<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forums - Bricks in Motion - Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
		<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/topic/20494/things-to-do-to-make-a-film-look-70s80s-style/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:53:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/341394/#p341394</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you're still looking for ideas, you can be inspired by one of those annoying Progressive commercials.  It's the one where Flo says, "Sprinkles are for winners".  The ad pretty nailed 1970s.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/341394/#p341394</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339965/#p339965</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Sméagol][quote=Mr Vertigo]I'm a bit unclear on how the mm on a lens relate to its effects (i.e. the difference between a 200mm vs a 75mm vs a 30mm).  I understand that the higher the number the narrower the field of vision (obviously) but I was wondering whether it denotes any other effects as well (such as minimum focal distance).  I've been confused by this for a while.[/quote]

Okay. The higher the number, the more "zoomed in" (the real term is 'longer') the lens is. The longer the lens is, the narrower its field of view is. However assuming you have the space, you can get basically the same field of view you got on a wider (opposite of longer) lens by placing your camera further back. The end result is a shot with similar composition that is more compressed; it has less of a sense of depth to it. Depth of field also becomes more shallow as you get further back, although it flattens each plane out somewhat, so for instance your subject that is in focus may actually get to be more completely in focus as the camera is further back on a longer lens.

[url=http://tjphototips.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/focal_length_diagram_river01.jpg]Here's a comparison image of the width of the field of vision on various lengths of lenses, standing in the same spot.[/url] The image in my previous post in this thread illustrates the depth effects I've talked about as achieved by moving your camera further back as your lens gets longer.

This leads to some paradoxes in lens selection. For instance, conventionally if you want an indoor space to look bigger, you shoot it with a wider lens so that it stretches further away from us into the distance. And yet, if you photograph an outdoors, mountain landscape hovering over a city, you may need a long lens to achieve the sense of scope, because otherwise your mountains will be dwarfed in scale compared to the city in the foreground. A longer lens, further back will allow for a sense of scope wherein the mountains are huge and loom over the skyline by compressing the space.[/quote]

Ah yes, that makes sense.  Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

Anyway, I don't really have anything much else to add to the actual topic at hand, so I guess I'll not go off-topic any  more.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Mr Vertigo)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339965/#p339965</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339940/#p339940</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oh yeah, the sound.  Acid Pro has VST filters to make the audio sound like tape recordings, which have compression and saturation and the infamous Tape Hiss heard in all those AAD CDs.  There are commercially available VST effects that do this to even greater accuracy.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339940/#p339940</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339875/#p339875</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Mr Vertigo]I'm a bit unclear on how the mm on a lens relate to its effects (i.e. the difference between a 200mm vs a 75mm vs a 30mm).  I understand that the higher the number the narrower the field of vision (obviously) but I was wondering whether it denotes any other effects as well (such as minimum focal distance).  I've been confused by this for a while.[/quote]

Okay. The higher the number, the more "zoomed in" (the real term is 'longer') the lens is. The longer the lens is, the narrower its field of view is. However assuming you have the space, you can get basically the same field of view you got on a wider (opposite of longer) lens by placing your camera further back. The end result is a shot with similar composition that is more compressed; it has less of a sense of depth to it. Depth of field also becomes more shallow as you get further back, although it flattens each plane out somewhat, so for instance your subject that is in focus may actually get to be more completely in focus as the camera is further back on a longer lens.

[url=http://tjphototips.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/focal_length_diagram_river01.jpg]Here's a comparison image of the width of the field of vision on various lengths of lenses, standing in the same spot.[/url] The image in my previous post in this thread illustrates the depth effects I've talked about as achieved by moving your camera further back as your lens gets longer.

This leads to some paradoxes in lens selection. For instance, conventionally if you want an indoor space to look bigger, you shoot it with a wider lens so that it stretches further away from us into the distance. And yet, if you photograph an outdoors, mountain landscape hovering over a city, you may need a long lens to achieve the sense of scope, because otherwise your mountains will be dwarfed in scale compared to the city in the foreground. A longer lens, further back will allow for a sense of scope wherein the mountains are huge and loom over the skyline by compressing the space.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Sméagol)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339875/#p339875</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339868/#p339868</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Write Dialogue, but as a reference to the visual. That's what I always do, I write the dialogue for what's going on so I have a better understanding of how I want my characters to move and act.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Gentry Studios)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339868/#p339868</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339867/#p339867</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Gentrystudios]I'm in favor of no dialogue.[/quote]

Normally, I would be too, Gentry. However, I think you should go into scripting and plotting a little more open minded. Don't restrict yourself to no voices from the beginning, and then regret it during the editing.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[thedylandproductions@yahoo.com (Dyland)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:43:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339867/#p339867</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339861/#p339861</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm in favor of no dialogue.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Gentry Studios)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339861/#p339861</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339858/#p339858</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am unfamiliar with old 1970s/80s home movies, but am I right when saying that it was possible to record voices and sound effects using equipment that was widely accessible (as in, you don't have to be a super professional with a high budget to add audio to your film)? I know that most of the old brickfilms had no audio, but there are a select few like "Liftoff!" that included audio.

