Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: stewarthemley on April 12, 2012, 06:00:46 pm
-
Just thinking aloud. The new Sony 700 looks really interesting but already I'm bored rigid with super slomo. And i'm sort of wondering why so much has to be OOF. Etc, etc... Reminds me of when Quantel's Paintbox (whoops, showing my age) hit the fan, sorry, market, and then Photoshop. We all used the gizmos because they were there. Looking back on stills and footage from then, that's so easy to see. Psychologists call it the "scribble stage".
I'm looking forward to the post-gizmo stage when once again good basic storytelling and interesting content are what we enjoy and value. My hope is that new/young image makers will have seen us old gits get excited about what the gear can do for us and prefer to show what they can make the gear do for us. I dream of an end to the scribble stage.
-
If its super slo mo - its gotta be super interesting - the decisive moment - IMO
Spent today thinking about actors and a shot list and working a script
Much more challenging
S
-
Spent today thinking about actors and a shot list and working a script
Much more challenging
Much more interesting! :)
-
Just thinking aloud. The new Sony 700 looks really interesting but already I'm bored rigid with super slomo. And i'm sort of wondering why so much has to be OOF. Etc, etc... Reminds me of when Quantel's Paintbox (whoops, showing my age) hit the fan, sorry, market, and then Photoshop. We all used the gizmos because they were there. Looking back on stills and footage from then, that's so easy to see. Psychologists call it the "scribble stage".
I predicted just after the 5DII was announced that we would be inundated with exactly what you are complaining about - scribbling.
As for shallow DoF, unless you can focus pull extraordinarily well, please don't shoot wide open with moving subjects. Besides the DoF at F5.6/8 on a full frame sensor is still pretty shallow when doing medium close ups.
And most importantly only use it if it serves the story.
I'm looking forward to the post-gizmo stage when once again good basic storytelling and interesting content are what we enjoy and value. My hope is that new/young image makers will have seen us old gits get excited about what the gear can do for us and prefer to show what they can make the gear do for us. I dream of an end to the scribble stage.
Too many stills photographers thinking they were suddenly a film maker is as daft an idea as thinking being given a DSLR makes one a professional photographer.
Being good at stills rarely has anything to do with being a good director or story teller.
-
I predicted just after the 5DII was announced that we would be inundated with exactly what you are complaining about - scribbling.
I've always found that talented people with good character and an open mind produce good work.
Not always at first, usually the first stage is trying to reinvent the wheel and do something that is unique with every frame. usually that doesn't make great stills or motion and a lot of time can get in the way of the story.
Still, without that drive to reinvent the wheel, it would be a very boring world.
We've seen this with self made typesetters with the Mac, strange hacked up over processed stills with photoshop, now effected motion work for the sole reason of effecting imagery.
Anyway, that's part of the learning process and I've never subscribed to the fact that any artist should limit themselves to only one discipline.
The whole Idea is to throw a lot of stuff up . . . see what works, then learn refinement and how to use that knowledge to improve a story.
IMO
BC
-
I think you're right.
What is happening nowdays is great, but IMO it has to be focussed or understood correctly.
We are like pirats; small gear, little budgets, and the requierement of different equipmnents, lighter solutions and more cost effective. There is an enormous amount of creativity all over the world in all this and some things work, others no. It's exciting time although the wild west and testings on the terrain.
The orthodoxy is broken and that's very good.
On the other-hand, I think that we shouldn't be too naive to beleive that our motion fathers haven't asked also the same questions before: how to make it lighter and more cost effective. And what we see they use are actually the result of long time evolution in the ways, techniques and gear. For the most part it's still not reachable for most of us.
The problem, IMHO, is that if we want to emulate the same lenguage of our "fathers" in motion with mediums 500 times lighters, we do a wrong calculation.
On the contrary, if we are inventing (or re-inventing) new lenguages, all that makes sense and it will work.
-
I think motion people have been small and slight for years.. eng camera does it all and EX1 and the like on smaller programming
Probably 95% of what is watched is ENG cam leaving 5% hollywood
Its mixing the holly wood look..
