Jump to content


Photo

After shooting my first horrible official video that made me almost give up, your advice has made me give it another shot. Please check something out


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 John1

John1
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 January 2014 - 04:20 PM

After my first horrible video which almost made me give up if not for your advice, I have given it another shot and I shot a short film on HIV stigmatization. Its a short awareness film in a foreign language but subtitled in English. Please help me check it out and tell me how I fare. Its my second ever shot video. From all the advice I got from you, I have come to discover cinematography is not for the faint in heart or people who give up easily. Please help me check the video out and from your wealth of experience in this field, please "lend" me some advice. Was the shot ok, was there something I could have done better. Thanks for being my elders in this field. Here is it www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vri5ed6yOUM&client=mv-google&gl=NG&guid=&hl=en

Edited by John1, 31 January 2014 - 04:24 PM.

  • 0

#2 John1

John1
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 January 2014 - 04:34 PM

The link again is youtube.com/watch?v=Vri5ed6yOUM&client=mv-google&gl=NG&guid=&hl=en&persist_app=1&app=desktop&guid=

Edited by John1, 31 January 2014 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0

#3 John1

John1
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 January 2014 - 04:42 PM


Edited by John1, 31 January 2014 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 January 2014 - 04:56 PM

It's not bad for a 2nd attempt.

 

First thing I would do it to turn off auto exposure-- turn off auto everything. You want to have full control (if you can-- some cameras don't let you have full control and that's a whole other story). But the compositions are nice; framing is good-- when the exposure hits it's sweet spot, it's not bad either. Maybe bring in a white card or something to get a little bit of an eye light.

Editorial wise I'd focus a bit more on the rock game, how they are playing it back and forth as cut always to get out of the conversation a bit-- but that's not a cinematography thing.

The most important thing is, do you feel you have progressed since you're last shoot? So long as you are improving with every shoot-- you're on the right track.


  • 1

#5 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 01 February 2014 - 08:13 AM

Looking good! Just keep shooting! The more you shoot the more you learn so do whatever you can. Go shoot the landscapes or anything. Shoot everything you can.

 

Keep shooting, there is always room to learn something new. My best advice is don't get high on your own supply when things seem to be going well for you. Always remember that theres loads more to learn. Everyone is just on a path, but some people become overwhelmed by their own egos along the way which can hold them back in all kinds of ways.

 

Freya


  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11947 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:42 AM

Nothing awfully wrong with that. I've seen way, way worse. The only concern I'd have is the sound - could be better. Some of the voices were a bit overloaded, but I know that's hard to control if you're working alone.

 

I'd repeat Adrian's advice to turn off auto exposure. Of course, you'll need to be able to control lighting a bit more, but it will look more consistent. Lighting control can be as simple as a white board to bounce light, or a black one to block it.

 

And yes, if you feel like it's better, if you feel like you're improving, then great.

 

P


  • 0

#7 John1

John1
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:28 PM

Phil Rhodes, The sound we got on location was very bad. We had to lip sync in post production. What do you mean overloaded, like too clear or too loud


  • 0

#8 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:33 PM

The audio input level at some stage was too high for the range of the media - i.e. it sounds distorted.

 

Also you might want to remove the grey bar around the subtitles as it covers the actors mouths in places


  • 0

#9 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:30 AM

I was actually fortunate enough to see Darren Aronofsky's short films that he made at AFI (Fortune Cookie, No Time) and they were pretty lousy! Aronofsky has refused to put them up online but they were leaked by "Cinephilia & Beyond". It comes to show you that short films are irrelevant, not many people can make them because they are very different to a feature film. I personally don't enjoy short films, there are a few which are captivating, but they don't mean much, think of them as practice. No one makes a career by making short films. 

 

Here's a clip from 'No Time', which was shot by Mathew Libatique and directed by Aronofsky. 

 

I feel with 'Pi', he truly reinvented himself, he truly became a filmmaker. I used to be discouraged but not anymore, short films don't mean anything.