And that leads me to another question, not about the era, but just an opinion: Should I do my video no voices (as in English) with only (maybe) some grunts and sound effects, or do you think it would be OK to add voices? Obviously, you don't know what my movie will be about, so you can't answer which one would be more fitting, but I could do it either way. It would probably require some more time do do it silent, because I would have to work out all the visual gags and cues instead of relying on voices.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (rioforce)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339858/#p339858</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339821/#p339821</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My apologies for the confusion.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Squid)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:48:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339821/#p339821</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339820/#p339820</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From what I understand, a longer focal length/higher number essentially compresses the foreground and background, making everything seem closer together, whereas a wide lens/lower number does the opposite, correct?  I've also heard that photographers sometimes use macro lenses for portrait photography as they supposedly produce really clear images.

I'm a bit unclear on how the mm on a lens relate to its effects (i.e. the difference between a 200mm vs a 75mm vs a 30mm).  I understand that the higher the number the narrower the field of vision (obviously) but I was wondering whether it denotes any other effects as well (such as minimum focal distance).  I've been confused by this for a while.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Mr Vertigo)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339820/#p339820</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339809/#p339809</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I concur with Sloth. Although focal length is a surprisingly confusing concept I did not fully grasp until after I made most of the brickfilms I've made. So while it appears Squid is confused about how focal lengths work, he's not showing any ignorance I did not have myself until relatively recently. It's unclear to me exactly what Squid meant, but there is a confusion of focal length and framing in his words.

Most of the time in filmmaking, focal length of a lens shouldn't really be about field of vision. They are about the look you're aiming for with a particular shot. It is common for grander, establishing shots to have wider focal lengths, and if you have very limited space (as in, you can't get the camera any further back because there's a wall behind you, rarely an issue in brickfilming scale) then that will dictate focal length choices. In general, you want a longer ("more zoomed in," higher number) focal length for closeups on people or in our case minifigs as this has a less dramatic, "distorting" effect on the shape of a face. But for wider shots, it's really a matter of how you're composing the shot; you can get a wide shot by putting that same 50mm lens further away from the set, which will give the feel of compressing the space.

Here's the best illustration I could find online of the concept. Tried to find something that wasn't portraiture, but this illustrates the concept clearly. The first column is a mid-shot at each focal length; the second is a closeup at each focal length, and the third column is a mockup of where the camera person would be in relation to the subject to produce each kind of shot.

[img]http://annawu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/focal-length-comparison.jpg[/img]]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Sméagol)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339809/#p339809</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339807/#p339807</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Squid]Yeah, that is a good point you have there.

Just make sure if you do go for a wider one, make sure you also have a lens with a wider field of vision, as that will benefit the ratio better.  My macro lens zooms everything slightly, and I really would like a way to get wider shots and still be close.[/quote]
Wut?! What?!

OK, so this isn't really how you should use focal length.

First off shooting with just one focal length is an EXTREME visual handicap and easily the biggest downfall of using a web camera. If you are trying to create a huge looking environment I strongly advise you use the longest lens you have on your wide shots. Using a wide angle lens on a wide shot will distort your objects making them appear to be miniatures while using extremely long lenses can make your miniatures look like looming monoliths in the distance. For example I shot [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisboyer/10811390303/]this cityscape with a 300mm lens[/url] to make it look as large as possible, I realize not every one has the space to shoot with the camera 30 feet away from the set but in a situation where I didn't have access to my 300mm (it's on loan to Smeagol, and I'm not sure I had the space anyway) I shot [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisboyer/16001654838/]this with my 105mm lens[/url], which was the longest lens at my disposal (I wish I had 135mm and 10mm primes to round out my collection) to make the scene look as large as possible.

I am currently shooting at a 2:1 aspect ratio and am using both the shortest and longest focal lengths I have, the focal length has nothing to do with the aspect ratio, you need to choose what focal length you plan to use on your shot based on the artistic needs of that shot, while your aspect ratio will come into play it does not render any focal length invalid.