-
Shallow DOF, crushed blacks, unrealistic colors, slomo, anyone bored yet?
What do mean 'yet' ? It's been tedious and annoying since the 5DmkII first hit the market and it all became fashionable.
and don't forget to add pointless timelapse to that list too.
My hope is that new/young image makers will have seen us old gits get excited about what the gear can do for us and prefer to show what they can make the gear do for us.
I've not seen many "old gits" get excited about this at all. We're all old enough to be cynical and not rave over anything just because it is new. It's the young gits that weren't getting anywhere that hyped everything up to try to get on the band wagon.
I find it entertaining to read so called 'cinematographers' expecting autofocus on video cameras, in professional circles it's always been regarded as the mark of a complete amateur. No professional uses AF*
*The only possible caveat to that is Canon's AF broadcast lenses, but they've hardly sold any of those at all, hardly a surprise @ £150k. I've not come across anyone in the UK who has used one commercially, as opposed to trialling them for Canon.
-
I can see I'm not alone.
But just to clarify, I'm all for creativity, which often stems from experimentation, which makes experimentation a Really Good Thing, IMO.
But, copying things like shallow DOF, etc, bloody etc, is not at all creative. It's just that: copying.
I almost bought some expensive (for me) jib and tracking gear but then when I studied a few videos to see what I ought to get, what I saw was so many moving shots that were simply not adding anything. In fact, they were incredibly distracting. More dosh saved.
Maybe we should ask ourselves, when planning any sort of production: what best moves the narrative forward? Naturally, there'll be times when slow motion will add something, same with shallow DOF, tracking shots, etc. But all the time? Without a reason other than it's what people do right now? If I find myself doing that, my gear will be on ebay that same day.
I'll bet most, if not all these methods started with a truly creative director/DOP thinking hard about some problem in a script and coming up with, say, shallow DOF to highlight a character's situation/thought, etc. And fairly sure they became fashion when less than truly gifted people copied. To the point that while its fashionable, we don't notice it. But look back in a few years time and see how dated some of this stuff will look.
Actually, what I'm hoping for, is Sony to sell a stack of 700s, et al, for us to be swamped with super slow mo overnight and to get brassed off with it almost as quickly. Lets get it over and done with.
-
I'm super tired too of those pointless timelapses, of the non-ending shallow d.o.f testings all over the internet in the style: "Canon FD 50mm 1,4 on 7D" or "7D vs GH2" etc etc...it fast became a circus like stills. It's to the point that I've seen some serious filmakers in Vimeo having almost zero feedback and visits; while people like P.B when they do a non-sense timelapse or test a gear in front of a british canal with 3 ducks have thousands of repplies and "I-like", "I-share", and all the facebook style comments "you're so great" etc...
And now, after the shallow D.O.F, the next mental hillness is called "4K". Everything that is-will not be 4K is crap. Like those who are claiming 50MP still camera and print postal size you know and have never edited one edito page in all their life.
It's completly pathetic, juvenile full of spots, annoying and hilarious.
I'm more and more convinced that the healphiest path is to step away (but very very away...) of this visual noise, really. Keep going learning in silence, get skilled, creative but also very humble because IMO this is another story than shooting 3 chubby models in a mall corall with strobes.
As for Paul's intervention, I agree. I said it several times in other posts, but we (photographers embrassing motion) are still very very amateurs and naive in many ways with this medium.
-
Two videos of mine The interest in cameras an gear is overwhelmingly dumb..
a 5d test 3k watches (basically in two days)
https://vimeo.com/38658374
and an attempt at a mini doco.stroy telling, 1k watches (actually more than I thought!)
https://vimeo.com/36244144
S
-
I liked the girl reportage very much.
What I don't get is this fashion (as it seems to be the norm now) to reveals all the gear involved? If they pay I'd understand. You 'd be sponsorized. But what is this "norm" everytime we open a video to see, shoot on Canon with this lens, this tripod, this cable etc...very soon we'll have the exact time when the DP went to pee outside. You'll see.
