sure how to explain it really, but you can always tell a film camera footage from dslr. Hollywood films tend to be a bit more grainy and more raw (maybe this is just done in post) vs DSLR shots which are more clearer and sharper.
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?
If anyone has any links to footage that looks like film that was shot on DSLR, please do share.
Thanks,
Roman
But even then, take away everything. Footage we shoot on DSLRs at 24fps or 23.xxxfps is still way too different than footage shot on film cameras at the same frame rate. Ours comes out looking……faster? Not sure how to explain it really, but you can always tell a film camera footage from dslr. Hollywood films tend to be a bit more grainy and more raw (maybe this is just done in post) vs DSLR shots which are more clearer and sharper.
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?
If anyone has any links to footage that looks like film that was shot on DSLR, please do share.
Thanks,
Roman
Brettz...
Do you mean "why do indie films look cheap?" or like "home movies?"
Even with DOF etc?
It's not so much that they look like "video", but that the "video" look is just not cinematic.
If that's the case, it's every single thing, with some taking higher priority than others. You want your stuff to look like a movie? Learn how to compose a shot with any camera first, then find good locations, then make sure you have good audio.
Those three things are top priority. Compose well a shot with interesting aesthetics and if you can hear it well it's going to ring "cinema".
The rest is icing.
Do you mean "why do indie films look cheap?" or like "home movies?"
Even with DOF etc?
It's not so much that they look like "video", but that the "video" look is just not cinematic.
If that's the case, it's every single thing, with some taking higher priority than others. You want your stuff to look like a movie? Learn how to compose a shot with any camera first, then find good locations, then make sure you have good audio.
Those three things are top priority. Compose well a shot with interesting aesthetics and if you can hear it well it's going to ring "cinema".
The rest is icing.
I fell it's not an issue. DSLR will infiltrate Hollywood more and more. True Blood is shot with the 5D completely and it looks amazing. I'd watch that in theaters any day. The Hangover 2 contains scenes that were shot with the 5D, I'm pretty sure nobody (not us, but regular people) noticed.
It has a different look, agreed, but it's better nor worse. It's different because film and digital are different. Don't try to make orange taste like peaches..
Here is a prime example of a DSLR being put to work with little to no money or wattage
http://vimeo.com/13237339
http://vimeo.com/13237339