Opinions wanted on this new time-lapse short film

[Rafael Defavari]

Hi guys, I am very new to this forum and it's a pleasure to learn with lots of talented cinematographers around here. I recently finished my first short movie project and I would like to share it with experienced people to get critics and suggestions for improving the next ones.

If you could say anything you would do in a different way, or that could be improved, please feel free to say! Opinions about everything will be very welcome and taken into account on my next projects.

I appreciate all the help. You can have a look at the video here:
http://vimeo.com/95499273

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi guys, I am very new to this forum and it's a pleasure to learn with lots of talented cinematographers around here. I recently finished my first short movie project and I would like to share it with experienced people to get critics and suggestions for improving the next ones.

If you could say anything you would do in a different way, or that could be improved, please feel free to say! Opinions about everything will be very welcome and taken into account on my next projects.

I appreciate all the help. You can have a look at the video here:
http://vimeo.com/95499273

Ok, I work in post for a living, I supervise edits/editors creatively every night, and I'm happy to chime in if it helps.

1) First off, your shots are amazing. You need to know that. If only your edit/editor was as good as your shooter. Then you'd be in business.

2) The edits. There is a lot WRONG with this edit, IMHO. Whereas, again, there is A LOT RIGHT with the cinematography. Some of those shots are just breathtaking, and amazing!!!

What's wrong with the edit? Lets dive in:

A) The music is problematic. It's doing you no favors. I have no problem with piano music, but this one doesn't have any LEVELS. It's the same tempo/energy for 4 minutes. I think you looped it at the end. The monotony of the track was making me lose interest after about a minute.

B) There doesn't appear to be a structure or a grammar to the edit. Cuts seem quite random, which is a shame, as the footage is so good. Sometimes we are daytime. Then we jump to night (randomly). Sometimes we get a lot of wides (which back to back to back can be too repetitive). Then a lot of closeups (again, repetitive). Shots/moments don't play off themselves as well as they could.

Here's what I mean about grammar - When my team and I are in edit, we try and create surprising patterns and routines that keep the audience on their toes and engaged. So we cut from WIDE to CLOSE to MEDIUM to CLOSE to WIDE...to a BIG SHOT...back to WIDE...CLOSE...Basically, we try and VARY FRAMINGS as often as we can. Repeating framings (ie lots of MEDIUMS back to back) can be slow down the pacing immediately.

And then structurally, you could TELL A STORY. Start IN THE MORNING...as the sun rises...and then progress THROGHOUT THE DAY...ending at NIGHT as the MOON RISES.

You could even have TITLE CARDS creating sections in your piece...open on:

RIO

6:AM

9:AM

12M

3M

6M

9M

MIDNIGHT

3:AM


These GFX could help break your piece into sections, which adds structure, and allows audience to settle into the story as they know WHAT TO EXPECT (on a larger, macro level).


3) The cuts. You have a lot of DISSOLVES in this piece, which are often considered old fashioned. The best "edit" IS A CUT generally speaking. I'd stick to straight CUTS across your whole piece, with maybe a couple of DIPS TO BLACK for drama...but that's it. I found the dissolves a little old fashioned and out of place with such modern, gleaming timelapse shots.

Also, some of the "cuts" seem to pop for some reason, as if there is a rendered in flash frame of some kind. I'd check some of those if you have time.

4) PEOPLE. Across the board, I LOVE your cinematography. Only thing I'd say is I wish there more closeups and portraits of PEOPLE in your piece. The time-lapse shots are so epic and sweeping, but without a couple of human moments and faces to ground them, I wasn't as moved as I could have been if there even just a couple of people in the piece I could relate to.

Basically, these are things any good editor could fix for you in no more than a day.

The hardest part in this piece is THE FOOTAGE. It's amazing. You are 90% there. Best of luck. I love what you've shot!!!

 

[Paul Russell]

+1 on Nicks' post. Some lovely grades in there, too, apart from a couple where the masking for the sky is not good and the lines can be seen, e.g. 3:06.

On the galaxy shot at 3:50 I'd be tempted to take a still of the garden lit, and then mask it against the moving sky in After Effects, so that the 'trees on meth' effect doesn't show.

 

[Rafael Defavari]

Ok, I work in post for a living, I supervise edits/editors creatively every night, and I'm happy to chime in if it helps.

1) First off, your shots are amazing. You need to know that. If only your edit/editor was as good as your shooter. Then you'd be in business.

