Cinematic Aesthetic.. is it impossible to see in your own stuff?

[Azmyth]

I try to make my stuff look as cinematic as I can with my skillset, and no matter what I do it still doesn't seem to "look" cinematic to my eyes. Although others watch it and say that it does. Is that just something thats going to happen? Something I can't really put my finger on?

I mean, there's other people's stuff that I watch that doesn't look cinematic to my eyes.. but its like I can't figure out why none of the stuff I do looks that way to me.. either it really "isn't" or its just impossible for you to see your own stuff that way.

 

[kittykatro]

Show us some examples that you don't consider cinematic and some that are...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I try to make my stuff look as cinematic as I can with my skillset, and no matter what I do it still doesn't seem to "look" cinematic to my eyes. Although others watch it and say that it does. Is that just something thats going to happen? Something I can't really put my finger on?

I mean, there's other people's stuff that I watch that doesn't look cinematic to my eyes.. but its like I can't figure out why none of the stuff I do looks that way to me.. either it really "isn't" or its just impossible for you to see your own stuff that way.

I also suggest showing footage straight from the camera, then after you have post processed it to 'cinematicness'...

Part of the 'cinematic' look is lighting, staging, etc. that affect the captured image. The other part is the post processing. Modern 'cinematic' tastes tend to be desaturated from 'technicolor/kodachorme' bright/saturated colors, except possibly for comedies or other 'light' fare. Even there there is scene to scene matching of colors.

If you are really worried, zap all your color, give your B&W image a good contrast, and look at the values. If you image looks like something you'd want to put on your wall as an 'art print', you're getting there...

 

[Azmyth]

Here's some lighting tests I was doing last night.

And some from a previous camera test I did.

http://vimeo.com/34783127

A teaser thing I did...

http://vimeo.com/34300544



and then some stuff that looks cinematic to me.. using similar gear...

http://vimeo.com/18351709

 

[Lammy]

Your stuff has harder lighting and the blocking with the camera height and angles is also harder too.

Cinema is more soft and more seamless. Generally lighting as more of an atmosphere and some soft sources, mixed with hard sources.

Lens choices are also more standard as well, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc (Super 35mm / APS-C sensor size) each for specific type of shots (Wide, Normals, Close up)

 

[Azmyth]

Yeah, but I was using "soft" lighting... so I guess I am confused now.

 

[Lammy]

Your soft lighting is very close to the subject (ye can see it in your eyes) so the effect makes it harder with the shadows and reflections and what not

 

[Azmyth]

I thought the rooms in my house were fairly big... Not sure how to get it further away. I was using 2 softboxes.

 

[Andrew Luczenczyn]

Despite being called "softboxes" I find softboxes very directional. Unless you are using softboxes at least 4x4 or larger, you basically getting a hardlight with diffusion.

This is why I prefer 4x4 or 6x6 frames

 

[Andrew Luczenczyn]

Oh. And I feel your two shots that you called not cinematic would improve with some small dolly movement like from a slider. Can't tell from a still, but that might help carry the emotion of the actor.

 

[Azmyth]

Well those were just camera tests. I was doing everything myself, so no way to move the camera for those. We are starting on a feature next weekend, and although I'm not DP.. its just disheartening that I can't seem to grasp what seems semi logical to do. I've got Barry Green's lighting videos, and I've watched them ad nauseum, as well as experimented with all sorts of setups and it never looks quite like I think it should.

 

[Lammy]

Well, with your light sources be creative with your limited space... you can try things like diffusing it by bouncing it off the ceiling or wall or floor (with possibly a reflective board or drape), and then you'll find you've got a more softer look.

Cinema is a balance though, we want to convey a mood or tone and sometimes being too soft may be too bland, or being too hard may be too mysterious etc.

 

[David Jimerson]

Here's some lighting tests I was doing last night.

My personal theory for these being "non-cinematic" is that in these shots, it looks like the lights are just a few inches away from the actor. They may not be, but it looks like they are. It's as if he's sitting right next to a very bright lamp. So, he's being obviously "lit."

