|
I'm not a fan of the 3d stuff for a lot of reasons, and a big one being that the technology just isn't there yet. Also, if you watch movies that were made for 3d in 2d it's glaringly obvious which scenes were meant to be seen in 3d, and without the effect they are just boring shots without much going on; their whole point is to get you excited and "ohmygosh i feel like I'm falling" or something else as similarly stupid.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Andraste posted:Also, if you watch movies that were made for 3d in 2d it's glaringly obvious which scenes were meant to be seen in 3d, and without the effect they are just boring shots without much going on; their whole point is to get you excited and "ohmygosh i feel like I'm falling" or something else as similarly stupid. As Reichstag said the best thing 3d can be used for is immersion. I'm sure the'll always be the "woow the knifes coming right at me" in 3d films, but i'm also sure that if it does become more mainstream and good directors start using it more then it will mostly just be used for the immersion factor (also for tripping out stoners.) I think 3d used properly really does give filmmakers a lot more tools they can uses to tell their stories, sure some of them are gimmicky and proabably best not used most of the time, but others could be really useful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
Reichstag posted: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. 3d is still fighting its way out of the carnival/gimmick tradition it's always been used in but the last few years have been very exciting as people are discovering how to best use this new dimension. For years now filmmakers have been doing their best to add depth to a 2 dimensional picture using nothing but camera movement to suggest the third dimension. Now we can actually have that third dimension readily available to us which invariably will lead to some abuse as it finds its place. It's really neat but also a slow process of discovery as people figure out how to best shoot and edit this stuff without murdering the audience and sending them puking through the aisles in a glorious chain reaction of chunks, while still keeping it visually exciting. A fine balance indeed. Shooting 3d means the filmmaker has to walk a very fine line all the time, not only in the compositional choices but in editing as well. My biggest fear is when the enthusiastic amateur or vlogger or, God forbid, the film student finally gets their hand on this stuff. Imagine all the horrors contained on YouTube...in 3d! I'll let that one sink in for a while, have fun. Andraste posted:I'm not a fan of the 3d stuff for a lot of reasons, and a big one being that the technology just isn't there yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:23
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:
So I'll start out saying I haven't looked that much into this Disney Real3D or whatever it's called; but it's the technology every 3d film has used recently. But basically for 3d you need to have one eye looking at one picture, and the other eye looking at the same picture from a slight angle. So we wear glasses that limit each eye's ability to only see half the image (usually a vertical/horizontal setup). So you can only see half resolution on each image. and if you start flashing the images in complete resolution you only get half the fps. I've also noticed issues with having difficulty focusing on the proper depth of the image to see the 3rd clearly in fast sequences. Feel free to correct and enlighten me, but watching movies in 3d has not been enjoyable for me; there is too much effort involved to watch what is happening. TLDR you are either watching in half fps or half resolution, can't ever have both. (because our theatres are not running 2 projection setups) Andraste fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 09:17
|
|
|
Reichstag posted: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. Maybe this means that the super wide depth of field will come back in to style? It's like the 40's all over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 10:13
|
|
|
Andraste posted:(because our theatres are not running 2 projection setups) I thought there were theaters running dual projection setups though? (or did I just imagine that)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 14:44
|
|
|
I saw it in 2D because my hometown theater is not equipped for the 21st century and boy was it annoying. Half of the movie was blurry and soft focused from double exposure that they clearly did their best to get rid of but it wasn't enough. I also thought the CGI looked like poo poo but that's another story. I'm really hoping this movie tanks because I hate 3D and I want it dead and buried for good this time. Of course it'll become the norm and 2D will now be reserved only for weird art films and lovely pretentious student productions like B&W is now and I'll be some outdated old codger who pines for the days when cinema was pure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:I also thought the CGI looked like poo poo but that's another story. Ah SA, home of hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
Maybe it was the lack of 3D or just a bad print but to me it looked like every other big CG action movie that came out in the last 5 years and didn't even come close to the hype. But what the gently caress do I know I'm just a goon. On something not related to Avatar, as far as renting lights do you guys prefer to go to DPs who have packages available for rental or to a rental house itself? Do you just go by word of mouth as for what places are good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
