GH3 Beautiful Cinematic Image = Everyone MUST SEE

Status
Not open for further replies.
@dreallen - if your point was that Blair Witch was "cinematic" .... then no, I don't think you'll have convinced many folk here of that point.
 
stoneinapond said:
Yeah, all the movies you mention suck, money or not.....
Click to expand...
haha they sure do, but Blair Witch was smarter than the others. Lets not over intellectualise "cinematic". What looked cinematic in the 50's, was different in the 60's, 70-'s etc. Whatever looks good to me is cinematic, maybe not to anyone else. No-one has the patent on what is cinematic. So what if everyone is using flare, shooting into the sun, using shallow DOF and colour grading - what should they be doing ??? What do I like "cinematically" - Paris, Texas is all-time.
 
Blair Witch was certainly successful, and arguably smart, but it sure as h*ll didn't look good (in the context of the original post)!
 
The problem here is the term cinematic.

Some seem to think of it like a description or feeling like sexy or cool or stunning. In that case yeah I guess you could call just about anything cinematic. Some may think a dog turd on the grass looks cool but not everybody else. That doesn't mean it is a piece of art either just because one person thinks it looks funny.

Others seem to view the term cinematic like something physical or a standard to live by. You call a painting a painting because it is a painting. There are no interpretations of what it is. You cannot take a photograph and call it a painting because that would just be plain dumb. It clearly is a photograph.

Which meaning is correct here? Is cinematic more of a feeling or is it more of a physical medium. Or perhaps it is somewhere in between.

Yeah a painting is always a painting but is it always a great painting?
 
Ok...here's my take on the term "CINEMATIC" and why it causes such a conundrum when it relates to our discussions on the board. We are all film makers of varying fields and specialty. The majority are aspiring MOVIE makers. Big difference from still photography, documentary, or commercial videographers who must remain competitive on a pixel counting basis as corporations change their guidelines and desires based on the latest and greatest technologies to best suit their brands to be competitive on a daily basis. But the film maker...or the MOVIE maker has a little bit of wiggle room or creative license granted for the creation of a narrative scripted project. I don't know why. It's just what it is. Now we get caught up on these sites and forums allowing ourselves to be ensnared in various opinions on various cameras without really knowing which specific field or sub category the commenting shooter belongs to. And some work for major production houses where they can afford the luxury of thumbing their noses to indies. Or they simply comment based on ASSuming they are speaking to another major corporate shooter. Either way...we don't know who the hell we're talking to. Then there's the subject of loyalty. We all want to feel like the purchase we made was the best one in the world. And we LOVE what we have. We want to protect the virtue of what we have. But as we continue to engage each other we start to see all of the perks of this camera over that camera, 4k over HD, 1080i and 60p over 24p, full sensor over m43, hd over sd....and it goes on and on and on. Lest we not forget the EGO of the whole exchange. Scientifically we should all be shooting with a 4k Red Epic, Arri Alexa, or on 35mm Kodak Film. Then there are very little complaints. But in a budget conscious world where digital is taking the PLACE of film, we have chosen sides, entered the game, and begun our journey to make history in the new world of independent film. And in that world, a competitive visual phenomenon has begun called the "FILM LOOK". And this all mighty and coveted look can be achieved with a chefs mixture of post production, color correction, grading, grain, and graphics. All to assure ourselves that we have convincingly fooled the viewer/audience into believing not only the story we are telling but that there is no difference in the quality of what was shot on a camcorder than what Michael Bay used to shoot "Bad Boys"...lol. And that's a stretch but it is what it is. And we can get pretty damn close. Close enough to where distributors ask no questions and audiences continue to consume oblivious to the wrangling, hand wrenching, pixel deceptive, visual camouflage we undertake to follow our dreams and bring them great entertainment on a budget. So in conclusion...to ME the word CINEMATIC merely means "looks good enough stretched out on a big movie screen not to illicit complaints from the audiences who paid to see it".
 
