Also, I definatly have done all the research I need about lighting, all the camera basics like focus and shutter and all those manual steps, I've decided on much of the equipment being used, most all of the 'production values' I feel I have down pat. It's truly the things like frame rates, 2:3;3:2 pulldowns, downscaling, compression, format, those very technical specific that just seem to elude me.

Your goal is obviously, among other things, theatrical exhibition. The choice of frame rate should therefore be fairly simple: 24p. If your film ends up being good and gets some proper distribution, you may end up doing a film-out, in order to show it in non-digital theatres, which is why 24p is much safer than using other, TV frame rates. DVD (and Blu-ray) can handle 24p without issues.

As for digital projection, most current theatres are equipped with 2K projectors (2048x1080 pixels), while some may also have 4K. 2K format is almost identical to the format your Vixia will output (1920x1080).

As for pixel size, on an average computer screen, it is about 0.025 cm (0.01 inch). When you blow it up to a 15m wide screen in a theatre (about 40 feet), that pixel is about 0.75cm (a bit over 1/4 inch). Not even those in the front row are be able to clearly see individual pixels.

What's sounding the weirdest to me, is how I think of pixels. The way I think of it, a pixel is a square dot of single color, which if a photo has low pixels, you zoom it and almost right away it looks pixelated. Just cuz this is truly the first time I've heard what size pixels are on a theater screen, I just did a little experiment and I took a photo on my computer and blew it up until each pixel was about 0.75x0.75 of a centimeter, and I stood about 15-20 feet back to see if the area of the photo actually looked 'normal'.

Gotta say that just from that little experiment, that photo wouldn't have begun to be even decipherable unless I was standing about 45 feet back, and then it probably wouldn't have looked pleasant. Lol I know hardly anything about pixel size for video, so it probably wasn't a good experiment at all, but I just gotta say are you sure you didn't mean MM instead of CM? MM would truly seem to sound right...=P

The photo though was only 800x600, so I'm sure that effected it a good bit =P.

*I'm sorry for the double replies, I can't for the life of me find the edit button on this forum!*

Pixels aren't microscopic. In fact, they're not even a single size. Pixels can be scaled to the size of the monitor/display. That's why when you use a lower resolution on your computer the image is stretched; it's scaled to fit the screen.

But to just look at the perspective on pixels. What's your computer resolution at? The standard now is 1680 x by 1050. Wait a minute... Isn't that actually smaller than 1080 HD resolution?

See what I mean?

And again, it's scaling, it's illusion. Our brains smooth everything together. There's a certain point when something is too large, but that's generally relative to viewing distance and display size. A 800x600 photo isn't very large now, but back on an 11" screen it sure would have been nice.

Large, projected images tend to mask flaws as well. Ever notice how much CRAP is on the film in movie theaters? And it's projected, so those flaws should be even more evident. But it's actually the opposite. Because it's a larger image, you barely notice it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSmitty

Hey all, I'm creating a feature length film that I'm truly taking a professional stance in creating, I have confidence that it will turn out good enough to attract the eyes of distribution companies that really focus on indie films.

---

There are already a couple of red flags in your opening paragraph worthy of mentioning. First, you consistently use the term "film" when you have no intention of shooting film. The distinction is very important in that your end goal is some type of distribution.

What you MUST find out before you take one step toward an acquisition format is what technical requirements your potential distributors will accept. Depending upon who they are, they may take a movie that was acquired using highly compressed video from a consumer video camera or they may not. You really should find that out before putting a lot of effort into everything else.

As far as frame-rate goes, knowing that film frame rate is 24fps for standard projection (and acquisition), if you're going to shoot electronically, there should be no question in your mind that you'd shoot either 23.98fps or 24P. 59.94 or 29.97 would give you the typical "TV" look, not a filmic look. While many festivals now accept "video," you'd eventually have to have a "film out" for any kind of theatrical release, if it got that far.

In that you're looking for serious distribution with this project, I'm curious about the Actors you've chosen. Are there any "name" Actors on your cast list? Usually, even for indie's, distributors are looking for SOME kind of selling point and a lot of times that means having a "name" in your movie. It could be a lead part (unlikely) or just a cameo, but if you just have some friends or local talent lined up, getting a good deal or any distribution at all will be more difficult.

Mainly, my concern is that with the effort and enthusiasm you're putting into the rest of the project, it seems that the actual "filming" is a kind of an afterthought. You have a budget for a consumer camera, but what about lighting? More importantly, what about sound? Did you know that to get any kind of decent DVD distribution deal, particularly for foreign distribution, you absolutely have to have isolated dialogue, fx, and music tracks? That means having QUALITY dialogue tracks recorded on set and likely, investing in ADR afterwards. Plus, you have to invest in a separate foley/sound effects track and a separate music track. Why? Because a foreign market will require foreign dialogue replacement and they can't do that if all you deliver is a mix. Are these things in your budget and schedule?

