Final project short film shot exclusively on 5d/7d

The opening ghost/house/horrory shot is impressive, the shots with the ghost-hunter (a number of these but some of the wides and closeups in the scene w/candles) were impressive, the distorted/fisheye shot of Pierre singing through the hole in the door also great.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
The opening ghost/house/horrory shot is impressive, the shots with the ghost-hunter (a number of these but some of the wides and closeups in the scene w/candles) were impressive, the distorted/fisheye shot of Pierre singing through the hole in the door also great.
Click to expand...

nice! thanks for the ideas on the shots..
I dug that ghost hunter sequence too
 
da//media said:
Hey bud,
thanks for checking the peice out and providing me with your thoughts..
and thanks for the props on the technical side of the film..

I have been trying to figure out what I would use from this whole peice to throw in my reel, do you have any thoughts or suggestions as to what you thought the best photographic scenes were in it?? leave the acting and story out lol

Matt
Click to expand...

Sure...from the top:

--I like some of the opening scenes around the gas pump and the drive (just before the dialoug starts). I understand some folks have a problem with blown out highlights...but I didn't see it as a problem here.

--The bar scenes (or text chat room) all lookd good (Specifically between 2:20 and 4:02). I loved the lighting, camera movement and camera placement.

--Call me strange but I really like 4:02 to 4:10, It's that outdoor scene where the truck comes flying into the driveway. The colors looked great to me. The camera moving along was nice too. Gave me a TV show kind of feel.

--At 4:47 to 5:05 those shots looked excellent. I loved the lighting and camera movement. This is the scene where they were talking in bed.

--Believe it or not I like the view of the girl talking to the guy in the couch with her arms folded at around 5:27 (we are kind of looking up at her). I like how the angles of the room cut into the frame. I thought that was smart. You also kept it dark but had some carefully placed lighting on the ceiling in the background room which helped to accent the background even more.

--Lasty 16:42 to 16:58 (where the guy and girl were celebrating with a toast on what seems to be a dock by a bay area).
These are the parts that stood out to me. You obviously know what you are doing.

If you had an excellent script and some folks who could be more believable in their acting then I think you could do some real damage (in a good way).
 
Before I post... If you want a breakdown critique (minus story, not even gonna get into that), just ask and I'll give ya one.
 
Agreed, Kholi's comments wanted!

I *almost* agree on the final shot that goes from what out of focus bokeh to in focus (this was well done) - however, to me the lighting on the character of Pierre doesn't look quite right to me so it loses its dramatic impact in my opinion - however it might be fixed with some cc or some After Effects.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
Agreed, Kholi's comments wanted!

I *almost* agree on the final shot that goes from what out of focus bokeh to in focus (this was well done) - however, to me the lighting on the character of Pierre doesn't look quite right to me so it loses its dramatic impact in my opinion - however it might be fixed with some cc or some After Effects.
Click to expand...

do you think that the lighting was too flat?? maybe it didnt have enough shadow or shape to it?? cuz thats what I noticed once we got into post, that it could have been more dramatic lighting for that.
 
Pretty much what was said before, well, I would be wary of utilizing the crutch "this is young comedy." If I were a sensitive lad, I'd be offended that I'm the demographic you're pursuing. The only thing I really found funny was the manner in which the crude and meaningless dialog was delivered; I don't think that's what I'm supposed to be laughing at.

It'd only do the writers well to read the feedback of people on this forum, and seek honest thoughts.

Moving on...

da//media said:
Hey Bud,
thank you for the kind words on the photography ...
I definately took some time to make sure everything was on point from the beggining and end, and I must say, KINO FLO lighting all the way haha.
I cant imagine what the experience would have been without the 5D MKII as it really lent a hand in making everything look cinematic ...
and I completely agree with you and can say that I see way too many people shooting these cameras at 1.2/1.8 and getting super crazy shallow DOF, which in some scenes and shots is what you want, but not on every shot..
you can notice this in any production in theatres, they dont go crazy DOF on everyshot, it doesnt make sense ...

the next step is to try to cut some of this apart and make some sort of demo reel, im not really sure what yet, seeing how the story is pretty out there lol ..

Thanks again for looking at the film and providing useful and thoughtful advice and feedback.

Matt
Click to expand...

I applaud you and your small crew on the effort. It's definitely a chore to go out and shoot twenty minutes worth of content (which translates to about four to five hours worth of footage, sometimes) with little money.