Last edited:
My personal definition is simple and not far off the Merriam Webster definition...Relating to, suggestive of or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures.
In my mind the word has nothing to do with film in this day and age.
Movies are moving photographs combined with sound. Photos used to be primarily shot on film, now digital is the format. That is happening in motion as well...
If your images are moving photographs and have an artful quality, they are to me cinematic. A music video can be cinematic. A segment within a documentary can be cinematic. Even commercials can be cinematic. TV shows. Anything where one can witness the art of photos set to motion.

What isn't then? Reality TV, the news, live sports, and anything that doesn't present the image as art but merely as a vehicle for delivering entertainment.
 
If only people would focus their attention to "cinematic audio", the world would be a better place:)

As far as the OP and his opinion on the vintage video, I thought it was cool. well thought out. It had to many flares for my taste. When every shot has a lens flare, it actually takes away the flair and becomes insignifigant, pretty much like having shallow dof in every shot. Shot choice is as much a tool as the camera shooting it.

If the OP feels it's one of the best gh3 vids he's seen, thats cool, thats the beauty of cinematography. some like it, some don't. We as artists need to remember that this is art first and foremost, and we need to respect our fellow artists, when you don't, you wind up with films like "Transformers". And thats sad!!
 
I think this is cinematic... from "Luna and the Blue Meanies" a soon to be in production film...

9044251749_94b543764d.jpg
 
I knew when I seen the OP's title (before I opened the thread) that no matter how great or promising the clip was people were going to trash it or be dismissive of it in various ways. I like what maranfilms had to say...especially the last sentence (except I enjoyed "transformers" for what it was) :).
 
maranfilms said:
When every shot has a lens flare, it actually takes away the flair and becomes insignifigant, pretty much like having shallow dof in every shot. .
Click to expand...
So, when shooting into the sun don't have lens flare and use f22...is that what you're saying. I mean the one time you would EXPECT lens flare and shallow DOF is around sunset, don't you think - that's shooting for the conditions.
 
J.F.R. said:


Created by Hugo Goudswaard


Very rarely do I see something that makes me rethink what the heck I am doing, today is that day......... By far the most beautiful image imo that I have seen from the GH3.

The setting, concept, blocking, art design cinematography and color grading look amazing. Honestly this just showed me that in the right hands the GH3 can shine well beyond my expectation.
Click to expand...

I thought it looked soft and colors were washed out. Nice framing and camera movement but the image quality didn't impress me all that much.
 
Pure retardation. I can't even stomach these comments anymore. It's like you want to eat the frickin picture. QUALITY??? The quality of the piece is AMAZING! And cinematic. And most of the comments criticize it for being a little washed out or using lens flare or what the hell ever. I issue THIS challenge. Show this thread what YOU have done that's any better with this camera. PLEASE! Throw a link up and let us critique your mastery of the GH1/2/3 or the AF100. Other than that dude...really? Come on...really? From the first comment on the OP's opinion it was doomed to be criticized by a bunch of people who hate the Panny brand or haven't shot a single feature film. I'm serious...come on guys. Put your reels on the table. And they BETTER blow this clip away!
 
Ian-T said:
I knew when I seen the OP's title (before I opened the thread) that no matter how great or promising the clip was people were going to trash it or be dismissive of it in various ways.
Click to expand...
But as I read it, most people are "trashing" because of the thread title: "Beautiful Cinematic Image = Everyone MUST SEE"
It's as presumptuous (hope that`s the word, I'm no native speaker) as a title could be, isn`t it?
Why trying to sell something that much?
The titles "GH3: Nice retro grade" or "Great vintage clip shot on GH3" are not elegant, but would have been less "in your face" than what the OP chose to write.
This is DVXuser and even if very view here have probably shot a movie, it's still a critical mass when it comes to "opinions on movies".

On more thing: The modern cars in the background really distracted me. If you travel back to the 60s, leave your Prius at home.
 
dreallen said:
Pure retardation. I can't even stomach these comments anymore. It's like you want to eat the frickin picture. QUALITY??? The quality of the piece is AMAZING! And cinematic.
Click to expand...
Relax, it's not about the damn camera. The clip is nice, but it's not as good as what I expected. If you think it's a cinematic masterpiece fine, but that doesn't mean I have to agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top