GH3 why do mods close interesting threads

M

malibudutchie

Well-known member
Dear Mod, The "cinematic - must see" thread was generating some good debate. Yes there were a few "harsh words" but seriously, to close a thread that for once had a bit of thought to it rather than: "What lens should I buy...." is being a bit precious, don't you think. We can take criticism, good or bad, so how about you moderate those who use language or flames and let threads wind their way to an end with intellectual debate.
 
It was an interesting discussion, but too many violent "put up or shut up" type posts which seem to plague creative forums.
 
Fresno Bob said:
It was an interesting discussion, but too many violent "put up or shut up" type posts which seem to plague creative forums.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd tend to agree. I wasnt the closer, however I can see why it was closed. Personally I didnt see much to the thread that was very constructive in the least.

The forums are moderated by volunteers who, I can tell you first hand, moderate in the interests of the MAJORITY. I think this is one of the best moderated forums around and I dont see many heavy hands being used.
 
If you want to see some Nazi style moderating, get over to RedUser. I got banned for 2 months for saying "but those new F's do look pretty sweet"

Trust me, this place is chill.
 
I feel ya brother....fight the power. It was the most interesting thread in awhile.
 
The only put up or shut up discussion was when critics were asked to show their work or link to work they liked - even the critics were moderate in their criticism - I thought the thread was constructive in that we discussed something rarely discussed on these forums ie. stylistic creative factors that make up a production rather than pixels, artifacts and rig configurations. So who's up for a another 4K discussion, followed by grading tips......
 
I was the mod who closed the thread. As Noel said, the thread had gone from semi-constructive discussion to worthless dick-swinging. Feel free to start a thread about "what makes an image cinematic," if you'd like to. It'll probably be a lot more positive and productive than the one I closed, especially if you take the camera-focused part of the discussion out of the equation.

Better yet…start it in the production design or cinematography sections, as that's really where discussions of the "cinematic" belong.

Peace and love to all of you.
 
malibudutchie said:
The only put up or shut up discussion was when critics were asked to show their work or link to work they liked - even the critics were moderate in their criticism - I thought the thread was constructive in that we discussed something rarely discussed on these forums ie. stylistic creative factors that make up a production rather than pixels, artifacts and rig configurations. So who's up for a another 4K discussion, followed by grading tips......
Click to expand...

Whatever your reaction was to it, it's a critical reaction.
Some people took offence to my criticism of the lens flares - it's fair to come down either side. That's what forums are all about. My negativity was not towards the (very well shot) video, it was towards the over-use of current/past trends (flare and scandi-grade), which age the work.
 
Fresno Bob said:
Whatever your reaction was to it, it's a critical reaction.
Some people took offence to my criticism of the lens flares - it's fair to come down either side. That's what forums are all about. My negativity was not towards the (very well shot) video, it was towards the over-use of current/past trends (flare and scandi-grade), which age the work.
Click to expand...


The lens flare was because it was shot with an anamorphic lens, it was not created in post.

I was the person who opened the thread.....


While looking at GH3 videos I ran into that one, my first initial reaction was wow it looks really different than many videos I have been seeing. The old car, the persons clothes, the setting, angles etc. is what made me feel it looked cinematic, meaning things that remind me of cinema and look very professional.

The problem with people was they disagreed, I only asked to see what then they considered cinema. A healthy debate that I feel could have continued.

Regardless the topic did what it needed to do,
peace
 
J.F.R. said:
The lens flare was because it was shot with an anamorphic lens, it was not created in post.
Click to expand...

No, the lens flare was because they purposefully pointed the camera at the light source in order to create a flare...in pretty much every shot.
 
J.F.R. said:
The lens flare was because it was shot with an anamorphic lens, it was not created in post.

I was the person who opened the thread.....


While looking at GH3 videos I ran into that one, my first initial reaction was wow it looks really different than many videos I have been seeing. The old car, the persons clothes, the setting, angles etc. is what made me feel it looked cinematic, meaning things that remind me of cinema and look very professional.
Click to expand...

Sure... the problem is that having been alive 'in that period' the clip looked like a crappy transfer of some of my more favored films... or my now heavily faded family photo albums with the color disappearing.

I've seen this 'style' used quite a bit, and don't particularly like it. I'm also not a fan of anamorphic flare, whether 'in camera' or 'post'...

There is also a style that is some what similar to the 'washed out' look, which uses either lens filters or on set 'smoke', etc. that gives the image a misty hazy look... and then there's Kaminski's 'light bloom' that seems to be everywhere in his shooting... even when he attempted to match the much cleaner shots of previous Indiana Jones' installments...

I actually almost prefer B&W(monochrome) for 'recollections'... than the washed out look, but that is a 'story' choice, and what would serve the story best.

This summer I'm going to try to do more camera work, with an eye for 'natural lighting' that looks 'good' to me... don't know if it will be 'cinemagraphic'... or not...
 
Fresno Bob said:
No, the lens flare was because they purposefully pointed the camera at the light source in order to create a flare...in pretty much every shot.
Click to expand...

Haha yes, purposely pointed the camera at the sun to get a flare - number one priority. So now 7years later we say it's not fashionable. Lens flare is not in every shot, shallow DOF is not in every shot. You know what does work, well composed, well thought out stuff, shot well. So what current techniques do we see as being purposely cinematic yet contemporary....maybe zooming in and out with a pro-mist might be on the comeback trail.....
 
You know when Lens Flare was cool?
In 1969, when Laszlo Kovacs was called an amateur for including lens flare in a take printed in the film (Easy Rider) - but he had done it on purpose for a psychedelic effect.

You know when it's not cool? - in 2013 when I watch the Total Recall remake, or any TV advert, and yell at the screen because there's a lens flare on the edge of the screen and there is no source for it - absolutely no logical reason for it to appear there.
And every Vimeo user and their dog is purposefully filming to include lens flare as it makes their output more 'cinematic', the same way short DOF was everywhere in the years following the MKII release.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, I think Len Wiseman and JJ. Abrams are doing pretty well with adding lens flares, event without knowing someone is yelling at the screen, upset about something they don't like. I agree an over abundance of them can take away from the interest of the shot, but if it means I get the job because I added flares, depth of field, shaky cam, loud explosions, etc… I'm in.

Your art will never please all of the people all of the time.
 
Like all fads, it will gladly fade away soon for another 15 years.

Next fad? Everyone putting rolling VHS effects on the start and ends of their videos.
 
Last edited:
Fresno Bob said:
You know when Lens Flare was cool?
In 1969, when Laszlo Kovacs was called an amateur for including lens flare in a take printed in the film (Easy Rider) - but he had done it on purpose for a psychedelic effect.

You know when it's not cool? - in 2013 when I watch the Total Recall remake, or any TV advert, and yell at the screen because there's a lens flare on the edge of the screen and there is no source for it - absolutely no logical reason for it to appear there.
And every Vimeo user and their dog is purposefully filming to include lens flare as it makes their output more 'cinematic', the same way short DOF was everywhere in the years following the MKII release.
Click to expand...

Just watched that Total Recall remake...holy hell, had to be 200 to 300 lens flares in that movie. I was laughing because I had read the other thread earlier...at least the flares in the short we've been discussing have a source and some purpose. There is one part of the TR remake where every 2 to 5 seconds the audience is treated with a lens flare! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top