NoLo Shooters’ Holiday Wishlist
Here are some last-minute Holiday shopping ideas for the No Budget / Low Budget (NoLo) filmmaker in your life. Glancing at the prices, one thing you’ll notice is that even at the low end, quality filmmaking isn’t really a “no-budget” proposition.
Most “no-budget” filmmakers are able to work “no-budget” because they have access to equipment through a school, work, or local film/video coalition that loans out gear. True “no-budget” shooters can work with an under $1000 consumer camcorder that has paltry imaging control settings and use only available light. But once you grow tired of just how awful ninety percent of your footage looks when shooting that way, then it’s time to invest in some decent gear. Renting, of course, is also an option. It depends on how much you shoot.
So if the filmmaker in your life is active enough to use their equipment so often it’d be cheaper to buy than rent, here’s some gear to consider:
Hitchhiker: Creative Gaffing and Gripping For The No-Budget Set
The lighting and grip crews are departments that too often don’t really get the respect they deserve. Lighting is headed by the Gaffer, a funny sounding word, made funnier by its use amongst the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. That both the Key Grip and Gaffer’s assistants are called the Best Boy doesn’t make life any easier. More importantly, however, the practice of lighting and rigging the set is seen as mechanical, and any creativity involved is assumed to have come from the Cinematographer / Director of Photography.
But not all Cinematographers lord over their Gaffer. Many rely on the Gaffer’s experience to help them achieve the look they’re going for, giving general directions rather than micromanaging the placement of every light. The best Cinematographers develop the same kind of trust relationship with their Gaffer that the best Directors do with their Cinematographers. By learning each others’ styles and how to work together, a Cinematographer and Gaffer can develop a shorthand for quickly creating the right look for every shot.
Grips tend to get even less respect than Gaffers, even though they are essential to pulling off complex shots. Dolly grips, TechnoCrane operators, and the like are critical for Directors and Cinematographers that want the most sophisticated camera moves they can get. The rigging that Grips do ensures the safety of the cast and crew who are all standing beneath potentially tons of lights and light modifiers. Rigging problems can be quite vexing, and require some very creative solutions. A smart, talented Key Grip is just as critical to a shoot as any other lead role.
For no-budget shooting, lighting and rigging can become very creative. Even on a big set that creative problem solving can be the difference between hitting the look or not, but because no-budget shooters are always running low on time and money, there may be no second chances or backup plans.
On Hitchhiker, we had to shoot long dialog sequences inside a car. The actor was rightfully worried about trying to act while actually driving, particularly with a camera rig hanging off the car. Since we had nowhere near the budget for a truck or trailer rig, even a jury-rigged one, we decided to shoot indoors and do rear projection.
Erick built the rear projection screen using PVC pipe and translucent plastic from Home Depot. One interesting thing that we didn’t even think about until I noticed a problem on-set was whether or not the translucent material was color neutral. It wasn’t, and I wound up having to adjust the color of all of our footage in Final Cut Pro in order to compensate for the fact that the plastic caused a color shift towards green.
Because the original plan was to shoot more footage in a moving car than we ultimately did, a substantial part of the budget had been used to purchase a car rig that wound up not getting used much in its expensive configuration). But its suction cups became the basis for a cheap setup that Erick rigged to allow the camera to move with the car (which was jittered by someone pushing on the bumper — subtely, to make it seem as if it was hitting minor road bumps).
Car Rig and Rear Projection Screen with Emma, Dani, Austin, Danielle
You can see above that the car rig involves a long straight bracket (actually, two of them) bolted to the suction cups and stuck to the car. The camera is then mounted to the bracket with a metal L-brace, and reinforced by being strapped to the bracket by the handle (one strap holds the long, heavy homebrew 35mm lens adapter Emma built, so it doesn’t torque off). The image below has the straps outlined in red so you can see the basic idea (assume one of the straps runs down and is hiding the bracket, which is the case in that bad photo):
Me and Erick hamming it up for the camera, next to the Car Rig and the Rim Light Rig (and Danielle, Brandon and Austin)
To keep the camera from jittering/swinging side-to-side or front-to-back, a simple counterweight and stabilization system can be added to the rig: a tripod.
The bracket also helps prevent this — if you only had straps and no L-bracket in your rig, you’d need the tripod even more. But even with the bracket, because of some of the parts not fitting together perfectly, the whole rig was a bit loose. So the tripod also generally served to help generally maintain the camera angle even though the bracket was also doing part of that job.
