Jump to content


Photo

Cinematography Project


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Tackett

Paul Tackett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 December 2011 - 05:44 PM

This was a class project. Please comment on lighting, subjective and objective angles, camera height etc. Thank you
  • 0

#2 Archie Campbell

Archie Campbell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Student

Posted 12 December 2011 - 06:04 PM

Ok, I have put up some work to be critiqued as well so feel free to say what you feel about mine.

I'm not a pro as such but in the same spot as you (I think) being a student so take everything I say with a pinch of salt:

1. The music doesn't fit because at first I thought it was part of the scene and then I realised it was just there to be there. I would have preferred no background music and instead hear the dialogue as the dialogue can influence shot selection.

2. The opening shots are very shaky and don't fit with the static shots that follow. What is the reason for the shakiness? Could it have been steadied?

3. The second shot of the daffodils pulls focus to nothing and the camera drifts across with nothing actually sharp. There is not really a need for this shot.

4. With the tripod shots it's evident from the hard shadow that the scene is lit. What is the motivation behind this lighting as it doesn't look natural as in a shop like this there wouldn't be any horizontal hard lighting at eye level.

5. The shot reverse shot works but without dialogue it's difficult to see whether the shots should have got tighter as it progressed. Also when he sniffs her hair??? it's out of focus. You could have stopped down to increase the depth of field of practiced the shot to make sure that you could pull focus.

6. After that shot the lighting is now coming from behind the guy which means that it has magically changed direction. The hard shadow of the guy is also evident on the girl which looks a bit odd in this environment.

That's what I noticed from first watching it.

Hope it's helped.
  • 0

#3 Paul Tackett

Paul Tackett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 December 2011 - 11:00 PM

Thank you. I really appreciate your input. I completely agree with what you had to say. Those are definitely mistakes, and here are why they happened.
1. the assignment was to show a scene without dialogue. "show not tell"
2. I completely agree
3. You're right, needs to be cut out.
4. The intent was to shoot a day scene at night, thus hard light. However, you're right. No one would think that there is a window there.
5. Yep.
6.True true.

Thanks again. I'll go look at your videos. Also anyone else's input would really be helpful. Trying to perfect all my mistakes, so it would help to know what they are.
  • 0

#4 Archie Campbell

Archie Campbell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Student

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:00 AM

Only point I disagree with is 4.

Just because you're shooting at nIght doesn't mean that the light has to be hard. With a scrim or bouncing off a reflector you could have softened it up.
  • 0

#5 Paul Tackett

Paul Tackett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:21 AM

I agree it doesn't HAVE to be hard light, as in we had other options. But to acheive a look to recreate sunlight, we had hard light.
  • 0

#6 Archie Campbell

Archie Campbell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Student

Posted 17 December 2011 - 04:30 AM

Ah I see what you mean.

However, if it had been sunlight it would have been indirect sunlight which would have been more diffused. This also doesn't account for the two hard shadows that are visible in the scene.

If the sunlight had been direct then it would have been much more golden as it would have to have been setting or rising to be at the angle to be able to shine directly through the window.
  • 0

#7 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:56 AM

Iʼd like to say something about the plot.

First, as a spectator I have no clue as to what could be the girlʼs motive to approach the young man. You hardly show that she sees him, so from 0:22 on everything is guesswork. Does she recognise him or what is going on with her?

Then I must say that Iʼve never seen a guy that cack-handed. How on earth can you put a plot on the point that a youngster isnʼt able to hold two cracker bags with one hand for instance. I dislike the attitude behind the scene, that of an unhandy man. The woman will have to rescue him, what an off-putting narcissistic rag!

Thirdly, which girl would not have gotten his trial to smell at her hair? Sorry, the lighting might be nice, the shop a good choice but the basic idea reminds me of the Victorian age. Can it be that todayʼs young are so caught within themselves? For me as a Central-European your video is just handicapped. Sorry!
  • 0

#8 Paul Tackett

Paul Tackett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:50 PM

Archie, thank you for your input. I agree with what you said. I was not sure how to create a day for night int, this helped clarify that. Simon, the scene prior to this shows them when they first meet, I did not include this because it was shot by a different DP because of the instructions of the group project for school. I do not agree that simply offering a basket to a guy to help him is in any way self-centered but rather the opposite. If you are implying that there is a deeper meaning to these actions, then might I state that there are often instances when men (and women) are at emotional low points (or juggling tasks in life) and a friend can help them out (no matter what their sex), I do not see this as something to avoid portraying in a film.
  • 0

#9 Casey McBeath

Casey McBeath

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 January 2012 - 12:33 PM

A point already made is the shakiness is the first two shots. If they couldn't be stabilized or slowed down enough to look smooth, they ought to be cut or reshot as they don't fit the feel of the rest of it.

I think a point that could be improved upon is the direction of the lighting. The male's shadow falling all over her face is bad, and very distraction. It also makes her lighting very flat. I'd like to see it with their key lighting coming in from the side for both of them.

Also I'd prefer to see a softer key light as his crisp shadow on the wall was very distracting.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineLab

Opal

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery