|
As a still photographer with an interest in trying motion picture, I have to say the 5d MkII is looking amazing, just from looking at people's demos on youtube. Mostly as an opportunity to shoot mp with existing (and cheap) primes and a platform I'm familiar with, as opposed to learning to shoot with a different physical setup. Of course it's far out of my pricerange, and since I'm a Nikon guy (investment in lenses sucks), it's doubly frustrating since their video performance isn't as impressive.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2009 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Yeah, the Red produces some amazing goddamn stuff. Question: My friends and I are thinking of shooting a short film this summer (if we ever finish writing it), is it feasible to do it on next to no budget with only the following equipment available? -Sony VX2100 -2 wireless mics and one auxiliary (could handmake a boom for it I'm sure) -Laptop (not to imply processing power is an issue) with Vegas 7 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Jun 23, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
I just saw Avatar last night and I don't know where else to post this, so let's talk 3d itt for a moment. As far as I can tell, if 3d is adopted, it's a death knell for 'film style' photography. I don't mean because of any sort of resolution/editing/workflow type deal either. Watching the movie I just felt that there are so many components of traditional framing and composition that are just broken when presented in 3d. The most glaring to me is the use of depth of field in 3d. As I see it, the main benefit of 3d is immersion, pulling the audience into a scene. As such, anything that pulls them out of the illusion is bad, right? The single most distracting visual element throughout the movie was oof elements in the foreground. In a 2d image, oof foreground elements are part of a single plane and are an abstracted element of composition which can be used a number of helpful ways. In 3d however, you have to deal with giant abstract shapes being projected into the audiences' lap, which is certainly not subtle. Even mild separation between background and subject in closeups was distracting, because the dof in the shot does not mirror what the human eye would naturally create. The most impressive and useful 3d shots in the entire movie, to me, those that presented a scene with actual feelings of depth. One in particular had the head scientist in a corridor, doing something important in the foreground, behind her was the corridor. That is what I was looking at the whole time, the sense of depth there, in a non-jumper scene, was more immersive than any projected snowflakes in my lap or animal claw lashing out from the screen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2009 00:12
|
|