Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:38:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Filming The Pretty Things

Started by slim, November 05, 2005, 11:55:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

slim

After Sir Frinky of Whorewickshire's lengthy post on cameras and such in the photography thread t'other day, and discussions there distracting attention from the lovely pictures, I thought it was about time we had a thread for information, expression and ideas about this.

As some of you know, I sometimes write stuff. It's not good stuff, but one day I would like to make some of it reallyreal and put it on a telly. I know there are a few film-making 'whores here and I hoped perhaps they might share some of their experiences, technical knowhow and such. Perhaps even common pitfalls to avoid, that kind of thing, to help a poor cameraless tramp like myself.

So come on, splash my prettyboy face with your info jizz.

Frinky

This should be a really great thread. I'm gonna beat Purple Testicle round the head to make him post in here, since he knows his stuff. Hopefully this will go the way of the photography thread, with ideas and suggestions and the like. If any whores are in the process of making a film, or need advice, poth post and pre production, I think our collective skills could be of use.

Choice posts from the photography thread:

Film v Digital:

Quote from: "Frinky"It's such a pity, too, because you're really missing out when you become accustomed to digital. At the moment I've got two massive (in all senses of the word) bits of kit - an Aaton XTR and a Canon XL2 - in my posession. One is film, one is digital.

The XTR I have photos of, but no way of showing you what it can do. It's a Super 16mm camera, which essentially means it does widescreen, and it's native recordings are about as close to 35mm (Hollywood/big film standard) as one can get.



This thing is best part of £15k and that doesn't include the lens, either. The lens is probably about £3k and it's the only one we have, but it's a stunning bit of kit. It can pick out a keyhole at 150 foot in complete clarity, something which you're just not going to get on most digital camcorders. The LCD screen tells you which film magazine you've loaded (just like loading a rifle, really), and how many feet of film you've used. It's got a number of outputs, including a video monitor so you can see on a TV what you're filming. It's not the best quality, but then it is just a monitor. It means you can stick this thing at the end of a (very, very, very strong) pole and still see what you're doing. It runs completely silently, too, so you can record sound with it (which you cant with many clockwork/battery opp 16mm cameras). It's really silent, probably quieter than your average non-digital clock. Given the precise motions involved, that's quite an achievment. They're as solid as fuck, too, ours is about 6 years old but has really been through the wars, and still works fine.



The lens, like I said, is a hugely impressive piece of kit. It goes down to pretty low lights (2.8-2.4 F Stop), but again, the flexibility and precision from just one lens blows you away. I can pick up and focus on things in about 2 seconds that I can't even see with the naked eye. Even looking through the viewfinder is something of a revelation if you've used digital camcorders - colours are warmer and richer, and everything is so, so sharp. HDDV is getting better but for the most part digital can't touch proper film. Suddenly all those harsh studio lights/filters become natural lights and everything has a filmic quality to it. Apart from the crippling pain and spinal damage, this thing is a joy to use.

Of course, the downers are obvious - it's as expensive as fuck, not only to buy but to run. Film averages about £5 a minute, and that's at student rates. Plus, this particular camera weighs best part of two stone, and I wish that was an exaggeration. But the end results are always worth it.

The other one I'm pissing about with is the Canon XL2.



These things are about £3k new but are starting to get a bit old so you may be able to pick them up used for near to £1k in a few months time, which I'm seriously considering doing. You'll note on the specs on that page that the resolution is still quite low on that - it'll look a bit blurry still on a 1024x768 monitor. I guess at first glance it doesn't seem to offer much over normal digi camcorders, but the differences are tremendous. The colours are far, far better than even very high end personal camcorders (in the £1000 range), and they're as close to film-like as I've seen. In terms of ease of use, it's damn light, and the "viewfinder" flips open to become like a normal camcorder screen. There are several different record/stop buttons on it, so you can hold it in any number of positions. It's very, very good to shoot with. The stabiliser/steadycam mode is again, one of the best I've used. And, once you've used manual rings to zoom and focus with (the bands on the lens), you will absolutely despise going back to the buttons/sliders on most digital units - worth bearing in mind when you can get a film stills camera with a lens that works like this for not very much. It's just so much better, I can't describe it to you. It films in either normal camcordery TV aspect, or, genuine widescreen. Filming in proper widescreen with a camcorder you can hold almost anywhere is an amazing experience, it really is like having your eyes opened wider. It has some great digital gimmicks, like remembering a specific zoom or focus point, and being able to snap back to those at the touch of a button. It's got manual white balance and gain controls, too, and it emulates all the normal mechanical camera features such as shutter speed adjustments, apeture, etc. It does do digital sound processing, which is handy, but no camcorder sound is ever that good.

