As independent filmmakers and content creators, we’re always looking for ways to maximize production value. We want as much money as possible to actually be “on the screen” because the success of our project will depend on it.
Most of us know this, which is why we’re careful not to write big explosions or set pieces in micro-budget productions. We understand our locations, production design, coverage style and a million other factors that we know will ultimately determine the overall production value.
But in reality, this line of thinking only represents half the success. That’s what I would consider creative aspect The key to the equation – making sure your story, style and vision can be executed within your budget without cutting corners.
These are all extremely important factors, but it doesn’t stop there.
The other half of the equation is entirely technical. Everything from gear selection to on-field (and post-production) techniques can have a huge impact on production value. This is where many films completely miss the mark and give themselves away by being ultra-low budget.
It goes without saying that anything from bad writing to poor location sound will significantly reduce your production value. No one variable (or even one set of variables) will determine the success or failure of your film.
But for the purposes of this article, I mainly want to talk about Visual production value. We’ll save the sensible and creative choices for another article.
So let’s take a look at some of the most common technical pitfalls independent filmmakers fall into, and how to avoid them.
In no particular order——
1. Lack of concentration
This is usually the first giveaway with a “cheap” movie.
Properly budgeted productions have the resources to hire a professional first assistant to solve those tricky focus issues. DIY projects, on the other hand, are often shot by owner-operators (without AC), pulling focus away from the lens barrel, or at best using low-quality FF systems.
While it’s entirely possible to achieve great results when shooting with a one-man band, it’s never easy. Technology is absolutely paramount, as nothing screams “do it yourself” more than consistently poor focus pull, which distracts the audience and takes them out of the experience.
You can do some loose pulls here and there as a means of stylizing your project. But audiences—even those untrained in the craft of filmmaking—always sense poor focus pull.
In some situations, it is better to not focus at all than to focus haphazardly.
It is for this reason that many independent films adopt a “locked focal plane” style. This means the focus is set on a point and the character moves in and out of the plane.
This technique isn’t suitable for every film, but in the right circumstances it can help deliver a unique style while avoiding cluttered rack focus that can only reduce a film’s perceived value.
2. Use ISO lighting
It goes without saying that bad lighting can make any film look cheap and unprofessional – in fact, an entire article could be devoted solely to lighting. But I’ll turn my attention to the most reliable way to degrade video quality: shooting at very high ISO without any lighting.
There has been a trend in recent years to use high ISO (mainly on Sony and Canon cameras) in lieu of proper lighting. These cameras have extremely sensitive sensors that allow for proper exposure with little (or no) lighting. But unfortunately, this can never replace proper lighting techniques – no matter how “clean” your camera is.
A good DP knows how to harness and shape light—whether the light source is natural (such as the sun), a practical light source (a lamp in a room), or just plain traditional cinema lighting. No matter how much equipment they use, their focus is always on the shape and quality of the light, not just the exposure level.
Amateur productions often focus solely on technical exposure and ignore the quality of the light itself. As long as their image is bright and clean enough (no noise), they’re happy. But in most cases, they ignore the actual shaping of light and fail to design appropriate lighting settings.
So while their high ISO cameras gave them usable results from a technical perspective, they almost never looked great aesthetically.
It’s entirely possible to shoot at high ISO and still produce beautiful images, but without still finding ways to actually “paint” with the light source, no matter how small it is, this will never happen.
3. The tripod is not working properly.
In my opinion, the most important tool in any filmmaker’s toolkit is a great tripod/head system. It’s not as flashy as a gimbal or drone (more on that later), so filmmakers often don’t put too much emphasis on their choice of stick. But this comes at a huge production value cost.
If you’ve ever used a proper movie tripod, you know why they cost so much (sometimes upwards of $10,000). They don’t just hold the camera in place, they allow you to float easily while panning and tilting, and provide stunning precision.
Audiences have become accustomed to incredibly smooth tripod shots. They watch mostly high-budget movies and TV shows and are used to a certain aesthetic – which is why it’s so jarring when a low-budget production clearly saves money in that department. Unfortunately, this happens more often than not…
Nothing devalues a movie more than a tilted shot that has a bit of shake or feels completely uneven. So, if there’s one item worth investing in, it’s your tripod system.
If you have a serious DIY budget, you certainly don’t need to spend a fortune on a Sachtler or any other high-end system (although they are great). There are many lower cost options from companies like this Benro This works for the vast majority of filmmakers. It all comes down to finding the best tool that fits your budget and taking the time to learn how to operate it perfectly.
