Should I shoot a whole movie green screen?

H

harmonica44

I have a script for a feature I want to do in the future, probably the next 2 or three years. One of the problems with getting very cheap microbudget locations though, is bad art direction. I have shot one short film so far, and in my experience locations can be used very cheaply, and maybe even for free, but the owners all have the same rule: Do not move anything.

Some things of course are okay to move, but a lot are out of my control, and this results in bad art direction. Another thing is, on a high budget Hollywood set of course, the directors can pretty much shoot from whichever angle they want, even if it means digging a whole in the wall or floor for example. I don't have that option which can result in some pretty awkward angles that might even look unprofessional.

Another thing is time, a lot of locations, there is just not much time, to get many takes, so it's risky.

So I figure why not hire a green screen expert to greenscreen the whole movie, or at least whichever scenes could really use it, then find a location that I can get the shots of, for a short time, and then put those shots into the green screen. Does this sound like a good idea? I was at a lotcal film festival this year and I noticed how quite a few scenes in their movies looked green screened, so maybe it is.
 
H44, it seems to me like you're trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. You're worried about things as if you're working on a multi-million dollar budget film, when in fact, you have little to no budget.

You need to learn how to work within the constraints you are given and make the best film you can. It will make you a better filmmaker in the long run. And who knows, you may surprise yourself with how good things can turn out when you're limited like that...
 
the fact that you can tell that the films at that festival all had greenscreen scenes means it wasn't done well. It costs a lot of money to do it well. Your movie will most likely look cheesy.

Go for realism and write your scripts around locations that you know you will have control over.
 
Finish your current project. Make a short with all green screen, watch the BTS on Aidan5, Sin City, Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow, etc... try it on the short. Never jump into a feature without testing something this fundamental first... to see if you can pull it off on a weekend shoot without finding out after months of shooting and using everybody's time they're donating to you to learn with only to fall flat on your face and find out that you can't do it.
 
No!

You are in a 'fixing in post'-modus you need to snap out of.
Green screens are used in a lot of bigger budget movies, because they want to add a scenery that doesn't exist. It's not used, because they hated the curtains.

The green screen is not the holy grail of fixing stuff.
Getting it right in camera is the way to go when you don't have the budget to spend ages keying all your shots. Be creative with the resources you have, instead of concieving elaborate technical solutions for possible future problems you fear.

On the other hand: amuse us and make a green screen movie.
Make it fantastic or make it hilariously fake :P

BTW,
when will your first short be finished?
 
I do this stuff for a living, so I'll pass on a couple notes:
1) Bad idea.
2) Don't do it.

Creatively, you'll also be very limited in terms of camera movement (lock-off & nodal pan/tilt).

You'll need all kinds of FG extras & dressing on the GS stage. Otherwise, you get the weatherman-effect.

Technically, in order for the lighting to match, you must shoot the background first. When you shoot the BG plate, take detailed notes, and then carefully match the lighting on the G.S. stage.

You should think of visual effects as a limited solution to a very specific problem. A classic error on the part of Producers and Directors is falling back on a composite, thinking it will help them make their day or save money ("Hey can't we just green screen that?").

Before diving in, you should read up on the subject and educate yourself on it's use. I suggest you plan & shoot some test GS plates and run the comps. You'll quickly come to appreciate the trade-offs & limitations.

Rok
 
You'll easily quadruple your post production time, once you get the hang of it... before that, it'll go interminably slowly.
 
Amazon Studios gave a $100,000.00 for a guy who shot all green screen (badly) as the 'winner' of the month 'test movie'.
Title of the movie: Black Hat.
Well there you are.... who's to say some people or business who would pay 100K for crap!
I laughed my ass off seeing that POS but hey, the guy laughed all the way to the bank.

Bottom line; Don't pay any attention to 'free' advice (like mine?) and do whatever you think.
The world is full of idiots with money but not a lick of commone sense. There proof for you.
Look it up.
 