I understand perfectly however when some of what you sale is involved (the accessories), but that's very different, it's your own business.
-
I liked the girl reportage very much.
What I don't get is this fashion (as it seems to be the norm now) to reveals all the gear involved?
I think it is just knowledge that 50% of the audience' may be interested in such matters
Also - I like to give some context to the shoot maybe - for example I shoot vehicles with a $500 stabilizer from a car if I can make it look like a $80k camera car I want you to know
Maybe one should post a budget - in both cases here.. $0
-
That was indeed a good work. You're telling a story. I never asked myself what did you use or the IQ, I wanted to know about her. That's IMO the sign it worked well.
Cheers.
-
To me the main camera spec is to keep the viewer inside the story
Moiree, jello, bad focus, yellow bands in a blue sky, wind noise, wind noise and wind noise, can take you outside of that story
the FS100 is good on most of those..
I thought the colour (desat) didnt work, however, as you could have thought she was ill
I did a blog here on shot choices.. http://dslr4real.tv/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=103&Itemid=1
S
-
Two videos of mine The interest in cameras an gear is overwhelmingly dumb..
a 5d test 3k watches (basically in two days)
https://vimeo.com/38658374
and an attempt at a mini doco.stroy telling, 1k watches (actually more than I thought!)
https://vimeo.com/36244144
Very nice Sam! I like some of the abstract buzzers/lights/quick cuts about 2/3 of the way in. Maybe start with closer in versions of those - without revealing the sport at first - to set the pace at the beginning? Then keep them later.
That 5D3 one was quite conceptual! Time warp refrigerators - getting fat - about eating disorders? :P (joke!)
In regards to this overall thread - this is basically our "student" work! Ever go to a photography conference, like SPE (Society for Photographic Education), where graduate students present? It takes 10-15 years to really find a strong voice in the medium.
Or you just do flowers, fashion (= young women), dogs & family as a hobby. Either way it takes a long time & a lot of hard work to transcend student-type work and gimmicks.
Almost sold my ring flash since Alien Bees introduced a $300 one. So sick of ring images for a while ... ;D
Now physically I can't really shoot stills or motion. So I read technical stuff and wish I could do creative! Y'all are lucky to be able to do it!
Cheers! Michael
-
Thanks - I am indeed getting fat.
Now the discussion really worth having .. to me (maybe not on this thread)
Indeed I did want to get some action up at the front.. but didnt want to give the game away (so I didnt do it)
How to turn such a corner in the (shoot and) edit - thats the sort of thing that I am trying to learn and if you can do that, Epic or Iphone, you can really communicate the story and move your viewer around as you want
S
-
Of course the real gem in the story is if she make the Olympics - so I should find out the day she will know and follow her.
Then the edit is simple maybe; bish bosh action, there are two places in the olympics, filler material, the outcome
S
-
Thanks - I am indeed getting fat.
Now the discussion really worth having .. to me (maybe not on this thread)
Indeed I did want to get some action up at the front.. but didnt want to give the game away (so I didnt do it)
How to turn such a corner in the (shoot and) edit - thats the sort of thing that I am trying to learn and if you can do that, Epic or Iphone, you can really communicate the story and move your viewer around as you want
Yeah, content is so much more important than the technical. And yet I'm still obsessed with reading about equipment & tools - procrastination about taxes right now! 8)
I thought some of the red & green lights, timer, sounds, little abstract snippets were interesting - exciting. Get in just a little closer to crest abstracts, get the energy pumped up, then dump into the quiet story. A bit of how many films start with a series if almost still, aesthetically pleasing shots.
Just what I felt at that point. Your call of course! For some reason Joel Meyerowitz' framing and lingering shots drom "Pops", along with Jim Jarsmuch B&W's come to mind, though it's been a long time since I've seen either.
Just shoot more of that for now though. I know Robert Frank had all of the images for The Anericans before he came up with the edit structure for the book (Meyerowitz has a section on Sequencing of images in his History of Street Photography. Chapter opening, form echoing form, repeating, etc. )
Cheers! Good start! Michael
-
Getting back, briefly, on topic...