Loosening the vertical lock to allow the camera to travel vertically is the trick, and the tripod does the rest in terms of helping maintain camera position, preventing swing and saving your camera if your rig fails (ours didn’t).
Car Rig with Dani, Danielle, and Austin
You may be wondering: “What is that mess at the opposite end of the rig bracket?” Part of it is a jacket taped to the bracket with masking tape so nobody injured themselves on the bracket. In building the bracket, we forgot to include any kid of safety cap. Oops. Another part of what you’re seeing is a clever and obviously no-budget lighting solution. Here is a close-up:
Rim Light Rig on Danielle
Dani, the DP, wanted a rim light on Danielle to give her head some separation from the background. Fair enough, but we didn’t have the most appropriate fresnels. We had no 150s at all, and a 300 was just too bright (we had used up all our C-stands and modifiers elsewhere). However, we did have these little Ikea accent lights that had been purchased to create a dashboard lighting effects.
They weren’t all being used, because a dimmed, diffused Kino Diva was quite adequate to get most of the particular look that was desired in the conditions at hand. Had it been a higher contrast lighting setup lighting Austin and Danielle’s faces with nothing but small, dim, focused lights could have been quite useful, but as it was, only two of the several little lights we’d purchased were being used — one taped to the windshield on Danielle’s right side, and one taped to a piece of PVC pipe beneath her to fill a shadow on her neck).
I took a piece of scrap PVC pipe, and taped it to the “safety jacket” on the bracket, creating a perpendicular support. Then Erick and I used masking tape to attach 3 of the little Ikea lights to the pipe. Two are seen in the image above, and here is the third (outlined in red so you can see it — and with an arrow indicating where the light is actually pointing):
Me and the Rim Light Rig
We positioned the lights in 3 ways: by their position on the crossbar, by controlling the length of their cables (how low they hung), and by angling them into precise position at Dani’s request. That was done quite simply: we ran masking tape along the cable and taped pieces of it together until it twised the cable into the necessary position. Note the twisted tape on the middle light:
Me, Erick, the Rear Projection Screen and the Rim Light Rig
(We’re repositioning the crossbar in that photo. It wasn’t held up by someone out of frame in the actual shoot. That was considered, but even something very light starts to cause discomfort or even pain if you have to hold it up for a long time.)
The entire procedure took about 30 – 45 minutes, starting with the request for a rim light, deciding the Arri 300 would not work, telephoning someone that I know who has Arri 150s (but wasn’t home), my spotting the scrap piece of PVC, presenting the idea, and then Erick and I rigging the entire crazy solution. It was possible because we were both luck enough to have some equipment in the kit that could possibly be made to work (the little lights) and we were willing to “think outside the box” to come up with a nonstandard solution.
I think it worked so well that I’m going to buy some of those little Ikea lights, PVC piping, and clamps (using tape was annoying) to permanently keep in my own kit. Versatile gear, even if it’s not “proper” film gear, is a no-budget shooter’s best friend.
Hitchhiker observations, part 2: Location Lighting and Post Fixes
Locations: Easy to obtain, Complicated to use
Shooting on location, especially for a no-budget production, can be challenging. Locations are easier and cheaper to get up and running than a soundstage. After all, they’re already set dressed. But with that convenience comes a litany of complications. Being unable to control the sound environment is a major issue, and one for a future post. There’s also the fact that when shooting in a location your production is utterly at the mercy of the owners of the location (even if you have a signed contract, if they kick you out, you’re going to lose time and perhaps have to re-shoot in a new location). For no-budget shoots there’s the added complication that often the location belongs to a friend whose friendship you’d like to maintain. You must then handle the location with the utmost care, and those kind of locations often have personal items in them which have inflated value in the eyes of the owner. Bad combination. Also, remember that “weird stuff sometimes happens” on-set: On a different shoot than Hitchhiker, someone wearing stiletto heels damaged an expensive hardwood floor. Repairs were quite expensive.
All those issues are things you need to keep in mind when working with locations, but his post is mainly about a case study in location lighting.
