I’ve been slow to post on the blog over the last month because I’ve been busy working on “Psychosynthesis” (formerly “The Crow”) – my next feature film, which I’m really excited about. Now that we’ve finally finished production (!!!), I want to talk about something crucial to the whole experience – Break away from today’s filmmaking trends.
If I had one goal when I started making this film, it was to create something completely original and unconventional. I didn’t want this film to look, sound or feel like anything else I’d made, or anything else from that period. I want to try new ideas, experiment, and take risks. In some cases, this means going against many of the filmmaking trends that have become commonplace in filmmaking today.
Although today’s independent films generally look better than before – thanks to lower costs/higher-end equipment and better educational resources – they are becoming less identifiable. Certain trends (mostly camera related) have taken over the independent film scene in recent years, resulting in many productions that “feel the same” and lack unique artistry…
To give a simple example – take the anamorphic look. Not long ago, anamorphic shooting was reserved for high-end productions looking for a very specific, stylized look. But now that it’s cheaper and more accessible, anamorphic has become more mainstream and less eventful.
This is certainly what some people believe Anamorphic = High End. as some people believe Newer gear = better gear and More pixels = better pixels. But of course, none of this makes any sense.
Of course, no filmmaking trend is inherently bad…certainly not anamorphic lenses (which are perfect for some movies). It’s just that the overuse and standardization of any filmmaking technique can make things a bit boring… At least in my opinion.
In the spirit of breaking away from these types of trends, I decided to take some steps to allow this project to grow at its own pace. It’s not about being different, it’s about doing what’s best for this very special movie. Don’t let any “conventional wisdom” about how to make movies get in the way of making the most original movies possible.
The first decision that really set the tone here was the choice to shoot in a 4:3 aspect ratio. I wanted to create a claustrophobic atmosphere to fit in with the theme and genre of the story, and the constraints of 4:3 made for the perfect canvas.
The 4:3 ratio is also a constant reminder that we are always striving to make smart choices.
Every time I looked at the monitor (and my talented DP Matteo Bertoli), that square format appeared. It will open up new visual opportunities and create new challenges, both of which will help with the process. We cannot simply rely on our old tricks. Every shot is a new adventure.
If you’re wondering about our setup, we shot in 4:3 on my machine Arri Alexa Classic Enhanced Edition I recently purchased it from Arri’s CPO program. Considering most ultra-low budget productions choose to shoot on RED, and it’s generally considered more economical, using Alexa Classic was an unconventional choice in itself. This is especially true in a city like Los Angeles, where you can rent a RED package for almost free and get all the latest bells and whistles, like 8K recording.
But shooting on Alexa is just as economical and delivers excellent quality – as long as ultra-high resolution isn’t your thing. Yes, it’s cheaper to rent the latest Alexa 65 or SXT than buy a RED, but now the rental company’s Classic is very affordable and delivers the same incredible images as always.
It comes down to personal preference, but for me, I’d go for 2K on the Alexa Classic over 8K on the RED. I don’t mean this as a knock on RED – they make some great cameras that have served me well on many shoots…not to mention they are trying to push the technical boundaries of digital film, so I This must be respected!
But from a purely aesthetic standpoint, I wanted to get the most organic, cinematic image possible when shooting digitally…and that’s exactly what Alexa delivers. I don’t care about the resolution of the camera, what matters is how the final image looks to me.
I’ve been watching 2K footage on the 5K monitor all week and it looks fantastic – I’ve never regretted not having more pixels.
I’m also now experiencing another benefit of shooting in 2K on the Alexa: the post-production process is much smoother. I’m used to editing 4K, 6K and now 8K footage (and dealing with more complex workflows), so going back to 2K has always been a dream. I feel more creative when editing…not bogged down by technical issues at all, just able to work quickly and focus on the story.
Our post-production pipeline was made easier because we chose to shoot in ProRes HQ instead of ARRIRAW. This allows us to reduce file size and avoid wasting time (and money) dealing with storage issues. Shooting in RAW format is more common these days (especially when shooting feature films), but in our case it didn’t make sense to go that route.