AT AFM a couple of years ago the DGA was allllll about 3D. It's weird to see alot of it coming to fruition now and how the experience is really something to get excited about and get to a theatre. I think we're a ways away from another you have to see it in 3d in the theatre like Avatar is but I'm sure it will come. There was one shot that really bothered me. It was when Sam's avatar rode in on the big bird, and the bird was in the background out of focus, and they were talking about the drat bird, and the bird was moving. And my eye went to the bird for the beat and it remained out of focus. Whats interesting is re-watching all the Jurassic Park movies in 1080p and correlating some of the running through the jungle atmospheric shots with what I just saw in Avatar. I remember JP being the big thing to see when it came out and I can see why it worked and what they did to update in a 3D environment. and oh jebus.... student film 3D... no no no.... *whimper*
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I don't think 3d in student films is something anyone needs to worry about. To shoot 3d you need a 2 camera, calibrated setup, and I don't think that's something that will be focused on in student production classes. They are more focused on learning the basics and how to run a set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 10:38
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:AT AFM a couple of years ago the DGA was allllll about 3D. If you don't mind me asking, why were you at AFM?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
An interesting article came across Reddit a few days ago concerning the "film look" and how it relates to depth of field. It's here. I'm not sure I agree with most of it, particularly rack and shallow focus being 'lazy,' but I'd like to hear some of yous guys' thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:If you don't mind me asking, why were you at AFM? I work for my state film commission. Sometimes I get to go when everyone else is busy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 05:27
|
|
|
The Affair posted:An interesting article came across Reddit a few days ago concerning the "film look" and how it relates to depth of field. It's here. I get what he's saying, but it sounds like the author has a selective eye. He sees what he wants to see. He chose some great shots to represent what you can do with a huge DoF, but it has to do with what you want your audience looking at. Using a shot of George Clooney with a burning car behind him in focus as an example is weird to me. why on earth would that shot be in a shallow DoF, the whole point of the shot is to see Clooney AND the car. Shallow DoF is used to get the viewers attention on one thing, are there other ways of getting the audience to look at what you want? sure. is shallow DoF overused to gain a "movie feel"? maybe. Can it be used very effectively and look good? hell yes. I don't think you can say "stop being lazy indie film makers", it's a silly thing to get your panties in a knot about. Instead, just appreciate when film makers like Tarsem do something unique with composition, lines and color to draw your focus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 13:34
|
|
|
It's also potentially really expensive to get that much light in the shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:It's also potentially really expensive to get that much light in the shot. Ultimately its still story telling though - to say that long lens photography is 'ruining' or 'cheapening' film making is kind of like lamenting the use of soft light because its easier then classic hard light techniques. Just different styles and different looks for different scripts. For example the bourne movies wouldn't look shot wide open, nor would No country for old men look as good if you didn't get a sense of the space. I'd love to shoot everything in an 18-32 range if i could, but it requires better lenses and far more money, so longer focal lengths are used far more often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
I can't remember where I read the comment, but I tend to agree with the person that said shallow depth of field will soon be the latest overblown technique. Now that everyone can do shallow DOF everyone is going to, always, until everyone gets over the novelty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
The Affair posted:An interesting article came across Reddit a few days ago concerning the "film look" and how it relates to depth of field. It's here. That guy can rage against the machine all he wants, we're all slaves to what current audiences will accept no matter how illogical it is. The reason everyone is aiming for "film look" is not because it's technically better in any way. It's what audiences accept as quality. Deep focus may be a more interesting and challenging way to shoot, and you can go on for three paragraphs about it in your press package, but audiences will still equate it with small chip video. Until that paradigm shifts, you better risk sounding like a loving wank and demand the "creamiest bokeh" you can get because it actually will make a difference to distributors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Deep focus may be a more interesting and challenging way to shoot, and you can go on for three paragraphs about it in your press package, but audiences will still equate it with small chip video. That said - theres a reason why deep focus doesn't exist in mainstream film anymore: its far too distracting in color photography. In black and white it looks great since the only thing you can see are gradations of shadow. In color you now have a separate layer of depth so it overloads the eye. Even in movies shot on wide angles (Raising Arizona is a good example) there is still enough fall off to draw your attention to the focal point. With infinite dof that becomes quite hard. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Dec 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
SwedeRacer posted:This is a good point since shallow DOF costs a lot more money. Only on the bottom rung of filmmaking. Shallow DOF and tight FOV means less production design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Only on the bottom rung of filmmaking. Shallow DOF and tight FOV means less production design. Anyway, yes wider angles means more production design (I think i mentioned this same point 6/7 posts ago). However, since we're talking about 'the film look', which is to say relatively narrow focus, I'm assuming that people who can't achieve the look aren't using more expensive lenses and adapters. Once you have a couple thousand in your pocket you can get it, but otherwise the normal video look is fairly cheap and obviously amateur. So yes - only at the bottom rung of film making is my point true, but everyone above that should be able to achieve a filmic look anyway so there you go. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 16:56
