FS5: The FS5 goes cinematic with Lights

I hate the use of the term cinematic purely because it means something different to everybody and in visual terms it is far more about what is in front of the lens rather than what is behind it. And then a student will scream everyone down and say no, it's about 24fps and 180deg shutter, except for all the times it is not. And so on and so on.

I am also a fan of dirty frames and have used prisms and filter and all sorts in the past when the job called for it. I have a ziplock bag in my camera bag filled with Stuff like this to get effects. I liked the piece. It was a bit overdone but was a good demo of a bunch of different looks and techniques.
 
Ben Scott said:
Good job Dannygarage. Probably the nicest FS5 footage I have seen so far.
Click to expand...

Serious? Obviously you haven't seen much.

Im confused here. FS5 is XAVV 50mbps 422 which is indistinguishable to FS7 XAVC -I compressed to YouTube or Vimeo coz of the compression. There is no difference.

Im sorry guys but I'm so confused i gotta smoke something and drink a bottle of Jamesons.
 
BeeHop said:
Serious? Obviously you haven't seen much.

Im confused here. FS5 is XAVV 50mbps 422 which is indistinguishable to FS7 XAVC -I compressed to YouTube or Vimeo coz of the compression. There is no difference.

Im sorry guys but I'm so confused i gotta smoke something and drink a bottle of Jamesons.
Click to expand...


I'm not a fan of the camera at all. But as someone who likes doing dirty frame stuff in-camera I enjoyed that. Get over yourself.

EDIT: I don't think the FS5 is indistinguishable from the FS7 on youtube.

EDIT EDIT: I hear ya about being grumpy online. Guilty of it a lot myself :)
 
Ben Scott said:
I'm not a fan of the camera at all. But as someone who likes doing dirty frame stuff in-camera I enjoyed that. Get over yourself.

Not an attack on you at all Ben, enjoy and love what u will with all yr heart and love. I just don't get it....maybe it was the title of CINEMATIC that threw me off.

anyways you get over yourself for telling me to getting over myself when this is a public forum and you have upset me and now i am crying and feel i have no friends :(
Click to expand...
 
A 'public forum' doesn't mean you're not allowed to politely point out when people are talking bollocks.

Anyone who uses the term 'cinematic' in this way deserves a punch in the face in my opinion. I think Dennis does it just to wind people up! :)


Sorry about your friend situation. I hear that sweet liquor eases the pain.
 
Ben Scott said:
A 'public forum' doesn't mean you're not allowed to politely point out when people are talking bollocks.

Anyone who uses the term 'cinematic' in this way deserves a punch in the face in my opinion. I think Dennis does it just to wind people up! :)


Sorry about your friend situation. I hear that sweet liquor eases the pain.
Click to expand...

Hahaha Awesome ... love it :laugh:
 
Ben Scott said:
Anyone who uses the term 'cinematic' in this way deserves a punch in the face in my opinion. I think Dennis does it just to wind people up! :)
Click to expand...

So how would you describe DannyGarage's film? A home video with light flares? If you can't describe what it is explain why it isn't cinematic.

IMHO 'Lights' is cinematic. I await a punch in the face.

@DannyGarage, congrats on your film and thanks for pointing me in the direction of Bruno Aveillan's work. I can see your references and wow, his work is stunning.
 
DannyGarage said:
Hi, I´m the director/cinematographer of this shortfilm, no plugins used in this video, all was made with my personal collection of broken glasses, prisms and some vaseline, using classic nikon nikkor lenses at max aperture ;)
Click to expand...

Great job Danny. I used to do the glass in front of lens technique, so I know just how hard it is to achieve the shots you have.

Ignore the pixel peepers round here, most of whom aren't man enough to show their real name let alone their work.
 
DannyGarage said:
Actually I love Bruno Aveillan´s work, his art inspires me a lot for all videos i do. But thank you, now i´m going to look for Conrad Hall´s work :)
Click to expand...
I had to look up Aveillan.

In any case, Conrad Hall (3 Oscars) was deemed a Top 10 most influential cinematographer in history. His claim to fame is going against the accepted norms that prevailed in the 1960's and shooting a lot of sun flares, blown highlights and so on.

The opening sequence of the bike ride is somewhat similar to what Roger Deakins did in "Jesse James" but some 45 years earlier.

 
Nirv said:
So how would you describe DannyGarage's film? A home video with light flares? If you can't describe what it is explain why it isn't cinematic.

