Shoot Small - Shoot Fast |
||
(originally published in slightly different form in Film/Tape World September 1998) |
||
When budgets are very tight videotape is the only medium to consider. Or so we’ve all thought for a long time. Two recent shoots (see note at bottom of page) I’ve been lucky to DP demonstrate that 16mm is often a viable option. In both instances we shot for two days, at five very separate interior and exterior locations, no OT. For one our final product was five :30 spots, and for the other a 2 ½ minutes corporate film. In both cases, by working  with a tiny crew, largely handheld, we brought the projects in for the same
or less cost than video. In both cases the resultant images were fare more satisfactory
than video. How did we do it?The short answer is we worked very fast, and very well. Here’s what we took along:
How Cheap is Cheap? Working with this tiny crew and extremely reduced equipment list, we shot one of these projects through transfer to film (but excluding costs for director, talent, locations, and markup) for $27,127. That works out of course to about $13,563 a day. The second project could have been shot for an equal amount since we went at it in exactly the same manner except that we shot one more roll of film and spent more time and money on transfer to tape. How Fast is Fast? How fast is fast? It is possible to begin shooting thirty seconds after arriving at the
location: the assistant cameraperson hands the pre-loaded camera to the DP, who How Good is Good? How good is our image? How compromised? In my view, the resultant images are always better than tape. The best interior and exterior locations to shoot this way are those which have naturally interesting light. But even a visually boring room (such as the flat, fluorescent-lit golf-club store where we shot one segment) works well with a little nudge from our PAR and Keno. It’s a challenge to the DP and his gaffer: to read what is already there and then quickly augment it for that extra edge. It’s a challenge to the director: to adapt the scene to the possibilities on hand. What we cannot do, using this method, is meticulously craft the image. What we can do is augment, refine what is already in place. One of the greatest assets to pull off this kind of shoot is a flexible and inventive director. Along with him or her it really helps to have a first-class crew. Finally, there’s a film stock especially suited to this sort of shooting, 7277. It’s Kodak’s reasonably fine-grained and long-latitude stock which reaches both into the highlights and shadows. Works for any Project? Projects which lend themselves to this type of fast film shooting do not include a lot
of interviews. Such talking-head videos invariably involve rolling a lot of film or tape
to capture a few good sound bites . While our mini-crew/mini-equipment Projects that lend themselves to this approach are ones where a small cast of professional actors, perhaps supplemented with some "real people," can perform either an improvised or fully scripted project. Worth It for the Client? Whether or not the client appreciates the differences film brings to a project has been long debated between producers – and the clients themselves. To my eyes, the differences leap out – film brings better eye "information," finer detail, more nuance, greater reach into shadow and highlight, richer color, etc. Some clients see this difference, others do not. When the production company can demonstrate, however, that for the same cost as video -- or perhaps for even less -- we can provide them with a outstanding finished product that fits their needs, we no longer have to prove our case. The issue is resolved. Worth it for the DP? Obviously, most of us who shoot as directors of photography would prefer to film with large crews, and line the streets with generators and silks and huge lighting instruments. With these tools we can sculpt the image, play with highlights and shadows, compress or augment selected colors, slide the camera from high above the fray into a compelling close-up, in all, make the picture fit the content of the story we are telling. However, in a era of increasingly diminished budgets, sometimes this delicious crafting just isn’t possible. When the choice is shoot on film with very limited tools, or shoot on video with a bigger crew – or stay home – my own preference is clear: shoot film. Powered by imagination and hard work, fueled by so many years of image shaping, you can still pull off strong and compelling story-telling with these modest means. It’s a worthy challenge. For more
information from the DP point of view, For more information from the
Producer’s point of view, contact: For more information from the
Director’s point of view, contact: Note: The two shoots were: "Syquest" directed by Tom Donald, produced by George Young, for Seeler & Miner; and "Visa" directed by Bill Groshelle and also produced by George Young, for Kenwood. For a more detailed description of the Syquest shoot, got to the article Recent Shoots.
|
takes a quick read on his meter and starts rolling. In actual practice, we
had from 30-45 minutes to adapt the scene and the lighting to what was now available
(which was usually somewhat different from what we saw on our scout – such as rain
instead of sun), light it, and start rolling. As for moving the camera about, at the wide
end of the 7-56 lens it is possible to pull off fairly complex hand-held "dolly"
moves. A moving hand-held "dutch" is equally possible to finesse. Finally, wrap
is equally fast. With very few instruments, it doesn’t take long to pack and load and
move on the next location.
approach would
work marvelously for shooting these jobs, film costs – negative, processing,
transfer, and syncing – would send the budget too high.