|
|
|
I think it can look filmic and have a deep dof. It's the calculated camera movements and expert lighting, or just being shot on 35mm. That will make it look more filmic than a shallow dof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 21:31
|
|
|
I don't mean to say that it has to be bourne identity shallow - just that 35 has a natural fall off to give it that 'film look'. A wide shot on an hvx will hold everything in frame, from 2cm in front of the camera to 100 feet, in perfect focus. That and the way the camera responds to color and light make up a huge amount of the difference. Of course every single shot is 'glass first' though. If you have bad lenses the quality immediately suffers and the 'filmic look' becomes that much harder
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
Just finished working as a 2nd AC and Steadicam op on an independent feature a few weeks ago. A whole lot of fun and I learned tons. Looking forward to my next big shoot. This upcoming spring semester I will be in our advanced cinematography class where our awesomely cool french cinematography professor has secured us a Panavision 35mm camera with a Panahead and everything. I've been practicing on the cranks this semester and can't wait to roll some actual film soon. Our school has Fischer dolly already so we're set to shoot some poo poo. He also somehow managed to talk Fuji into giving us a couple rolls of their new film they just released (ETERNA Vivid 500, which looks incredible by the way). Along with that, we have a bunch of film from Kodak that he got as well. So what I've been trying to figure out is what to shoot on the film we have. Each student in the class gets 400 feet of 35mm and 400 feet of 16mm to shoot with, and we have to make a 30 second to 1 minute short. I'm aiming for the simplest story possible, so I don't get bogged down in the classic film student quagmire of overtelling something. I might be back here in a few weeks to pitch some ideas for you all if you're okay with that. I love getting feedback on my writing and to see what others think. It's also mostly why I want to become a camera op and not a writer :P
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Do something where it's about a college age boy who is an assassin that does drugs and knows weak looking kung-fu moves, and in the end it was just a dream. Also try to be too funny and too dramatic at the same time making it difficult for the audience to figure out what kind of movie they're watching. Don't forget to include licensed songs that you obviously don't have the rights to and use Papyrus for the titles and end credits followed by a lame dance sequence with your movie crew. It will be the ultimate student film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:It will be the ultimate student film. Don't forget the exaggerated and misplaced profanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
No, no, my favorite is the one where the guy is late for class so he darts out of bed, throws on his clothes, runs through the hallway, almost knocks over someone, and then, when he finally reaches the classroom door, he finds that class has been cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 01:56
|
|
|
Aaaaah didn't see that one coming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
haha, I could do my best to cram in all the cliche's and see what happens. but I would like your guys' eyes on the short I directed this fall - http://vimeo.com/7320034 There are number of things I didn't do so well on (as I'm not a director, but that was the assignment), but overall, I'm happy. My short was actually a lot of testing and workshopping of equipment and workflows for the independent feature I worked on. My biggest critique is my main actor's acting, and the opening scene's eyelines, which we didn't catch until post. Oh well. This is the first short I've really done. I had a great crew and it came together well. I busted my rear end for about a 1.5 months in pre-production to make my 2 day shooting schedule, but it paid off. ogopogo fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Dec 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:My biggest critique is my main actor's acting, and the opening scene's eyelines, which we didn't catch until post. Oh well. I'll second the critique on the lead, he really ACTED THE HELL OUT OF EVERYTHING. I AM ACTING AT YOU RIGHT NOW. ACTING. It worked in the first scene but he never let up. The kids were phenomenal though, especially the ones in the second scene. Great job with that. I found the camera work pretty exhausting. Next time, give us an establishing master shot, OTS, some arty rack focus job, anything to break up the pacing. Just going from CU to CU to CU gets very claustrophobic, even exterior. I felt like it was a play of feet and faces without a sense of setting. That extreme shadowy wide was great, but it felt out of place in the edit. Everything from his house INT onward was pretty much straight up underexposed. There's a difference between "noir" and "i can't see anything". That said, the production value was good, the score was good and the overall effort was very solid. Do more! also don't forget the car trunk POV shot for your cliche list, i love that one
