Screen Grabs from first days w/ the DVX

The picture that has been drawn all over in this section looks great. Content is the most important thing. You DONT need a light outlining the back of his head unless you were lighting that way from the begining. Depending on the mood and direction of a story, it may call for people being completly dark with the background lit.
 
"Learn the rules, then you can break them." I think that's all people are saying here high8. Yes, that shot may be aesthetically pleasing to you, and it may work for a scene, but it should be consistent. Luckyproducer said he just got this look "outta the box" and didn't know what to do to recreate that look. If you don't have the foundation, how are you going to match the next shot to look like that one?
-Ryan
 
I think I have to disagree with thisiswells on this one.

Not every shot needs a rim light. Not every detail on a face needs to be exposed. It's ok and sometimes desired for a figure to blend in with the background. It's Noir lighting. Ridley Scott always has portions of the form fading into sihouette and merges forms into backgrounds (including faces). In Minority Report many many scenes were shot using that kind of silhouetting of the forms with only partial artistic sections of a face exposed. It's really an artistic choice, not a hard unbreakable rule. It might not be another film maker's choice to do it that way, but that doesn't make it wrong. (not said with flaming in mind, just disagreeing)

The only shots that didn't feel like they were lit with intention were the middle aged woman, the pen and the piano (but that shot had nice SDOF). All the shots in the parking garage worked for me. I rather liked the shot of the guy holding the video camera. I've seen many music videos on MTV using that kind of lighting.

What's important about the use of lighting is once you've selected an artistic or narrative choice you keep it consistent through a given scene. (ie. I wouldn't mix the MTV style shot I mentioned within the lighting chosen in the parking garage unless it had a specific narrative purpose)

The rest is subjective. Keep it up. For someone using the camera only 3 days, you're well on your way. But you should document how you created a look if you find something you like so you can use it again later (especially if you're shooting a project and not goofing around).
 
I like your thinking Hybrid. I understand why it's important to know the basics. Because if I shot a scene in two different days, I would have to know how to match the first day. Alright, thanks a lot guys for your help. I will be posting more stuff as soon as I get in some lighting stuff. Peace!
 
Sweet storyteller. You really put my hopes up. I will be doing more tests and using lights and researching more about lights. I don't know why, but it seems like if the video is not high contrasted and a little darker, it doesn't look like film. I'm not sure how to create a normal film look but without high contrast, like a family movie or something that has vivid colors. I rather have the lighting and look of Minority Report (green and blue tints) and Bad Boys II (high contrast). Those are my favorite looks. But if ever happen to create a normal family movie or something, I wouldn't know how to make it look filmic. Do we still use high contrast here but just more color? Curious. Hmmm...
 
Not everything has to be high contrast to get a filmic quality. It's really in the eye of the beholder. A great deal of it is in the lighting, but try these settings on the camera and see what you think of them. One of the really talented people on this board used them for a flik he was shooting (don't know if he ever finished it though). The great Shai Levy. I loved the look he created using these settings:

cine gamma *
matrix normal *
chroma -4 *
detail -4 *
master ped -2 *
thin *
 
Lucky should defend his artistic position, yes. But, he should also be able to explain "why" he chose to do things a certain way. Stumbling upon a "good look" is easy. Recreating it is hard! It's much easier when you know "what" you're going for.

So, props to you, Lucky, for sticking to your guns. I would have done things differently, but that doesn't make me right. Now, if every shot you do from now on looks as good as this one, you'll do very well. And, I think you'll be able to make a visually compelling movie. Good luck!
 
LuckyProducer said:
Ok first thing I was just shooting around. I was planning the shots. Please read everything when you get my posts because I include everything that I already know. But anyway, if I would light this and plan this, how would I light it?

I don't know, I've seen movies that have this same look. My favorite one is #4 (the one where he's about to go inside the car).

[Sigh] What will it take for me to impress you guys? Lol!
Click to expand...

u act like people on here are rude, there just trying to help u out cause ur footage is dark.
 
Another thing to keep in mind when going for the dark, high contrasty, bleachy bypassy, Finchery, whatever styley, is often times when you achieve this in camera you are actually not recording enough latitude for post and will get all kinds of noise (I've done this). Often with video, in my experience, you'll get a better end result if you light things a little flatter, less contrast, then get that look in post. Just my opinion, as I also like the darker, high contrast look and this is my experience with it.

