Being Cinematic

Max Lamare said:
Question: What if you dont have all these lenses and stuff. I own a naked Canon HV30. So then what do i do?
Click to expand...

The best thing to do is follow the suggestions posted. Yes, you can not change the lenses on a HV30, but you do have a zoom lens on it. From what I have seen from a lot of folks using consumer grade camcorders is that they set the camera to the widest zoom setting and shoot everything as a medium shot or a medium long shot. With a fixed zoom lens camcorder, I have found that, usually, just shy of the mid point in the zoom range is a good "Normal" setting and try to use that for the majority of my shots. For close ups, I also like to go towards the long end of the zoom range. The longer focal lengths are usually more flattering for portraiture. With the small chip camcorders it is hard to get a good DOF, especially when compared to the larger sensor HD-DSLRs, so what I like to do is make sure that I am lighting to a level where I am working at near the widest aperture/iris settings (properly exposed of course), and shoot at the longer end of the zoom range. While this will not get you a DOF like a FF sensor HD-DSLR, or 35mm film, it does help, especially for portraiture.

The rest is doing the basics. Get a tripod and use it. For moving shots make a DIY dolly, and/or get a stabilizer made for small cameras, and use them. Then frame, compose, light and block your projects like a movie. Get a copy of your favorite movie, and study that mofo shot by shot, frame by frame. How do they frame and compose their shots, how do they use the moving camera, how do they light and block the scenes? This is not to copy your favorite movie, although we all do that to some extent, it is more to get to understand the decision making process in shooting the shoots, scenes and sequences, and then taking that and applying it to your projects.

My two cents anyway.
 
Last edited:
great advice David. your shots should make sense. if you want to move the camera, then it should serve your scene. don't dolly because you can. don't shoot stadicam because you rented it for a day. yada yada.
 
David G. Smith said:
For close ups, I also like to go towards the long end of the zoom range. The longer focal lengths are usually more flattering for portraiture.
Click to expand...


When I rented the HMC150, I was astonished at the 'near' zoom lens distortion... not fish eye, but plenty of bowed lines, and weirdness. I used that setting for one shot, didn't have the room to move really, but I really didn't like the lens at all...

There may be some situations where I can be ok with a bowed horizon line... but normally I try to avoid that... The Wife has a $1500 Nikon short focal length lens, that has some compensation for that effect... but alas... it has auto f-stop... so I can't really use it on my GH-1...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
My point is, at 300 pixels in vertical resolution on the DVD, you're going to be hard pressed to see a difference of resolution in any format. That's less than youtube resolution (but probably better compression?) . I'm make the same argument to a lesser degree for Blu-ray.... 35mm to HD and 70mm to HD will have differences, but each are reduced to less than it's original resolution.. meaning both are now less that the original least common denominator. This is where you start to really shed the advantages of a big original format.
Click to expand...
There are several points to make regarding various camera resolutions and how they relate to visible differences in a viewing system of different resolutions.

Panavision's John Galt has an article indicating that hyper-HD is largely unnecessary, almost regardless of the viewing system.

Dr. Hans Kiening of Arri wrote a paper (PDF) that seems to suggest that it is important to keep the resolution as high as possible at every step of image processing (primarily, regarding shooting film, transferring to digital and viewing).

Both emphasize that resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. Sharpness is a product of resolution and of the contrast level of the contour-defining details.

One point that often gets neglected in discussions about resolution is the fact that resolution has a strong influence on color depth. Basically, the higher the resolution, the higher the color depth. This principle works for all photographic media: film, video, photo prints and transparencies, screen printing, etc.

Surprisingly, it only takes a small increase in resolution to make the color depth skyrocket.

Bit depth is also a big influence on color depth, naturally. However, bit depth and color depth are not the same thing. Color depth is essentially a product of resolution and bit depth.

The color depth of a low resolution viewing system can exhibit the same (or more) color depth than a camera of higher resolution, as long as the viewing bit depth is adequate.

More details on how resolution affects color can be found here.
 
Last edited:
David G. Smith said:
Easy fellas, Whooooooo! THIS is not the thread for resolution flame war.
Click to expand...
Huh? How are my innocuous links and facts a "flame war?"

I simply provided links to articles by experts, who both have insightful and sort of opposing views on resolution.

Also, I merely mentioned how resolution influences color depth, which might be interesting to some, seeing on how this significant effect is never mentioned in resolution discussions.
 
"Easy fellas, Whooooooo! THIS is not the thread for resolution flame war."

Hold the hysteria.

I remember in the old days in the basement of a certain fraternity when a false accusation meant you had to drink...
 
h-munster said:
There are several points to make regarding various camera resolutions and how they relate to visible differences in a viewing system of different resolutions.

Panavision's John Galt has an article indicating that hyper-HD is largely unnecessary, almost regardless of the viewing system.

Dr. Hans Kiening of Arri wrote a paper (PDF) that seems to suggest that it is important to keep the resolution as high as possible at every step of image processing (primarily, regarding shooting film, transferring to digital and viewing).

Both emphasize that resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. Sharpness is a product of resolution and of the contrast level of the contour-defining details.

One point that often gets neglected in discussions about resolution is the fact that resolution has a strong influence on color depth. Basically, the higher the resolution, the higher the color depth. This principle works for all photographic media: film, video, photo prints and transparencies, screen printing, etc.

Surprisingly, it only takes a small increase in resolution to make the color depth skyrocket.

Bit depth is also a big influence on color depth, naturally. However, bit depth and color depth are not the same thing. Color depth is essentially a product of resolution and bit depth.