If I remember right, 28 Days Later was shot on a pair of XL2s, with the footage being touched up and edited in Final Cut Pro, and then, at great expense, having the whole thing processed back onto film (by great expense, I mean, it would cost me near enough £60,000 to do that myself). No matter how good the camcorder, digital always feels just a little sterile, even if you touch it up a little in post. The best application I've seen for these is actually in 28DL, where you take advantage of all the flexibilty and in-camera effects, but then just port it to film. Arrested Development is shot digitally, but I don't recall what's done to it in post to make it look more film-like.

Anyway: the point here is - yes, digital is The Awesome, especially if you're out and about, but if you're even interested in photography, it won't cost you much (apart from time) to learn to work with film, and, as TR has shown wonderfully over the last few pages, the results are worth it. It's a different discipline altogether but it does open up a whole new way of looking at/taking photographs. If anything, the reproductions on film are far better than digital prints, which are generally quite limited in size. You could probably get yourself well into film still photography for less than £50 by browsing eBay... my Praktica has a built in analogue lightmeter, although I prefer to use an external digital one (despite you looking like a right ponce using one). I've been kind of hoping TR would talk more about using film than me, since the majority of my experience with the stuff doesn't make for a very practical explination.

I'm probably going to be personally stuck with digital for video purposes for a long, long time, which is a pain in the arse and no matter how much money I throw at it, it'll never really be as good as I want it to be. But you can get fantastic results from maybe £100 worth of still, film camera equipment that can put any £5-700 digital camera to shame with a bit of patience. In it's own way, what with the cheapness of a lot of lenses/filters, film can be a bit more flexible, too. I'm wondering if maybe film photography deserves its own thread becuase it can be a bit scary, but once you get the hang of it, you want to use digital less and less (unless like me, your film cameras are generally a bitch and some days it's nice to to have to put too much effort into it)..

Quote from: "Frinky"
Quote from: "Chris Morris"Of course, in my line of work of guerilla film-making, we prefer the lightness and flexibility that digital equipment provides.

Of course. Take the XL2 and the Aaton (which, despite the disproportionate pricing, are at the same higher end level in their respective fields), out of a studio and the Aaton becomes pretty much useless. Out in the real world, you've got about two stone of Aaton to lug around, and then there's the optional extras, which it's always wise to carry.

One is a pack belt, which is a 5KG belt that houses a huge row of batteries, and, rather uncomfortably, sits square on your thigh bones. From the belt you can power the Aaton for quite a while, and you can also plug in a hand held light source. The pack belt looks similar to this - clicky - but ours is all hard leather, so you look a bit like Batman. Batman with a slipped disc and a humpback. Portable lamps are a little like this. They generate heat. Heat which burns.

Of course, you really should also be wearing a satchel that holds at least 2 other film magazines, each of which hold about 1000 feet if I recall (200 foot at 25FPS equals roughly five minutes), and various coloured lighting gels to make sure your light doesn't mess up your colours (all lamps need a light blue filter to act as "daylight"). It's honestly a two man job.

The XL2, outdoors, is the best thing ever. I've already got it booked out for about 2 months in summer for a number of projects I'm working on. The bigger battery gives you around 3 and a bit hours, even with the viewfinder on. That's a massive amount of power compared to normal handhelds. It will also power the above mentioned portable lights for a little while, too. You have to be a really shitty operater to ever be caught on the hop with the XL2. As I said earlier, it really doesn't weigh much at all - one handed tracking is entirely possible, and, like I said, given how good the stabiliser is and being able to record in genuine widescreen - and also being able to see exactly that on the viewfinder - means that it's incredibly flexible out and about. Every visual trick in 28 Days Later was done in-camera with the XL2. The dreamlike, blurred visuals during the taxi scenes took advantage of using the stabiliser on a still, yet moving shot (ie, the camera doesn't move, but the scenery does). The jerky, clipping effect used when the infected attack was created by ramping the shutter speed up and bringing down the light a bit. It's an incredibly flexible camera if you know how to use it. Plus, there's the usual DV advantages - you can see what you've recorded right away, cheap media, *small* media... an XL2 is probably one of the best tools any film maker could hope to have. It just... doesn't look as good as film, and that's where the problem lies. A lot of people are turned off (sometimes subconciously) by the way DV looks.