Keep shooting. :)
 
Oh no, I am sorry if I made it seem like I think you guys are rude. Not at all! You guys are really helping me out. I make it darker in post yes. It isn't that dark when I'm shooting. lol! But's alright. I'll do some more tests whenever I have time. thanks for all the posts guys!
 
Oh about that movie that is titled Broken...well, I gave my script a title before I even heard about it. I had this other post here and they told me not to worry because there are a lot of movies with the same name. so...i think it should be fine.
 
LuckyProducer said:
Oh about that movie that is titled Broken...well, I gave my script a title before I even heard about it. I had this other post here and they told me not to worry because there are a lot of movies with the same name. so...i think it should be fine.
Click to expand...

Not to sound like an ass, but do you really want YOUR movie to share the same title as "a lot of movies"? I do a lot of writing and title is key. Mine change a lot, especially if I find out there is something SIMILAR (let alone exact) out there. I don't want MY piece to be confused with someone else's. That's just how I feel.

-Robert
 
I thought the pictures looked fine, especially for just taking the camera out of the box. I am a big fan of film noir, so I like the shadow-y look. I find it creates much better atmosphere and mood to any picture (however, probably wouldn't work for a comedy).

The "edge" light is a rim light and is created by putting a light behind the actor to somewhat make a silhouette of him. This rim light is also usually a few stops over exposed.

The problem with "good" lighting is that there's no right or wrong answer; it's all subjective. What may seem like "good" lighting to one is bad to another. It also depends on the context of the scene and movie itself. I, personally like to light by what's going on within the character, but also taking into account the scene itself. IE, if a character is hiding something from another character, I'll try to put the "hiders" face in shadow.

Do what looks good to you and what you like. Listen to other peoples advice, but don't take it as hard and fast rules. If it looks good to you, then it's right. There is no wrong when it comes to art (if there was Picasso would be in jail. I mean really, who has a face that looks like two faces?)
 
Well, about the name thing, I registered my script with the Guild of America or whatever, and it has that name on it. And all of the copies of the script has that name. So how the heck am I supposed to change it now? I was thinking about it, but I don't want to spend more money on making more copies and it would be dumb to register it again you know?

Let me know...
 
LuckyProducer said:
Well, about the name thing, I registered my script with the Guild of America or whatever, and it has that name on it. And all of the copies of the script has that name. So how the heck am I supposed to change it now? I was thinking about it, but I don't want to spend more money on making more copies and it would be dumb to register it again you know?

Let me know...
Click to expand...

You don't have to re-register because you change the title. Registering the script proves you wrote it and when. It doesn't copyright the title to you or anything. Titles change, even during production. It's just a face of the business. You do what you feel, but what I said is what I would do.

I wrote a great story about vampires that live in a lot in Salem. I was going to call it Salems Lot... just kidding. :thumbsup:

-Robert
 
Backlot Rebels said:
There is no wrong when it comes to art (if there was Picasso would be in jail. I mean really, who has a face that looks like two faces?)
Click to expand...

That explains why i am always right lolz :laugh:
 
Ought2bCommitted said:
Salems Lot
-Robert
Click to expand...

That was one of the first scary movies I remember seeing after moving out on my own. That vampire floating up to the window. Still gives me the willys just thinking about it. As far as titles, the only reasons I can see to use the same title as another movie is a.) try to piggyback on a successful movie, b.) remake. But it's always better to have your own unique title that distinguishes you from the rest of the pack. And sometimes finding that title can be a bizatch.
 
Cryogenic Filmworks said:
That was one of the first scary movies I remember seeing after moving out on my own. That vampire floating up to the window. Still gives me the willys just thinking about it. As far as titles, the only reasons I can see to use the same title as another movie is a.) try to piggyback on a successful movie, b.) remake. But it's always better to have your own unique title that distinguishes you from the rest of the pack. And sometimes finding that title can be a bizatch.
Click to expand...

I know. That part STILL freaks me out to this day!!!! :thumbsup:

Ditto on the reasons to use the same title as another piece.

-Robert
 
Pretty good pretty good. It has a Traffic-ky look to it in some parts, sort of sweaty. Except since they're darker shots, not really.

But don't feel weird about your contrast-love, I don't think I've ever not tweaked a shot before.

As always, CUs look great with the DVX, really the only sore-thumb-severely-video-ish grab would be the one of the woman. Keep experimenting, read up, and update us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top