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'll second the critique on the lead, he really ACTED THE HELL OUT OF EVERYTHING. I AM ACTING AT YOU RIGHT NOW. ACTING. It worked in the first scene but he never let up. The kids were phenomenal though, especially the ones in the second scene. Great job with that. I pretty much agree on everything, though I purposefully underexposed the last few scenes. We designed the lighting scheme so each scene is dark than the one that precedes it. For some reason, a lot of my classmates over light the hell out of everything, making it very obvious that they're lighting a scene, which bugs me. As someone who would like to DP someday, I much prefer being a hair underexposed than overexposed. The darkness was something I really wanted, and I think it conveys the emotion of the scene well enough. That said, it is darker than we realized because my editor cut on one of the new LED backlit MBP's that are really bright, which caused some problems. One a TV or on vimeo it does come off darker than expected. Definitely something I should have thought of in post, but that's why we do this - to learn  As far as masters and other wider shots, that came down to me simply not doing the absolute most important thing as a director - preparing a comprehensive shot list. i discussed at length the entirety of the short with my DP (who is also my brother) and i made the mistake of getting stuck on closeness, rather than a variety of shots. he urged me to shoot masters, but i chose not to in the interest of time and my own mindset (which was wrong, in the end). another lesson learned, as i definitely agree. We did shoot a lot of masters, but cut them in favor of getting closer to my characters. It was my call, and my responsibility. I now know to let people who know what they're doing to do their job. I didn't meddle as much as some people do, but I had a very specific vision and stuck to it, even though i should have listened to others in the end. And my actor...oh, Lou. Great guy, I accidentally gave him a note on a Scrooge like feel and he took it and ran. I kept telling him to cut the accent by 50 or 75%, but he never did as much as I wanted. But, when they work for meal/copy/credit, you just gotta do your best But yeah, this is why I like being behind the camera, and not working with those pesky actors. haha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 06:05
|
|
|
Theres a difference between preferring under exposed shots and not photographing a properly exposed image. The full range of exposures need to be in every shot. Go watch any Conrad Hall movie - there is something blown out, often a window or practical in the background, in every single shot. Also color correct more. You needed to up the contrast like whoa........and frame your close ups more on the axis. i felt like I was watching two people talk to the side of the camera - I want them looking almost straight at me so I can see their face. Typically I frame a CU so that the actor is looking more or less at a corner of the matte box for correct eyeline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 06:44
|
|
|
The kids were surprisingly decent, but it seems like a tough thing to try. First scene, I really wanted a wider shot showing the kids being yelled out. I know it's tough to do with kids, but it really felt needed. The second scene was solid, except for the reverse on the old man. It looked like he was indoors instead of outside. Even if it was what that location looked like, it could have been solved with a wider shot or by putting him somewhere better looking. Third scene was good, except for the acting on the other guy, but I did want a wider shot of him approaching. The last shot was a little dark too. Fourth scene, felt like unnecessary handheld stuff, but that's just my preference. Others mentioned the darkness. Even darkness needs little cuts of light here and there to define the space better. I like some of the work you did on the sound design, but some of it was a bit repetitive and most of it was far too loud. It's far better than most student films, which are usually just dead silence. Be careful of pops in sound between cuts, though. I noticed it most in the third scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 07:37
|
|
|
I'm curious about how using kids was for you. We had a little girl (9) in a short we did last semester, and we had huge issues with needing a studio teacher, we ended up not getting one because of cost, but because of that, we also can't send our project to any festivals. What did you guys do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 09:40
|
|
|
How are any festivals going to know you didn't have an on-set tutor? It's like that rule in some festivals where you need the have the festival be the debut of your piece. Unless your piece is very widely known, they're never going to check to see if it's been shown elsewhere before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 10:11
|
|
|
Any of yous guys been using third party plugins for slow-motion? I've gotten okay results out of Timewarp in AE, but I wonder if any of you have had good experiences with Twixtor. I know The Foundry makes a plugin called FurnaceCore for FCP that looks like it's got a lot of features for time-remapping, and other things, but it's damned expensive, just like everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Any of yous guys been using third party plugins for slow-motion? I've gotten okay results out of Timewarp in AE, but I wonder if any of you have had good experiences with Twixtor. Furnace is really good, but with any speed change solution, you're either going to get perfect results immediately (unlikely), or you'll need to do a lot of rotoscoping. Optical flow doesn't deal well with cross motion, so if your shot contains things moving at different speeds, or overlapping, you will need to separate them by hand so that the software understands it. There is really no way around this, other than just living with whatever results it gives you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Andraste posted:We had a little girl (9) in a short we did last semester, and we had huge issues with needing a studio teacher, we ended up not getting one because of cost, but because of that, we also can't send our project to any festivals. I gotta echo squaredog's confusion, how on earth could not having an on-set tutor affect whether you go to festival or not? Are you the producer on the project?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2009 01:20
|
|