The Canon XM-2 is a smaller alternative to the XL, but I really just prefer the XL. Your hands get used to a certain interface and I like the bulk. The XMs on board sound recording isn't as good, but then I'd much rather use a portable minidisc recording deck with a proper microphone and sync the sound later. The MD decks only weigh a few lbs and are much, much better for recording sound. I use this MD deck, and then whatever microphone/s are needed. You can actualy hook one of those huge boom mics up to these things, so that little purple box takes care of any sound recording you'd need to do in a film. They're damn expensive, though, given they're "just" MD recorders.

Using digital:

Quote from: "Frinky"
Quote from: "slim"What's the storage media for that camera [XL2] and how long can it record for? I've had my eye on a DV camera for aaages but have always been put off by either a) shit resolutions/record time or b) using DVD media to record to (ugh).

The XL-2? It records onto DV tapes, like all other digital camcorders. Top recording time would be about one hour, give or take, then. The larger battery is rated for about 3 and a half hours, so, you can film for quite a long time. It's almost odd, using £10 media on a £3000 camcorder, but there you go. You can splash out and get tapes for £20 which are master tapes, the difference often seems neglible but in the scheme of things, you may as well.

Remember that the average TV is 786x576* (regardless of how big the screen is), where the XL2 is 980xsomething. So on a TV, the footage will look fantastic. What you really want to do is do your editing on something like Final Cut Pro (or whatever the PC equiv is), and then edit back onto DV tape, and then have it transferreed to a different medium by a company that does such things, assuming that you can't write onto different medias via your PC :)

If given the right light, and a bit (lot) of care in post, the XL2 is definately a broadcast-quality camera.

*Number corrected, cheers Waspy

On doing your own stuff:

Quote from: "slim"Thanks again for the info.

Now I'm starting to wonder if, in a couple of years when there's enough material, I might look at a business loan to set up a small independent production company. Hmmm. Lots to ponder on, thank you.

Quote from: "Frinky"If you're even half serious about that, I would suggest researching it now becuase you'll need so much more than a few DV cameras and PowerMacs. I'm not saying that to be patronising, but I know loads of people who've gone down that route and fallen flat on their faces becuase they've failed to recognise the enormity of the challenge. Just from a technical standpoint, there's so much you have to consider. Even the smallest productions require me to make a flowchart of possible events:

If filming x requires use of z, then being aware of the possibilty of y occouring will mean that we need to bring f and g along for z, and if we use f and z together then that means that we can only use b in post rather than a and c together and oh jesus d is on fire. You think I'm joking? I'm not joking. Especially about the fire part, that seems to happen a lot.

The more you know and the more you can do yourself, the better chance you stand. I eat technical manuals for breakfast, because, well, you just have to.

I think I'd have a nervous breakdown if I tried to factor running my own business into that, too.

Quote from: "sick as a pike"
Quote from: "slim"
Quote from: "terminallyrelaxed"Making films looks easy, but I think ultimately you need determination more than talent.
<wipes brow>
My friend has just directed his first feature.  I hung around the production for a bit and the sheer amount of shit involved is startling.  It's as Frinky says, a massive stew of problems and contingencies and insurance and lying and low loaders, headaches and shouting.  Even now it's made and edited and there's a distributor attached they won't commit to a final release date.  Probably in the spring.  And he raised the money by re-mortgaging his flat, which made the pressure even worse.  I'm in it briefly though, which is of course the most important thing.

I'll be along with an XM-2 review in a little while.

Frinky

Bah.

I was told a lot of things about the Canon XM2 by people who have used them. I've got one out myself and I really don't much like it. These things retail for about £2k, apparently - you can get them on eBay used now for around £1000, which, I guess, isn't bad for what it does, but to be honest, this seems like the kind of camcorder you'd buy if you were *forced* to get a camcorder at this price point. For not *that* much more in the scheme of things, you can get so much better.

