|
What books (or any other resources) would y'all recommend on cinematography and/or lighting?
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll probably get all of those. I have some experience with video cameras (I can use manual settings and such) and cinematography, but I'm pretty sure that I lack a lot of basic knowledge. If there are any other good books, whether basic or advanced, feel free to throw them out because I love reading about film and such.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
I liked how the shots took advantage of shooting of a 7D. I think a lot of times when people use video on DSLR they don't pay enough attention to their shots and just use it like any other camera, just with a really shallow depth of focus. It seemed like your angles and shots were a lot more photographic (that really doesn't mean anything, but oh well). The shots were ones that worked well with shallow DoF and the DSLR feel. If you pause the movie at almost any point, it looks like a well planned photograph. I wasn't a huge fan of the title screen, but that may just be me. I get that it's a parody of Dexter (which I admittedly have never seen), but I think the font put me off a little. Is the shower shot in slow motion? It seems like it, and to me it doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. I also think the flow would be improved by staying on the shot with the blood falling on the shower floor a little longer. It cuts away kind of quickly. Other than that, I thought maybe the focus felt a little weird in the shot when he wipes away the jelly, but it works as is. These are really little things. On the whole I thought it was shot wonderfully, and was a great little short that kept my attention for every second. I loved the shot of the plate in the sink. This isn't a critique, but what was up with that glass? Looks like someone beat the poo poo out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2009 16:19
|
|
|
I definitely agree with the depth of field comments, having seen Avatar in 3D IMAX last night. I was actually talking to my friends how some shots felt really weird with the shallow DoF. 3D just doesn't work that well with film-style cinematography - the way you arrange lighting and shape the image is more like a photograph. With 3D, it takes the fixed perspective to another level. You are looking through something instead of at it, and so it becomes more important to make the visuals realistically consistent. It feels like you can't use lighting, focus etc. as freely for aesthetic purposes as with 2d. That said, I'm really glad it was in 3D. Even if there were flaws, I had a lot more fun with it in 3D than I think I would have if I saw it in 2D. I hope that 2D doesn't die out. I hope that 3D and 2D can coexist. It seems that they both have equally good applications to different movies. Avatar, in my opinion, is great in 3D, but I think a movie like A Serious Man (random example) or something is much better in 2D - I think using cinematography "artistically" (being able to more freely use elements of cinematography to create different looks) to convey mood and tell the story is more critical in a movie like that. In a movie like Avatar, being able to see into the movie, even if you don't get the freedom, makes the movie comparatively more enjoyable, especially with all the shots of huge valleys and floating island and such. But overall, I'm just excited to see where the technology goes. Hopefully not to film students. As long as I'm writing a shitload, I do think some of the CGI, mostly the gay cat folk, did seem a little too shiny, but the facial expressions and the creation of Pandora I thought looked wonderful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2009 22:59
|
|