IMHO 'Lights' is cinematic. I await a punch in the face.

@DannyGarage, congrats on your film and thanks for pointing me in the direction of Bruno Aveillan's work. I can see your references and wow, his work is stunning.
Click to expand...

It's not for me to explain why something is or isn't cinematic. It's that people's neverending search for the most cinematic camera or cinematic lens completely ignores that fact that the values that go into something appearing 'cinematic' are 99% about what is in front of the front optic and not behind it, and probably a good 70% of that is production design and 30% lighting.

As for the piece, I already stated I liked it. I'd describe it as a nice little short. Don't really see why it has to be labelled something else. Is it cinematic? No. Does it look like it is a movie? No. Is something that looks like a movie the only yardstick by whether we can judge if pictures are good or pleasing or well executed? No. It looks like a solid TV promo/commercial for something. Which is great.

I'll add the punch to your tally. I keep a list :)
 
Last edited:
Nirv said:
So how would you describe DannyGarage's film? A home video with light flares? If you can't describe what it is explain why it isn't cinematic.

IMHO 'Lights' is cinematic. I await a punch in the face.

@DannyGarage, congrats on your film and thanks for pointing me in the direction of Bruno Aveillan's work. I can see your references and wow, his work is stunning.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot! Follow Aveillan´s work and u´ll see a new kind of style ;)
 
Ben Scott said:
It's not for me to explain why something is or isn't cinematic. It's that people's neverending search for the most cinematic camera or cinematic lens completely ignores that fact that the values that go into something appearing 'cinematic' are 99% about what is in front of the front optic and not behind it, and probably a good 70% of that is production design and 30% lighting.
Click to expand...

Good points Ben.

When i think about mainstream films that look good, Lord of the rings and Rush is two good examples. Where one delivers clean, nice, images with lots of VFX, the other uses vintage lenses and vintage grade to deliver a different look.

Cinematic is an extremely wide term. Could we agree that "professional", "tasteful", and "artsy", are descriptions that fit inside that designation?

I think a good cinematographer should use his craft to stengthen the directors story. I wouldnt necessarily have liked Rush as much if it had the style of LoTR, and vice versa would be rather disgusting.
 
Martin.G said:
Good points Ben.When i think about mainstream films that look good, Lord of the rings and Rush is two good examples. Where one delivers clean, nice, images with lots of VFX, the other uses vintage lenses and vintage grade to deliver a different look. Cinematic is an extremely wide term. Could we agree that "professional", "tasteful", and "artsy", are descriptions that fit inside that designation?I think a good cinematographer should use his craft to stengthen the directors story. I wouldnt necessarily have liked Rush as much if it had the style of LoTR, and vice versa would be rather disgusting.
Click to expand...


Rush is a great example of a very cinematic film. Because it had great access to locations, a beautiful talented cast, fantastic costume and art direction and all the lights and lighting talent in the world. It also had a very heavy and intensive grade that fit perfectly with a lot of selective saturation combiningg with muting of the overall palette, plus lots of GFX.Anthony Dod Mantle did an amazing job on it, and the energy he imparts to the race scenes with the on-camera tracking rigs and the macro mini-cameras is amazing. But the reason it looks 'cinematic' is not because of him or his camera choice. It's a machine that he and his team are a cog of. I definitely recommend the American Cinematographer issue on it.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2013/Rush/page1.php

Short excerpt

Dod Mantle worked with colorist Adam Glasman on the final grade, which was done on the Resolve (on Linux). “It was a big job, and you never have enough time for the grade,” says Dod Mantle. “Like the whole production, the grade was a labyrinth.“Cinematographers fret about losing control in situations like that, but I’ve never had more control over a grade in my life,” he continues. “You have to make it clear at the outset that you’re responsible, and that you will run it. There are hundreds of people helping you, but it’s still the cinematographer, together with the director, who ultimately defines how a film should look.”
During the timing, little bits of movement were added to Indiecam shots that could not be panned or tilted on set. “I was trying to visualize the personalities of the cars themselves, and from the beginning I intended to add up to 250 extra camera moves to those locked-off frames during the grade,” says Dod Mantle. Grain manipulation was another major task, easing the transitions between archival and contemporary footage. “I also did a lot of defocusing, with massive focus falloff on the edges, and focused irregularly or illogically in the frame to take the eye where I wanted it to go,” says Dod Mantle.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top