August 14, 2005 at 5:09 PM #38922goofyhoofyParticipant
I am new to indie digital video…and basically I am a complete neophyte with a passsion to learn.
I just viewed the indie film ‘Open Water’ by Chris Kentis and his wife Laura. What a great job! anyway…behind the special features section of the DVD there are some additional scenes available for viewing. These are scenes that were deleted and never made the final cut. I was amazed at the difference in the ‘look’ of the final cut…and the ‘look’ of the deleted material. The final cut looked so much like film. It was much richer than the deleted scenes..which had much more of a ‘porn video’ look. Very bright and contrasty versus the rich colorful and darker look of the final cut.
My question is this…what happened with the final cut that took its visual quality to such a high cinematic level. I mean wasn’t the final cut and deleted scenes filmed with the same DV camera? If I understand correctly, Mr Kentis used a pair of Sony cameras(vx2000 and pd150). Do these cameras have features that allow for the film look?..and if so why did those deleted scenes look so amateuristic? Could it be that much of the film’s cinematic qualities were obtained during the dynamic transfer from video to 35mm? Perhaps the deleted scenes I’m speaking of were never transferred to 35mm?
One final question…anyone care to suggest a few reasons why Mr. Kentis selected these cameras for his movie?
Thank you in advance. I apologize but I am complete beginner…albeit a hungry passionate one.
August 14, 2005 at 5:35 PM #169016goofyhoofyParticipant
another question please……..
There is another special section in the dvd that shows them making the movie. There are some great shots with their camers out on the water. I noticed that in these live shots there was an incredible amount of noise from the wind..which would be expected out on the water I guess. However…in the movie’s final cut..the dialogue between the two actors was completely clean(no wind). How did they get such clean audio?..did they do the sound separately and synch it in during editing…or did they somehow clean the wind out of the final cut? I’m very curious and thank you for your time.
August 15, 2005 at 10:15 AM #169017TomScratchParticipant
I’ve been avoiding seeing this film due to subject matter. Sushi in reverse is sorta kinda not my thing for a relaxing night at the cinema. As a result of your posts I will check it out. Bon a petit!
This fim is a good advertisement for that line of Sony camcorders. Am leaning towards getting my second VX2100. I assume that the film look is achieved during post production. As an aside, I have recently worked with an LA producer and know of another one who works in Asia, both of whom are sold on the PAL versions of the 150/170 due the extra lines of resolution (compared to NTSC) and the ability to shoot in DV, which makes 40 minutes of video on 60 minute mini DV tapes. Both of these filmmakers have transferred documentary projects to actual film (vs “film look”) from this format.
Re your second post, it is very standard to redo dialogue and it is almost certain that this was done in Open Water. For films released in your local multiplexes and independent venues, the redo percent varies from substantial (25%) up to 100%. The actors are brought back and read their scripts while watching their scenes. If you stay for the credits at your local theater, you will see a whole section on ADR technicians, which stands for Audio Digital Replacement (or something like that).
REGARDS … TOM 8)
August 24, 2005 at 8:07 PM #169018heatohioParticipant
I always heard this movie was shot with a XL2, I could be wrong. Where did you hear that it was shot with a vx2000?
August 24, 2005 at 10:17 PM #169019PhilontiltParticipant
They were sony cameras. The XL2 wasn’t even out when they shot Open Water. They show the cameras they shot with in the making of… special features of the dvd. They tried to get the film look in post. In my opinion, not always succeeding. The porn quality looking deleted scenes still look like that because if you are not putting them in the movie, why take the time to correct them. Of course, this is just my assumption.
August 25, 2005 at 10:11 PM #169020AnonymousInactive
The color difference that you mentioned was acheived by “digital grading”. This is a process by which the color is manipulated in the editing bay (computer or whatever) to match the desired mood and tone of the director, for the feel of the scene. It is sometimes referred to a color correction, but is a bit more extensive than that. Several films (particularly recently) rely heavily on digital grading to achieve their stylized look; LOTR and Matrix to cite a few. The same process which changed the colors in the LOTR marshes to that drab grey/blue can be used to turn the “porn film” quality DV into a highly dynamic color pallete. Anyone who has been working with curves and levels recently will tell you how much film and photo can’t do without them anymore. It really accentuates the work of your gaffer.
Of course the film print process raises the black and warms tones a bit so colors get more contrasty. It depends on the brand too.
If you’re wanting to do this at home, I’d highly recommend investing in After Effects 6.5 pro and the 35mm plugin (I’m not at my computer right now but I think it’s called 85MM or something).
Or if you’re a Mac guy, Final cut pro has some integrated film look stuff.
August 26, 2005 at 7:43 PM #169021AnonymousInactive
CineLook is a great plug-in for After Effects. Magic Bullet Movie Looks is also a great plug-in for Premiere Pro. Some styles include The Matrix look and the look from Saving Private Ryan…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.