The Unthinkable - Swedish cinema at its finest.

[Brother]

I have nothing to do with this film other than i think it's amazing! They've been, like they always are, very open with everything through out the whole process. Including gear which is why i thought it would fit here on EOSHD.

Premiered on Swedish cinemas four days ago.

Total budget: $2M, shot on FS7 and vintage Russian lenses. More info below.

 

Director Victor Danell on Facebook:

"Last year I directed my first feature. Me and the DP wanted a lifeful and ”not so perfect” look to keep the story grounded, so we decided to shoot on vintage lenses. I relubed and added a oval iris on every lens my self. Shot on a Sony FS7

This is the complete set of lenses we used. A total price of less then $800.

20mm - Mir 20a
28mm - Mir 10a
30mm - Meyer-Optik Görlitz Lyidth
37mm - Mir 1a
38mm - Helios 44-2 + DSO wide angle adapter
50mm - Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar
58mm - Helios 44-2
85mm - Jupiter 9
135mm - Tair 11a

THE UNTHINKABLE / DEN BLOMSTERTID NU KOMMER
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5227746/?ref_=nv_sr_1"

 

 

[Linus N]

(No spoilers ahead)

I went to see this as it premiered last Wednesday and was blown awat by what they're pulling off compared to typical Swedish feature film productions. I also went to an event the week before with FSF (SSC - Swedish Society of Cinematographers) and heard the DP Hannes <insert last name> talk about the movie together with the colorist Ola Bäccman about the process of making the film. An additional "WHAT?!" factor, on top of the lens choices, is that they shot the entire thing in FS7:s internal XAVC-I codec except for some green/blue screen work where they went with raw.

I've followed their work for years, and seeing their first feature on the big screen was truly a humbling and epic experience. Given the budget, time, experience and all that they managed to pull off an amazing film which easily lands in the top 3 Swedish films ever made in my book. My girlfriend, who didn't know about Crazy Pictures before going to the movies with me shares my enthusiasm. On top of her reaction, there was a woman in the seat next to me who was literally at the edge of her seat from 5 minutes into the movie until the very end.

TL;DR: Go see it!!!!!!

[Danell]

Wow. Thanks for those kind words. I’m the director/writer/VFX-supervisor & a member of Crazy Pictures which means that I’m kind of involvd in most things regarding this project. We worked qite hard to achive a high production value with the small budget we had, so it feel GREAT to hear that you enjoyed the result. 

(extra fun to hear about your girlfriends reaction!)

If there’s anything you wonder about the production, the process or some technical details, feel free to ask.  

[mjfan]

did you have just one camera? which camera settings did you use? what did you do for sound? thanks and great job!

[Linus N]

2 hours ago, Danell said:

Wow. Thanks for those kind words. I’m the director/writer/VFX-supervisor & a member of Crazy Pictures which means that I’m kind of involvd in most things regarding this project. We worked qite hard to achive a high production value with the small budget we had, so it feel GREAT to hear that you enjoyed the result. 

(extra fun to hear about your girlfriends reaction!)

If there’s anything you wonder about the production, the process or some technical details, feel free to ask.  

Well hello there! Have to say again, great work

I remember Hannes sending out some numbers during the SSC day which were kind of mind-boggling. Amount of shooting days, VFX shots and days with rain - I forgot the numbers but as I recall it's very much a third forum-friendly "WHAT?!"-factor. Do you have those top of mind?

And now that this marvelous opportunity has presented itself, I have three questions for you:

1. One thing I found very intriguing was the non-Swedish-movie factor of your film. With this I'm referring to script, compositions, audio, sfx, vfx, camera movements, blocking, dialogue etc.. I very much enjoyed the "non-Dramaten-feeling" of the script/delivery from the actors. Was the whole step-away-from-the-Beck-vibe a conscious direction you took, and how did you go about it?

2. In terms of the vintage lenses, how on earth did you fit all the accessories on there? Seems like a tight fit!

3. Without spoling anything for anyone, I believe I spotted a few hommages to a variety of classic films embedded in The Unthinkable. if my observation is correct, do I win a cookie? Preferably a dammsugare, I love those.