The other pictures, the ones you think look cinematic, aren't that way. The people are lit from and are part of their environment, part of the overall image; your guy, less so.

I note, though, that if you imagine the context of the scenes as though such a "lit" look would make sense, such as in the second shot, he's sitting at a desk with a lamp on, it does take on a slightly more "cinematic" flavor. But by themselves with no context, it doesn't really ring true, so the brain says "staged!"

 

[David Jimerson]

Your soft lighting is very close to the subject (ye can see it in your eyes) so the effect makes it harder with the shadows and reflections and what not

Actually, bringing a light closer makes it softer, especially if it's already a large source.

 

[Azmyth]

I see what you mean. You guys DVD's have helped a ton, but I'm just a sucker for wanting to make my images look as cinematic as possible. I know I have the tools to make it look that way. I have a DP for my feature, but I want to learn this stuff in the event I ever have to do it.

Would bouncing the lights off of things help? I was trying to use the "logical" approach of where the light would be coming from. there are 2 windows in that room, and thats how I tried to motivate the lights. They were on their lowest setting too (there's 4 bulbs and you can turn them off individually)

 

[William_Robinette]

Always a good idea to take a step back and say "where do i not want light?" Contrast, especially on faces is a subtle yet powerful tool to help sculpt your image.

David is exactly right. Try lighting your space, the room, the environment. Try sticking with wider lenses as opposed to telephoto (24, 35, 50) and see if that helps. Another thing specific to these still also is composition. While the rule of thirds is in full effect here the actual compositions could probably use some fine tuning. Just a little bit wider, making sure eye-lines and blocking are correct and letting us see the space. Camera height in relation to the actor is very important. A few inches up or down on a medium shot can make it or break it.

 

[Lammy]

Actually, bringing a light closer makes it softer, especially if it's already a large source.

Ha yeah sorry I should really use proper terminology. Yes bringing a light closer makes the source appear larger and softer. When I said harder, I should have meant more artificial/harsher (with the glasses reflections and light fall off). And when I said "angles is also harder too", "shadows" I meant harsher. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[David Jimerson]

Part of the cinematic look is serving your script. What's supposed to be going on in the shots?

If the motivation in either shot is supposed to be a window, I don't think either one works. Both appear to be night scenes with artificial lighting.

Bouncing will diffuse and spread the light; whether or not it's appropriate depends on what's supposed to be going on in the scene. But I'd certainly pull the lights further away.

 

[Boncrek]

It may just boil down to taste and levels of "cinematicness".
I thought the first screen cap looked good, like a contemplative eerie scene with the main character deep in his thoughts.

The second screen cap looked staged and has 2 competing elements so my eyes aren't sure which to focus on.
DOF or lighting could have been used to distinguish one from the other.
Also compressing the scene together might have been better to further focus on your subject here.
By this I mean use a longer lens, how long will be totally up to you and your environment.

The last three shots do look cinematic but mostly #2 and #3.
Use of shadows, composition and camera motion are subtle cues that give a cinematic feel to footage.
What was your impression of the first screen cap you posted that made you think it wasn't cinematic?

 

[Azmyth]

Part of the cinematic look is serving your script. What's supposed to be going on in the shots?

If the motivation in either shot is supposed to be a window, I don't think either one works. Both appear to be night scenes with artificial lighting.

Bouncing will diffuse and spread the light; whether or not it's appropriate depends on what's supposed to be going on in the scene. But I'd certainly pull the lights further away.

Well its not really a "Scene". This is me practicing, trying to get better at it before I'm actually on a set working from a script and screw it up there lol.

There's no motivation for these shots because its not a scene. Its just me playing camera man and subject to have something besides inanimate objects to film. I'm trying to practice, practice, practice. I know "what" I'm supposed to be doing, but I'm not grasping the details of it. I mean, like I said. I've watched your dvd about 100 times or more. The fundamentals are there, its applying them thats a challenge. Its obviously not something you just start off being good at, but I have to tools to make great looking cinematic imagery, so I'm just trying to hone in on what I'm doing/not doing to make that happen.