>>4494647>I understand.>But why do French new wave, Italian neorealism, etc films still posses that “this is a real movie” feel/look to them, but if I did the same natural setup in my apartment or outside right now it would have the “low budget indie” look?The same reason this music video does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFmllIW7VU0 because it is working with lighting techniques, and composition and framing, and most importantly, the camera movement is done with purpose and impeccably so. As opposed to this, which is filmed on a cell phone obviously, at makes no attempts at composition of scene, framing, or storytelling techniques, not to mention has no lighting compensation to amend for any of this to at least make the video interesting to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwi-7Lf_ZAcEvery movie has actors. Not every movie can suspend your disbelief. This is a combination of all of the elements that go into /vid/eography, not just the lighting like
>>4494602 said. And above all else, the sensor is the key deciding factor of the element of "noise" character, and, if you're working on digital, adding noise/grain afterward from a film source might be your best bet.
Adding a film grain/"noise" layer like this can actually make your footage look "better".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGRF5S7bGkLower the opacity if you want it more subtle, leave it at 70% if you want it normal, higher for a more intense film look.
>>4496195>What kind of equipment and software do you need to make a decent babbie's first short film?Here is what I recommend:
Equipment:
>Tripod>Meat setup:(people-actors)(if applicable)>Camera>Microphone>(Stabilizer Lights, anything else you want that isn't on here)Software:
>Adobe Premiere and/or Adobe After Effectsor:
>iMovie>Sony Vegas Pro>literally anything elseOr just do what this
>>4496195Anon said and use DaVinci Resolve.
Good advice on OpenCamera, too.