[fuzzynormal]

4 hours ago, Linus N said:

An additional "WHAT?!" factor, on top of the lens choices, is that they shot the entire thing in FS7:s internal XAVC-I codec except for some green/blue screen work where they went with raw.

Typically, for me, it's confusing when people assume impressive IQ requires being shot on RAW or some other "fat" codec.  Great images come from production design, set design, cinematography, and lighting...even storytelling context.

The thing is,  you can easily capture that with 8-bit.  RAW allows more latitude in grading, but if the material is captured right to begin with, you're good.

I have stuff I shot in 2010 on thin 8-bit that looks considerably better than some stuff I shot last month on ProRes.  Heck, I have HDV that is more impressive.  Depends on what and how you're shooting.

I wonder if EOS member Danell would agree or disagree to that?

I'm reminded of some indy doc that came out a year or so ago, and it was lauded as a neat achievement because the whole thing was shot and captured with hacked RAW -- and that's saying something when it comes to doc filming.  And it was cool that a small crew could do that...but then when you actually saw what they shot and how they colored it, one couldn't help but scratch their head and think, "well, why did you go through all that trouble then?"  It looked terribly average.  Bad lighting and odd grading.  A better shooter and colorist, even if they only had 8-bit to work with, could be wildly more accomplished than what those guys did.

FWIW, I just shot with the FS7.  I liked it enough, but I wasn't doing anything demanding of it.  For the task I put it to, it didn't look much better or worse than my GH5.  And, actually, in it's standard color profile I thought the highlight roll off of the FS7 actually looked rather unimpressive.

[mercer]

@fuzzynormal although I agree with the sentiment of your reply, I could argue... what would that the indie doc have looked like if it wasn’t shot on Raw?

 

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

@fuzzynormalwhat would that the indie doc have looked like if it wasn’t shot on Raw?

Well, I'd say it could've looked better with someone more adept at grading, tbh.  Obviously, a 5D RAW hack or other RAW cams look freaking awesome when in the right (very patient) hands, though.

I wish I could remember the title of the film.  I just remember seeing it and thinking it was harsh, sharp, and  just ... odd.  So much detail, clarity, vibrance that people looked botchy and unnatural.  There's a few post-production recipes I use to make people look flattering in interviews and other shots --and this footage was absolutely doing the opposite of that.

I do recall reading the filmmakers efforts on the post-process in an interview article.  They were dealing with tons of data, eeking out every last drop from the 5dIII, futzing with post for a year, and then when I looked at the final result I felt like they dang near killed themselves for pretty much no good reason.

Any chance anyone knows the doc movie I'm thinking about?  

Point is, RAW's great.  It'll help you do a lot of things and give you room to fix mistakes, but if you get what you need in camera, you're pretty good.

 

[Linus N]

6 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Typically, for me, it's confusing when people assume impressive IQ requires being shot on RAW or some other "fat" codec.  Great images come from production design, set design, cinematography, and lighting...even storytelling context.

The thing is,  you can easily capture that with 8-bit.  RAW allows more latitude in grading, but if the material is captured right to begin with, you're good.

I agree with you, especially considering FS RAW which I'm not very fond of myself (Alister Chapmans write-up http://www.xdcam-user.com/tag/fs7-12-bit/). However, I was surprised when they mentioned XAVC-I (and a7SII XAVC-S) was used instead of some high end flavor of DNxHD or ProRes - or raw in such a VFX and grade heavy production  point being that Crazy P really curated the cinematography to fit within their technical limitations.

and I believe this is the indie doc you're referring to https://***URL not allowed***/sea-gypsies-a-feature-documentary-shot-on-the-canon-5d3-and-magic-lantern-raw/

[Django]

For what its worth XAVC-I on FS7 is a pretty fat 10-bit/422 intra codec with bitrates up to 600Mbps...

[Danell]

11 hours ago, Linus N said:

1. One thing I found very intriguing was the non-Swedish-movie factor of your film. With this I'm referring to script, compositions, audio, sfx, vfx, camera movements, blocking, dialogue etc.. I very much enjoyed the "non-Dramaten-feeling" of the script/delivery from the actors. Was the whole step-away-from-the-Beck-vibe a conscious direction you took, and how did you go about it?

