New romantic comedy feature shot with HVX at 1080 24p
- Thread starter emmettloverdedotcom
- Start date
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
What ? When ? huh ? Eaaassssy.
-
I'm asking that you chill on the other member's of the forum. No one has made any personal attacks, no one has been out of line. In fact, I see everyone offering constructive criticism and opinion.
I see you however, pointing fingers, making allegations and generally being trollish and mussing up this guy's thread.
I don't think Mr Loverde came here for Lip Service replies and if he did, he is in the wrong forum after all. .
-
The images look flat. The dude needs to hire a DP or learn the art of lighting. That's it.
No one here is proclaiming to be 'The Holier Than Thou of Lighting' or filmmaking.
Don't go harping on everyone cause we're not lavishing the grabs with blind praise. Now that is what goes on all the time 'Looks great!' 'Can't wait to check it out!' 'Nice job!'
-
I said they looked bad. That was my opinion and I'll stick to it.
-
Don't go judging what you may assume other's know or do not know of filmmaking and take it easy on the 'Take it like a man' comments.
-
Start another thread please if you going to continue this banter on our forums behaviour guidelines. This guy's thread has already been tainted enough.
stephenvv
Well-known member
zoostory said:
Well, I'm interesting in criticism of the camera.
I'm curious as to if a higher rez version of this shot could be posted. Barry G. and others have talked about the latitude of the HVX exceeding the DVX but I'm still not convinced. But this shot shows some promise though it's hard to tell from a compressed JPG and not knowing what camera settings were used.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I think it would be hard for any camera to pull off this dynamic of a range. An interior of an automobile with the sun behind them ? This shot is exposed properly in my book, exposed for highlight and the subject matter.
Still, the neck is a little hot for me.
Getting some bounce / fill on the dude would have worked wonders obviously.
Still, the neck is a little hot for me.
Getting some bounce / fill on the dude would have worked wonders obviously.
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
I don't know about you guys but who is the super cute lady on the left! She has a nice configuration!
Yeah, the stills looks flat but who cares, Porn has flat lighting and seems no one is complaining!
Check yo selfs!
peace!
Yeah, the stills looks flat but who cares, Porn has flat lighting and seems no one is complaining!
Check yo selfs!
peace!
emmettloverdedotcom
Member
Again, thanks for all the comments and feedback. I appreciate that people enjoyed "A Timely Maneuver" and I hope people feel the writing on "Till You Get to Baraboo" is good as well. If you watched "Timely" you probably noticed that its two stars found their way into "Baraboo"... and you can probably see why (I think both are on their way to being famous).
I hadn't actually posted the stills for critique nor for gushing praise/pats on the back. I just thought people would be interested in seeing more examples of what the HVX can do.
Actually the harsh critiques helped a bit because I'm now going to be much more cautious of which stills we release for publicity purposes.
As far as whether anyone thinks I can light or set up a shot... well, I chose a style and I stuck with it. It's the look I wanted. The compositions usually changed over time as the camera moved and for this forum I simply chose what I thought were dramatic moments (actors doing interesting things). I certainly know about depth of field and how to light a scene to heighten drama and tension; I just don't happen to be making that kind of movie. I'm making a comedy, and the comedy is mainly going to come from the actors and the dialogue, not from the lighting and composition. I will be using filmmaking tricks to heighten the comedy at certain moments but for the most part I simply made sure the actors were well lit and well miked so they could be seen and heard to work their magic.
Given my ten years in the darkroom (color and black and white) and another fifteen years working on Photoshop (yes, since version 1.0) -- working for paying customers at various pro shops -- I'm pretty confident that I know how to color balance a still image. I don't know the settings of the monitors being used by anyone viewing this thread but I doubt they match mine very closely. When I adjusted the stills in Photoshop I made them look pleasing to me on my monitor; they may not look so great on someone else's (which is why we'll be going to a pro for final color timing/grading/correcting/whatever you want to call it).
If you want a scare you should all see the literally hundreds of DVDs stacked up in my workshop that we copied the P2 cards onto for safety (don't worry -- we're using an 800 gig G-RAID for editing). My word, THAT looks horrible.
But I think it beats a lot of the nightmares associated with editing on film.
I hadn't actually posted the stills for critique nor for gushing praise/pats on the back. I just thought people would be interested in seeing more examples of what the HVX can do.
Actually the harsh critiques helped a bit because I'm now going to be much more cautious of which stills we release for publicity purposes.
