GH2 Lost Forrest

[ampaze]

Hi everyone,

I finished my first little movie and would like some opinions. It was shot with a GH2 in 24p with two Lomo Primes.
The main intention was to get acquinted with the whole process:

• shooting on location,
• doing visual effects,
• color grading and matching footage
• and even some foley on top

(watch "Lost Forrest" at vimeo)

What do you guys think?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Hi everyone,

I finished my first little movie and would like some opinions. It was shot with a GH2 in 24p with two Lomo Primes.
The main intention was to get acquinted with the whole process:

• shooting on location,
• doing visual effects,
• color grading and matching footage
• and even some foley on top

(watch "Lost Forrest" at vimeo)

What do you guys think?

The one thing that really caught my attention right off was the lack of 'footstep' sounds on the wide shots. On 'shots', I'd probably do some shots from in front of the woman as she moves forward as well as from her back as she walks away.

Another 'bug' that I have is the use of 2.39/2.4 aspect ratio. At 0:11 the woman is low in the frame and cutoff at slightly above the waist, alternatively cutting people off, like at 0:30, in this case head and lower legs of the woman... She does have a nice bustline... but I don't think that's what was intended for the shot...

As for the little special effects, those are good.

But back to the different angles on the shots. You have a long shot, the woman disappears on the left of the frame, reappears on the right, I'd probably add a second disappearance, and a frontal shot of her reapearence. Just to mix it up.

 

[ed_lee83]

nice to see more LOMO users!

 

[ampaze]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, appreciate it!

The one thing that really caught my attention right off was the lack of 'footstep' sounds on the wide shots.

I had actually placed footstep sounds on the wide shots, but couldn't decide how they should compare with the closer shots in volume so I just got rid of them.

On 'shots', I'd probably do some shots from in front of the woman as she moves forward as well as from her back as she walks away.

I agree, didn't think of these while planing and shooting. I had planed a POV shot but it ended up beeing unusable.

Another 'bug' that I have is the use of 2.39/2.4 aspect ratio. At 0:11 the woman is low in the frame and cutoff at slightly above the waist, alternatively cutting people off, like at 0:30, in this case head and lower legs of the woman... She does have a nice bustline... but I don't think that's what was intended for the shot...

The cut offs where mostly already done while shooting and not a result of the cropping in post :embarasse allthough the shot at 0:30 was kind of intended that way to better show the purse. Thinking about it now, this should have been a POV shot :shocked:

As for the little special effects, those are good.

Thanks!

nice to see more LOMO users!

From your signature I see you own a 18mm lomo lens? I used one on the wide shots, stepped all the way down and had problems with blurry edges. Did you encounter that too?

 

[Boncrek]

Nice effects.
Also what was the tripod used for those pannign shots?
The wide shots look a bit soft to me.

 

[maranfilms]

wow! shocking to see how bad that lomo looks on the gh2. Your footage is as soft as warm butter. No offense, I commend any shooter out there actually shooting. And I thought you did a good job with the tilts, shot comp, effects, audio, ect... But to be honest, I thought the footage (due to the glass) looked terrible. Especially the wide stuff. But thats just me. If you like it, well then thats all that matters. keep up the good work.

oh, and one more thing, it looks as if you shot without taking the crop factor into consideration. Maybe should have moved the frame down in the last shot, then cropped it.

 

[ampaze]

Thanks for the feedback!

Nice effects. Also what was the tripod used for those pannign shots?

The head was a 701HDV.

wow! shocking to see how bad that lomo looks on the gh2. Your footage is as soft as warm butter. Especially the wide stuff. But thats just me. If you like it, well then thats all that matters. keep up the good work.

Have to agree with you on the wide shots, not at all happy with those. Didn't notice the closer shots to be particularly soft though ...

oh, and one more thing, it looks as if you shot without taking the crop factor into consideration. Maybe should have moved the frame down in the last shot, then cropped it.

Also true, I didn't intend to crop. But in the end it worked better than the 16:9 version for several reasons, one being the soft wide shots.

 

[ed_lee83]

Nope, none of my 18's are blurry. It could be because you either have a bad copy (does it have any fungus or haze?) or that it needs a collimation.