2. In terms of the vintage lenses, how on earth did you fit all the accessories on there? Seems like a tight fit!

3. Without spoling anything for anyone, I believe I spotted a few hommages to a variety of classic films embedded in The Unthinkable. if my observation is correct, do I win a cookie? Preferably a dammsugare, I love those.

1. Thank you! I really appreciate this. We don't really think so mush about this, we just do films the way we like to watch films ourself. (and we don't watch a lot of Beck) 

2. It wasn't that hard. I attach some BTS stills of the camera

3. Of course! Easter eggs from most of my favorite films can be spotted in the movie. I'll send you a dammsugare if you can spot homages to The lord of the rings, Jurassic Park, Lost and Home Alone.

 

I think this is the numbers you are looking for:

120 shooting days
79 hours of raw material
420 vfx shots
19 crashed cars
Over 1000 extras
360 000 liter rain
3 broken bones
82 locations
3000 liter coffee
7 liter fake blood

 

[Danell]

12 hours ago, mjfan said:

did you have just one camera? which camera settings did you use? what did you do for sound? thanks and great job!

We used the Sony FS7 for 95% of the shots, and a Sony A7s mkII for the rest. Mostly when shooting in tight spaces, crash-cam stuff and the few times we needed more then 1 camera. 

Everything is shot in SLOG3, XAVC-I, 23,976 fps. (24fps wasn't available when we started shooting)

This is the sound gear we used:
- Recorder: Sound Devices 688
- Wireless: Wisycom MCR42, MTP30
- Mics: Sennheiser MKH50, Neumann KMR81, DPA Microphones 4060, 4098, 4018
- Timecode: Ambient Recording GmbH Timecode Link and ACD301.

[Danell]

If anyone is interested in the VFX of the movie, you can take a look at this BTS/Breakdown:

 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Wow! Thanks for the details!

[zerocool22]

What lenses did you use most? Or what were the favorite lenses you used? Not surprised about going the vintage route, allthough I would have gone for more pricyer vintage lenses like the contax or summicrons. What was the decision criteria there? Budget or specific looks? And surely impressed how good you made the FS7 look

[Danell]

15 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

What lenses did you use most? Or what were the favorite lenses you used? Not surprised about going the vintage route, allthough I would have gone for more pricyer vintage lenses like the contax or summicrons. What was the decision criteria there? Budget or specific looks? And surely impressed how good you made the FS7 look

Budget + look. We could afford more expensive lenses, but the look of the Russians were exactly what we wanted for this project. Together with the oval iris we added to all of the lenses they looked like vintage lenses, but without the cost, weight and headache that comes with real anamorphics. 

 

I think my favorite lens was the Helios 44-2 together with Richard Gale's wide angle adapter. The character is out of the world! 

[Django]

@Danell  what resolution did you guys shoot on with the FS7?

[Turboguard]

Swedish expat here living in NYC. When and where can I watch this?! My best friend back in Stockholm saw it at the premiere and he said it was the best swedish movie he had ever seen.

[mercer]

10 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Well, I'd say it could've looked better with someone more adept at grading, tbh.  Obviously, a 5D RAW hack or other RAW cams look freaking awesome when in the right (very patient) hands, though.

I wish I could remember the title of the film.  I just remember seeing it and thinking it was harsh, sharp, and  just ... odd.  So much detail, clarity, vibrance that people looked botchy and unnatural.  There's a few post-production recipes I use to make people look flattering in interviews and other shots --and this footage was absolutely doing the opposite of that.

I do recall reading the filmmakers efforts on the post-process in an interview article.  They were dealing with tons of data, eeking out every last drop from the 5dIII, futzing with post for a year, and then when I looked at the final result I felt like they dang near killed themselves for pretty much no good reason.

Any chance anyone knows the doc movie I'm thinking about?  

Point is, RAW's great.  It'll help you do a lot of things and give you room to fix mistakes, but if you get what you need in camera, you're pretty good.

 

Idk, Raw isn’t just about color grading. Sure the 12 or 14bit color helps display the nuances that are captured within different textures, but even a simple Rec709 conversion would benefit from Raw.

I don’t know if the doc you’re referring to is that Sea Gypsies one mentioned earlier, but if it is... I thought it looked amazing. It’s all in the details.

[mjfan]

Thanks! Which monitors did you use?