As far as whether anyone thinks I can light or set up a shot... well, I chose a style and I stuck with it. It's the look I wanted. The compositions usually changed over time as the camera moved and for this forum I simply chose what I thought were dramatic moments (actors doing interesting things). I certainly know about depth of field and how to light a scene to heighten drama and tension; I just don't happen to be making that kind of movie. I'm making a comedy, and the comedy is mainly going to come from the actors and the dialogue, not from the lighting and composition. I will be using filmmaking tricks to heighten the comedy at certain moments but for the most part I simply made sure the actors were well lit and well miked so they could be seen and heard to work their magic.
Given my ten years in the darkroom (color and black and white) and another fifteen years working on Photoshop (yes, since version 1.0) -- working for paying customers at various pro shops -- I'm pretty confident that I know how to color balance a still image. I don't know the settings of the monitors being used by anyone viewing this thread but I doubt they match mine very closely. When I adjusted the stills in Photoshop I made them look pleasing to me on my monitor; they may not look so great on someone else's (which is why we'll be going to a pro for final color timing/grading/correcting/whatever you want to call it).
If you want a scare you should all see the literally hundreds of DVDs stacked up in my workshop that we copied the P2 cards onto for safety (don't worry -- we're using an 800 gig G-RAID for editing). My word, THAT looks horrible.
But I think it beats a lot of the nightmares associated with editing on film.
Last edited:
emmettloverdedotcom
Member
The super cute lady is Genevieve Zweig. She's absolutely brilliant and pretty stunning, too. I recommend, I recommend.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Thank you Emmett for the receptive response and taking it all with a grain of salt. I do indeed see some super positive things in your work and look forward to more from you. I am also sure that you showinf ogg the HVX is very appreciated by the "HVX to be's."
All of our .02 is simply that. .02
All of our .02 is simply that. .02
DavidBeier
Veteran
*single tear rolls down cheek*
That's fine. We can argue forever on what looks good and what doesn't. It's all subject. I think it looks flat and boring, you think it looks good. All that really matters is that all these things were done as an artistic choice and had a purpose in the film (something which I can't tell since I havn't seen the movie).
Yes it's true that most of the energy will come from the actors and script but that doesn't mean that one just throws out important visual aspects. After all, I assume there's a reason you're shooting on an HVX200 rather than some old 1 chip camera.
Cinematography, even in comedies, can have more of an effect that one thinks. To me at least, flat shots simply make me feel bored. I'm not saying that one has to have fantastic angles in a primarily dialogue based film. I'm simply saying that if everything is really flat I notice and I think I would noticed even if I wasn't a stupid film nerd obsessed with the image. If something isn't pleasing to the eye, it becomes a bit distracting and, keep in mind once more this is only my subjective opinion and I mean no disrespect, this is the case in many of the stills I've seen. And to be fair, most comedies are pretty decently shot. Unfortunatly, I've kind of gotten into the habbit of looking really close at the lighting of even mediocre comedies (mainly because I want to see what I can get away with when I can't light very much) and suprisingly they are usually pretty pleasing asteticly. The colors tend to be soft and warm with veyr smooth shadows yet still a good range of luminance. Then there are comedies that have flat out wonderful cinematography like Wes Anderson's films.
In all honesty I think I'm at a loss to properly articulate what is exactly makes this feel so off (even compared to other comedies) but it does. In all liklihood, a profesional CC job should fix everything you need but I don't think it's quite fair to discount such thing.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The lighting.
It is too theatrical, too stage like and not at all natural. The same lighting set-up could be found at a the local theatre
I watched Heat by Michael Mann for the billionth time last night and noticed something new. I paid close attention to all of the little atmospheric audio parts he had in the back of certain scenes that I never noticed before. Things that aren't necessarily music, but help move the scene along.
I wondered, how did I never notice that before? Sure, because the story & acting is moving, but I think it's something more. It's like when people say "I've never seen a good hair transplant/ nosejob". That's exactly the point, if it's good you won't notice it. I think it's the same with cinematography. While it's obviously a plus when people remark how beautiful a shot is, you don't want anything working against your story and the last thing you want is for something to take away.
I think the concern here is that the majority of people in a general audience who don't even know what the term deph of field means can sense in these shots that something feels off or odd.
That's where your lighting is hurting you, it doesn't blend. If you want your actors' performances to stand out, people shouldn't be noticing the lighting.
I wondered, how did I never notice that before? Sure, because the story & acting is moving, but I think it's something more. It's like when people say "I've never seen a good hair transplant/ nosejob". That's exactly the point, if it's good you won't notice it. I think it's the same with cinematography. While it's obviously a plus when people remark how beautiful a shot is, you don't want anything working against your story and the last thing you want is for something to take away.