I suppose to some extent one reason we use these gimmicks in our less-than-Hollywood productions, is that we are led by clients, if we want to stay in business, and if they demand that sort of treatment (using the term technically, as in, how we handle the script) then that's what we have to give them.
I had that pointed out to me in no uncertain terms this week. Chasing a new client, talked through the brief, listened hard and it became clear he wanted all this stuff because a competitor had it on his site and it "looked cool, cutting edge where we want to be". Can't argue with that.
If I want to do it my way, there's nothing stopping me. I just shouldn't expect to get paid for it.
-
Can't argue with that.
Well you can when the production costs are significantly higher to shoot 'fashionably' rather than well.
I heard an interesting story yesterday about the perils of fashion shooting. A UK sit-com decided it would be a great idea to shoot with Red instead of using a conventional set up, costs doubled and the programme look terrible. Probably the final nail in the coffin of an end of life series.
The next nonsense will be "we need it in 4k"
-
The next nonsense will be "we need it in 4k"
Totally agree. This is the new mantra. 4K.
If I can see the benefits of it mixed with raw datas, I also noticed that among the top world commercial directors that are shooting serious high-end campaigns, very little have been shooted in 4K and still a certain amont are shooted in 35mm film.
On the Alexa side, very rarely they use the Arriraw and the reso boost it'd means.
I have the sensation that all this is going to derivate into the same non-sense as we've been seeing with stills, if it's not contaminated yet.
For the moment we are safe of curves, pseudo-scientific proofs of all kinds, non-sense comparatives and the we-need-zillion-megapixels mantras, but it will come very soon.
Sadly.
-
"I have the sensation that all this is going to derivate into the same non-sense as we've been seeing with stills, if it's not contaminated yet."
Totally agree, Fred. I will try to take advantage of that. I'll avoid buying any gear that I don't genuinely need, including "better" ie, more expensive cameras, and undercut the guys who are busy getting "the best". After that, its up to me to produce better content.
-
What really amazes me, is that it has now, through those networking mediums, included vimeo etc..., created a new culture in wich people with endorsements testing dollies, cameras, monitors and rigs are getting more famous than a Kitano. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1FV7CcS79M
That's really preocupating. We are inundated by a bombing of timelapses, 5D2 lens testings, resolutions versus and the overall tone is very closed to the youth dp review nervous wanabee crowd.
I even saw in the still high-end a "sad" situation. One of the most famous ww commercial photographer doing video for several "couture" brands and the results are really low. In part because there is no good storyboard, but also the lack of level and experience is evident.
We did some movies with my boss but he never accepted to publish anything at this point because we're not at the level of the stills, no way. It will take us more time and learning. For the moment we are still in big part very amateurs. And the biggest chalenges we face are very rarely the cameras, or the resolutions. We even realised that casting have to be re-thought etc...
So yeah, now that all this is democratizing and everybody's a DP or Director, we're going to tend more and more to the absurd.
Well, I'm thinking that I could build Director chairs with yournameonit and sell them in e-bay. Very soon I'll be as rich as the Red's owner.
-
I even saw in the still high-end a "sad" situation. One of the most famous ww commercial photographer doing video for several "couture" brands and the results are really low. In part because there is no good storyboard, but also the lack of level and experience is evident.
I think it's important to remember that as still photographers we first shot with film, letting the client handle the post production. Then we learned photoshop and how to shoot for it.
Well now is the same with motion and I'm not talking about hokey hdr, or as someoe said crushed blacks for no reason.
Just like in still imagery, motion requires a reason, whether it be look, story, movement, copy/dialog or all of the above.
A lot of clients just "want" some video, thinking they can stick something together later. Stick something together, is the right phrase, but as artists, it's up to us to offer an alternative to just moving stills.
As commercial artists we have to shoulder some if not a lot of the responsibility. When a client says "you know just shoot some video", we need to find a reason and a concept to make it work and offer the client more than they anticipated.
At first there will be blowback because usually they have motion production, i.e. commercials planned as different production, but if you can produce a parallel production better than a stand alone commercial or video, the work will come your way.
