Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

This is bad cinematography (but please tell me why)

C

Charlie Bucket

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Australia
Hi all,
Can someone please tell me why the footage in this trailer looks so *bad*? I'm seriously interested; it's frustrating that I can sometimes recognize bad footage but not know why.

Is it color rendering, DOF, frame rate, cinematography? I'd really appreciate specific answers, I'm trying to train my eye (and I think looking at bad footage can be educative in that regard.)

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/ridofme/

thanks!
Chuck

(EDIT: Youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsquX3A70gA 11/18 updated)
 
Last edited:
Ugh. Sorry, I shouldn't have posted this in the "Shooting RED" forum. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can move or delete this thread.
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
Well.. its def video
Click to expand...

At the very least it's 30fps. That right there takes the "cinema" out of your cinematography, IMO.

Also looks like it was mostly shot available light, so everything looks pretty damn flat. A little better set design in that apartment wouldn't have hurt either.
 
Rob Castiglione said:
But does it really matter? Looks like a great script.
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell online.

And Charlie, 90% of what makes that trailer look so "bad" is that it is shot on a small sensor, interlaced video camera. As much as I hate DSLR's, this project would have benefited from shooting on someone's 7D at 24 frames per second instead of 29.97, which this appears to be.
 
Blocking: eyelines don't seem to make any sense with the action. everyone is just sitting or standing which dosent give a chance for dynamic camera moves. very inconstant framing
lighting: some far side keys would help, stronger foreground/middle/back separation, needs more consistant color, stronger sense of a light source. use gels to tell story/mood, not for random color.
camera: camera movements pretty lacking and unmotivated. weak establishing, never really get a strong sense of the whole space. need more variety in shot list. very little use of DOF
production design all over the place. dosen't hold it together visually.
post: little to no color correction, too many cuts, hard to follow.

Just my first reaction, of course it would be more fair to see the whole film
-Nate
DP
 
Sweet, thanks Nate...that's really helpful.

And, to be clear, I do respect the people behind this movie. They have things to learn, and so do I. Putting stuff out there is what counts.
 
"Is it color rendering, DOF, frame rate, cinematography? I'd really appreciate specific answers, I'm trying to train my eye (and I think looking at bad footage can be educative in that regard.)"

Too many flatly-lit shots is my first reaction. Some over-exposed on the faces.
 
It does have a 30fps look. The lighting is even but that is a look that often works. There might have being a problem in post production . If the film sells and the story works that hats off to the director but I feel it could have looked sweeter. Nice packaging and editing for the trailer....
 
OK, flat lighting is sure a problem here ... but how about flat blocking.

Blocking which leads to flat composition.

Almost everything is straight on, there is no dimension.

Set design has been mentioned already, but wow, the apartment is a stand out in failed set design.

There are some definite wrong answers here though.

No camera in the world was going to make that film look better.

A 7D would probably have made it look worse unless you changed the camera crew out completely.

An Epic or Red One or Alexa might have saved some of the over exposures, but in some shots that's the only interesting thing happening.

I think this was shot at 60i, and I hate interlace. That isn't the problem though. 5K/24p 180º shutter wouldn't have improved this film one iota.

This film would have been better if shot on a Fisher Price pixel vision ... if the set design, lighting and use of camera improved in the trade. That's people though, not technology.

Looking at the reviews though ... this film isn't buying positive press. People seem to like it.

Which brings me back to my home base: story is everything.

In that light, we have to consider something: maybe this films lack of visual style is its intentionally chosen and executed style.

Even bad images can be good if those are the images that tell the story best.
 
No I wasn't being sarcastic. The film appears to have done well and good luck to the director. Cinematographers get stuck on a particular aesthetic . I have seen lots of films with a specifically video look which have been great.
 
No opinion in regards how the film looks, I will just state that many european films have this look. I was born in Sweden and many many many films look this way. England seams to fit the bill as well.

Growing up I knew about the "hollywood look" and "swedish look" that line is now blurred but this reminds me of this particular look.
 
I generally agree with Alexander's comments, and I agree with many of his points, but I gotta say that ex-1 or whatever this was shot on is razor sharp and with the small sensor, everything is in focus and everything is sharp, so it feels really busy to me.

I completely agree about the happy snaps straight on composition, flat lighting and framing issues, but a little less depth of field and video/sharpness wouldn't hurt here.

The best solution isn't a different camera, it's better craft, but a different camera might move the needle a little in the right direction. That said, maybe that's what the director was going for...

My $.02
 
Based on the trailer, the Cinematography is OK. I'd have to see the whole movie to critique the Cinematography.
 
My take:

Fixed Zoom lens camera- there's a zoom shot there that is a give-away. Sharpness makes me think it was shot with a Sony EX1 or similar cam.
Flat lighting, and in some situations no lighting concern at all
Seems like 30fps indeed.

The problem here is not the "euro" look, but lack of cinematography effort, in my view. But it seemed to work for the festivals, so congratulations to the team!
 
Nate said almost everything. I just want to say that some great color grading, filters, etc can save this or at least make it look a lot better. Still seems like an interesting movie. 30 fps is a huge NO. In my opinion Depth of field isnt what creats the "film look", it's composition, movement, lighting and angles. Some DOF certainly doesnt hurt but I feel that people over-use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top