I think the concern here is that the majority of people in a general audience who don't even know what the term deph of field means can sense in these shots that something feels off or odd.
That's where your lighting is hurting you, it doesn't blend. If you want your actors' performances to stand out, people shouldn't be noticing the lighting.
holditnowfilms
Well-known member
I have to say I thought Poximity did a pretty good job with the CC. The beauty of digital is you can color correct all you want and keep a clean version just in case you want to get it done by a pro. It's not like you are messing with the negative. Have some fun muck around with the CC. I have seen professional CC with the Davinci that looked terrible and mostly it was digital stuff. So like most things it's not that easy to get a magic look.
DavidBeier
Veteran
Damn. I hate it when someone is more articulate than I. You've hit the nale on the head. I actually think it reminded me of lighting for an older TV sitcom but it's the same principle. Both are lights meant to illuminate a whole set.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Examples....
Examples....
Perhaps you could start a thread with links to your work so you can show us how it's done.
Didn't Ebert make a movie once????
Wonder why he stopped and decided to just be a critic?rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Examples....
Perhaps you could start a thread with links to your work so you can show us how it's done.
Didn't Ebert make a movie once????
Wonder why he stopped and decided to just be a critic?
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)John_Hudson said:
spencer
Well-known member
Movies written by Roger Ebert:
Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (1979)
Up! (1976)
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)
As for the stills, i think the girl looks really good, but something about the color and lighting seems kinda non-professional. it looks like it's done properly, but something definately separates it from something like The ODD Squad or something. Maybe it's just me.
To be fair though, there are a lot of really good shots color wise to my eye; for example the dance scene, the one with the guy standing in front of blinds, and the delivery guy stuff looks pretty neat. Whatever, it's better than what i'll probably do, so good job
Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (1979)
Up! (1976)
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)
As for the stills, i think the girl looks really good, but something about the color and lighting seems kinda non-professional. it looks like it's done properly, but something definately separates it from something like The ODD Squad or something. Maybe it's just me.
To be fair though, there are a lot of really good shots color wise to my eye; for example the dance scene, the one with the guy standing in front of blinds, and the delivery guy stuff looks pretty neat. Whatever, it's better than what i'll probably do, so good job
Last edited:
Forrest Schultz
Active member
I just finished filming a feature length movie on 35mm film. It wasnt until in post that i realized i had been running the film through the camera backwards...my bad
now thats comedy
PS: the above story is not true
now thats comedy
PS: the above story is not true
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
ESTEBEVERDE said:Perhaps you could start a thread with links to your work so you can show us how it's done.
Didn't Ebert make a movie once????
Wonder why he stopped and decided to just be a critic?
What are you, some kind of wiseguy ?
Don't be a wanker.
You can watch my crap at www.outlandpictures.com
I know my work is not the stuff they cast in molds and have never professed that. I can dig up about 4000 character witnesses on this site who can attest to that. I don't think my work is gospel or even good for that matter.
You want to see a critic ? I am my own WORST one I assure you
-
You can find a film called Pestilence over on triggerstreet for the Zombiefest.
-
If you're one of those people that want's nothing but faux praise when you submit something, just let me know and Ill tag your profile with that information.
lol John...too funny.
I don't really equate flat lighting with theater personally. I've seen and expect wonderful lighghting for stage productions. But I think I kindof see what you mean.
The bigger issue that instantly pops up in the stills is the fact that the backgrounds do a great disservice to the composition. In the closeup, you have an attractive actor standing against a very unappealing background that does not put her in a space that evokes anything. Granted, I'm only judging it based on a still.
In the three shot, you may have separated the actors from the background using illumination but the background looks totally unlit and clashes with the foreground subject. Not having any DOF causes the background to attract the eye too much.
The background is vitally important to the composition of the shot and needs to be treated with equal attention. Also, theres a maxim in painting that what you leave out is just as imporant as what you put in.
I don't really equate flat lighting with theater personally. I've seen and expect wonderful lighghting for stage productions. But I think I kindof see what you mean.
The bigger issue that instantly pops up in the stills is the fact that the backgrounds do a great disservice to the composition. In the closeup, you have an attractive actor standing against a very unappealing background that does not put her in a space that evokes anything. Granted, I'm only judging it based on a still.
In the three shot, you may have separated the actors from the background using illumination but the background looks totally unlit and clashes with the foreground subject. Not having any DOF causes the background to attract the eye too much.
The background is vitally important to the composition of the shot and needs to be treated with equal attention. Also, theres a maxim in painting that what you leave out is just as imporant as what you put in.