Lighting Locations: Watch out for that tree (or fence, or deck railing, or car, or…)
Locations are great because they’re already built and, sometimes, dressed. They can also be frustrating because they’re already built and, sometimes, dressed. When trying to light your location, you may find that there are trees, fences, parts of the building, furniture, and so on that you can’t move (or can’t easily move without risking the ire of the person who is letting you use the location). Your only remaining recourse is to light around these objects.
Sometimes, you can move part of the object (such as tying-back the branches of a tree). Other times you can quickly flag (or barndoor) your light in such a way that the shadow cast by the flag falls inoffensively relative to the frame, hiding a shadow from a location object that was distracting. Usually, however, you need to just keep moving, focusing (if you have fresnels), flagging, bouncing, and dimming until you find the right combination of light position, brightness, and modification that works for you (and the Cinematographer, if that’s not you).
Even so, you still need to run through the shot at least once and pay attention to where the shadows fall (the Cinematographer does, but if you’re the Director or Gaffer, you have to pay attention and be ready to confer with the Cinematographer and/or call-out anything you see that might be an issue). Only by going through the blocking once or twice can you really be sure that the lighting is doing what you want throughout the whole shot.
Sometimes, though, in the heat of shooting the Director and/or Actors will re-block the shot midstream, and it’s not always feasible to stop to relight (either due to schedule pressure, or because the Director doesn’t want to break the Actors’ rhythm). If that happens, the Camera Operator must tell the Cinematographer if they see something unusual through the viewfinder as they shoot, and the Gaffer must also keep an eye on what the new blocking is doing in terms of lighting. You might need to tweak the lighting as the Director gives the actors instructions for their next take based on what you just saw during the last.
Do these adjustments quickly and unobtrusively. During the take, don’t move around to assess the lighting, to avoid provoking any avoidable situations. Rather, you need a Camera Operator, Gaffer, Cinematographer, and Director who all know to work together to observe the lighting from their own vantage points and trust each other to bring any problems to the attention of the Cinematographer. The Cinematographer is then responsible for either deciding to sneak in a fix during the reset for the next take, or asking the Director to hold for an adjustment (the Gaffer and Camera Operator should never bypass the Cinematographer and go right to the Director, that can cause on-set confusion and destroy the trust relationship within the Camera and Electrical/Light department).
Even if you work together well, and have good communications and keen eyes, mistakes will sometimes still be made. Sometimes someone will assume that everyone else sees what they’re seeing and isn’t calling it out because it doesn’t bother them. Don’t assume. Always politely point out (to the appropriate person in the chain of on-set command) any issues you notice. Or, someone will see something that they think is just fine, which someone else doesn’t like at all once they see it in dailies.
On Hitchhiker, we ran into a situation with a shot where (a) if anyone noticed it from their on-set vantage point (I didn’t as I was viewing from the exact opposite angle), nobody said anything and (b) the Director likes the outcome, but the Cinematographer is less happy with it.
This is a frame from that shot:
Original Image
The vaguely knife-shaped shadow on the bottom screen-left side of the Actress’ face was not intentional (it’s probably a piece of equipment that got moved after the key light was placed, or an architectural detail that got overlooked because it wasn’t on the Actress’ face during blocking). Also, the blocking was altered enough that the lighting intended to reduce nose shadow isn’t having much effect. Since we don’t have a lot of coverage, some take of that shot is likely to get used.
It’s ultimately my fault, because I lit this sequence. So let’s see what I can do to fix it.
There are three basic paths you can take when faced with this kind of situation:
Embrace it
One extremely cost effective and morale boosting way to handle this kind of situation is to say to yourself (and your crew): I meant to do that. There’s not really any particular reason why that result has to be considered bad. The shot reads, so it’s then a matter of opinion whether or not the image is bad because something in it is unintentional.
Striving to keep shadows off faces, while it often flatters Actors, isn’t necessarily even the best shot design. Contrast gives visual interest. And there’s more to contrast than “hatchet lighting” (though that can be very effective). Check out the nose shadows (and the two slashing shadows the Actor’s arm is casting) on this shot:
Is it a bad shot (i.e. one that fails to be visually interesting and convey the Director’s intentions for the scene)? No, it works perfectly for the film it’s from. Sometimes, high contrast hard light is exactly what’s called for.
Reshoot
Before you choose to reshoot, which is relatively expensive even with a no-budget crew (in the no-budget case it may cost you more in goodwill than in money, depending on the attitude you take to your crew when you ask for the reshoot), ask yourself: Do I really hate it that much?