  • 0

#10 John1

John1
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:04 PM

joshua gallegos Make your research properly before commenting. I know of three different directors who made their career with short films.
  • 0

#11 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:10 PM

No, no one makes a career out of short films.  But saying that short films are "irrelevant" and "don't mean anything" is an extremely narrow-minded view to take.

 

I've seen a good number of shorts at various film festivals that are very imaginative.  Some have even inspired me.  You'd be surprised at how many filmmakers have more of a talent for short films over features.  Telling an effective story in 30 minutes or less is not an easy thing.  And you have to remember that the majority of young filmmakers out there have very interesting ideas that they want to put out there, but nothing near the budget for a feature film.  Plus, that idea might not translate well into a 90+ minute story.  Hence, the short film.

 

Go to a few more film festivals and you will see that there are a lot of refreshing ideas out there in the form of short films.


  • 1

#12 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:19 PM

joshua gallegos Make your research properly before commenting. I know of three different directors who made their career with short films.

 

I know of dozens. My point is that no one remembers short films, they really are irrelevant. I personally don't care for them, it's a different breed of cinema that stands on its own, I feel confident I could make a feature, I can't think on a smaller scale.


  • 0

#13 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:31 PM

No, no one makes a career out of short films.  But saying that short films are "irrelevant" and "don't mean anything" is an extremely narrow-minded view to take.

 

I've seen a good number of shorts at various film festivals that are very imaginative.  Some have even inspired me.  You'd be surprised at how many filmmakers have more of a talent for short films over features.  Telling an effective story in 30 minutes or less is not an easy thing.  And you have to remember that the majority of young filmmakers out there have very interesting ideas that they want to put out there, but nothing near the budget for a feature film.  Plus, that idea might not translate well into a 90+ minute story.  Hence, the short film.

 

Go to a few more film festivals and you will see that there are a lot of refreshing ideas out there in the form of short films.

If anything short films open up opportunities, but even so that's not enough. Martin Scorsese didn't make a career out of his short films nor did David Lynch or Lars von Trier! If you plain and simply can't make a feature film, then you're not a filmmaker. It's the cold hard truth. 


  • 0

#14 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:53 PM

Then how do you explain all those people who won Academy Awards for Best Short Film down through the years?...


  • 0

#15 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:22 PM

What do awards have to do with anything? Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar, but that didn't make him any less of a filmmaker.
  • 0

#16 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:19 PM

What do awards have to do with anything? Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar, but that didn't make him any less of a filmmaker.

 

It has nothing to do with awards.  My point is that you will find that a LOT of people will strongly disagree with your view that "If you plain and simply can't make a feature film, then you're not a filmmaker."   Kenneth Anger (to name only one filmmaker) did make a career out of short films (with the exception of one experimental video feature) and influenced many of the master filmmakers of the 60s & 70s. 

 

You've called yourself a beginner in other posts.  And for a beginner, you have disturbingly provincial views on what qualifies as a film and a filmmaker.


  • 1

#17 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:13 PM

Sure, I'm a beginner, but I feel I've absorbed a lot of knowledge from reading film books, watching many films and listening to legendary filmmakers speak. I do like some short films, but they're mainly from the past. i feel many short films play like shoe commercials. The stuff on Vimeo is all eye candy, just because it looks good, it doesn't make it a good film. Here's an example of a great short film  made in 1960. All I'm saying is that no one remembers short films, all the great film directors of the past made features not shorts.Except perhaps if you count some films of the silent age.


Edited by joshua gallegos, 07 February 2014 - 02:13 PM.

  • 0

#18 Shiva Kumar

Shiva Kumar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Editor
  • India

Posted 09 March 2014 - 02:12 AM

Every film maker is different. One who make good short film need not be good feature film maker, and it is vice versa. But short film making definitely help one to learn nuances of film making.
  • 0

#19 Young Pizzy

Young Pizzy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lagos, Nigeria

Posted 09 March 2014 - 02:54 PM

For me I don't think Short films are a bad idea, my point is.....Short films are a way of showing how creative some directors can be, other than a feature which is more thrown to the business aspect of filmmaking.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc