It was meant to portray the characters darkness :cheesy:
Blade Assassin
- Thread starter maarek
- Start date
It was meant to portray the characters darkness :cheesy:
I agree and I'd do everything practically. This actually began as a blood vfx test so that's why there are shots with cgi blood. But there is also physical blood in the first kick.
The last blood vfx is bothering me too now and some of the tracking is way off.
jcrefeld
New member
comment on Rode Videomic
comment on Rode Videomic
--------- "We used a Rode Videomic. It sucked ass. Won't use it again."
Sorry man, that critique of the Rode Vmic is a little too general. So you're on a windy peer and I don't hear buffetting so you must have used a fur/windsock, or else you were very fortunate. You're plugged directly into the 7d so there is no gain control (hence the background rumble.) But your actors spoke loud enough to clear it. So all in all, I'd say it served you well. I bought an RV so my onboard audio could potentially work as a backup - which is what you've gotten some serviceable results on. IMHO your primary does need to be a separate mic/digital recorder with the full wind blimp set-up and a boom. It's much easier to foley sounds as well, and if you want anything but tight shots for dialogue you'll be set. In closing though - I loved the CG, the crane effects and the the short DOF (was it the 85mm lens?) absolutely rocked. Congrats!
comment on Rode Videomic
--------- "We used a Rode Videomic. It sucked ass. Won't use it again."
Sorry man, that critique of the Rode Vmic is a little too general. So you're on a windy peer and I don't hear buffetting so you must have used a fur/windsock, or else you were very fortunate. You're plugged directly into the 7d so there is no gain control (hence the background rumble.) But your actors spoke loud enough to clear it. So all in all, I'd say it served you well. I bought an RV so my onboard audio could potentially work as a backup - which is what you've gotten some serviceable results on. IMHO your primary does need to be a separate mic/digital recorder with the full wind blimp set-up and a boom. It's much easier to foley sounds as well, and if you want anything but tight shots for dialogue you'll be set. In closing though - I loved the CG, the crane effects and the the short DOF (was it the 85mm lens?) absolutely rocked. Congrats!
Yeah, agreed. I think the Rode gives a too hot signal for the 7d and a resistor is in order. Otherwise it's not bad.
And yup, we used the 85mm f1.4 for certain shots.
You were too close with wide angle too many times ,its distracting and looks weird,too much is in focus.
Youve got some good looking wide shots when theyre fighting but those close ups are nonos,they can ruin the feel.
Some shots would be so much better with dof,all portrait shots and close ups.
Because it looks like video camera when youre goin with wide angle for everything.Ive yet to see a movie with close ups shot on wide angle lenses.There are some rules for this IMO.
Those shots look very good, you should remember that and use them in next projects and never ever move closer with that lens ,it looks great from this distance.
http://i46.tinypic.com/fy1g90.jpg
I like your footage much better without color correction.Looks cleaner and natural.
Youve got some good looking wide shots when theyre fighting but those close ups are nonos,they can ruin the feel.
Some shots would be so much better with dof,all portrait shots and close ups.
Because it looks like video camera when youre goin with wide angle for everything.Ive yet to see a movie with close ups shot on wide angle lenses.There are some rules for this IMO.
Those shots look very good, you should remember that and use them in next projects and never ever move closer with that lens ,it looks great from this distance.
http://i46.tinypic.com/fy1g90.jpg
I like your footage much better without color correction.Looks cleaner and natural.
Last edited:
Rakesh Jacob
Veteran
There's plenty of DPs that like using wide lenses for closeups. Check out what Barry Sonnenfeld did on Raising Arizona as an example.
What? Have you never seen the third Harry Potter? It was shot completely on wide lenses, no teleshots at all. And it looks absolutely awesome.
We didn't really use that wide a lens anyway for the closeups. I think the maximum we used for those was 17mm that translates to about 27mm with the crop factor.
