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)

24 or 30fps doesn't make it look like home video. You can pause that and it looks as bad. There are a lot more things that matters, 24p is somewhere down the list.
 
Ouch... Putting my head on a stick here, but...

I think that was in many ways refrshing to see!
Seems like they have chosen a tool and played along with its aesthetics.

I have some not so nice thoughts, especially as to interior ligting and lack of priority in those images. And I think it is hard to say how it all really works in such a short-cut rapid trailer.
But all in all I really love a real video-deep-focus @ 30fps, look over a lot of the pretentious film-look crap see...
And thus I don't see it as bad photography...

I am amongst those who do not at all think 24/25 fps and shallow DOF is defining as to film-look. They're just words in a cinmatographic vocabulary.

But it doesn't look like film. Refreshingly enough - these days - it doesn't pretend to do so either.

Kinda liked that a lot!


Just sayin!
 
A few comments:

1) I see a lot of what looks like rolling shutter problems, which might have benefitted from a lower shutter angle (or maybe I'm seeing a lot of 2:3 pulldown artifacts -- not sure except that it's a little smeary)

2) the backgrounds are often as hotter (or as hot) as the people; I think the shots look better when the characters are lighter than the backgrounds, and the backgrounds have more shadows to break them up and make them look less flat

3) I think the "flatter" shots (candy store, kitchen, etc.) would look better maybe with a vignette or some other correction to emphasize the people in the foreground from the background

4) it looks a little soft to me. I think with some added contrast, it'd look at least 10% better.

But I've seen a lot worse. Trailers are often color-timed much more punchy and intense than the theatrical version, sometimes with a lot of clashes with the director and the studio (and I've sometimes been in the middle of those fights sometimes).

Careful color correction could solve a big chunk of these problems.
 
This is a great discussion and the opinions here all have their place.
For me, anything that looks like the images I shot at college on a single chip broadcast camera do nothing for me. I've spent a career lifetime trying to escape from that look. That's not to say it's wrong but it looks more TV than film and more student than Pro. I think I'll ask my Mum what she thinks as I'm not the right judge!

I can't get a good story onto paper right now so I applaud this team for making it happen no matter what the look.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Ouch... Putting my head on a stick here, but...

I think that was in many ways refrshing to see!
Seems like they have chosen a tool and played along with its aesthetics.
......
But it doesn't look like film. Refreshingly enough - these days - it doesn't pretend to do so either.

Kinda liked that a lot!
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Refreshing is the word for me, especially because it was very consistent. Nothing more boring than some violent cliche story desperately trying to imitate a beautiful film image
 
It is interesting to see the different reactions - those who condemn the technical faults and the lack of commitment to accepted production values and those who see that there might be something in the film. Isn't it all about the intention of the film makers? Cassavetes used to drive technicians completely insane because of his utter lack of regard to industry accepted standards. In one case, (his last film) he appears to have deliberately engineered a fight with the producer appointed DOP just to get rid of him so that he could appoint someone who could work with his more improv style.
 
Poor lighting, questionable sound quality, small sensor/no DOF, use of zoom (???), some bad acting, They kind of broke alot of rules for this film. Whether that's good or bad I'll leave it up to you. But as for me, the only part of this trailer that I liked was the music. Its stuck in my head now. If the film fails, they might have a career in radio.
 
The core problem to me is a lack of Stylistic Point of View. Every shot is a sort of well lit mid-shot. Its all clean, generally sharp but it makes zero use of the tools of cinematography guide the viewer toward anything. It makes not choices and takes no risks. So, it comes off as bland and "bad". On the actual technical merits its not awful. It's generally cleanly lit, in focus and viewable. But, even the very sharp crisp look it has seems more a result of using specific equipment than an any Aesthetic choice on the part of the DP.

Basically it is the application of Sports Photography to a narrative film. Its pure coverage of the actors performances. Its awful because it is totally bland and mindless; a cinematographic Diet Coke basically. The DP simply pushed buttons rather than using the tools of his or her craft to make any contribution to the narrative.

Contrast this to the great Hollywood Studio comedies or the comedies of Woody Allen (both eras representing the work great DPs) which are often well lit, with fairly broad focus, and full of wide shots of ensemble cast. But, are also full of atmosphere, loving lighting of the actors, and stylistic flair.
 
hmmmm, I'm going to end up all on my own here. I want to see the whole film first. That said, I love Woody Allen, he's for sure a great craftsman at all times and sometimes an artist, but I was truelly pissed at his last two films; somebody like him should know better than delivering purely routine products. Craft alone doesn't make a really good movie
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% it's only 'bad' cinematography if the look and feel of the scenes and shots weren't intentionally chosen to reinforce the story.
 
+1 Alexander

I really got a bit curious on this piece, and if it is consistent and intended, I'd rather call that good cinematography than bad.

Really refreshing to see a small-sensor video-image which isn't all that bad, after seeing a lot of that 5D crap breaking apart while trying to be filmic...

I stand by my first gut feel: This might be fun, and even quite good cinematography!

LOL
 
It kind of reminds me of British TV comedy in terms of look, except overexposed a bit. It also reminds me of my old Sony vx2000. After watching it a couple times, I got over my initial reaction to the look, and wouldn't mind checking it out. I think it is a bit refreshing to see. If this was done with a larger sensor, and better sets and lighting, it might not have the same impact. I was taken to a slightly different, ghetto, hard times world with it, so if that's what they were going for, it was effective.
 
I would say poor lighting and shot choices. The image quality doesn't concern me as much, it seems adequate for low budget.
 
1. Small sensor.... 2. small sensor... 3. Ugly colors. 4. shot like a school project.... 5. it's great that some things like this is out there it makes beauty shine...

You can shoot small sensor nice, if you have high speed lenses, stay on long lenses and stay wide open, in this trailer they tried non of that, it's less cinematic then a hockey match on tv...
 
By the way, anyone got the name of that music playing towards the end? Its a woman singing but I can't make out a single word she says. Has a nice sound to it though.
 
Over exposed and poorly motivated lighting setups are my first reaction. Interiors look like they stuck a Lowell softlite next to camera and shot away. Other than that I'm with Gunleik, the style can work well for the type of film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top