Screengrabs - Give me Feedback

L

LightningFilms

Active member
Hey,

Next week I start shooting my first feature, "Repetition of Change". We've had a few rehearsals in the past couple weeks and I've been shooting them to experiment with Magic Bullet CC for Vegas and lighting. I'm trying to acheive a "film" look without a 35mm kit, which I know is difficult but achievable.

I was wondering if you guys would be able to look over some screen grabs and throw me a couple pointers on color, gamma, grain, and lighting. I know I'm asking for a lot but I've learned so much on this site it's not even funny.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22736728@N04/

That is the link to the photo gallery.

Movie website: http://www.repetitionofchange.com

The scene is two detectives interrogating a doctor for suspicion of malpractice. The movie is dark and depressing. I know my DOF isn't the greatest, but it's the best I've been able to get on board with my DVX.
 
It looks like a lot of indie films I have seen shot inside houses, the actors are too close to the backgrounds and the DOF is too deep. What is your iris setting for these stills? You may need to add some ND filters to get the iris to open up, as well as repositioning people to be further from the backgrounds, even if you need to cheat a little bit. Also, the lighting looks quite harsh and unnatural, and not dark or mysterious at all. You may need to tone it down, and work to better augment light that would be there instead of just blasting light at the actors. The light needs to look and feel like it's coming from the direction of light fixtures that might actually be there: a window, a desk lamp, an overhead lamp, etc.
 
Joshua Provost said:
It looks like a lot of indie films I have seen shot inside houses, the actors are too close to the backgrounds and the DOF is too deep. What is your iris setting for these stills? You may need to add some ND filters to get the iris to open up, as well as repositioning people to be further from the backgrounds, even if you need to cheat a little bit. Also, the lighting looks quite harsh and unnatural, and not dark or mysterious at all. You may need to tone it down, and work to better augment light that would be there instead of just blasting light at the actors. The light needs to look and feel like it's coming from the direction of light fixtures that might actually be there: a window, a desk lamp, an overhead lamp, etc.
Click to expand...

You're right Joshua. I think the iris was either open or at 1.6. The lighting is our concern for next week - we do need to make it a bit more "natural".

The problem with that room is it's INCREDIBLY small. I'm a bit confused as to how we can "cheat" to create more depth, maybe you can elaborate on that a bit.

Thanks for the quick and honest feedback - greatly appreciated.
 
Wow, the iris was wide open for those shots? Looking at them I would have thought it was down at F5.6 or F8 because the DOF was very deep. Double-check that. You may need to find a compromise solution, like shooting at F2.0 at Z50 to get "shallower-looking" DOF, and just move the camera around to get your framing.

By cheating I mean that you need to position that camera, person, and background as far away from each other as possible for each angle. You may have to change the setup for each side of a two-person conversation, so you are cheating, the people may be standing on marks for their CU's that may not be where they would stand in a medium shot, but you're moving them around to create better separation.

Try lowering DETAIL all the way combined with these other techniques, and see if that doesn't result in a softer look.

I think really you need to find larger locations, the bigger the better.

All that technical stuff aside, if the story is good and the acting is good, you can still have a good film. The stills just were very video-looking.
 
Wouldn't lowering the detail that far over soften the rest of the image? It would definitely help for a shallow dof but might degrade the rest of the image too much.

I always shoot with the iris wide open and use nd filters if needed and stay on at least z25. I use the iris dial to make minor adjustments when needed.
 
I think the pictures are excellent. Looks like extremely sharp film. It's definitely good enough not to distract from your really good story - if you have one. ;)
 
Thanks for the tips guys. I'm confident in my story and actors to make up for any lack of cinematography "value" that I may have.

However, I will be experimenting with all of your suggestions to see what works. Thanks again.
 
BryantStanton said:
Wouldn't lowering the detail that far over soften the rest of the image? It would definitely help for a shallow dof but might degrade the rest of the image too much.
Click to expand...

My experience with the DETAIL setting is that even at -7, whatever is in focus looks sharp. It's every else that goes soft. You can always sharpen in post where you have access to Unsharp Mask, with the fine controls to tune to only sharpen what you want to sharpen. Don't know if you've even read the DV Rebel's Guide, but that's his approach, anyway. An image with DETAIL down is a less complicated image, thus easier for the DV codec to compress and overall higher quality as a result.

I think we use about the same technique for iris control. I define the stop I want to use, and then light to it, adjusting with ND filters as necessary. However, consider stepping up to a different range. Although F1.7 is as open as it gets, it has a limited zoom range, and using zooming in also gives the look of shallower depth of field. At F1.7 you can go from Z0-around Z25. At F2 you go all the way to Z50, and F2.8 gives you the full zoom range.

If you are trying to do a closup, F2.8, Z80 from 8 feet away will definitely have a much shallower look than F1.7, Z10 from 3 feet away, even though it's stopped down 1.5 stops. It's all about finding a good combination of exposure and zoom range that works for you.

Also something to think about is that depth of field is really only a valid charactistic for tripod shots. Let me explain. Whenever you move the camera on a dolly, crane, jib, or whatever, the perspective changes, so there is a sense of depth to the shot. The actual DOF is not as important. It's only really a factor when you lock the camera down and shoot a one or two shot, since the background is just sitting there staring you in the face.
 
Josh, that is one of the most valuable posts I've come across on this site - and right on time - shooting Sunday. This is very helpful. THANK YOU!!
 
Duuude!!! Those teasers looks amazing! I really like the look that you are going for. Sorry this is off topic of the dx 100, but if you dont mind sharing, what you are using for those trippy looking filters. Once again, props !
 
yay props!

yay props!

thanks a lot MMiller! your props are greatly appreciated. :2vrolijk_08:

I push Sony Vegas 6 to the limits. A lot of people swear by after effects but I can acheive similar looking results in Vegas.

The "bad sync" is called TV SIMULATOR and it's a Visual effect thats part of Vegas. That adds the poor vertical/horizontal sync, the interlacing, phosperence, and static. The timecode and color bars are also part of Vegas. A little keyframing and 10 layers of audio tracks later - you end up with those bad larry's.

Oh...and the footage was color corrected with Magic Bullet. Preset "No.85" with a little gamma/contrast/saturation tweaking.
 
Thank you for sharing. I am amazed that you got that good of a look with just a dvx and sony vegas.. Your editing style can be used in many movies. Keep at it!
 
what particular shadows are you referring to? is it in a still or the footage?

...because I have had some difficulties in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top