I think, after what I said about the XL2 up there, what I should really do is say what the XM2 doesn't do, as opposed to what it does. It's only got one ring on the lens, which gives you manual focus. Personally, I would have preferred manual zoom and let the camera autofocus, but, there you go. The picture quality isn't as good as the XL2 but it's not a hugely noticable difference, I guess - only if you A/B on the same shot. I'm using the XM as a quick stand in while someone else is using the XL, and I'm sure the difference won't be tremendous in a couple of shots but it's unquestionably inferior to the XL's picture quality. I suppose it's one of those things you don't notice unitll it's pointed out to you, or, you're looking for it. It's TV aspect ratio only, as well, which is different to what I'd previously been told. Already, the £600-700 difference for the XL2 seems pretty much justified.



The optical stabilser in there is ok, nothing amazing. It's much better than digital stabilisers in lower end camcorders, but the claims that they make in the manual about being able to use it in a moving car and look completely calm are a load of bollocks, I reckon. The manual mode isnt as comprehensive as the XL2s, either - the white balance isn't as finely tunable, nor are the other manual settings as flexible. It's not impossible to compose a nice shot on the fly, but it's much easier with the XL2 (one of the reaons is that the XL2 has all seprate buttons, whereas the XM2 has a scroll-wheel menu). It almost seems like the XM is deliberately lacking in features to make you go up to the XL, I dunno. It's a good backup/second camera, but it's very fustrating to use after using the XL2. And it's nowhere near as good as I was told it was! I certianly wouldn't reccomend it to any budding filmmakers - if you can rent it on the cheap as a backup, do that, but otherwise, go as far up the chain as you can, and away from the XMs. A real dissapointment, I'd had that thing hyped up a lot to me, and I manhandled it a bit and was quite keen on the smaller size, but it's distinct lack of features are a real turn-off.

The thing marked "DXA-6" underneath it is this:



Which is a plug-in module (bought seperately) that allows you to mount two proper mics and run them into the audio jack, rather than use the not that good on board mic.

If you're doing some kind of field documentary, then maybe the XM would be a good camera for it, becuase it is more portable and less fiddly than the XL, I suppose. You'd want a module like the DXA on the bottom of it, though, no question. It's a pretty light unit, so... Probably not all that great for actual filmmakers, hobbiests or people who need a *very* portable unit might find this up their alley, I dunno.

I'd imagine that by the middle of next year that these would be dirt cheap used, what with HDV cameras moving down in price, but, like I said, I'm struggling to think of a reason why you'd really want an XM2.

Four Eyes

Cheers for all the info and opinions posted up there, Frinky. I'm just decided on film-making as a career, so any information I can get like that is a Godsend. Thanks again.

ffogems


Four Eyes

Quote from: "ffogems"What kind of films?

I was gonna put some kind of porno music sound effect in here, but couldn't work out how to express it in words...

Honestly? Documentaries.

Lets all just pray I can get the two D grades I need to get in to Edge Hill next year.

ffogems

I guy I went to college with obtained a place in some illustrious London Film school thing - no high grades needed, you're judged on one video you're required to make. This fucked me off. Not just because the boy was a haughty, insipid cunt, but becuase it seemed so easy. And if he can get in one the basis of his volubility and pomposity then surely I could have? Wish I'd applied, but then again I only managed one year of film studies at another college before denouncing it - the class was packed full of cunts.

Becky T

Quote from: "Frinky"Even the smallest productions require me to make a flowchart of possible events...
If you don't mind my asking, what productions have you been involved with? And in what capacity? (sorry if this is mentioned somewhere else)

Frinky

Hello,

Just noticed this, sorry. I've not done anything of note - a couple of for hire videos for the local council, several student film shoots (only 2 of which were vaugely professional in intent), and then a couple of my own films, which I need to get around to posting here. One day.

gazzyk1ns

Edit: Best not to ask that I suppose.

Frinky

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but in case you were:

I wouldn't really count that as "production", since it was mostly turn up, press record, do your thing with your mind on something else as much as possible (iPod: on), and then hand your tape in. It's no different to pissing about with a camcorder with your mates. On a technical level, anyway.