4. Poor handheld/gimbal operation
What’s more frustrating than poor tripod work is subpar handheld or gimbal operation. I’ve intentionally left Steadicams out of this debate because they are typically operated by professionals who have their own systems and are therefore less prone to obvious technical issues.
On the other hand, handheld devices and gimbals like the DJI Ronin are more commonly abused by filmmakers who have invested in the gear without any real-world experience in operating it. These filmmakers quickly learned that shooting handheld or gimbal-stabilized is not as easy as it looks.
A good handheld camera operator is worth its weight in gold. They know how to increase or decrease movement to suit the needs of the scene, and how to dance with the actors to create shots that the audience intuitively follows.
The same goes for professional gimbal operators – they can replicate specific camera movements with astonishing precision and produce shots that often look unimaginable. They make it look easy, but trust me – it’s not.
Independent filmmakers often overlook the importance of technology, relying solely on their tools—whether it’s a simple shoulder rig or a rental Movi—to do the heavy lifting for them. But this results in handheld shots wandering aimlessly, while gimbal shots lack any real purpose.
Personally, I’d rather watch a movie with no camera movement at all than one with amateur camera movement. Poor execution can make an otherwise great film look unprofessional and tend to distract viewers rather than capture their attention. So no matter what you use to support or stabilize your camera, remember Technology>Equipment.
5. Unnecessary drone footage
Nowadays everyone and their mother owns a drone, thanks to some extremely low-cost, high-quality tools like DJI Spark.
This is great in many ways, especially considering how expensive it was to capture drone footage (or helicopter footage) just a few years ago. But as the cost of technology plummets, shooting with specialized drones becomes increasingly pointless.
With the exception of very specific projects that might benefit from extensive use of drone photography, most projects are best served with restraint. Big-budget films will occasionally incorporate drone footage, which is done very carefully and purposefully to make the visuals more dynamic and add to the production value.
Low-budget movies seem to get a little excited when it comes to using drones, often drowning out unnecessary aerial shots. Two or three shots strategically placed throughout the film could have added some great production value and resulted in a more dynamic visual palette. But overuse of these shots can scream “style over substance” and take away from the viewing experience.
Not to mention, things can get even worse if the drone footage isn’t color corrected correctly and doesn’t match the primary material. More below…
6. Lens mismatch
It’s not uncommon for low-cost productions to shoot using a variety of camera systems to save time and money. In some cases this means shooting with a multi-cam setup – with the A and B cams rolling simultaneously to reduce coverage.
Of course, the caveat to this approach is that shooting with multiple cameras may create lens matching issues. These problems are most apparent when cameras A and B are from different manufacturers (such as trying to match a Canon with a Panasonic), since each camera and sensor has its own unique properties.
Even if all settings are the same on both cameras and the same glass is used on both cameras, they will almost certainly not match perfectly.
In fact, even cameras from the same manufacturer can sometimes have matching issues, which can be a post-production correction challenge even for experienced colorists.
But thankfully, by making the right decisions in pre-production and on set, these problems can largely be avoided. Personally, I’ve done everything from shooting color swatches to designing custom LUTs to match two separate cameras while shooting and editing.
Audiences never look for color inconsistencies, but they always sense them—and when they do, it affects the quality of the film. So, no matter what your setup is (multi-cam or not), always do your homework and make sure your original footage is captured in the most consistent way possible before you start shading. Then, anything you do in post is the icing on the cake.
7. Uneven black level
This is mostly a post-production issue, and I’ve seen it plague more standalone features than I can count. Just like mismatched shots can be distracting, inconsistent black levels can be distracting.
The overall brightness (brightness) level of each movie will vary from scene to scene. For example, a scene shot in direct sunlight at noon can and should look different than an indoor scene at night.
But without a common thread tying each scene together, the film would lack any anchor to connect all the shots. This is what I discuss in detail in my article Color grading masterclass.
I think the key to solving this problem is to focus on black levels – making sure the shades are even throughout the project. You can choose to crush or lift the shadows – there’s no right or wrong way to be creative – what matters is that they match shot to scene, scene to scene.
Many other variables change from one scene to the next—notably color balance, brightness, and saturation. But if you could have the shadows on the same stage throughout the movie, it would help tie everything else together and make it unified.
So before exporting the master file of your video, don’t forget to go through it shot by shot (preferably using the scope on DaVinci Resolve) and make sure your shadows all fall within the correct range. If you can do this, your audience will thank you!
And don’t forget to add the finishing touches with some of my CINECOLOR LUTs…
I’ll be sure to write a follow-up to this article at some point in the future, focusing on some of the other factors – such as creative choices and sound – that also impact production value.
But for now, if I’ve missed anything on the technical side, please comment below and let me know!
