Cost of Making A Film

If you think that you can't afford the kit to make a film look at this.

http://patrykrebisz.com/stills/FINAL_movie.html

All it takes is imagination.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based
www.cinematography.net

Hey, what exactly is the technique anyway? first I thought it was stop motion/pixilation, then that it was simply a movie shot at 8 fps with a short shutter time, then I wasn't sure. It seemed too natural for the first and too fluid for the latter.

That said I was planning on doing something similar recently after watching how a story started to evolve when I just fast forwarded (around 10 fps I think) through all the images on my digital still camera, even though they were just random shots. Since there were often several shots in sequence taken at the same place there were even some short scenes in there. the mind is a beautiful thing...

Mattias Sandstrom

http://www.mattias.nu/

The film started out with a graphic saying that it was composed of 2000 different photos.

Steve Hullfish
Verascope Pictures
Chicago

Steve Hullfish wrote :

> Mattias Sandstrom wrote :

>> hey, what exactly is the technique anyway?
>
>>The film started out with a graphic saying that it was composed of >>2000 different photos.

Thanks, I noticed, but so is any film with the same length and frame rate no matter how you shoot it. I don't think it quite answers my question.

Mattias Sandstrom

Sorry. I didn't know if you noticed that or not.

But, I think that it rules out that it was shot with a film camera, unless the producers of the film are being very deceitful.

I understand that it doesn't answer the whole question. My guess would be that it was shot with a pro or semi-pro Digital SLR in “real time” using the best frame rate available (or about 8fps as you suggested earlier).

The quality of the frames is impossible to determine from a low-res QT, but it looks like a very high quality - like from a high megapixel camera. I'd say higher than HD video at least.

Steve Hullfish
Verascope Pictures
Chicago

Steve Hullfish wrote :

>>But, I think that it rules out that it was shot with a film camera, unless >>the producers of the film are being very deceitful.

Oh, it was most definitely shot with a still camera. but if you shoot continuously with a still camera at 8 fps, is produces exactly the same results as a film camera running at 8 fps with a small shutter angle, so the line between them blurs considerably. I'm not particularly interested in the image quality, the technology behind it or anything like that, I'm just curious how the shots were accomplished on a conceptual level.

>>shot with a pro or semi-pro Digital SLR in “real time” using the best >>frame rate available (or about 8fps as you suggested earlier).

the final film is 8 fps and the motion seems rather natural so it's a good guess, but I still think pixilation/stop motion might have been used at least to a degree? if you take any movie and drop the frame rate to 8 fps it still doesn't look quite like this.

Mattias Sandstrom

OK, I've read the filmmaker article now. it was simply done like you say. how boring. I though there was something clever about it.

Mattias Sandstrom

It's like a digital version of the BOLEX BROTHERS work

Cheers,
Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
US based DP
www.barklage.com
view reel online : http://www.watchreels.com/jeffbarklage

All I can think of is the short film "La Jetee" by Chris Marker that was shot with stills. There is actually one frame where an actor opens their eyes; the only movement in the film. Even more trivia, this is the film that "12 Monkeys" is based on. If you haven't seen it, check it out. It is really special and tells a fantastic story in black and white still photos with voiceover.

Crista Giuliani
Brooklyn, NY
www.experimentalpictures.com

>>All I can think of is the short film "La Jetee" by Chris Marker that was >>shot with stills.

I thought of that too. And if this movie isn't quite at the Chris Marker level (no one is on quite the same level as Chris Marker !) it's pretty resourceful..... and beat almost everyone else in the 4K race, sprint division...

-Sam Wells
film/.../nj

Crista Giuliani wrote:

>>All I can think of is the short film "La Jetee" by Chris Marker that was >>shot with stills.

Several films have been made with a photocopier :

One by sequencing photocopies of facial expressions (can't recall the name).

Another is the more sophisticated "Copy Shop" where the copier is sort of an inexpensive form of "processing" for digitally acquired images that are reassembled via an animation stand and 35mm film.

http://zed.cbc.ca/go;jsessionid=aqY8l6Bbwmad?POS=1&CONTENT_

ID=11296&c=contentPage

--
John McDaniel
Audio Post Facility Owner
Sonic Arts Digital Audio Services, Inc.
Cincinnati, OH USA
--

>>hey, what exactly is the technique anyway? first I thought it was stop

Whatever method they used I found it highly irritating.

Simon Wyndham
Video Producer, UK

>>hey, what exactly is the technique anyway?

To my eye, it looked like just a series of digital stills shot in rapid succession. Most consumer digital cameras have a burst shooting mode, 2-3 frames per second or more. Shoot them in the burst mode in standard JPG largest image and superfine quality while the actor basically acts out the scene.

Take the images, load into NLE, and create a sequence at a given framerate (probably something closer to 8-fps, everything seems rather speedy). Place the images in order shot into the sequence, render and watch.

Someone asked if there was a feature made with a similar technique.

The only thing that comes to mind is La Jetee, made in 1962 by Chris Marker. The whole film is done with single photographs and narration, although the photographs are rarely strung together such as this short film. Really interesting short, great way to see the definition
of "persistence of vision".

William B. Demeritt, III
Camera Assistant / Loader
Orlando, FL
http://www.thirddfilms.com

>>I started out with a graphic saying that it was composed of 2000 >>different photos.