It does take planning, investment, sourcing out new and different teams to collaborate with, but they are all out there, from writers to actors, to crew . . . wanting to work.
There is nothing new about this as this has always been an industry where the ladder to success is one you build yourself and usually once you climb it, you tear it down and start over again.
In other words, just like in stills where we learned post production and had a few retouchers on speed dial, we have to do the same with writers, storyboard artists, casting directors, colorists and editors.
I think this depends on the type of person you are. You can look at motion in three ways. 1. a chore to complete 2. Something you don't want to be involved it. 3. An opportunity to expand your repertoire and client base.
IMO
BC
-
Totally agree.
-
This guy has some more basic complaints:
http://vimeo.com/m/18104656 (http://vimeo.com/m/18104656)
"An Open Letter to Canon"
You have to click through if you haven't seen it. On Vimeo.
Crushed blacks are the least of his worries!
Michael
-
Excelent !
-
"Open letter to Canon"
Wonderful, actually made me laugh out loud.
-
"Open Letter..."
Great style, great content. Does anyone do that stuff better than the Aussies?
-
I've always found that talented people with good character and an open mind produce good work.
Absolutely. Finding them amongst the tiltshifted, HDRed, timelapses is quite tricky though. ;)
-
Maybe we should ask ourselves, when planning any sort of production: what best moves the narrative forward?
Narrative. That's the word that trips up the people who suddenly thing they are film makers, just because they have a camera that shoots motion footage.
Just like 'composition' is the word that confuses people who own a camera and suddenly think they are a photographer
-
I've always found that talented people with good character and an open mind produce good work.
Same here. I've always maintained that a great graphic designer could easily become a great photographer. So much of photography is just graphic design with a camera, the rest is all technical and can be learned. I don't believe that we are born into niches, predestined but rather channeled by a multitude of random circumstances. God knows I wasn't born an architectural photographer... nor was I born a DP. You can be whatever you want to be. All that is required are time, dedication and the appropriate education. Those combined with innate talent will determine the level of your success (well that and possibly a good eye for trends). Trends are such a trap, though. They can make you quickly successful, ala Phillp Bloom who is no more talented than millions of other videographers. But once that wave you rode in on breaks upon the beach, you'll be left washed up on the sand. Longevity comes with or rather through talent, intelligence, sensitivity and experience.
Having spent 20 years shooting transparencies, all the crushed blacks are driving me nuts. The first season of Downton Abbey was gorgeous, ethereal. The second season shows no tonality at all in the 3/4 shadows. This makes no sense at all when the scenes are lit very softly, it's utterly insensitive to the esthetic that the DP worked so hard to establish. I love how much shadow information I can coax out of the REDs. I typically drop my shadows just until the very darkest fringes zero out in the scopes. I have also seen, however lots of footage graded where the zero detail shadows are left dark grey, and I just don't get that. I mean it is all subjective and you're welcome to do whatever you want with your movie, but I was trained to develop a full histogram back when, well... before anyone had heard of histograms.
During this long stint of my commercial career I have always struggled to maintain sharp images, not just in focus but sharp throughout, utilizing tiny apertures, swings and tilts to bring detail into every corner of the image. For the longest time I never shot below F / 22. With digital I can thankfully drop down to F / 8 and have the same DoF :)
In motion footage, however, extreme Depth of Field bugs the shit out of me. I find my eye traveling all over the scene, never knowing where to settle. I feel like our eyes respond differently to motion footage than stills. In a still, I can have everything sharp and direct your eye with lighting. With motion, I think some softness of focus is almost required to direct the eye. I really like my Cookes wide open at T 2.8 on the wides and 4 or 5.6 on the long lenses. The softness is not extreme but helps contain the "focus" of the shot to the intended elements that are more significant to the story.
Following trends blindly is just a stupid way to work, but avoiding the techniques that those trends originated from can be just as dangerous. Examine your imagery with severity. Take responsibility for every pixel within the composition. Once your eyes and your mind have addressed every single graphical interaction, then you ought to have a good picture, be it still or moving.
CB