35mm Lens, Camera Lens, which to use?

You're right. that really sucks. One of the greatest collaborations
on a movie shoot is between the director and the DP. I try to always
use a DP who know more than me and is more talented and
experienced than I am. I learn so much from that kind of collaborative
relationship.

I wish I could answer for her, but I imagine her reasons are very
different than mine. But bottom line, that Cooke is a great lens.

Since you don't feel comfortable asking her what her reasons are
then I think the only thing you can do is put your foot down as
the producer and tell her you cannot afford the lens she wants
and she'll have to make do with the lens you want to use.

45thronin said:

I ask because I've seen footage of 35mm Camera Lens being used, which looks fine.

Click to expand...

Well looks fine and looks great are very different. DPs will always have their preferences. You need to talk to the DP, because if you can't afford it, you should go with her choice for a cheaper one.

I have thought about speaking with the DP, and I will consider that. The only issue for me, is I want a film look. I found this video on YouTube, and I hate to sound like an amateur in the sense of what I'm looking for, but honestly, this look that this guy got with just using his regular EOS lens, is fine for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffFLheZp2n4&feature=related

See, the issue is, this DP came as a reference. She's very nice, and yet she's a professional. And with working with professionals, they will want what they want, as they know what really works. But this is my first short under my Production Company. I am already over budget and breaking the bank. I am just looking for a simple look, I'm not shooting for actual 35mm Film Quality. As long as it looks good enough to pass so the audience doesn't see a cheesy video quality picture, I'm fine with that. From there we can move onto just focusing on the story.

I don't expect to win awards with my first short. Yes I've gotten some really high raves about the story, and that's great. But I'm trying to be realistic in the sense that I just want to get what I need to get, in order to tell the story. That's it. The DP I have, this person is acting like she's on a $7 million dollar picture, it's ridiculous! The one thing I've found absolutely aggrivating, with working with each class of performer and crew member, is it's either one or the other. They either don't have a clue what they're doing, or they know so much they think they have all the answers, it's driving me mad!

Without sounding like every other Executive Producer on the planet, I just want to get the damn thing shot! Is that so damn hard?

Ok, let me calm down as this is just driving me crazy. My real frustration is part of my budget was taken away. It's a long story, but I lost basically 1/3 of my funding. Not by anyone's hand, other than having to help out someone who needed help. So I stepped up. However, I've taken a big bite out of my project, and I'm trying to compensate. Would I like to spend $250/300 a day getting the Cooke lens for my DP? Sure! But it's not going to happen. And I'm trying to figure out what the difference is with just using a simple EOS lens. Because from the footage I'm seeing, it looks pretty damn good. And honestly, at this point, especially with my current budgetary issues, I'm fine with that. I kind of have no choice. It's either shoot that way, or wait another 6 months or so for me to get the money to get the lens.

Also, I'm considering using the Letus Extreme 35mm Adapter. Any thoughts?

One last point, the problem with this DP, is that it's not like I can't ask her questions, i can. But she's so damn hell bent on getting what she wants, for me, I would rather not deal with her. So I'm having my producer deal with her because I just don't want to stress. But I totally agree, the best learning is with people who are pro's at this stuff. But I'm not going to lick her a$$ here, no way. She doesn't like it, hit the road. I'll deal. The DP is a fascinating position, in the sense that these people really control the look and feel of your film. I'm not fooled for a second that that's the reality. However, something my producer (who is awesome!) said to me, and consistently drives down my throat. My producer says, "These people work for you. If they can't give you what you want, with the materials you provide them, and they get an attitude about it, replace them. Without hesitation. Because at the end of the day, it's your money (or the investors money), that's being spent. Not there's. Either do the job you're told to do, or go get another job." Harsh, but I see her point, and respect her point. I'm just trying to be realistic in the sense of hearing the DP's viewpoint, as the DP typically does have more experience at this than anyone on the set, but at the end of the day, like you guys are saying, if the budget doesn't support it, just do what you have to to get the damn shot, and stop complaining. And that's the point I'm at.