Reshooting is expensive. On a professional project, it costs a lot of money. On a no-budget project, it may not cost much more cash, but too much reshooting burns enthusiasm and goodwill. Avoid doing it unless it’s crucial. There was a crucial reshoot on Hitchhiker due to equipment failure causing a day’s shooting to be totally unusable, the above image is not totaly unusable, and sensibly we did not reshoot because of it.
Fix it in Post
Fixing it in post is also an option. You should never let something slide on-set because you assume you can fix it in post, but once you get into post, there is the opportunity to fix almost anything if you can afford to.
In this example, there’s not much we can do to make the two offending shadows go away. So, I decided to try to adjust things to make it seem more intentional (it already reads as possibly intentional, so there’s also the option of doing nothing mentioned previously — and given that Hitchhiker is a thriller and the shadow looks like a knife, that was my first suggestion).
I did a single-frame proof of concept so the Director and Cinematographer on Hitchhiker could have some ideas about what we could do with the shot if they decided something needed to be done. Under most circumstances, attempting to do the entire paint/roto fix on a shot shouldn’t occur until after it has been edited into the film. You only want to spend time and money on fixing frames you’re actually going to use.
Since the lower cheek/chin shadow is the more glaring, I started with that.
Option #1
1. Darkening the fill calls less attention to it.
Option #2
2. I tried adding a corresponding shadow slash at the top of the forehead. I didn’t like the direction that was going, but if I had, I’d have fixed the angle to match the angle of the bottom shadow.
Option #3
3. I tried making the darkening of the fill more subtle. It’s not a big difference from the original plate, but reducing that contrast makes it call a bit less attention to itself.
Option #4
4. I decided to try hiding the nose shadow in a hard shadow on the face. I realized I probably took it too far, but decided the general idea of darkening the whole left side of the face had promise.
Option #5
5. Trying to connect the nose and chin shadows but leave the eyes totally readable seemed an interesting idea. I have mixed feelings about the result. Mixed feelings is exactly what we’re trying to avoid. Next.
Option #6
6. A more subtle darkening of the screen-left side of the face, combined with the subtle darkening of the chin highlights, led to pretty good results.
Option #7
7. Taking it a little darker also looked pretty good. But it was starting to go too far again.
Which option is correct?
Whatever fits within your budget (embrace, reshoot, fix it in post), and looks best to you, is the right choice. As for the selection of paintfix options, while there are some above that I personally dislike (and others that aren’t shown which also have their merits and detriments), there is no one overall right choice. These sorts of decisions are a matter of preference on the part of the Director and Cinematographer / DP.
Since you probably want to know my personal choice: I’d go down the path of #6/#7 (#3 would also work, as would #0 — the original image). Some fine tuning would occur, of course. I’d likely make the neck and ear shadows and laugh-line highlight a little closer to #7 while leaving the rest more like #6, and spend some time tweaking the shadow shapes and falloff gradients.
There were options 8 – 12, but I realized I was noodling way too much, and creating too many options. Two of the biggest problems you can run into in post are creating too many options, and overworking the image. The former can lead to indecision in the face of a number of subtle variations that all seem “could be the one,” whereas the latter can lead you to abandon an otherwise promising path simply because you’ve failed to exercise restraint where it was called for.
When making this kind of decision, also keep in mind what the shot is about. Does the original mistake detract or distract from the intention of the shot? Is the cost of fixing the mistake worth your while, given the length, context and purpose of the shot when cut into the film? A number of great moments in cinema have started off as accidents, so before you make everything “perfect” in post ask yourself: Does this mistake look worse than what I originally intended, or better?
Lighting Locations: You’ve got the power
There are several issues with lighting a location (and by a location I mean “somewhere we found in the world” vs. “a professionally maintained filming venue”).
A big one, and the one that this post is about, is the availability of electrical power. Not only do you need to worry about where the outlets are, you also need to know how many circuits you have and what the voltage and amperage is.
For low/no-budget shooters in the United States, you’re almost always dealing with 15ampere 120volts alternating current (15A 120vac) household circuits. Occasionally, you’ll run into 20A 120vac, and less frequently you’ll run into 220vac power (usually 220 is found in homes for powering clothes dryers), and only in industrial sites are you likely to run into 440vac and other exotic power types. Unless something has gone horribly wrong (and is not up to code), an outlet that looks like what you’re familiar with in your house should be 15A or 20A 120vac. (If you don’t know how to figure out what kind of power you’ve got on your hands, and how to hook up to it, consult a professional. Electricity is dangerous.)