It's not supposed to look natural! :2vrolijk_08:
HArry was shot probably on film,you have 7d,it doesnt look like film on deep focus shots most of the time,sometimes it does with proper camera movement and right lens for situation but most of the time it doesnt.
Ive seen martial arts like fearless and some shots are shot on wide angles but they dont have this weird perspective like you had in close ups,so theyre keeping distance too.
It would be very easy to shot everything on wide angles but it doesnt look good without depth of field and on 7d.
Ive seen martial arts like fearless and some shots are shot on wide angles but they dont have this weird perspective like you had in close ups,so theyre keeping distance too.
It would be very easy to shot everything on wide angles but it doesnt look good without depth of field and on 7d.
Last edited:
Wide angle closeups are utilised all the time in movies. You can argue about the quality of the 7d vs film but that argument just makes no sense. Without depth of field? HP3 was specifically shot with a deep dof and wideangles on closeups.
When you say that you don't like it then I'm cool with it, but when you start making up rules like "you can't use wide angles on closeups!" and later change it to "you can't use wide angles on closeups WITH THE 7D" it just makes your whole argument fall. It's not like it was 11mm :violent5:
Last edited:
Harry was shot on film,film always looks like film but with 7d you can easily bump into "regular camcorder look".
On close ups with very wide angles face looks weird with small ears but if you dont notice that then ok.
This can be done for effect ,i see some wide angle closeups shots in "fearless" but its done carefully and distance is kept.
Listen i like your work here,its just some shots were very good and some look like regular camcorder with deep focus,but if thats the look which you want then its ok.
On close ups with very wide angles face looks weird with small ears but if you dont notice that then ok.
This can be done for effect ,i see some wide angle closeups shots in "fearless" but its done carefully and distance is kept.
Listen i like your work here,its just some shots were very good and some look like regular camcorder with deep focus,but if thats the look which you want then its ok.
1) The last Harry Potter wasn't shot entirely Wide Angle. A 35mm is pretty normal on a 35mm Camera.
2) There is no crop factor. If you shot with a 17mm, it will have the same FOV and AOV as a 17mm on a RED or Film Camera.
What BWWD is basically saying, but may not have any idea how to say it, is that you haven't composed your close-up shots with a Wide Angle lens in a manner that is unappealing to him.
Film vs Digital has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, Shooting Wide also has zero to do with how thin the focal plane is. You can shoot wide open on an 11mm and, if you have diopters, still compose a shot with a thin focal plane.
A number of Cinema Class Glass sets have near-to-macro close focal distances, resulting in the ability to compose very interesting shots on the wider end of the spectrum. In addition, they're also corrected for pincushion effects, which limits the amount of distortion that occurs in lens.
I would personally avoid using anything wider than a 24mm for close-up composition due to the way facial features are rendered in camera. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy employs wides and ultra-wides to make the Hobbits look awkward, it works quite well.
I have no real comments about your video, just commenting on what bwwd is saying.
Last edited:
I thought this was really really well done. As is all of your stuff, man. I'm always impressed. I think people can get a little nitpicky with certain things.
But again, my issue is story. What is it?? Why are they gonna execute him? And why should I care? I know people just like to see cool action, but I for one enjoy it more when there's a story behind it. Even a simple one.
But other than that, you guys are awesome at what you do. Makes me want to up my technical game : )
But again, my issue is story. What is it?? Why are they gonna execute him? And why should I care? I know people just like to see cool action, but I for one enjoy it more when there's a story behind it. Even a simple one.
But other than that, you guys are awesome at what you do. Makes me want to up my technical game : )
Harry Potter 3 was shot completely using a range between 14-24mm and never beyond that. The director insisted on the wide-angles because he wanted to let the audience see the foreground and the background.
And to tell the truth, the third Harry Potter looked definitely the best of all them to this date.
Yeah, I'm starting to get it.
diego1235467
Well-known member
Azkaban was indeed the best looking, and best HP period. I think Cuarón is a genius.
Anyway, the short was awesome. Great job!
Anyway, the short was awesome. Great job!