Edit: OH I SEE

gazzyk1ns

Yeah I rattled off a post without thinking, it was meant to be funny but it just seemed like some sort of weird dig, so I edited it.

Becky T

Quote from: "Frinky"Just noticed this
Ah, good. I thought I might have crossed a line or something!
Quote from: "Frinky"a couple of my own films, which I need to get around to posting here. One day.
Looking forward to it. What sort of things are they? How about a teasing blurb, 'back of the videocase' style?

And what about your writing and filmmaking, slim? Any progress to report?

Frinky

Generally, my stuff is arty-picture wank, that I'd have no reason to post on here, to be honest. It'd be just as easy to say "Yes, I see what you were doing there," as it would be to say "Nah, you're just bollocking around, aren't you?" and both would probably be right. I spent my first uni year pissing about, the second year work was much more concerted and I was trying to be serious/clever, but that's why I'm a bit nervous about showing it. My lecturers like it, so that's all the feedback I need 'till I work out what it is that I'm doing. Plus, half of it is on 16mm that I need to transfer to DV, and my firewire ports are broken, so I have no way of encoding anything to the web :) Around xmas I hope to update my shitty portfolio site with my half-hearted photographs to have a much bigger emphasis on film-making, showing films I've done, stills I've taken, props and sets I've designed, and basic scores that I've put together. It sounds grand, but it's not.

I'm working on a much bigger, film-like film at the moment, though, which I hope to have done in a couple of months. Nothing to really say about it (mostly becuase the premise sounds shite without the script/details to back it up), but it's a monologue-based, dry semi-comedy (see, now I'm underselling it because I know how that sounds coming from a film student. "Will he go all Morris on us?").

It's based on a half an idea I had for years, someone else who's actually funny wrote it, and I guess I'm doing everything else - directing, DoP, production design, etc... Personally I hate directing, I'm no good at it. That's 50% of the reason I'm monologue-ing it, becuase I'm hoping it'll be easier to film that way. At the moment there's two other whores involved at the production end, one producing artwork for props, and the other helping with some video effects. I'm kinda excited about it but it might just fall flat on it's arse. Who knows. Thanks for taking an interest though.

And yes, what is going on with you, Slimmo?

Go With The Flow

This topic is fantastic! Thanks a lot Slim-Slimminy-Slim-Slimminy-Slim-Slim-Seroo (sorry).

I was thinking on getting a Panasonic PV GS180, more specifically this deal (ebay.com - search for 140015281451) It's fully warrantied and whatnot, it seems like really good value with all the extra bits. Is there a major problem with having a NTSC camera in the UK? I would mostly use it for internet movies, but I may occasionally burn it to a DVD.

And another question - what about Microphones? Where can I get 'em? Aside from eBay, what other (preferably Real Life) places can I look at TV style boom mics, clip on mics, etc etc? Lighting equipment would be swell as well.

mrpants

Just a note to say when filming anything - don't forget the sound!  It's always worth making sure you're recording the best sound possible.

Booms sound the best, but if you're filming in a noisy environment radio mics will have to do.  Just make sure they're placed so that they don't sound as though they've been shoved up the performer's arse.  You can get away with using the mic on the camera (it might even be preferable to use the camera's mic when you're shooting documentaries so you don't have a big boom in the interviewee's faces putting them off) but be aware that you will probably be able to hear the whine of the tape going round.

If you're on a location with a specfic background sound then it's always worth recording a wildtrack of that sound to help out the dubbing mixer when you come to do the post.  In fact it's best to record wildtracks of as much as possible - even dialogue that you think might not have sounded great when you did the actual filming.

Frinky

This is why, generally, you want to avoid being a "film" "maker".

The shot required 2 actors to be driving along, talking. However, the lead can't drive and logistically, it would have been much harder to do a genuine motion shot, so the solution was to blue-screen it and then manually rock the car. This sort of thing takes waaaaay longer than I would have ever expected.

Rigging the blue screen, and getting it nice and tight, is very time consuming. The screen was then backed by a layer of protective felt as it starting becoming see through in the sun.




Et voila



The camera (Sony Z1E HD but being used on DVCAM) is attached to the bonnet with this custom... thing. Each sucker can hold about 13kg so it probably would have been fine had a moving shot been easier to do, but it's also probably not worth the risk.