Since Watts = Volts x Amps
One of these 15A 120vac circuits can take 1800w (real watts, see below) of lighting (though you should really come in under that since you probably don’t really know the quality of the wiring at the location). So, if you have some Arri Fresnels for example, you could put a 1k and two 300s on one circuit, or you could really push it to the limits and put three 600s on it.
How many Amps you’ll use is Watts/Volts. So for 120vac, here are the values for common lights:
| 150w | 200w | 300w | 400w | 500w | 600w | 1kw (1000w) | 1.2kw (1200w) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.25A | 1.66A | 2.5A | 3.33A | 4.16A | 5A | 8.33A | 10A |
To keep your equipment especially safe, try not to go over 13A on a 15A household circuit, whenever possible. (Or 18A on a 20A household circuit.)
Whenever you’re dealing with real wattage ratings, these calculations are always true. However, some lights (particularly non-professional flourescent replacement bulbs for tungsten household fixtures) print a wattage rating on the packaging and/or bulb that is a tungsten equivalent wattge. This is because most people are unfamiliar with footcandles, lux or lumens @ X meters as measures of brightness, so they want a bulb “as bright as XXX watts.” You should make sure you either have the real wattage, or locate an amperage draw rating, for any light that’s not a professional tungsten light, HMI. (NOTES: HMIs: take up to 150% of their power draw to fire up the ballasts, so up to 1200w HMI is all you should put on one household circuit. As for Kino-Flo flourescents, they are rated at fewer amps than their model numbering might lead you to believe. The Diva 400, for example, is rated at 2A in their literature. This is because the model 400 is actually 4 55watt flourescent bulbs, for 220watts (1.83A). The Diva 400 is also cited as having the illumination equivalent of a 1kw tungsten lamp, so the 400 numbering seems to be based on just the max # of bulbs and not wattage or tungsten equivalent wattage.)
Also remember that your camera, sound equipment, work lights, etc. also draw power. You need to figure them into your load calculations if you’re putting them on the same circuits as any of your lights (which, by the way, is not recommended).
Sometimes your location has no power, or lousy power. Then you need a generator. If you’re bringing a generator, even a home / industrial / farm one you rented from a hardware store, remember to find out how many amps the circuit in the generator is (and how to set the generator to 120vac if it’s not always set to that by design). Many generators have the amperage information printed on the housing near the outlets, and either an obvious 120v/220v switch or a label saying the generator is 120v or 220v always. But if yours doesn’t have such helpful information and controls in an obvious location, consult the operator’s manual before hooking your expensive lights up to it.
Running long cables can lead to problems stemming from voltage drops. A more comprehensive understanding of that issue is perhaps for a future post, but the rules of thumb are: always use the heaviest (lowest gauge number) and highest quality wire you can afford, and try to avoid runs longer than 100 feet. If you need to get a generator really far away for sound purposes, make a trip over to a grip house and inquire about quieter generators and/or power cabling that’s rated for very long runs. However, test out a few cheap options first. I’ve recently discovered that a small, late model Honda generator placed at about 50 – 100 feet from the set is pretty quiet to begin with, and can be made quieter by hiding it somewhere clever (outside — definitely not in a building or vehicle).
Also, do not assume that when you find two outlets at your location it means two circuits (even outlets that seem far apart may be on one circuit). You need to actually test this. The easiest way to do so is to own a few circuit testers (they’re about $12), put them in the outlets to see which are live (a good idea to begin with), then get permission from the person in charge of the location (not your location manager, the person who let you shoot in that location to begin with) to switch off the circuit breakers one-by-one and have someone on the crew mark down which ones go out at the same time.
Lastly, remember to tape down your power cables with gaffers’ tape, and weigh down C-stands and light stands with sandbags. Keep your set as clean, safe, and well organized as possible.
Knowing enough about power management on-set to keep your cast, crew, and equipment safe is absolutely essential, even for a low/no-budget production. If you have any sense, you’ll refuse to work on any set where it isn’t the case that the person in charge of gaffing (lighting) knows this stuff.
About The Indie Auteur
Translator
