Stills from a senior thesis (Critisism Pls!)

[nickmicros]

Posted this in user films and no feedback.... This is the second short I have shot as cinematographer within 2 years, so I am excited and despretly want to heare some feedback. Framing, lighting, blocking.... Only have stills from 2 drops of footage. More to come.

The film is a dark comedy. Almost a romance. The male is in love with a lesbian and even though they have a strong connection in between the two. The female does not feel love for the male. Causing him to become suicidal.

The film is cool bc I get to do romantic french style for flashbacks. Like natural flat light and hand held. At the same time I got to set up some clean lighting with lots of pop, zing to it. Plus a couple of camera tricks that turned out way better than I expected. The film is cool bc I get to do romantic french style for flashbacks. Like natural flat light and hand held. At the same time I got to set up some clean lighting with lots of pop, zing to it. Plus a couple of camera tricks that turned out way better than I expected. Such as 2 shot sequences with seamless cuts, lighting and composition were the tools to get the tricks right.

HVX/Letus extreme Nikon
85mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
35mm f/2.0

Arri 2k, 650 and endless 500w omnis. Limited gels and no flags.

2 people in camera, lighing and g/e. Including me.



In this scene the lighting set up was still being modified. This still was actually from rehearsal. The lighting changed a bit bc it was way too dramatic. Top left of frame got some added light, refrigerator reflection was fixed, the light on the gold bar was cut down and the females lead key light was fixed.

Had a hard time getting the females key light right.

Opening frame

For title sequence

A scene dedicated to cleaning. The male cleaning the females house.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Great stuff! I really like the composition and exposure of the woman outside the buildings. My only complaint would be the OTS of the first wide. The man's yellow shirt is lit very bright and starts to compete with attracting the viewers eye. Had it been darker, it would not have been so distracting.

I'd like to see more.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well, you did say you were working on the lighting of the woman in the first shots, so, I think the last of that set up I liked the lighting on her best.

The 'cityscape' shots... I get 'drafted' by the Wife to setup for 'architectural' shots because I use to do a lot of 4x5 work and used swings and tilts... a lot... but what the Wife doesn't understand it seems that with no swings and tilts there's not much one can do, especially if the lens is 'pulling' because of its wideangleness.

So, what one has to do is compromise... and so I compromise with at least one line, or horizon line, being 'square' with at least one of the frame sides...

So, in the first cityscape shot, I'd probably go for the large beige building, having its 'vertical' lines parallel with the right and left frame sides, or as close as possible to parallel... remember compromise... and then if there was lens distortion, at least something central would be 'straight'...

In the second shot, the rooflines and the TV antenna look fairly 'right angles' and parallel to the frame.

In the last shot, again the buildings that line the street 'look' like they're about to fall backwards... works if you're Rolland Emmerich and the world as we know it is about to end...

Are there uses of a 'dutch angle'... sure... but a 'dutch angle' is an exageration... these shots appear to be not done for an aesthetic reason, so, I'd straighten them up.

 

[RyanT]

I agree about the yellow shirt. Maybe you can flag that off in post though and just bring it down a bit. Especially on the OTS.

It's a shame though as almost all of them seem a bit soft.

 

[Joe Calabrese]

The second and third shots seem to be drastically different from the first. The lady's right side is lit well in the the second and third, but in the first, it is shadowed. So, I would either put less light on her right side in the OS shots, or put another light to light her right in the two shot. I would prefer to take the light from her right side, because I think the second and third shots look too flat, but that's my opinion. It also depends on how the image will add to the feelings the viewer is supposed to get from this scene.

 

[nickmicros]

Well, you did say you were working on the lighting of the woman in the first shots, so, I think the last of that set up I liked the lighting on her best.

The 'cityscape' shots... I get 'drafted' by the Wife to setup for 'architectural' shots because I use to do a lot of 4x5 work and used swings and tilts... a lot... but what the Wife doesn't understand it seems that with no swings and tilts there's not much one can do, especially if the lens is 'pulling' because of its wideangleness.

