Laser Sniper 2: Eye for an Eye- w/fisheye

brownpaperbagproductions

brownpaperbagproductions

Well-known member
Laser Sniper is on forced leave after a bad pyche-evaluation, but Laser Sniper needs action, held up in his apartment he gets weaker while out there Charlie gets stronger....



Mainly this was to test a cheap wide angle adapter, it's not the same filter size as the 18-55 kit so I put some cardboard spacers around the threads and just taped it on with masking tape, taped down the zoom too so it's fixed at 19mm which is as wide as it could go without bad vignette, so w/adapter= about 14mm. Not overly fisheye for my taste.

I'll be honest at the cost of putting this thing off on a bad start, but this is not our best work on any level. I'm disappointed really, we made all the mistakes we thought we were past making, but alas that's life. I'll toss this to the wolves and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Light, yeah definitely, we made this mistake (for the 50th time) of shooting right before sunset, which made half at daytime half at night, iso at about 1250-4000, I tried to compensate for the day half in post by darkening and blue tinting, sort of half ass day for night.

As to shooting in a completely dark room, it can be done so don't use this as evidence that it's impossible, if we gave ourselves time we could have done close ups that look lit by the windows and stuff, but we were lazy, or in a hurry, depending on your point of view.
 
LOL reminds me of the ending scene of the Jerk with steve martin...(insert steve martin) "The chair, the paddle game, the ashtray, the tv remote, and thats it, I dont need one, more, thi... I NEED THAT!!!"
 
Lighting looked really off/odd. If shot some footage on my 7D in pretty low light that for some reason looked better than this IMO. Maybe it was just because your white balance was off as well as lighting.

Id say if your going to shoot in low light you NEED some faster glass. A 50mm 1.8 for sure, and i myself just ordered a tamron 17-50 2.8 for the wider angles.

This should help you a lot. I think you also needed some close up shots mixed in, and probably some camera movement.

You had a few good ideas, and a few parts were even a little funny, but for me, it seemed like you were kinda on the fence about whether to make it to silly or not.
 
jonE5 said:
Lighting looked really off/odd. If shot some footage on my 7D in pretty low light that for some reason looked better than this IMO. Maybe it was just because your white balance was off as well as lighting.

Id say if your going to shoot in low light you NEED some faster glass. A 50mm 1.8 for sure, and i myself just ordered a tamron 17-50 2.8 for the wider angles.

This should help you a lot. I think you also needed some close up shots mixed in, and probably some camera movement.

You had a few good ideas, and a few parts were even a little funny, but for me, it seemed like you were kinda on the fence about whether to make it to silly or not.
Click to expand...

Total agreement about faster glass, but this was mainly a test of the wide-angle adapter and it's f3.5 stop capabilities in available light. For serious projects we pick the tools we know work, but this was to test what this tool can/can't do. I love ultra-wides, but I don't have the money for a Tokina 11-16, which is why we need to test this POS lens and learn to love grainy high iso, or learn to light.

As for not shooting close ups, white balance, tone insecurity, that's all pure stupidity and arrogant laziness. During shooting, I was thinking "This CU is really dark, I should move that lamp over here, uhh f*** it." For no logical reason!

Maybe I guess it was to push how "sloppy" we could get, because the first short we did was shot at 3400 iso and I was really impressed and thought it looked good, then we get a bunch of comments saying how grainy and videoy it was, and I was shocked, in defense mechanism reflex I said "F*** 'em! Even if we try it still looks like shi* so let's not try!" :violin: This is the bizarre result.
There's actually a lot of camera movement, it's just that the steady ones really suck, mainly the last one, which is just terrible, this whole movie you can't see peoples faces- but this moment especially needed them. In keeping strictly to Mikes POV, which is why we didn't shoot towards the room, we couldn't show the guy hiding in wait- because that's something Mike doesn't know and is out of his POV- which is good discipline and could work, but we blew the composition- which is why the music over it is as subtle as a punch to the face.
 
Love the stupid jacket cameo. It's very dry so I can see why not everyone is a big fan, but I find it hilarious just not that "cinematic", but I don't think that's what you were really going for.
 
Thanks. Yeah, dry is a generous way to put it, the tension/humor could easily be deflated if you're distracted by the technical clumsiness-of which there's plenty if you choose to dwell on it.

"Cinematic," you're right in that it was intended to be anti-spectacle, a pathetic exchange between man-child dorks who act opposite how their action movie hero's would- it could have been they act just like their action movie hero's and have a badass fight, as the opening title implies this will be.

But I've watched action movies my whole life and I'm a coward, this is how life is for me and most people, we fail the **** out of life, and for me it's more cathartic to admit that then to make fantasy worlds where I'm totally awesome and can kick anyone's ass and get the chick at the end. But that's just me, I still live through those action movie hero's sometimes, but I can only lie to myself so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top