The easiest way to fully grasp the importance of focal length is to shoot with primes, if you could only use three I would get a wide(ish) lens somewhere in the 18-24mm range, a 55mm micro lens and a 105mm micro lens, and some lens tube extensions. If you think you can shoot a film with one lens you are shooting yourself in the foot. You need to experiment with different focal lengths and different time and play with what works and what does not work. It's about the right creative choice for each shot, not one lens per aspect ratio.

Understanding this took me a long time and I still have issues fully articulating what I've learned, and am by no means a master at it ether.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (SlothPaladin)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339807/#p339807</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339766/#p339766</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Wow, I didn't expect so many tips. Thanks, guys! I'm going to answer a few of them, but I'm not going to go quote all of them because I don't have time. :lol:

@Squid, I will try the blur effect later on when I take a test frame (probably this weekend). I'll try to post a picture here when I get it for you guys to see.

@Pritchard Yes, I am using exclusively classic pieces. (Homemaker and retro minifigs, but don't tell anybody... ;) ) I am also going to build using super basic bricks to emulate the classic style.

@Vertigo Haha, I thought about buying a film camera, but I have no place to get it developed (or even know much about film) :P I was thinking about using my normal animation style for the film, but actually, now that you mention it, I think I will make it slightly lower framerate. I want this film to look authentic.

@Squid (#2) Hmm. I only have a 58mm lens. I guess I could use my Nikon lens, but it has lots of light flicker issues, and I think that the Helios would look more authentic for the vintage look. I'll experiment, though.

@HOO Thanks for the font tips. I'm probably going to do everything in-camera, using some old stuff I have like my typewritter. I'm also going to see if I have an old label maker around (but I'm not sure if I have one...).]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (rioforce)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339766/#p339766</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339757/#p339757</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yeah, most movies were in one of the widescreen processes by 1970.  There are plugins for Vegas studio that simulate retro film effects.  Also, the Film grain effect is just fine for making something look shot on film.

There is a font I use that's really 1970s.  I have to look up its name, though.  It's the one I used in my minimalist Association video, which isn't currently online.  It's at about 5:30 in this video of mine:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7VFdKZoDXU[/url]

The 1980s are at about 6:00

Oh, here it is... the 1970s font name is FUTURA LT BT.   I see this all the time in indie films from that era.

Also, For HOO episode 2 and the script I just finished which has a lot of 80s flashback, I compiled a book of 1980s slang which I can email you (or anyone) if you want! I am 1980s obsessed!

One other things, I've noticed, especially with news & archival footage, the saturation seems to fade from the natural wear of the film, and often times black turns a bit greenish in film.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339757/#p339757</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Things to do to make a film look 70s/80s style]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339751/#p339751</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I, too, have tried to emulate the look of film for several of my projects. However, I usually try for a more late 80's early 90's look - similar to films like "The Rocketeer," "Spy Kids," or "The Mummy."

Taking just a simple snap-shot from my webcam on a thrown-together Spaceship MOC gave me this:

[img]http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/DylandBrickfilms/Film/1_-_unedited_frame.png[/img]

I kept it a bit grainy because, well, film is grainy. It's no masterpiece, but, it's still a pretty nicely composed shot - the character being very far away from the background.

A lot of movies on film tend to have a very precise field of focus, and thus, would need to be recreated if you want a pretty nice looking effect.

Also, I thought the shot was a bit too bright, I wanted the spaceship to look darker - so, I also wanted to darken things a bit. This is really just personal preference on the lighting of your shot, however, once I made everything darker in GIMP, with just a few little adjustments, I really liked the outcome:

[img]http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/DylandBrickfilms/Film/2_-_edited_frame.png[/img]

Ok, so, not perfect, but, definitely a lot better than the original, unedited frame. Overall, what I did was I put the figure on a separate layer. Then, I blurred the background a minute amount, darkening the overall image, and lighting up some of the lights. Then, I tried to match the figure to the background's lighting, only, I didn't blur him as much.

This actually is a bit of a better simulation of "what film looks like on DVD" but, at the time, that's what I was going for.

I did this test about 2 years ago, and, since then, have messed with editing frame by frame, and the Sony Vegas tools much deeper. You really just have to keep pushing yourself to work longer and more intricately when editing to achieve effects more and more realistic.

Overall, in the various methods I've done to emulate film, I try to keep the workload to under 5 minutes per frame, if I must edit like that. That way, I get the quality I want without sacrificing too much time. In Vegas, I usually just mess with the color correction more than anything else. You want things to have a deeper orange-ish tone, while still boosting up the other colors a bit too. That's usually what works for me.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[thedylandproductions@yahoo.com (Dyland)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/339751/#p339751</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
