Which format? DV? HD? 16mm? super 16?

Media Hero said:

If you're only looking for Festival action from your short, from what I've heard, and please everyone - share opinions about this:

Festival programmers looking for short films care far more about the story and the script than the production values. Not to say, you shouldn't give a hoot about shooting on film or lighitng well or capturing great sound - but that a programmer will forgive shakey lighting solutions if the story, script and acting are stellar. If a director can deliver a good story, frame and shoot the scenes in a unqiue and appropriate manner, pull great performances from the actors on a low budget dv production, then she/he can most certainly deliver with more money attached.
So, for shorts - unless you've got plenty of dough to toss around - shoot digitally with a good 24p camera.

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Click to expand...

I would agree, but there is simply no escuse for subpar production techniques. On-camera mics and shooting scenes radically under or over exposed is just not OK.

Oddly after viewing as many films as I have and getting all the reports back from our screening & then judging groups that we have, my opinion has not changed one bit on this subject. Its all important from a basic standpoint - acceptable sound, visual, performances, storytelling. But if I had to choose two to be great, hands down its storytelling and performances.

NEVER accept a lower quality in anything. I know some guys who made a feature film. Superb script, brilliant performances, funny as hell.

The film looked like shite, badly lit and framed. In teh end they never sold it and 3 years work went down the tube.

Moral of the story... NEVER compromise.

See, my problem with HD, and forgive me if this a stupid thing to say (even for someone in the learning process I am) and any format near to that is the weird glossy effect it seems to give the finished product. I've only noticed this in low-budget stuff, but it seems that with higher-definition, you get this really clear but artificial effect that covers the film like plastic wrap.

I probably sound like I'm either mad, retarded, or a good combination of the two, but I find myself more attracted to films that look a little grainy, kind of like something from Slacker or Stranger Than Paradise.

Again, sorry to pipe in like this.

You could always add a film grain effect in post if it bugs you that much. There are several good (some expensive) tools for getting film-like effects with digital video. I'm still just authoring standard definition and don't plan any theatrical or festival releases anytime soon. When I start getting more experienced and serious, I will definitely want HD.

I watched some of my Canon XL1s footage upconverted to 1080p for the first time last week, and I was surprised at how good it looked. This is very workable for what I want to do this year.

barnaclelapse said:

I've only noticed this in low-budget stuff, but it seems that with higher-definition, you get this really clear but artificial effect that covers the film like plastic wrap.

Click to expand...

Yup, you're nuts, but there is still hope. I'm really not sure what effect you are seeing, but I'm guessing it has to do with saturation, or sharpness. No matter what it is, if you have a decent quality recording, you can desaturate, soften, color correct, and even add film grain in post. I'm not suggesting that you must shoot HD, but you definitely do not need to fear it. You're not creating an image with a camera, you're creating an image with light. Once you get the right lighting and correct exposure, you can fine tune the effect later.

I think that the grain vs. no rain is an aesthetic thing. LOTR had that same glossy throughout and was shot on 35mm (for the actual film parts). I don't like film grain...it seems like a step backwards to me. The film stock companies have been trying for the entirety of their existences to get rid of the grain...now that digital is moving toward fulfilling their goals, people are waxing nostalgic for that thing that makes old film look like crap compared to new film.

If there's a specific artistic reason to use grainy film to aid the telling of the story, I'm all for it...but not as a meets all needs solution. Grain is an effect, use it to tell the story, not gratuitously. To me, it's just about like insisting that you prefer to communicate using telegraph.

Don't get me wrong, film still has the (massive) edge on digital as far as exposure latitude goes, but I've seen so many people adding film grain (which is easy to do convincingly using AE or Shake) to make their digital look more like film...I don't think it succeeds.

I'm a big fan of a clean image. I realize that it's a personal aesthetic choice, but it's my choice to make, just as liking grain is yours to make for your productions. I just felt compelled to speak for all of the chemists who poisoned their lungs over the past 100 years developing film with really tiny grains.

Yeah, I figured I was nuts.

I blame drinking.

I see where you're coming from on the clean image thing, and I can understand being annoyed by people who are clearly just going on a nostalgia trip. In my case though, I guess it's just a matter of what I'm used to.

LOTR was fine though, which makes me realize that I'm failing miserably in my effort to explain what the hell it is I'm trying to explain.

I wish I could cite a specific low-budget movie that's making me think of the overall effect I'm complaining about.

Debbie Rochon was in one I'm thinking of.

Lmao.

Eh, I should probably just shut up until I get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

Note, I never said you were wrong, just that I disagreed. I don't mind grain if there's a specific artistic reason to use it, just not on everything because it "makes it look more like film."

In film, you pick a specific stock to give you what you're looking for in terms of light sensitivity and color reproduction based on artistic needs. If all film folk would shoot for the same aesthetic that the "Film look through degenerating your footage" folks use, they'd shoot everything with really fast color 16mm film that had been left in the heat for 10 years before being used. Then they'd stack a crap load of filters on the camera to get that ever so (not so) subtle vignetting around the corners.

To me, it seems like folks who use unmotivated CG effects (even though they have the budget to avoid it). It's no longer got the too pristine look of video that lots of folks seem to hate, but it certainly doesn't look like film, just digitally treated DV. Has to be a reason!

In all of my shoots, I've chosen specific looks for the footage (within my abilties - or just over them). My budgets (generally <$25/shoot) don't allow me to even look at film, which I'd love to do. So I work within the limitations of the medium I use. I revel in the challenge. I strive to get a specific look that is neither video, nor film...but something that feels cinematic.

I'll reiterate a statement I've made many times. The film look doesn't happen in the camera, it happens everywhere but the camera, then the camera is setup to capture that cinematic moment. What happens in the camera is very important, but a home video of your cousin's birthday captured handheld by an amateur with a panavision 35mm camera will still look like a home movie (minus a lot of the wobbles due to the weight of the camera).

Something that feels cinematic.

I like that.

I couldn't agree with you more.

And I know you didn't say I was wrong. I guess I was just trying to make it clear that I am actually trying to apply a certain logic (however lopsided and poorly researched it might be) to my opinion.

No worries.

It's often hard to articulate something you absolutely know...but have never had to explain. You can point and say: "that! right there!" But words are hard to put to it. The plastic look articulated it well. It's the same look as when CG special effects aren't blended into the scene correctly and they stand out badly. I know precisely the look to which you're referring. Everything's got a too real sheen to it. That can be fixed with proper lighting and color palette choice and camera motion and makeup and... and... and...

Hi Fellas this is my first post,
The issue with HD or Digital is the lack of organic elements, they ( digital formats) are for certain projects or when you can't afford shooting on film.
Now this comes from a Director that loves all formats but my personal choice is Super 16 ( yes over 35)
4 months ago I started shooting with the Red One, and even do it was a great shoot and a great cam, I couldn't let go the fact that grain was missing and only 0s and 1s were left there.
Now don't get me wrong I love the high end digital format as well ( Red, Genesis, Phantom,etc) but yet when I pick up my custom made Eclair NPR Super 16 and I shoot a roll of Vision 2 ( or 3) everything feels great.
But again it depends on the piece that you are making

Best Regards