So, with your end goal in mind, my suggestion is that you skip the purchase of a cheap camera and instead seek out the assistance of a Cameraman AND a Sound Mixer, both who have some level of practical experience. Chances are, they'll either own or have access to getting better equipment than you can purchase on your own and they'll actually know how to use it all so that YOU can go home with quality footage and sound to make the movie that will get you the distribution you're looking for.

Look at it this way. Most people out there do make movies all on their own and a very very very small percentage of them get lucky enough to get noticed because their content was funny enough or had some other redeeming quality to gain attention. But most indie moves aren't that brilliant and the Directors go home with the movie and a cheap camcorder to their credit.

All I'm getting at is that if you're SERIOUS about making a quality movie so that this is more than a hobby, there are things you can do to improve your odds of getting noticed by serious people. Look for really good Actors and go out of your way to attract at least one "name," even if he/she isn't that well known. Get a DP and Sound Mixer who have some experience and access to quality equipment. Don't just get whoever is around who is willing to help. LOOK for the quality people who are interested in helping you make this movie. There are people like that out in the world just looking for quality projects to put their names on. It's your job to find them.

Don't settle for mediocre if you can help it. A sub-thousand dollar camera, in most cases, isn't enough to make a quality movie for a lot of different reasons. If your script is that good, then it deserves to be shot on quality equipment by experienced people. If you believe in it that much, then go make it happen. You'll always be the only one who cares enough. It's up to you.

Good luck!

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I definatly don't want to sound rude or anything, but the only thing i gotta say is: i've definatly spent alot of my life studying about lighting, recording (production wise), sound effects, all that jazz, especially back in high school. While my questions above sound pretty simple (and I may sound like just another hobbyist) but the questions above are questions that, with all the research I've done, I never could get a single one answer.

But just to explain my film a little (I'm definatly not trying to sound problematic, I just feel really excited to tell about it!), the film (and I only mean 'film' like 'movie', movie sounds unprofessional lol!), basically, there's only two actors in the entire movie, two people I chose because they were a real life couple who actually, in a strange way, are the characters. It's a romantic horror film, and the two actors I chose are have an extremely magical onscreen connection....physically, they look just like Jack and Shelley from The Shining, the guy actually has a real life gore fetish and is a extremely trained musician and sound recorder, the girl is a free love nudist who has been in theater class for years, and what makes this thing sound even more hobbyist, is they actually are friends of mine.

What makes this all come together, though, is like I said, the guy actually has everything we need for sound recording; of coarse we're definatly recording everything to seperate tracks, music, dialouge, sound effects. For sound effects, again as hobbyist as it sounds, I'm recording everything natural...for a car driving by, I'm going to record what it sounds like. For a hit, a fall, whatever, it's definatly being recorded, and on seperate tracks. The guy actor and I are co-composing the score, which to me has added so much to this movie...but best of all, instead of name actors, I actually have name bands and singers that are also contributing to the soundtrack *my family owns a musician's road-bus company, so...surpising connections!* so that's really where I'm focusing on the names, is the music.

With the lighting, it's so surprising how amazing even small digital cameras are in outside shots, just based on videos online, I couldn't think of a reason *unless things get distored when blown up to the big screen* that I wouldn't want to use the Vixia S200 (which is the first consumer cam that can record in true native 24P) for any outside shots. It can make things look wonderful! Thing is, any cameras of this price are horrible in very low light, and I've really prepared for that. I'm also of coarse recording behind the scenes footage and all sorts of things. Involving camera work, the movie's not a complex action movie, it's fairly slow and beautiful, and I'm pretty good at knowing how to film a scene twice to get multiple shots with one camera. Overall, past all of this, though, I'm actually trying to keep things very natural and gritty on screen and off because the tone of this film, in many parts, is also very dirty. In a way, it's alot like Harmony Korine's Gummo, in some scenes, and then like a romantic indie french film in other parts. It's very strange.

Anyway though, despite all of this, I truly am taking all the steps I feel are 'nessicary' and 'professional', I'm not slacking for this film at all IMO, but I'm trying on purpose to give it a very gritty, earthly feel. But unlike crappy youtube short films, to actually make things look like you want them to, you do have to follow the steps very adamantly and that's exactly what I feel like I'm doing, on my own level. I also just want to buy a better camera, and I feel like the Vixia S200 is the perfect one for me. It sounds strange, but I feel so confident, just from a few past short films I've done with a Handycam, that my biggest talent is just capturing the right thing at the right time and going with it! And it sounds even sappier, but I believe in myself so warmly, and despite this being in all reality a sort of arthouse, hobbyist project, I feel like I'm very professional when it comes to business and persuasion so, and taking all the right steps...idk I just hope it goes somewhere!

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSmitty

With the lighting, it's so surprising how amazing even small digital cameras are in outside shots, just based on videos online, I couldn't think of a reason *unless things get distored when blown up to the big screen* that I wouldn't want to use the Vixia S200 (which is the first consumer cam that can record in true native 24P) for any outside shots. It can make things look wonderful! Thing is, any cameras of this price are horrible in very low light, and I've really prepared for that.