So, what one has to do is compromise... and so I compromise with at least one line, or horizon line, being 'square' with at least one of the frame sides...

So, in the first cityscape shot, I'd probably go for the large beige building, having its 'vertical' lines parallel with the right and left frame sides, or as close as possible to parallel... remember compromise... and then if there was lens distortion, at least something central would be 'straight'...

In the second shot, the rooflines and the TV antenna look fairly 'right angles' and parallel to the frame.

In the last shot, again the buildings that line the street 'look' like they're about to fall backwards... works if you're Rolland Emmerich and the world as we know it is about to end...

Are there uses of a 'dutch angle'... sure... but a 'dutch angle' is an exageration... these shots appear to be not done for an aesthetic reason, so, I'd straighten them up.

The title sequence is actually hand held with the 35mm and on sticks with the 85mm. Shake will be added in post the the 85mm stuff. The movement is better for the story and I feel will distract the audiance from the horizontal and vertical lines. Tilt shift lens are amazing but there is not even enough money in the budget to rent one.

My only complaint would be the OTS of the first wide. The man's yellow shirt is lit very bright and starts to compete with attracting the viewers eye. Had it been darker, it would not have been so distracting.

I'd like to see more.

So true. I saw his exposure was around 75% with my marker in the HVX and honestly settled. We hand limited time and I was spazing out trying to get the last set up for coverage. I feel like every time I get into that mindset something is suffering.

The second and third shots seem to be drastically different from the first. The lady's right side is lit well in the the second and third, but in the first, it is shadowed. So, I would either put less light on her right side in the OS shots, or put another light to light her right in the two shot. I would prefer to take the light from her right side, because I think the second and third shots look too flat, but that's my opinion. It also depends on how the image will add to the feelings the viewer is supposed to get from this scene.

The first frame in the post is actually a "rough draft" of the masters lighting. The still is from a full rehearsal. Her key was moved after that, as well as a couple of other changes. The reason why I posted the master is to see if anyone could tell I cheated the blocking. If you or ryan didn't spot the cheat, I feel like the audience will not see the cheat. Also, in the ots medium, the male is taking up so much of the frame bc of the cheat. Didn't have much wiggle room.

I agree about the yellow shirt. Maybe you can flag that off in post though and just bring it down a bit. Especially on the OTS.

It's a shame though as almost all of them seem a bit soft.

That is exactly what I was thinking. Long as his shirt doesn't lose saturation and turn gray. I felt and still feel like everyone is in critical focus. However, I was forced to shoot at f1.4 or f2.0 most of the time bc of limited lighting gear. Only had one 2k and one 650 as well as a couple of 500s around. Also by back iris, most of the time was around f2.4 or f2.8 on the HVX gamma setting "high" for low light. A shitty curve. Still looks relatively clean but needs more grading. I am hoping if you and the others feel that way it will still be ok. If the film is constantly "slightly soft," the films par will be set by that. The audience will quickly accept that and it will not be detracting. The feature "Medicine For Melancholy," was shot with an HVX and adapter, with so much clipping going on everywhere. But that was the par, I feel like the audience quickly accepts the mass amounts of over exposure and continues to move into the story.

Long story but here is the short version. I broke the glass on my achromat while we were shooting the house interiors. Shattered the edged of it but had no crack or scratch though the middle of the glass. I popped out the achromat from the letus and cleaned out the bits and pieces of loose glass but could not get the achromat back in flush. So I ghetto rigged it. Pushed the glass in tight and applied some camera tape around the edges. Also, zoomed in a little to get the cracked stuff out of frame. Making the back focus drastically change and I wouldn't be surprised if the corners are soft. But I can't tell except for the 8th frame. On the far right, it looks like there is water on the glass. Anyways, it is a cinematographers horror story. I am most likely going to repair my camera and a couple of other things, sell it and purchase gh1 now.