The images, however, were not consistent. Shot composition suffered greatly throughout and there were uses of dollying that struck me as odd and unnecessary. One good thing that's going to come out of the "DSLR Revolution" for those who truly want to do this for the rest of their lives? You're going to learn really fast why tools exist and how they define cinematic language. Dollying for the sake of dollying, with little rhyme or effective reason, is no different than shooting at wide-open apertures for no effective reason.

I'll be brief... but let's begin with consistency. Having Kino Flos at your disposal is awesome. That's real deal equipment. The first thing that stands out to me, in regards to lighting, is that you have little to NO control going on.

Fundamental Note: You can light with anything, it's rarely about wattage, and mostly about CONTROLLING the light.

At so many intervals in the duration of what I saw did the scene bounce from being overlit to underlit, to upstage to downstage, and within seconds. Sometimes, I was convinced that someone had a Home Depot Flood Lamp (great tools for lighting, by the way) blasting the entire room.

Someone here said that it's very hard to deliver consistent moving images. They're right, it takes practice and skill. They also said you did that: I disagree with that, completely.

In the future, I would look more into what controlling light means. You can have the awesome power of Kino or Arri, Desisti and Mole... they're useless without the ability to shape.

And, part of shaping is shot composition. I can't say that your comps are murderous, they do leave a lot to be desired. You may disagree, and probably do, but I don't really see how composing with the massive real-estate offered by the MKii has benefited this product, visually, in any way greater than an HV20 with a Wide Angle adapter on it. Indeed, a lot of the compositions fall flat, because they are flat. And, paper-thin focal planes rarely save an ill-composed shot.

My example? The very second cut: you've chosen a superior, anterior angle to your subject, a man being dragged back into the house. I see that you were setting up for a dolly shot that poses a juxtaposition between danger and hospitality.

However, the basic angle is flat. Due in part to an almost spotlight several keys over. There's little depth in the shot and the only thing that makes it visually interesting is the dolly action and the high-energy "score" of sorts.

If I turn the volume down, it loses a lot more punch and interest.

I can't tell you what you could have done differently. Or what you should have done differently, that's inappropriate. Could you have chosen an angle that positions the audiences eye in the line of danger, though?

A worms-eye that finds the primary action--hands flailing and seeking purchase on ANYTHING that can keep the remainder of the body from being taken back into a deep dark place--better defined?

In doing that, do you reveal more information inside of the home? Even if the black is endless beyond that door, have you established the scope of the terror by bringing the audience in with a mutual stake in existing right here, right now just by lowering the camera to the ground?

As of now, standing over him? Are you sure we're not experiencing this from the "attackers" POV? Since we're towering above the guy.

There are many more examples I can pull, this would be the most immediate. Cinematic Imagery isn't just about depth of field... it's a language, and the greatest shooters speak it thoroughly.

Speaking of that language, though... consider what Dollys and Cranes can and cannot do. Being as brief as possible here: your bedroom dolly made me feel like a voyeur. A pervert, and it's only exacerbated by the fact that I'm watching two kids my age (or maybe two or three years younger) on the verge of...

cough...

Grilling meat....

I don't want to feel like a pervert when I watch a movie, short, music video etc. But, that dolly put me, as the viewer, in a position where I was no longer attached to the camera, but I'm walking around the room checking this scene out.

When you see a dolly in, or a dolly out, there's a message to be conveyed. Consider how you take interest in a conversation at a party: you lean in to listen better, maybe offer your own opinion. The dolly speaks and feels the same way.

If you're watching someone fight in a parking lot, you run around the perimeter--sometimes jumping like an asshat--to get a better look. A circular Dolly accomplishes this.

I'd say, apply the nice tools where they seem to make sense from the viewers perspective. It's hard to think about, but you've already learned that throwing everything out of focus isn't ideal for every shot.

This is the same thing.

That's about it from me, though. That story, and especially the dialog, is definitely out there. Comedy is hard, because not everyone thinks the same joke is funny in the same way.

But, everyone can spot bad comedy.

Shoot it up.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Pretty much what was said before, well, I would be wary of utilizing the crutch "this is young comedy." If I were a sensitive lad, I'd be offended that I'm the demographic you're pursuing. The only thing I really found funny was the manner in which the crude and meaningless dialog was delivered; I don't think that's what I'm supposed to be laughing at.

It'd only do the writers well to read the feedback of people on this forum, and seek honest thoughts.

Moving on...



I applaud you and your small crew on the effort. It's definitely a chore to go out and shoot twenty minutes worth of content (which translates to about four to five hours worth of footage, sometimes) with little money.