2) The edits. There is a lot WRONG with this edit, IMHO. Whereas, again, there is A LOT RIGHT with the cinematography. Some of those shots are just breathtaking, and amazing!!!

What's wrong with the edit? Lets dive in:

A) The music is problematic. It's doing you no favors. I have no problem with piano music, but this one doesn't have any LEVELS. It's the same tempo/energy for 4 minutes. I think you looped it at the end. The monotony of the track was making me lose interest after about a minute.

B) There doesn't appear to be a structure or a grammar to the edit. Cuts seem quite random, which is a shame, as the footage is so good. Sometimes we are daytime. Then we jump to night (randomly). Sometimes we get a lot of wides (which back to back to back can be too repetitive). Then a lot of closeups (again, repetitive). Shots/moments don't play off themselves as well as they could.

Here's what I mean about grammar - When my team and I are in edit, we try and create surprising patterns and routines that keep the audience on their toes and engaged. So we cut from WIDE to CLOSE to MEDIUM to CLOSE to WIDE...to a BIG SHOT...back to WIDE...CLOSE...Basically, we try and VARY FRAMINGS as often as we can. Repeating framings (ie lots of MEDIUMS back to back) can be slow down the pacing immediately.

And then structurally, you could TELL A STORY. Start IN THE MORNING...as the sun rises...and then progress THROGHOUT THE DAY...ending at NIGHT as the MOON RISES.

You could even have TITLE CARDS creating sections in your piece...open on:

RIO

6:AM

9:AM

12M

3M

6M

9M

MIDNIGHT

3:AM


These GFX could help break your piece into sections, which adds structure, and allows audience to settle into the story as they know WHAT TO EXPECT (on a larger, macro level).


3) The cuts. You have a lot of DISSOLVES in this piece, which are often considered old fashioned. The best "edit" IS A CUT generally speaking. I'd stick to straight CUTS across your whole piece, with maybe a couple of DIPS TO BLACK for drama...but that's it. I found the dissolves a little old fashioned and out of place with such modern, gleaming timelapse shots.

Also, some of the "cuts" seem to pop for some reason, as if there is a rendered in flash frame of some kind. I'd check some of those if you have time.

4) PEOPLE. Across the board, I LOVE your cinematography. Only thing I'd say is I wish there more closeups and portraits of PEOPLE in your piece. The time-lapse shots are so epic and sweeping, but without a couple of human moments and faces to ground them, I wasn't as moved as I could have been if there even just a couple of people in the piece I could relate to.

Basically, these are things any good editor could fix for you in no more than a day.

The hardest part in this piece is THE FOOTAGE. It's amazing. You are 90% there. Best of luck. I love what you've shot!!!

Hi Nick, what an awesome reply, thank you very much for taking your time!

I have noted everything what you said, and I couldn't agree more with you. I'll try to use every advice pointed on my next film. This is my first work with video. I had only shot photography before, so I am glad you liked part of it. After the making of this piece, I guess I'll know a little bit more how to deal with the next one. The work is huge, I wish I had a colourist and an editor so I could concentrate more on the footage, but I just have to do everything on my own right now and that's a pain. Your inputs helped and will help me a lot for sure.

+1 on Nicks' post. Some lovely grades in there, too, apart from a couple where the masking for the sky is not good and the lines can be seen, e.g. 3:06.

On the galaxy shot at 3:50 I'd be tempted to take a still of the garden lit, and then mask it against the moving sky in After Effects, so that the 'trees on meth' effect doesn't show.

Hi Paul, thanks for the notes, too. I couldn't see the lines at 3:06, and I am almost sure I used lots of feathering (50 to 100 pixels) to every mask I added. If you could point out in what regions are you seeing them that will help me not to make this mistake again.

The idea of the still shot is very good, indeed the trees shaking like that is definitely not delightfull to watch. I'll try on the future.

Thanks!

 

[Paul Russell]

Hi Paul, thanks for the notes, too. I couldn't see the lines at 3:06, and I am almost sure I used lots of feathering (50 to 100 pixels) to every mask I added. If you could point out in what regions are you seeing them that will help me not to make this mistake again.

The crane. Feathering is not your friend here.

 

[Rafael Defavari]

Indeed, now I see it. Thanks!

 

[Ivan McCullough]

Nick basically said everything that needed to be said.

Awesome notes for your next project.