Thanks so much for the comments thus far, most appreciated!

I wasn't saying sit back and let her do her thing. The DP should be a professional that knows how to get the look you want, as you are the director. If this is not the relationship you have I would say you need to change the dynamic of the relationship immediately or find a new DP.

Funny you say that Indietalk, my producer said the same thing. I may have to consider that.

You know, the thing I want is someone who is willing to work with what we have. Maybe that's idealistic thinking, but that's what I'd like to have with whatever project I take on. $10k budget, or $10mill.

Another thing. It's nice to form a relationship with a DP so you can use them every time. Then eventually they will be on cruise control just getting exactly what you need. Ask yourself if you could see this happening with this DP.

Very good question. At this point I can't tell. We'll have to see. Again, I went with this DP because she came highly recommended, and she had a nice reel. With my time ticking away, I feel I may just have to adjust with respect to working with this DP, and see how it works. She's a professional who is used to working on big budget features, so in the long run ... who knows.

I have started to catalog DPs I've met thus far, much like headshots I keep of Actors I like but can't use for the project I'm working on. You never know when they may come in handy. Until I meet someone who I like who I want to work with repeatedly, I'll keep looking. So far my Producer is someone I am already looking too, to help me with my first feature.

Step by step, day by day, onward and upward.

Just remember you are the director. She may have worked on features, and this could be your first time directing (not sure if it is) but that does not make her above you. Over and out.

From what you say here either your DP is a flat out jerk, or you
need to be a better director.

You don’t have to kiss anyone's ass and you don’t have to use that
“my way ot the highway” attitude. You say to your DP you really
want to rent the lens she wants but can’t afford it. Ask her if
she can work with anything else.

Now if the DP is a flat out jerk you will know and you move on. If
you need to be a better director and work better with the DP you
will learn a valuable lesson.

As indietalk already said, if she isn’t professional enough to
work with the budget then she isn’t a DP you should be working
with. No matter what her reel looks like. And if you have to
postpone the shoot to find a DP who will work with you then
that’s what you do.

Welcome to making a movie. If it was easy everyone would be doing it....

It used to be that shooting with an adapter in anything but a well lit scene was like shooting with slow film, around 50 ASA. The new adapters are barely a stop of light loss, so you should be able to get away with shooting with standard cine primes in just about any lighting setup.

I will make one suggestion to you, and take as my opinion only:

Don't spend any more than you have to on your first couple of shorts. They are learning exercises. If it has high quality visuals and audio, with good acting and good story, thats all you could really hope for out of the first one.

Here's another suggestion:

If your DP tells you they have to have a faster lens, and you can't afford it, just tell them to light it more. Seriously, a stop of light is not that hard to produce.

Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. DirectorIK, thanks so much for your bluntness, very much appreciated. I definitely know what you mean. I actually am thinking of postponing the shoot. I just feel kinda weird doing it, as I don't want to look like an ass in the eyes of the cast, producer, etc. But, you also make a very good point, that's what goes with making movies I guess. And so be it. I'll roll with it.

Wideshot, thanks so much for the suggestions. You also make a very good point. I definitely don't want to go crazy, for me it's just finding the right look I'm shooting for. And I don't feel as though I need to spend a lot, which is how I wrote the script. VERY low budget.

Thanks all, much appreciated!

Actually, one more question if I could. I have a colleague who is considering shooting without production insurance for his little mini project. I told him he was insane! But he was saying that he simply couldn't afford the $1,800 for the insurance, and was going to shoot his film anyway. He doesn't have a DP, and is literally shooting it himself. I think he's nuts! Thoughts/Suggestions?

45thronin said:

Actually, one more question if I could. I have a colleague who is considering shooting without production insurance for his little mini project. I told him he was insane! But he was saying that he simply couldn't afford the $1,800 for the insurance, and was going to shoot his film anyway. He doesn't have a DP, and is literally shooting it himself. I think he's nuts! Thoughts/Suggestions?