If you've a compelling enough story to blind the audience into overlooking the weatherman effect, go for it!

But I wouldn't come here and ask step-by-step questions on that project!

Good luck!
 
I've shot many student films where we didn't have million$ budgets or even budgets bigger than a couple of thousand dollars. We didn't have sets where we could build walls and build rooms (not to mention the lack of people who'd know how to build something like that and actually make it look real). We also had access to students who were really great at green screen stuff. Does that mean we green screened everything? Of course not. Apart from doubling-tripling your shoot time, you're increasing the time and amount of work in post by 5-6x. Plus, the cost of getting someone who would actually make it look anything close to passable would be 100x more than just hiring a simple location.
In film school, when we had no budgets, we sometimes had to beg and borrow and use friend's houses. Does that mean we made crap films? No. Some of them were amazing in all departments. None of them were terrible.
It's a matter of thinking creatively and working with what you have. And being able to have the crew who can dress something a different way and then reset it when it's finished.

There is no magic solution. Even Hollywood films stay away from green screen. They use a lot of it, yes, but only for things that do not exist as has been said, or for example they'll build an entire set and then put green in the windows so they can composite outside. They have the money to pay really experienced, talented people lots of money to do the shots, and still it doesn't look real half the time. You're not going to do any better.

'Fix it in post' is a heinous modus operandi
 
Okay so fixing in post is bad. But what do you guys do on set, when you don't have much time, or the best angles, cause of how the location is shaped?

What are the on set tricks? I was thinking for my next project I would definitely have to not make the mistake I did on this one. In order to get everything done in time for the day, I could plan my shots more carefully, and throw away some of the coverage shots. Less angles, and decide maybe on two angles only per character in the scene, accept for special emotional shots, which would be decided on particular angles only.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I think you should do it. Not because it will work out well for you, but because I'll have fun watching it.
Click to expand...

This. For the above reasons, and because after you try it you will realize why everyone else is saying no.

Experience is the best teacher.

Caveat: Only if you are going to finish your current piece first.
 
Okay. I've thought about the four angle only thing and that won't work. In order for the average scene to be good, I could use at least 8-10 types of shots in the scene. But locations again don't have a lot of time. Is it do-able to get enough takes, of that many shots, in say 4 hours?
 
Most shoot days are 10-12 hours. Most 8-10 minute shorts I've been on have been 3-4 days, depending on complexity.

You need to extensively shot-list and storyboard. You need to know how it's going to end up cutting together, or at least have some idea. You need to rehearse with your actors before you get onto set and also on set so that you and they know what's happening. Then you can do it in 2-3 takes, rather than 10 or 15. Perhaps I've learned this from working on film, it certainly teaches you a certain discipline.

Some scenes can be covered in 4 shots. Some need 8, some need 15. It depends on the scene and what's happening in it. It depends if you're going handheld and following most of the action, or if you're going to have it locked off and setup new for every shot. It depends if you're going to use a steadicam and use the one steadicam shot for the entire scene.

You need to talk to your DP beforehand so you know what shots you need and what shots you'll get and on set, you can simply set up what's needed and shoot. That's also why you have so many peolpe on a crew. Whilst the camera crew are moving the sticks and changing the lens, the art department is setting up the props etc.

Not only that, but not every shot needs to be taken from the top of the scene. It all depends on your scene, but some shots only need to be taken from halfway through or whatever, which is why it is important to storyboard so you know when you're likely to be cutting - for example, of someone flubs a line in a wide shot and you have them saying the same line in another take, and you know that you're 85% going to cut in for the close up anyway, you can probably just pick it up, rather than have to retake the scene from the top. Look at your scenes and look at how many shots you need to tell the story. Getting ridiculous amounts of coverage just for the sake of it is not neccessarily great storytelling. A scene that's told only through one or two shots can have much more dramatic impact than one with 15 shots, but it does depend on the scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top