Shallow DoF shots without M2

and some just distract , if those zits are meant to be a part of the character and reasons why he acts a certain way, then the are good, but i dont need to seriously want to throw up seeing a 3 foot zit projected on the big screen
 
I think those shots look good. I am a fan on the stock lens and zooming in as well... I think some of these adapters give a strange look to some shots... though if used well, they can look fantastic.
 
Cynic821 said:
and some just distract , if those zits are meant to be a part of the character and reasons why he acts a certain way, then the are good, but i dont need to seriously want to throw up seeing a 3 foot zit projected on the big screen
Click to expand...

Kind of a silly argument. If the zit is gonna be three feet when blown up then dialing down the detail ain't gonna do any good. In a more controlled setting, one puts make up on the actors but trying to blur the image to avoid blemishes strikes me as silly as putting valesine on the lense. Besides, like I said, I love a good and detailed face. Look at Sin City. The guys have incredibly detailed mugs and the women are silky smooth not for a lack of detail but from well done make-up.
 
It was meant to be silly to lighten up the mood a bit, and the looks of the actors in Sin City have to do with the story/setting/feel of the movie.
 
To be honest, all the M2+HVX+DVX footage i've seen, except for the desert shots with :) girl, looked too soft. And to the owners of M2, how long are you gonna fool youself that the M2 footage looks presentable? Come on! Just look at your old footage without the m2. POINT MADE!

PS. ZOOM + FOCUS > M2
 
Brandon Rice said:
screenshots my friend, lol
Click to expand...


thats really sad. on principle, not because im a zealot for it. What about its content do you not want to see?

i mean i know its not too interesting , like a bible smuggler, but what is it about it?
 
Brandon Rice said:
screenshots my friend, lol
Click to expand...
There is an inherent problem judging the look of moving pictures based on screenshots. It takes more than a moment frozen in time to understand a shot in the context of which it's shot.
 
Blaine said:
There is an inherent problem judging the look of moving pictures based on screenshots. It takes more than a moment frozen in time to understand a shot in the context of which it's shot.
Click to expand...

Thats like saying youve watched citizen kane because you saw a screen of Rosebud.
 
Cynic821 said:
thats really sad. on principle, not because im a zealot for it. What about its content do you not want to see?
Click to expand...

Don't want to really get into it... if you really wanna know, shoot me off a PM.
 
Cynic821 said:
Originally Posted by Blaine
There is an inherent problem judging the look of moving pictures based on screenshots. It takes more than a moment frozen in time to understand a shot in the context of which it's shot.


Thats like saying youve watched citizen kane because you saw a screen of Rosebud.
Click to expand...

Ummm....we'ren't you just judging the pictures I posted a second ago for having too much facial detail. All well and good but consistency is nice.

And I'm really curious why the hate for Sin City.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top