The screen proved to be quite flimsy, so, more rigging:



Foamboard sheets where then laid over the roof/windscreen to prevent any glare (not pictured here is 10 minutes spent cleaning the glass, and 20 minutes spray painting the inexplicably red wing mirrors black).



Well now it just looks ridiculous.



A sheet of material acting as a density filter on one side reduces the direct light coming in.



Not that you can see it here, but the shot really did look quite fantastic. Perfect lighting on the inside.



The actors are hooked up to a wireless mic inside the car (not sure why), and are monitored on headphones in the camera.



Bouncey-bouncey (repeat for close to an hour, destroy Volvo)



Concern.



Total time: about 4 hours. 3 hours of set up, and 1 hour of filming, comprising of about 4 takes. And suprisingly few interruptions from the people in the street.

Purple Tentacle

If the camera is attached to the car, and the bluescreen is erasing background points of reference... won't the rocking make absolutely no difference at all?

Purple Tentacle

Oh sod it, while I'm here, can anybody think of a large public building with lots of filing cabinets and stuff in it, basically an archive? Preferably dusty and old, and obviously somewhere that I could film a film in. A bit like that place at the end of the first episode of the X-files. Oh, and in London, obviously.

I need to work out the logistics for a new film, and it's a good idea to get these things sorted BEFORE writing a proper script.  

I had what I still think is a great idea for a film, but it required almost total exterior filming, and considering winter is approaching, I don't need the worry of whether it will be pissing down, snowing, or a combination of the three to fuck all the continuity up, so I need to filim something indoors, and my flat has already been 'done'.

Frinky

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"If the camera is attached to the car, and the bluescreen is erasing background points of reference... won't the rocking make absolutely no difference at all?

No, becuase the light will move around in the car as the sources are external and static; and the actors' bodies will also move with the intertia of the rocking car. The end result is movement which conveys the idea of car travel, without all the bouncing camera horror that comes with actually doing it.

Purple Tentacle

Surely the reflection on the window is a problem though... in a travelling car you have constant travelling reflection, constantly changing light.. when it's static, you lose that.

Frinky

Well, this is the problem with car shots like that on a no-buget film. You either leave the glass open to reflections and risk objects/sunlight obscuring the shot at key moments, or you completely cut off all external interference and hope the mind picks up on what you're "supposed" to be seeing. The simulated effect is a lot less distracting than the actual one. Bear in mind that the light does move, as the car rocks pillars and windows block and deflect the external lamps.



Unless of course, you're some wanker on the internet who has to question everything.

Purple Tentacle

Why are you calling me a wanker?

If there's something 'wrong' with a shot, which is a massive danger with using bluescreen rather than realism, then the brain will pick up on it. It's fucking difficult to get bluescreen to match up with the real stuff because of lighting, and if the bluescreen is showing a dynamic image, the lighting has to be dynamic. You don't have to be a 'wanker' to notice WHY the shot looks wrong, you can just sense it.  Of course if the film is heavily stylised, you can get away with it, but I've seen this done before, and you really can tell, especially if you're using "budget" software like After Effects which can only do so much.

What is 'low-budget' anyway? I was reading an interview with some cunt in the Guardian today, going on about 'ultra low-budget films', and his budget was £100,000, I literally vomited on the paper in disgust, literally.

Frinky

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"Why are you calling me a wanker?

Becuase the style of humour this board often uses includes calling people rude names? You'd only get annoyed if I put "winky wanky woo, I love you really, lets have bumsex in Season 2 Star Trek TOS uniforms, etc, etc :-)" at the end of it.

QuoteIf there's something 'wrong' with a shot, which is a massive danger with using bluescreen rather than realism, then the brain will pick up on it.

While this is true, it doesn't mean that everything has to be done for real. I appreciate what you say about this particular method of doing this particular shot frequently looking a bit naff, on the other hand, they've tried to circumvent this as much as possible -

a) If you look at the photo showing the actual camera view, you'll notice that there are no sideways reflective surfaces in shot - only the front windscreen where you really don't want reflections, and the rear window, which won't be a point of focus (edit: actually that photo doesn't show that, but that's how it was shot, if I remember rightly)
b) A lot of shots used to be live with a projected background all around the vehicle, here they're really only keying in a very small area. Points of reference won't be visible untill they're actaully a long way away from the car
c) The in car stuff and the background will be shot on the same camera, which, frequently stuff like that isn't (even resorting to stock footage)
d) They conciously chose to film the background footage as a virtually straight road, so they didn't have to worry about how rubbish turns can look.