The color depth of a low resolution viewing system can exhibit the same (or more) color depth than a camera of higher resolution, as long as the viewing bit depth is adequate.

More details on how resolution affects color can be found here.
Click to expand...



I'd like to have a discussion about this, but just didn't want to hijack this thread. Perhaps start a new thread? I'd see you there.

-Ryan
 
I think the best advice for an indie filmmaker is to make an artistic film that involves a lot of scenery and little dialogue or normal scripts. With a film I'm doing soon, I couldn't fill up 3 pages of dialogue, the film just doesn't convey a storyline in words, it focuses mainly on tension seen in the actors facial expressions, the tone of the scenery, and well, mainly downright a lot of mystery. I think the film The Strangers was a perfect example of a film that an indie filmmaker really could successfully make, it was very minimalist concerning the storytelling, and heck, even the scenery. It was just shot in one house with the characters basically running back and forth from the back yard back into the house. The spooks were simple, the imagery was effective, overall, it felt like an indie movie without well, being low budget.

And I think that's a major point of advice, keep things simple until you have the budget and experience to do something bigger. Write your scripts to truly fit what you feel is a very conservative, low budget, minimalist story line. If you feel that is something like Blair Witch, do that. With that said, any sort of practice is good practice, but if you want to be a respected, successful director, you have to keep things within a range. Don't do soap operas, high school movies, westerns, super hero movies, war movies, ect ect it rarely turns out good. It is practice, though, so I'm not saying don't do them, I'm just saying that as humans, we only have a good 40 years to really have careers. It's best to start off small and hold out until you have the budget to make those big flicks. One thing I'm overall impressed with, though, is some of the very good short films that have the subject of the battlefield or war, I have to say I've seen quite a few very good ones.

Beyond that general principle (and I think that's a pretty important principle to follow), blabbing about that no where near prepares anyone for being a good camera person, knowing how to capture the good script and story they have set up. I think that all beginners should start by setting up shots outdoors, where you don't really need a set or anything. But with that, the problem I personally have is knowing how to get an equal light tone that really reflects a film appearance. I simply get too harsh bright spots, too dark shadows, I never get anything outside that looks even in tone or non-camcorder-ish. I just don't know if I need a certain filter, or I need to film later/earlier in the day, I just think that is my one area I could use some advice on, and I'd bet alotttt of people would like to hear about that.

Other than that equal tone, some framing tips that I can think of that I follow...Um, I'm not really sure, I just think out every single little angle to my scipts, and each of them have something that makes those angles special. They vary anywhere from any style I can think up. I strictly don't do panning though, or I do very very subliminal versions of it. And I don't do zooming at all. Cinematic films really just don't have that sort of stuff, they seem to be very solid in the frames, like watching a rock that shakes things up every 5 minutes or so by doing one small shaky style angle. Like with the script I wrote, the 'current time' parts are very solid, very held in place, otherwise with very minimal pans or slightly loose feeling close-ups, and then when I know the audience would be getting bored of that, I'm throwing in really shaky flashbacks recorded by a family camcorder, it really looks unique to my own head. I just think the best thing is to write an angle in advance to every bit and piece of the script...and well, #1 advice, write your own scripts, or at least the story and angles and have someone else help out on the dialogue....and don't settle for anything less, shoot the exact angle you need to, or settle for something that truly looks better. It's very easy to tell when someone has very little time to make a film, rushes just to record something, doesn't know how to get the best out of their shot, ect ect and while I'm in no way wanting to be rude about that it's just....I don't see cinematic footage often. But that in no way says I'm talented with a camera, I'm pretty horrible with one so far, mainly in picking the right time and weather to film...and picking the right lens perspective, another subject that needs a little talking about.
 
Last edited:
Snapper123 said:
I think the best advice for an indie filmmaker is to make an artistic film that involves a lot of scenery and little dialogue or normal scripts. With a film I'm doing soon, I couldn't fill up 3 pages of dialogue, the film just doesn't convey a storyline in words, it focuses mainly on tension seen in the actors facial expressions, the tone of the scenery, and well, mainly downright a lot of mystery.
Click to expand...

Study Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"(1968) for minimalist dialog (estimated 15 pages in a nearly 3 hour movie...) and significant long duration shots, facial expression, and juxtaposition of shots.
 
Thanks Jason. I've had my "moments" with DVXUser to be sure, but honestly find it a VERY nice place to come and talk "movies", and more often than not, that's just what I want to do. I appreciate you and the staff here for providing a place for us to do that.
 
Snapper123 said:
I think the best advice for an indie filmmaker is to make an artistic film that involves a lot of scenery and little dialogue or normal scripts.
Click to expand...

I never understood how that works.

Look at Spielbergs short "Amblin" - exactly what you describe. Lot of scenery, no dialogue, faces, expressions and all. One of the worst flicks I ever saw. It was a real pain for me to go trough those 20 minutes. Thou it got him his first job as a director.

I personally hate this kind of films. Here in Europe we are knee deep in this kind of artsy french- italian-dogma-newCinema whatever stuff. It always looks soooo 60s and 70s to me. Especially the French did a lot of those.

I probably get flak for that, but I find them uninteresting, uninspired, unenlightened, and boring. But it seems to work as a carrier booster for some people thou.

I don't believe in - if you are not skilled enough or don't have the right tools, make it artsy.
I believe in: try harder, get the skills and find new creative ways to work around your financial/gear limitations.

Frank
 
Last edited:
i think it's time for me to watch "Baraka"....seen it mentioned here so much that it bothers me, and i don't know a thing about it. i work nights AND i have kids, so my screenings are almost nonexistent. i don't even have netflix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top