---

Your first three words suggested that you were about to address lighting, but then your next sentences wandered off into exposures and the capabilities of the camera. But never a word about LIGHTING.

There is "lighting" a scene and there is simply "illuminating" one.

You said, "But unlike crappy youtube short films, to actually make things look like you want them to, you do have to follow the steps very adamantly" but I haven't heard you say how you plan to actually LIGHT your shots to make them look the way you want them to. Instead, this consumer camera with amazing low-light capability somehow is supposed to make what's in front of you look perfectly the way you want it to? A camera's exposure latitude has little to do with how a shot is actually lit. All the exposure latitude means is that the camera can dig more detail out of darker areas and hold detail in the brighter ones. This is not, however, a license, to just shoot what's in front of you, especially if you wish to be deliberate and intentional with everything involved in putting your project together. News videographers just shoot what's in front of them. A movie is supposed to be more than that.

Don't get me wrong, I want you to succeed. Truly! I'm merely seeing a few red flags in a lot of what you've shared that could keep you from achieving your goal. By all means, don't lose the enthusiasm, but if you're going to put your project out there for open-commentary by experienced professionals, at least consider listening to the advice instead of working hard to prove that you already know what you're doing. If you did, you wouldn't be here asking questions. Just consider that there may be a lot more that you don't know that you think that you already do.

A "slow and beautiful" movie doesn't just happen. It generally takes precision camera operation with exquisite production design that is lit intentionally. Plopping a consumer camcorder down that has amazing low-light capabilities doesn't usually capture "slow and beautiful."

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Oh nah I definatly didn't mean that like it sounds. The whole "I definatly prepared for the low light" thing means I'm definatly using a lighting system for the indoor shots. For the outside shots, the most I'll use is a light reflector, because this movie doesn't have a strict schedule and really having the perfect day to shoot makes things better. Tricky thing about the indoor shots is using a lighting system in a room that you want to film a whole shot of.

I remember the level of enthusiasm about making a feature film when I was in high school. I had read everything that I could find about filmmaking (back then, there was very little available to me, and the internet was two decades away), and was so excited about planning the distribution, advertising and such. I would say, there are two main things one must be ready for, when in such a situation. The stereotype of any success is hard work and perseverance. so, first, focus on harnessing all that enthusiasm to actually do real, concrete steps and actions to make it happen. So many people develop elaborate plans (from start to finish) with great zeal, only to never follow through (development is fun; actual work will always involve things that aren't so much fun). Second, be prepared to take disappointments and continue on. This is where perseverance comes in. Any filmmaker (and especially the beginner filmmaker) will hit obstacles along the way. When you come across one (festivals not accepting your film, theatres not interested in exhibition, etc), the disappointment that comes with those will be a powerful force to push you to give up. If you want to be successful, you should not. If for some reason your first 'masterpiece' doesn't seem to interest anyone, make another movie. Rare are filmmakers who struck the proverbial gold with their first movie.

And Brian, just an observation; I was under the impression that these days, when we say 'making a film', we don't necessarily mean shooting on film (as in 35mm, 16mm, 8mm...). When the original poster says "I'm creating a feature length film...", he is obviously talking about a motion picture. A growing number of Hollywood films aren't shot on film, yet are still called films, and many of them never even see actual 35mm film medium (and are instead exhibited in theatres equipped with digital movie projectors). It seems that the mainstream filmmaking crowd has accepted this misnomer and does not automatically assume actual film as a medium of acquisition and/or distribution.

On an unrelated matter; CSmitty, I'm not sure what browser you're using, but if you had Firefox, you'd get a dynamic spell check, which helps (underlines all your misspelt words as you type). You write 'definatly', rather than 'definitely' (common roots with 'definition').

Brian is correct. The way I understand it, in the professional world some folks do shoot on video but they won't call it a film. Movie, picture, flick, video, whatever but not a film. If they call it a film they'll be explaining that its going to be shot on video a moment later to avoid confusion. There is a huge difference in cost and time and look between the two mediums.

In the amateur world the terms might be mixed and matched since people aren't set into their funding and scheduling formula the way they are in Hollywood but it is probably still best to keep the terminology correct.

RJSchwarz

I see. I must say, I'm a bit surprised, since movies like 'Avatar', 'Apocalypto', 'Miami Vice', the latter 'Star Wars', 'Superman Returns', 'Rocky Balboa' and many other mainstream Hollywood productions were all shot on digital cameras, yet I haven't heard anyone (including people in the industry) ever call them anything but films, movies, motion pictures, or 'flicks'. Most certainly, nobody EVER refers to them as videos. Have I been living under a rock?

Well they are movies, motion pictures and flicks. The real question is have you heard any professional (not a reviewer but someone who makes movies) call them films?

RJSchwarz

I could swear hearing Cameron referring to 'Avatar' as a film. I'm not in the moviemaking business (although I follow it very closely through THR and similar), so I can't say with any authority. So, from those who are in the industry, how does one refer to a flick if it was shot on Cinealta, Red One, Genesis or Viper...?