some screen grabs from new film

wardanthony

wardanthony

Member
yeah i'm still editing but here are some grabs from my new film. well it was actually just a scene for my production class but whatever

feel free to comment on anything! :)

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h67/blackenbmx02_photos/PDVD_114.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h67/blackenbmx02_photos/PDVD_117.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h67/blackenbmx02_photos/PDVD_121.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h67/blackenbmx02_photos/PDVD_124.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h67/blackenbmx02_photos/PDVD_126.jpg

i tried to post the html code for these stills but it didnt work:/
 
Last edited:
Good for you for doing something in camera and having to make an image-altering decision when you don't have endless hours to play with it in post. To many people here seem to be afraid to do that. I like the look.

I could stand to see the detail lowered a bit. These look over-sharpened.
 
William_Robinette said:
Good for you for doing something in camera and having to make an image-altering decision when you don't have endless hours to play with it in post. To many people here seem to be afraid to do that. I like the look.

I could stand to see the detail lowered a bit. These look over-sharpened.
Click to expand...

thanks man! yeah i'm not too big on image editing... well solely for the purpose that my magic bullet program doesn't work that great on my computer, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for me, its forced me to try in-camera adjustments if i want to get a certain look. plus its fun

detail wise, i couldn't agree with you more. I'll have that in mind for the next time i shoot
 
Try and get it in camera.... it takes guts and forces you to make the hard descisions..... to say "Do it in post", sometimes gives you too many options ad you can get obsessed with colorcorrection instead of editing.
 
I think that you people are giving this guy some dangerous advice. "Do it all in camera. Permanently affect your footage so that it is impossible to change!" I don't see how making gutsy, irreversible decisions when it isn't necessary helps a filmmaker. If you shoot it clean, well exposed, and balanced, then you can do anything you want to the footage with optimal results. There's no reason to limit the options, everyone can agree decisions are the core of filmmaking, but the flexibility in making them is the important part.
 
Last edited:
agold4me said:
I think that you people are giving this guy some dangerous advice. "Do it all in camera. Permanently affect your footage so that it is impossible to change!" I don't see how making gutsy, irreversible decisions when it isn't necessary helps a filmmaker. If you shoot it clean, well exposed, and balanced, then you can do anything you want to the footage with optimal results. There's no reason to limit the options, everyone can agree decisions are the core of filmmaking, but the flexibility in making them is the important part.
Click to expand...

cannot be overstated. Unless there is no other way, shot clean.

Things like exposure/gamma can the played with and are good to do in camera, but NEVER mess with the colours. We live in a digital world. When you shoot dirty like this you are losing data that you will never get back. Shoot clean colour, adjust in post unless absolutely nessesary.

Also your highlights look like garbage, because they are saturated off white. If you had shot clean you could have adjusted the curves as to saturate the colours outside of the highlight and shadow regions to have a more natural look. congratulations.
 
What I don't understand is why the images are pixelated. What camera did you use? Did you resize the images at any point? If so, how? You used the DVX. If so, you must have resized it wrongly at a point. Oops, we're all learning, aren't we?

Yes, it's usually better to shoot clean and color later. And yes, that approach requires more time.
 
Never do in camera. People always say to me that I lack a vision if I shoot for optimal options in post. I'd rather say the opposite. I have a strong vision and noncorrected footage doesn't distrub me while editing, because I know how it will look in the end.

Your inner eye is always active, or else you shouldn't make movies.
So, do things in post but work out your vision before shooting.
A color tint is always better to do in post, while colored light is best to do on location (due to the balance between the colored lights). Just be carefull with pure red light.
When I did an "alarm" sequence in one of my movies, I used white light 3200k, instead of pure red. In post I changed it to red and the quality became much better then if I'd used red on location. If you use red light, it will become pixlated and bleed.
 
Glazarus, that's a great idea for how to deal with pure red light! However, I think that the flak that this guy is getting over shooting with a tint is abit unjustified. I mean everyone has their own way of doing things, and if it works for them that's great. I mean hollywood does that with film, even thoguh they have an option for a DI, they still try to capture fancy effects on film itself: Look at Saving Private Ryan or Sunshine - alot of the looks were done in camera.
 
Of course, if it works for him thats great. But don't say you weren't warned when footage is messed up ;)

As for Private Ryan and Sunshine. It gets abit different when you work with 35m then with video. Because of clipping, video shouldn't be lit for a good image, but for good dynamic range and then brought down to nice looking levels. Also, Private Ryan got it's effect through high shutterspeed, there's nothing really special about that one, but it's an effect that is impossible to do in post, so I wont argue against that one.
 
seunosewa said:
What I don't understand is why the images are pixelated. What camera did you use? Did you resize the images at any point? If so, how? You used the DVX. If so, you must have resized it wrongly at a point. Oops, we're all learning, aren't we?

Yes, it's usually better to shoot clean and color later. And yes, that approach requires more time.
Click to expand...

yes i shot it on a dvx but some how i screwed up the stills at one point and they became a bit pixelated. its probably from when i was uploading it to photobucket or something.
 
Glazarus said:
Never do in camera. People always say to me that I lack a vision if I shoot for optimal options in post. I'd rather say the opposite. I have a strong vision and noncorrected footage doesn't distrub me while editing, because I know how it will look in the end.

Your inner eye is always active, or else you shouldn't make movies.
So, do things in post but work out your vision before shooting.
A color tint is always better to do in post, while colored light is best to do on location (due to the balance between the colored lights). Just be carefull with pure red light.
When I did an "alarm" sequence in one of my movies, I used white light 3200k, instead of pure red. In post I changed it to red and the quality became much better then if I'd used red on location. If you use red light, it will become pixlated and bleed.
Click to expand...

i hear lots of arguements whether to do in camera adjustments or to do it in post. I guess i try to do a combo for the sake of learning but even in my production class at sva, we are told that getting the majority of the look in post is "unprofessional", but is challenged in my editing class where they are telling me that the post production part is key to the look. idk, i guess its a difference of personal opinion over what would work best?
 
Like most things in filmmaking it boils down to money. The post effects guys are going to tell you to shoot clean and work with the footage in post, because they want their jobs! Everytime a director says "we'll fix it in post" that means the budget just went up because the DP didn't know what he was doing on set or did not have the ingenuity to fix a problem. Cinematographers (good ones at least) know the look they are trying to achieve pre-production on. They have the vision in their heads and they have the knowledge of their equipment to recreate it. If the great cinematographers just shot "clean" footage we would call them strictly camera operators and technicians. But they didn't just shoot safe clean footage, and thats why we had so many great breakthroughs in style, genre, and technique pre-digital era. Think of still photographers. There use to be a time (before Photoshop) where photographers had to decide "in camera" how the image they wanted to create would develop by what settings they chose, which film, what light. They couldn't go back and tweak it. They had to know what they were trying to achieve and understand how to make the available equipment deliver. These were truly great artists, sure they could make some changes in the darkroom, but nothing like the changes you can do now in the digital age. Is that a good thing? I like the idea that you learn how your equipment performs on set. I like knowing that an image that I capture was done real time, thats magic. If you have ever waited to have film developed before you saw the photos, then you know what I mean. It's gutsy relying on what you know and then seeing that vision come to life. Man, am I rambling on....:lipsrseal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top