I don't know how stylised the film is going to be, I've heard "comedy drama" so who knows. I was only helping out on this particular shot. There really was no other way of doing this shot, though - flatbed footage would have been a nightmare to set up, expensive to do, and you've then got to drive around all day with the director in the towing car, radioing in to the actors, hoping that they can get it right in enough takes before you run out of petrol.

QuoteWhat is 'low-budget' anyway?

Less than £500, I would think. Like I said, It's not my film, I'm not even on the crew as such, I was just helping that day. I myself am planning a similar shot, but I'm trying to wangle a flatbed to do a motion shot.

Purple Tentacle

Really, less than £500? Fucking hell, I spent nearly half of that on pissing police uniforms.  

Aah, it sounds like they put in a lot of thought into the shot, fair enough. It looked fairly high budget what with the bluescreen, camera clamp and all, I thought they were welching on a flatbed just because of the dreaded "we'll sort it out in post" mentallity.

You're right though, it seems to be a huuuge amount of effort, although given the budget, there is pretty much no other option. You'd have to be pretty damn confident of your camera clamp to actually drive around with it attached!

Heh, I'm in a particuarly anal mood at the moment because I'm having ideas, then scaling them into shiteness because I'm having to budget for feasability. The pissing weather being one factor that's made me scupper a nice idea.


I initially thought you'd said Season 2 TNG uniforms, which would be an absolute disaster considering my current physique. No sir, Wrath of Khan Red Jacket And Polo Neck for me.

Speaking of blue screening car scenes, I saw a terrible example recently. Maybe it was Firewall (Godawful Harrison Ford film). Maybe it was just the eyes playing tricks on me, but they'd cut between the two people in the car, both shots showing different views out of the side, but the trouble was that it looked like one side was moving a lot more quickly than the other. Quite distracting.

Note, I know nothing about the technical side of film-making, so try to to work out what I meant.

Purple Tentacle

Are you sure it was bluescreen?

That's a very famous schoolboy-error when it comes to flatbed-filming, and it's pretty difficult to overcome. (You need to ensure the driver is driving at the same speed as previous takes.)

You can see it all the time once you start noticing it, but it's very easy to correct if you're using bluescreen.

Like I said, I don't know technical stuff, so I couldn't say for sure. It looked very fake though.

Becky T

All that effort to get this over-used shot of two people in a car:



You see that shot all the time, especially in low budget stuff, for some reason or other I can't quite fathom.

Honestly, how many trendy short films have we seen where there's a long, static shot, just like that, of two guys bee-boppin' and skattin' in a flipping car?

If you've got no money, get someone who can drive, film the car from a distance and dub the conversation on afterwards. It's always a more interesting shot, it's easier, cheaper and less time consuming.

Some film makers seem to go out of their way to make problems for themselves so they can film the dullest shots in the world. I hate that bloody shot.

sorry...in my opinion, you understand...

...fuckin' shot...fuckin' hate it...

Purple Tentacle, I was going to suggest the reading room at the British LIbrary:



Maybe a bit modern?

Surely they've got some old archive rooms somewhere? Also any university where they've archived old phd theses could work since they look nice and uniform stacked up, or sections of university libraries where they have the science journals etc, all the same colour leather bound folders etc...

Something that also came to mind was army surplus places. They almost always have old desks and filing cabinets knocking around, as well as old MI5 fire/bomb proof, eight foot tall safes etc... If you got permission and film at night I reckon you could re-jig some things around to look like a small section of a larger archive.

Sorry if these suggestions are obvious to you. Also I've never seen that episode of the X files so I'm not quite sure what you're after.

Purple Tentacle

Bloody hell, that would absolutely perfect. How cinematic is that photo?

Maybe I should fire off a letter enquiring about the possibilities of after-hours shooting...

edit: Ha, Mrs Tentacle just leaned over and said 'no fucking way, there is no way they'd ever let you film in there, you have to go through ridiculous security just to read a book...". I suspect she may be right...

The army places sound really good as well though! Hmm, buggre, I actuallyneed to write an interesting script..