http://vimeo.com/32424990
To be downright honest, this must be one of the most beautiful (and genuinely cinematic) videos I've seen in awhile, but like how it looks, it was shot on Red. Now, I'm all for believing that this type of professionalism and downright magic can be replicated on a DSLR, but how would it actually be done? Which picture profile would give you the basis for editing footage to turn out like this? How exactly would you edit that footage? The questions goes on.
Another feature of the video is that I would be hard pressed to say that anything was used lighting wise other than a couple large fills here and there (a small one is shown in one of the dance-reception tent shots), though I could be wrong about that minimal number (it's just that some of these shots, like the outdoor scenes and shots both in the antique-filled dressing room and hair salon, would be hard to light without giving it away in the mirrors and reflective surfaces...) It's my opinion that there probably was just some super-duper picture styles (on the Red, obviously "picture styles" have a billion more options... gamma curves galore, ect ect) and super-duper editing, as the skin tones, although beautiful and very pale, look as though they were originally quite red and took quite a bit of in-camera, and maybe in-post, manipluation to get right.
Same with another video shot by the same camera/person:
http://vimeo.com/33595071
Sure, maybe some of those shots are lit mechanically, others may not be, but the motorbike sequence proves without any reasonable doubt that this camera, and whoever their editor is, creates some downright superb skin tones, light equality, and coloring without absolutely any lighting at all. You just can't light an entire city during the day, and the camera and shooters were too far from the motor bike to supply any effective lighting to the actor's skin - you can even tell from the car reflections and passing motorbike riders that the entire scene had an superbly equal light distribution, picking up every detail and never blowing out any highlight. Looks like they merely shot on a semi-cloudy day with an amazing camera.
And to be honest, the downfall of many DSLR's is that because of the extreme contrast they have (or extremely flat looks if you want a normal range) ends up turning into very unprofessional footage by even very skilled editors, uncinematic skin tones, horrible light rolloff, ect ect. I just would like to know if the above two videos would have been possible with a DSLR - so far, a few productions, like Rubber and Hills Green, seem to have gotten close.
To be downright honest, this must be one of the most beautiful (and genuinely cinematic) videos I've seen in awhile, but like how it looks, it was shot on Red. Now, I'm all for believing that this type of professionalism and downright magic can be replicated on a DSLR, but how would it actually be done? Which picture profile would give you the basis for editing footage to turn out like this? How exactly would you edit that footage? The questions goes on.
Another feature of the video is that I would be hard pressed to say that anything was used lighting wise other than a couple large fills here and there (a small one is shown in one of the dance-reception tent shots), though I could be wrong about that minimal number (it's just that some of these shots, like the outdoor scenes and shots both in the antique-filled dressing room and hair salon, would be hard to light without giving it away in the mirrors and reflective surfaces...) It's my opinion that there probably was just some super-duper picture styles (on the Red, obviously "picture styles" have a billion more options... gamma curves galore, ect ect) and super-duper editing, as the skin tones, although beautiful and very pale, look as though they were originally quite red and took quite a bit of in-camera, and maybe in-post, manipluation to get right.
Same with another video shot by the same camera/person:
http://vimeo.com/33595071
Sure, maybe some of those shots are lit mechanically, others may not be, but the motorbike sequence proves without any reasonable doubt that this camera, and whoever their editor is, creates some downright superb skin tones, light equality, and coloring without absolutely any lighting at all. You just can't light an entire city during the day, and the camera and shooters were too far from the motor bike to supply any effective lighting to the actor's skin - you can even tell from the car reflections and passing motorbike riders that the entire scene had an superbly equal light distribution, picking up every detail and never blowing out any highlight. Looks like they merely shot on a semi-cloudy day with an amazing camera.
And to be honest, the downfall of many DSLR's is that because of the extreme contrast they have (or extremely flat looks if you want a normal range) ends up turning into very unprofessional footage by even very skilled editors, uncinematic skin tones, horrible light rolloff, ect ect. I just would like to know if the above two videos would have been possible with a DSLR - so far, a few productions, like Rubber and Hills Green, seem to have gotten close.