Click to expand...

Insurance is up to you. If something happens it will cover you if you are sued.

That's exactly what I was trying to describe to my friend, but he looks like he's set in his ways. I do wish him luck. I just wanted to ask to support my position, thanks.

For what it's worth, I've never had insurance on any production I've worked on, and never had any problems. Of course, as with anything your mileage may vary.

As for the 35mm adapter issue; my suggestion is that you should take a step back and think long & hard about whether or not you really need to use one at all. Sure, it gives you that shallow depth of field that everybody associates with film, but there's far more involved in achieving a "film look" than shallow focus. Color, blocking of cast & camera, set design, and lighting all play a bigger part than shallow focus to achieving a filmic look.

Especially with a project that's already over budget, you should be looking for ways to cut cost -- generally speaking the biggest cost is going to be related to the length of your shoot, the longer it runs the higher the bills will be. Shooting with a 35mm adapter is almost a guaranteed increase in production time than shooting without one.

If it were my production I would take the money that would otherwise be spent on the adapter and lens rental and pour it into a more cost effective piece of the production. You'll almost certainly be able to get more shot in a day without a 35mm adapter than with one which means that either you can have a shorter overall production, or get more coverage to work with, something that's always beneficial during editing.

If your DP is as talented and professional as she has been touted to be, she should be able to achieve a very filmic look for you even without shallow focus. At the end of the day that should be more important, because all the shallow focus in the world won't make a poorly lit, poorly designed, and poorly blocked shot look as good as a shot that has lighting motivated by the story and location, has good set design, and everything in every single frame is there on purpose.

That's my $.02

Excellent! Very well put Will. And this has been my biggest issue. I literally have everything I need to do this short. I'm shooting on the Canon XL2 and have lighting, dolly, etc., everything I need to get the shots I want. Having the 35mm adapter is just my own issue with how I want it too "look". But you make extremely great points Will, with regards to everything that supports that look, and if not supported appropriately, the 35mm doesn't really mean squat!

I remember seeing several award winning film shorts that were posted by some people in here. Some of which that were actually shot in 35mm film! And you know, you make an excellent point. One film I watched was good, but I can't for the life of me figure out why it won so many awards. The story was ok, the lighting, composition, and execution of it was done very well, ... but I didn't think it was great by any means. If anything, it had a good balance of everything, lighting, directing, acting, etc. It wasn't all perfect, but it was good enough to support each other, therefore creating a well balanced story visually, which communicated well.

My goal, is to shoot my short story with the desire to use it too acquire investment monies to do my feature. That is the goal. With that, I've been told that if your short is REALLY good, then there's the opportunity of selling it. Although I don't know how realistic that is.

Regarding my short, I just want to make sure it looks as professional as I can possible make it. To again, make sure it shows well. That's the overall goal. This is strictly being used as a marketing tool for a bigger project I have planned.

Thoughts?

Also, I definitely have cut back on a lot of what I don't need, and have literally just acquired what I need and nothing more. My DP has suggested increasing the shoot from 2 weekends, to potentially 4 weekends, simply to allow for the time that might be needed to get the shots. Her point is well taken with, why rush? What's the hurry? Aside from the money and wanting to get the product done for certain festivals, none!

I'm actually considering purchasing the Letus Extreme for my 35mm adapter. so literally my only daily cost will be Cooke Lens, crew, and food/travel. That's it! Which actually isn't that bad. Aside from the Cooke Lens. Those aren't cheap. However, I've heard, and will be testing just using EOS lens with the adapter. I've seen footage with just these simple lens, and the footage looks good enough for my project. My question, is is this something wise to do? I'm sure there would be a huge difference between just some EOS lens, and the Cooke lens, but for $250-300 a day for the Cooke lens rental wise, i'm willing to try the EOS lens, screw it! That would save me over $1k right there.