|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:http://vimeo.com/4378163?pg=embed&sec= speaking of the 5dmkII, here's one of the nicer pieces of video I've seen shot on it yet Ouhh, it was a mistake to watch this with a migraine.
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
What do you use china balls for? The only lighting I've ever done was with a couple desk lamps and some wax paper.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 07:34
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:China balls are good sources of soft lighting. Really good for people's faces. Ah, so it's pretty much exactly what I thought it would be. I remember a lot of references to them when I was studying Eyes Wide Shut, which makes sense; this was the same film that used boards of Christmas lights as ambient lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:An even cheaper way to create a similar effect is to use something we call Antlers... Isn't this basically what the original Steadicam was, except back to front instead of side to side?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2009 08:28
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:Feel free to knock me off of my cloud and rip me a new rear end in a top hat. Ok. It's not very good. The pacing feels really off, for one thing. The first two scenes are fairly slow, and then all of a sudden a climax, and then the last scene has far too much of him walking for the sudden appearance of the lottery ticket to have its effect. The acting isn't bad, so there's no big fault there. Most of the shots were just way too tight, especially in the bus stop scene. I got a pretty severe "film student" vibe from a few things: the obnoxious placement of the lotto ticket in the first scene (not to mention the subsequent zoom), the awkward handling of the thief overhearing their conversation in the liquor store (the viewer is given absolutely no clues that this is the case, and I'm actually just assuming that it is), and the student-film-y knife fight. Also UGH NON-ANAMORPHIC. Well, try again, you can only go up from here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Yeah, definitely. And I'd either put lots of focus on the thief in the store, or none at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 15:19
|
|
|
Yeah, there's really no spatial connection. If we were given a close-up of him looking, then a shot of what's-his-face and that-other-guy at the counter, we'd make the connection. As it is, you might as well just cut him out and make the robbery just bad luck, which is understandable. That brings up another problem: there should be more happening to this guy, eventually culminating in the robbery. It feels too one-off and small, and it would be much funnier if, say, he were to go out, step in a puddle, walk into a lamp-post, tear his jacket on a nail, run into an angry ex-girlfriend, and then be robbed. It would really drive the point home when the ticket shows up at the end. However, this isn't something that can be solved with editing, so I don't know why I'm blathering on about it. In any case, either give the guy more screen time in the store or cut him out completely. It probably doesn't help that we never really see the guy when he's robbing him, if you have any shots of his face, then giving him more time in the store would give us an association; if we never see his face, then why bother giving him more time in the store? We won't make the connection.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
What're some good tricks for use during shooting? I'm thinking of things like using mirrors in a cramped environment to get a shallow focus shot (this being on the scale of student film).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2009 12:10
|
|
|
Aaaaah didn't see that one coming.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
Andraste posted:Worse things have happened on a film set, and if it's good enough that someone wants to buy it I doubt they'll care whether you had a state-registered studio teacher.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 07:46
|
|
|
I'm going to be shooting on an HV30 in a couple weeks and I was wondering if HD DV tapes were actually necessary for an HD camera? People have told me it is and some people have told me it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 09:09
|
|
|
I kind of thought so, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
You met Garrett Brown?  I've always wanted to see the film he made for his prototype Steadicam. Also, I've probably posted it before but nothing proves that equipment doesn't equal quality quite like Weaver's Rock (being that it's shot with a Red).Also: what exactly does a polarizing lens do?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Brown's commentary for The Shining is also excellent.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJnDY_EmF0 Wow, that trailer told me almost nothing about the film, though I do feel well-acquainted with the main character.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 01:03
|
|
|
So I made a short film, To Answer Your Question... (part one, part two). I'm not thrilled with it, but I learned a lot. It's not on the same level as most of the stuff posted in here, but it is in HD, and that makes it a better movie, right? 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
But if Robert Altman did it then I can too right? Right? I guess it probably doesn't help that there are three zoom shots in a row towards the end.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
This is seriously the best ten dollars I've ever spent.Steadiman posted:In general there were a lot of lighting/iris inconsistencies, even in the same shots, so I think this could do with another round of CC to bring all the levels in line. An example where it's very obvious is in the closeup of the girl right before she steps in front of the blown out window. In one shot she's pretty dark, you cut to the guy and then back to the same shot but now it's almost a full stop lighter. That's very sloppy! That was really dumb of me. While we were shooting, it went from dark and rainy to bright and sunny in about twelve seconds, but I was so wrapped up in trying to get her dialogue right that it just kind of passed over my head. The sudden change in stops is me trying to fix it in post, which never works. Steadiman posted:I hope you'll be more thrilled with the next one you do! I hope so too! I'm not too hard on myself, I figure I'm still a student and making mistakes is, for the time being, my job. I think a lot of what you talked about comes down to me not being aware enough on-set.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Paul Thomas Anderson is just going to love this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
It was also one of the first to stream in HD, and it's possibly got a little more prestige over YouTube.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
If anything, look up the lens model names on Youtube, you'll probably be able to find a few test videos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
You're sort of betraying the sunny location with your color grading, it's a little foreboding and overcast (and doesn't match the upbeat music). At 2:56 you have the photo of the building against the blue sky, which looks more Boca Raton-like than most of your video, which is very warm and humid (as opposed to warm and breezy). Maybe that's what you're going for, but it's sort of offputting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:An old concept in film and television (non stage, non sitcom) lighting is if you show a practical light source, the audience is far more likely to believe other lights coming from nowhere... This post is really interesting and somehow more informative than every chapter I've read on lighting in all three film classes I've taken. Are there any books you can suggest on this subject? Maybe I've just had bad textbooks - the why of techniques is more telling than "because I say so". The first thing I thought of was A Clockwork Orange, which was shot on a relatively tiny budget with cheap lighting, which is matched by the world of the film (decorated with en vogue bare-bulbs and spotlights, allowing for the cheap light kit). Eyes Wide Shut uses its Christmas setting in a similar way - I don't think I've seen any production photos from that film that don't involve a million china balls.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
SquareDog posted:I was disappointed that our IMAX 3D wasn't aligned vertically correctly making for a viewable but uncomfortable 3D experience. I had a similar (in theme) experience seeing The Avengers in 2D - the theater was obviously screening one half of a 3D film file (dark and blurry!). The only reason I didn't complain was because I figured I'd have a similar conversation. Maybe I should have, it would have been interesting to see how far I would've had to go before someone understood what I was talking about (ushers, probably not, box office, probably not, manager, probably - would there even have been a projectionist in the booth?).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 07:35
|
|