Cinematography critique needed

R

RED ROBOT

Hi folks .


For those of you who are aware of some of my previous work you may or may not noticed that I am a really visual filmmaker.

Visuals are extremely important for me . Unfortunately working on my last project I feel like I didn't quite get the results I wanted to.

The problem is that I always imagine something that the only way to get is if it's shot with a RED EPIC or Alexa or some of the high end digital cameras .

Sadly I am shooting my films with Canon 550D , 18-55 kit lens and 4 dollar adapter to make it just a bit wider .

I got a couple of shots which are important for my short and for the story but I think are the ones that came out the worst but it could be just me .

I was wondering if you find those shots good looking and if it has more or less some cinematic look .

I wasn't really going for nice stylistic cinematic look but for that old school film look for the most shots , where all you have is the scale of location and set design and architecture of the building .

I was working with a very very low light with incredibly bad lens for most of the shots .

Do you think those shots are unusable ?


https://vimeo.com/78659532
 
the first shot is very nice. for the rest of the guys looking around its kind of hard to tell. im not a pro lol but do u think those room shots are too flat? maybe u could have it closer to the ground or on the top corner of the room to give a security camera type of feel
 
1st shot is fine if you stabilise the footage.

3rd shot,green one is very nice. I would consider correcting the barrel distortion on the door,otherwise very nice.

Rest is just mediocre.
 
RED ROBOT said:
Hi folks .


For those of you who are aware of some of my previous work you may or may not noticed that I am a really visual filmmaker.

Visuals are extremely important for me . Unfortunately working on my last project I feel like I didn't quite get the results I wanted to.

The problem is that I always imagine something that the only way to get is if it's shot with a RED EPIC or Alexa or some of the high end digital cameras .

Sadly I am shooting my films with Canon 550D , 18-55 kit lens and 4 dollar adapter to make it just a bit wider .

I got a couple of shots which are important for my short and for the story but I think are the ones that came out the worst but it could be just me .

I was wondering if you find those shots good looking and if it has more or less some cinematic look .

I wasn't really going for nice stylistic cinematic look but for that old school film look for the most shots , where all you have is the scale of location and set design and architecture of the building .

I was working with a very very low light with incredibly bad lens for most of the shots .

Do you think those shots are unusable ?


https://vimeo.com/78659532
Click to expand...

I attended an invite-only film festival (an ethnic thing). I had done some stuff on a film in there.

One of the other films had been shot by an Oscar-nominated DoP. He shot on a 5D Mk II with a stock lens and achieved absolutely fantastic visuals which I did not know were possible on a full sized cinema screen. After this, he told us how he did all of this and I know you are wrong. It is possible to achieve stunning results and I am gradually improving, essentially using his outstanding advice.

His words were 'I could achieve results on an [expletive] iPhone.' And having seen what he can do, I will never complain about a camera again.

So I completely disagree. A lot is possible with very little, rather it is just a question of skill levels.
 
I have the same view as red robot. When youre first planning out your cinematography sometimes having a shitty camera can give you an illusion that your work is bad. To me it seems if youre using a decent camera like a black magic it can give you a glimpse of what you imagine it to look like in your head. It feels like its doing 50% of the work for you.

also for the first shot in your video, I think it would be better to leave it unstabilized. it gives it a rugged feel, but im not really experienced so I might be wrong
 
Last edited:
This looks amazing. A prime example of technique over tool. While there are some flaws, mainly the camera shake, it looks great. Keep up the great work :)
 
RealJasonBourne said:
When youre first planning out your cinematography sometimes having a shitty camera can give you an illusion that your work is bad.
Click to expand...

That means that you need to improve your skills as a camera operator/DP. Danny Boyle shot on a cheap DV camera.

To me it seems if youre using a decent camera like a black magic it can give you a glimpse of what you imagine it to look like in your head. It feels like its doing 50% of the work for you.
Click to expand...

It matters how you use the camera, not the camera you have. An amazing DP with a cheap DV camera will do better than a terrible DP with a cinema camera.
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
.... Danny Boyle shot on a cheap DV camera...
Click to expand...

That would have been Anthony Dod Mantle. Although you mentioned DP later, just pointing out who was actually credited (and rightly so) with the visuals. And it wasn't cheap, $6K or so at the time IIRC. Awesome camera BTW.

CraigL
 
Cheap cameras and small sensors do not mean your images need to look awful. I've shot on DSLRs before, as have many other DPs who I look up to. I've seen some absolutely stunning work shot on 2/3" sensors with a 35mm adapter.

The first shot is not bad, but as has been said, could have been a lot more stable. The green shot is also not bad. The others seem pretty stock standard shots, there seems to have been little lighting done, some are out of focus.

Overall, it's okay. Frame those windows out! :) Human eyes are drawn to big expanses of white, and I found myself distracted by the big white squares, rather than looking at the character himself. Either bring the level of the interior to the same as the exterior, ND gel the windows, or frame them out.

Remember, flags and negative fill (i.e. removing light) are just as, if not more useful than adding light.
 
Camera shake (get a rig, or turn on IS if not already), lighting (learn it), barrel distortion (correct it or ditch the yucky lens, which is also losing you some valuable light), wonky camera levelling (but not enough to be dutch).

That said, I liked the feel of it. Reminds me of a place I used to play airsoft here in the UK. Can't beat a good bit of decay to run around in!
 
I like the results, some of them are really nice for instance the shot in around 00.43 time.

I have Canon 550d as well and I am specially suprized how little video noise you have in the darker shots.
 
A.D. said:
Camera shake (get a rig, or turn on IS if not already), lighting (learn it), barrel distortion (correct it or ditch the yucky lens, which is also losing you some valuable light), wonky camera levelling (but not enough to be dutch).

That said, I liked the feel of it. Reminds me of a place I used to play airsoft here in the UK. Can't beat a good bit of decay to run around in!
Click to expand...


I think I have somewhat nice understanding of how to work with lighting . However this is the absolute best I could do since as I said it was extremly low light and I couldn't find generator so I couldn't get ANY lights because it was absolutely no budget short .

And actually I like the distortion if I'm quite honest .


Thanks.
 
Some of the shots didn't have the window tinted down.

Part of the job of the DP is getting the lighting right. Getting that wrong, not having the right equipment for the right job can reflect poorly on you.

I liked the framing of the first shot, though I think doing it without a steadycam was a mistake.

The other shots I found a little hard to judge since I don't know the emotion you're trying to convey of the men in masks. You changed the angle from the first shot to the others from what I presume is a matter of convenience instead of choosing the right angle for the scene itself or matching the other footage. Wasn't too major, but something to pay attention to.

There wasn't any color grading either, right?

Keep up the good work.
 
CraigL said:
That would have been Anthony Dod Mantle. Although you mentioned DP later, just pointing out who was actually credited (and rightly so) with the visuals.
Click to expand...

My bad :P

Although it was his decision to shoot with that camera because it gave the film a more realistic and gritty feel.

And it wasn't cheap, $6K or so at the time IIRC. Awesome camera BTW.

CraigL
Click to expand...

Still, the camera was standard definition and it looked great... even by today's standards. It shows that films can look amazing, even with equipment not up to professional quality, and the idea that it is not the tool, but the technique of the person who uses that tool. Only when you have mastered what you have, and there is no way that you can use your current camera to bring your vision to life is when you should upgrade to better equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top