The images, however, were not consistent. Shot composition suffered greatly throughout and there were uses of dollying that struck me as odd and unnecessary. One good thing that's going to come out of the "DSLR Revolution" for those who truly want to do this for the rest of their lives? You're going to learn really fast why tools exist and how they define cinematic language. Dollying for the sake of dollying, with little rhyme or effective reason, is no different than shooting at wide-open apertures for no effective reason.

I'll be brief... but let's begin with consistency. Having Kino Flos at your disposal is awesome. That's real deal equipment. The first thing that stands out to me, in regards to lighting, is that you have little to NO control going on.

Fundamental Note: You can light with anything, it's rarely about wattage, and mostly about CONTROLLING the light.

At so many intervals in the duration of what I saw did the scene bounce from being overlit to underlit, to upstage to downstage, and within seconds. Sometimes, I was convinced that someone had a Home Depot Flood Lamp (great tools for lighting, by the way) blasting the entire room.

Someone here said that it's very hard to deliver consistent moving images. They're right, it takes practice and skill. They also said you did that: I disagree with that, completely.

In the future, I would look more into what controlling light means. You can have the awesome power of Kino or Arri, Desisti and Mole... they're useless without the ability to shape.

And, part of shaping is shot composition. I can't say that your comps are murderous, they do leave a lot to be desired. You may disagree, and probably do, but I don't really see how composing with the massive real-estate offered by the MKii has benefited this product, visually, in any way greater than an HV20 with a Wide Angle adapter on it. Indeed, a lot of the compositions fall flat, because they are flat. And, paper-thin focal planes rarely save an ill-composed shot.

My example? The very second cut: you've chosen a superior, anterior angle to your subject, a man being dragged back into the house. I see that you were setting up for a dolly shot that poses a juxtaposition between danger and hospitality.

However, the basic angle is flat. Due in part to an almost spotlight several keys over. There's little depth in the shot and the only thing that makes it visually interesting is the dolly action and the high-energy "score" of sorts.

If I turn the volume down, it loses a lot more punch and interest.

I can't tell you what you could have done differently. Or what you should have done differently, that's inappropriate. Could you have chosen an angle that positions the audiences eye in the line of danger, though?

A worms-eye that finds the primary action--hands flailing and seeking purchase on ANYTHING that can keep the remainder of the body from being taken back into a deep dark place--better defined?

In doing that, do you reveal more information inside of the home? Even if the black is endless beyond that door, have you established the scope of the terror by bringing the audience in with a mutual stake in existing right here, right now just by lowering the camera to the ground?

As of now, standing over him? Are you sure we're not experiencing this from the "attackers" POV? Since we're towering above the guy.

There are many more examples I can pull, this would be the most immediate. Cinematic Imagery isn't just about depth of field... it's a language, and the greatest shooters speak it thoroughly.

Speaking of that language, though... consider what Dollys and Cranes can and cannot do. Being as brief as possible here: your bedroom dolly made me feel like a voyeur. A pervert, and it's only exacerbated by the fact that I'm watching two kids my age (or maybe two or three years younger) on the verge of...

cough...

Grilling meat....

I don't want to feel like a pervert when I watch a movie, short, music video etc. But, that dolly put me, as the viewer, in a position where I was no longer attached to the camera, but I'm walking around the room checking this scene out.

When you see a dolly in, or a dolly out, there's a message to be conveyed. Consider how you take interest in a conversation at a party: you lean in to listen better, maybe offer your own opinion. The dolly speaks and feels the same way.

If you're watching someone fight in a parking lot, you run around the perimeter--sometimes jumping like an asshat--to get a better look. A circular Dolly accomplishes this.

I'd say, apply the nice tools where they seem to make sense from the viewers perspective. It's hard to think about, but you've already learned that throwing everything out of focus isn't ideal for every shot.

This is the same thing.

That's about it from me, though. That story, and especially the dialog, is definitely out there. Comedy is hard, because not everyone thinks the same joke is funny in the same way.

But, everyone can spot bad comedy.

Shoot it up.
Click to expand...

Great Advice man!
that definately made me think about a few things.
thanks for the breakdown!

Matt
 
No problem. Please, however, do not be discouraged. Great efforts deserve honest feedback. I rarely take the time these days, this is worth it.
 
Kholi said:
No problem. Please, however, do not be discouraged. Great efforts deserve honest feedback. I rarely take the time these days, this is worth it.
Click to expand...

most definately! this is an artform and usually takes years to perfect, if you ever get it perfect lol ... thanks again for taking the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top