Shooting formats – how important? Part 2

Saturday, October 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

The two feature films I’ve directed so far were both shot on different formats. Old Man Dogs (1997) was photographed on 16m film and projected on a film release print in theaters. Dangerous Crosswinds (2005) was shot on 24P mini-dv tapes and projected on DVD into theaters. For me, and probably the crews of both films, it’s impossible to think of either film without also thinking of its particular shooting format. For most low-budget indies the format is forever linked to the project as much as the music or actors, etc. And that’s fine. We slave over our production budgets and ultimately decide that we’ll shoot in whatever format we can best afford. That’s the reality.

But does it matter at all to audiences? As long as a film is well lit and the dialogue sounds good I’m not really sure it does. It’s not that I don’t believe film-goers can notice a visual difference (I’m sure they can if a side-by-side comparison is made) but do they care? Would the various critical responses to both films had been any different had Old Man Dogs been shot digitally and Dangerous Crosswinds on 16mm? I’m willing to bet no. Any Q&A session that I’ve ever been a part of has always focused on the film’s storytelling, music, themes, and so forth – and nothing about any technical matters. Michael Moore’s Roger & Me is a 16mm film and his latest films have all been digital but he’s all about content. And even though we may think otherwise, most narrative filmmakers like myself are first and foremost about content. The subject matter, the characters, the music – these factors dwarf any technical factors. Not to mention that good old fashioned believeable acting goes a long way in my book. I recently saw a trailer for a well-publicized short film which was shot with a RED camera but the acting was so over-the-top that it destroyed any of my interest in ever seeing the film. Good direction/strong acting shot on videotape is still preferable to aimless direction/bad acting shot on film.

Share and Enjoy:

Tagged with: Arts • DVD • Film • Filmmaking • Michael Moore • Movies • Roger & Me • Short subject

Filed under: Death & Glory/Animal Rights • Filmmaking • The Murder of the Lake

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!

Dave Soucy

As a non-filmmaker and occasional filmwatcher (ie. like 98% of the population), Bill is right. It doesn't matter. We don't care about your technical mumbo jumbo. A good story is a given. If the story sucks, your film sucks. Don't care how nice it looks. On the other hand, Bill is right in that even if the story is good, the film still needs to look good. Achieve that, and average filmgoers couldn't care less if you used a RED camera, film, 24Pdv, or my canon consumer camera. If it looks good and has a good story, that's all that matters.
NOBODY (in the universe of average filmgoers) is sitting thru the credits on the edge of their seat waiting to see what kind of equipment was used in making the film.

~Dave

Jeffrey Blake Palmer

Bill,
Good post.
Just a few thoughts that I've share with some other film folks...

Recently I had the pleasure/pain of sitting through some film festival screenings; some horror, some sci-fi, some dramatic... but all independent films made by people like you and I. Some budgets were definitely larger than others, which didn't necessarily mean the movie was any better, but not all films are made with the same bankroll. We both know this all to well.

That said, the TWO things that I really think we have the MOST control over when moving forward with a production are: STORY and IMAGE. I believe we've managed the first element - Story - with some success on our films. The second element - Image - is (and this is after sitting through dozens of short and feature films) absolutely CRITICAL. In fact, terrible image quality, something poorly lit, shakey-cam, hard to see, out of focus, no color correction, distracting shadows... you name it -- will take me right out of the STORY no matter how good it is.

Yes, I've seen some amazingly shot films that were light on the story side of things, but they were really beautiful and artful and were full of rich composition... so if I found myself dismissing the so-so story at least I could enjoy a striking image - a MOVING PICTURE.

Nowadays, with RED and the latest HD cameras, I think we owe it to ourselves and the audience to deliver on as many levels as we can. This means that what format you shoot on really DOES matter. I would say go for the best of the best if you can, then work backwards from there. Don't compromise on the captured image. Start with the highest quality you can. Besides, you can always down-res in post and distribute in a variety of formats.

Well, that's that. In the end, the real goal is to make the film by hook, by crook and by the power of Greyskull! (couldn't resist). But seriously... if you can, find a way to capture the best image possible. I think today's audience (and distributors!) are expecting this from us.

Phew!
Take care,
Jeff

Shooting formats – how important? Part 2

Buy Dangerous Crosswinds DVD

Recent Posts

Archives