With many digital cinema cameras, I’m only used to shooting in RAW format, especially when shooting feature films. I don’t trust most camera manufacturers’ color science and generally want to make sure I can fix any potential issues myself in post. So in that regard, RAW is often the only real option.
But I’ve been shooting with Alexa long enough to know how reliable Arri color science is. Internal color processing is so good that you rarely need to rely too much on RAW information to achieve the look you want. A lot of the heavy lifting is done for you in camera, so once you’ve included your footage in your edit, just make a few subtle adjustments to enhance your images. For someone as obsessed as me colorit was a dream to work with.
I’ve never had a production go from production to release so seamlessly as with this one…avoiding RAW (in this case) provides a true win-win scenario. The technology helped us on set without sacrificing image quality in any way.
Why should I spend more time on set and post-production in RAW format when it doesn’t benefit our final product? Shooting in RAW may be more traditional, but it’s not the best option for us.
This “best of both worlds” mentality also permeates countless other aspects of the production. At every stage, I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. Work quickly on set without sacrificing quality.
In addition to shooting 2K/ProRes, one of the other ways we achieve this is by exclusively using zoom lenses. Another option that didn’t sit well with us, but created a win-win for us.
When you’re shooting 9 – 10 pages a day (like we are), there’s no time to spare. Shooting with zoom (Angenieux Optimo 16-42 and 30-80), allowing us to fly from shot to shot, reducing setup time and dramatically increasing our throughput. That means more shots at the end of each day.
At the same time, the zoom lens doesn’t let us sacrifice quality in any way. While Primes offer excellent technical performance, they were unable to deliver the aesthetic qualities we required for this project.
From the beginning, I had a unique vision for the visual language of the film, one of which called for slow zooms in certain shots. I wanted to visually represent the struggle of the main character, a partially disabled woman, by keeping the camera on a tripod throughout to create a sense of stillness. There is not a single handheld camera, dolly or Steadicam shot in the entire film. Instead, zoom was used to emphasize key moments and make them feel unique without violating our self-imposed rule of not moving the camera.
So while this choice (limiting camera movement) goes against many conventions today, it was the best choice for our film. Our shots were easier to execute, but also more consistent with the overall vision of the film. Less is more…
By always having Alexa on hand and using a very simple shot list, we were also able to spend more time on each setup. For a normal scene, instead of shooting 5 or 6 angles, we might only shoot 2 or 3 angles. Important things.
On paper, our products may look strange to some people. From the pace of our work to the technical decisions we make, every step we take goes against many of today’s “standard practices.” But when it comes down to it, it works for us, and the movie is all the better for it.
As I sat in the editing room for a few minutes editing, I felt more confident than ever about the path we were on. There’s still a long road ahead, and editing will take weeks if not months…but every piece of the puzzle feels cohesive, and the style of the film is unlike anything I’ve made before.
I took a lot of creative risks on this project. I’m sure some would have worked better than others, but if I could do it over, I wouldn’t change any of them. At least I knew we were shooting something unique, and that was the most important thing to me.
No two projects are the same, so I don’t intend to impose my process on other people’s films. If anything, I hope you come away inspired to really delve into your story and see it as a unique piece of art. Explore every possible option and make choices based only on your specific needs, not what others may be doing or what is “in” right now.
In the coming weeks and months, I plan to share more about this experience on the blog, communicationand my podcast (Suspended, resumed in early January). I also have tons of behind the scenes footage from the shoot that I will be sharing with you, some of which you can find at PSYCHOSYNTHESIS Instagram, Facebookand twitter Accounts – So be sure to follow these three accounts.
If there’s anything specific you’d like to hear about our process, please feel free to let me know in the comments. I will try to answer any questions in future content.
Now, here are some screenshots from the movie. All content is completely unedited, using Rec 709 LUTs directly from Alexa –
If you want to know more content like this, remember to follow me Instagram, Facebook, and twitter!
