Jump to content



Photo

long shot


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Amando Crespo

Amando Crespo

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 776 posts
  • Madrid Spain

Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:58 PM

This is a shot from one of my latest movies.
Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.co...h?v=CuEJ8_vfflk
  • 0

#2 Richard James Lewis

Richard James Lewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • London, UK

Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:58 PM

Honestly...

Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting.

I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up.
I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi.
When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam?

On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy.
I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control?

Rick.





This is a shot from one of my latest movies.
Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.co...h?v=CuEJ8_vfflk


  • 0

#3 Amando Crespo

Amando Crespo

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 776 posts
  • Madrid Spain

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:50 PM

Honestly...

Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting.

I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up.
I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi.
When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam?

On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy.
I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control?

Rick


This is a shot from one of my latest movies.

Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.co...h?v=CuEJ8_vfflk

I promise you that I´ll try grow up like steadicam operator (working for movies only.)
TV. look works are bad or wrong?..... And, for my next movie, I´ll speak with the DP. about the choice of the lengs or the camera high... Just about your council...(May be, taht the DP. ....Sends me to look mushrooms...)
Hey boy... I like you and your comment about.....
Tank you
Thanks.Thanks.
  • 0

#4 luis castro

luis castro

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 245 posts
  • Spain

Posted 08 December 2008 - 10:08 PM

[quote name='Richard J Lewis' date='Dec 2 2008, 04:58 PM' post='40427']
Honestly...

Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting.

I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up.
I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi.
When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam?

On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy.
I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control?

Rick.




the planes of steadicam this good, the director is the person in charge of the assembly not the operator, the script so that the one that speaks Spanish, does not have nor idea of in question subject
  • 0




PLC Electronics Solutions

BOXX

Engineered Cinema Solutions

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

PLC - Bartech

IDX

Varizoom Follow Focus

Paralinx LLC

Betz Tools for Stabilizers

Boland Communications

rebotnix Technologies

SkyDreams

Ritter Battery

GPI Pro Systems

Teradek

Wireless Video Systems

Omnishot Systems