Here's another one in the same technique. This one was shot on a Nikon DSLR.

http://www.wearemilk.com/manquer/

Deanan DaSilva
Dalsa

Basically you get a high shutter rate camera (we use a Nikon) and import them into a timeline as a JPEG or TIFF sequence, then edit in the same way as you would do normally. We produced a commercial using the same technique recently in the Uk and that was 30s but was far more work than regular 30s TVC's - nice end result though.

Karl Lear

Pangaea Television
www.pangprod.com

The filmmaker explains it all in an article on his website:

http://www.patrykrebisz.com/articles_filmmaker_summer200.html

Cheers,

Tim Shim

>It's like a digital version of the BOLEX BROTHERS work

Well not really. Bolex brothers include tons of animation in their pixilation. And they light their work with film lights (I have worked there, briefly).

This film, whilst looking great, seems to be naturally lit (prove me wrong, please)

--
Chris Maris
Director of Photography

my reel ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zusYNL969ak

I'm not sure anyone should be allowed on this list, or to call themselves an 'indie filmmaker' at all, if they have not seen 'La Jetee.'

Surely if there's a perfect film, that is it.

Alan Thatcher
DP
Chicago

I will submit my own film (made for a 10 second film festival). Shot with 35mm SLR on Fuji slide stock at around 3fps, used Twixtor plugin to create 24fps:

http://www.sv2studios.com/clients/testing/cyf.wmv

Stephen Van Vuuren
336-202-4777
www.sv2studios.com

"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."

Stanley Kubrick

> hey, what exactly is the technique anyway?

Shoot with a digital stills camera in burst mode and then animate the result.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based
www.cinematography.net

> > hey, what exactly is the technique anyway?
>>To my eye, it looked like just a series of digital stills shot in rapid >>succession.

Yes, that much is obvious, and according to his website that also "all" there was. my question, sorry for being so vague, was "how" did he shoot those stills.

Simply shooting live action at the fastest speed the camera can handle seems rather limited in the world of pixelation. basically what you get is "just" a regular movie at a low frame rate. it's so easy to manipulate space and time with this technique and to my apparently not so well tuned eyes it seemed like he was doing that on several occasions.

Guess he was just lucky.

Mattias Sandström

Here are 2 projects I used a DSLR

http://www.whatismine.com/html/showreel/reel_films_nachos.htm

http://www.whatismine.com/html/showreel/reel_musicvideos_Creel.htm

I guess RED is a DSLR only shooting 1 - 60 fps :-)

Rory Hinds
MINE
91 Brixton road, oval, London, sw9 6ee
tel: +44 (0207 735 5105
fax: +44 (0)20 7582 2682
mobile: +44 (0)7976 820 789
http://www.whatismine.com

Rory Hinds wrote:

>>I guess RED is a DSLR only shooting 1 - 60 fps

It might be if it had an optical viewfinder

Mike Most
Chief Technologist
Cineworks Digital Studios
Miami, Fl.

>>The quality of the frames is impossible to determine from a low-res >>QT, but it looks like a very high quality - like from a high megapixel >>camera. I'd say higher than HD video at least

I've seen the DVD, that it's "beyond HD" is apparent.

He says "holding one small light" so I guess it's available light plus that. Which you CAN do with this technology in the 21st Century, ya know ?

-Sam Wells
film/.../nj

>>I'm not sure anyone should be allowed on this list, or to call >>themselves an 'indie filmmaker' at all, if they have not seen 'La Jetee.' >>Surely if there's a perfect film, that is it.

Wow Alan, that's laying down the law !

...I'm not sure you're wrong though....

-Sam Wells
film/.../nj

>>Very nice stephen. I am impressed with how much it looks like 24fps >>and the richness of it too. Cheers

Thanks very much. Twixtor is very interesting plugin especially if you play with it ways not intended (i.e. turning fast motion into regular motion). The richness was the due to a perfect spring day in late afternoon and nice Fuji film - no colour correction, just a touch of levels plus a little aligning to get zoom and tilt up working.

I'm considering a DSLR purchase and messing with Twixtor as running rolls of 35mm film through motordrive starts to expensive and the local lab that gave me a huge discount on the processing and scanning closed.

Stephen Van Vuuren
336-202-4777
www.sv2studios.com

Sam Wells wrote:

>>I've seen the DVD, that it's "beyond HD" is apparent.
>>He says "holding one small light" so I guess it's available light plus >>that. Which you CAN do with this technology in the 21st Century, ya >>know ?

He says somewhere in the notes that he used a Canon EOS 20D, which is an 8MP Camera. He also states that he set the asa to 3200 and didn't worry about noise.

Stuart Brereton
DP UK

Stuart Brereton wrote :

>>He also states that he set the asa to 3200 and didn't worry about >>noise.

Noise in this kind of urban genre is kinda like grain in Wong Kar-wai's films I think....

It's surprisingly clean for all that......

-Sam Wells
film/.../nj

For what its worth, Claudio Miranda just put up a new commercial on his site. Its the first one of the right its called Cadillac Roll.

He says "Shot with a Canon 1ds Mark 2 and motion control." Sure, he used motion control and it looks amazing but I figured it could be another reference for someone.

Terry Zumalt
Chicago DP