View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Yeah, alot of the response to this has to do with cultural conditioning. There was an uproar in film criticism/theory when sound and color arrived, because they felt those technologies DETRACTED from the power of silent B/W film.
Scott
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 110
-
-
I finally watched it all the way, thanks to Scott, and the second half does indeed redeem it as another Tarantino winner.Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138
That said, I did indeed think that Django, while self-indulgent, was pretty good
.
What I found good about Django is the way it addresses the inhumanities of slavery via the eyes of a German dentist trying to make a buck hunting bounties, sort of giving it a world view on the microcosm of American slavery.
The view through the dentist's eyes opens our own eyes somehow.
And yes, Tarantino did indulge in much brutality, but it pushed home his points of how brutal life was in the American South at the time.
Bravo, Quentin!Last edited by budwzr; 11th Nov 2014 at 12:10.
-
>>See the answers above, short answer is you can't!
Hmmm...I hear a lot of professionals and semi-professionals are shooting on DSLRs and presenting as film. I think even a part of Skyfall was shot on a DSLR. -
Originally Posted by akkers
"Presenting as "film" "? but they certainly don't advertise it is as "film" .
When handled properly , DSLR can make "filmic" images that look good to the layperson on something like youtube. BUT that' s the key word - it's not the same. There are too many technical limitations as mentioned earlier. "Handled properly" includes everything mentioned above that applies to film as well - good technique, shooting rigs, lighting , lenses, grading, etc.. -you can produce nice "filmic" images but not quite the same as if you had used a digital cinema camera or film . If you could achieve the same results , there would be no reason to spend on the expensive setups
Yes DSLRs have been used in very limited fashion on big budget productions. They are used as an inexpensive way to get things like establishing shots , plate shots - shallow depth of field, large sensor look at a low price. But they are NEVER used as main camera if you can afford it. (They did a full episode of the TV show "Bones" with DSLR's but if you read what the production people say about that, they would never do that again - too many problems and quality isses) . But they are used very frequently for things like music videos, weddings because of the price -
I watched it yesterday. It made me wonder what all the fuss is about. I had no idea as to the number of movies I have that were shot with digital cameras. I guess they'd be the ones I didn't use noise removal filtering on while re-encoding them to remove the excessive film grain. I hate film grain. None of the digital movies look inferior or sub-standard to me because they're "digital".Originally Posted by Seeker47
It appears the argument is pretty much over anyway. Nobody makes 35mm cameras any more. It'll be all digital eventually. Hopefully soon at least at 48fps or higher. 24fps just isn't enough, even if it does contribute to an antiquated "film look". -
Same thing with classic cars and vinyl records. Even optical disc is going kapoop. Google glass is going kapoop now too, but for different reason.
Thank goodness for digital or else Panavision and Technicolor would still have a lock on everything.Last edited by budwzr; 16th Nov 2014 at 18:59.
-
IMHO the worst Bond movie ever.Originally Posted by akkers
-
There are still major Hollywood directors who want o shoot and distribute film - Christopher Nolan being one.
-
There have always been eccentrics. Charles Chaplin made silents well into the talkie era. Doesn't change the trend.Originally Posted by akkers
-
I have the entire HVSC on my hard drive, since the SidPlay app on my iPhone doesn't do playlists very well and Apple has apparently prohibited the use of Sid "decoders" in iOS apps, I've been thinking of capturing all of the sids in WAV format then re-encoding them to AAC so I can play them through the basic iOS music player...
-
Actually I was in Currys the other day and was passing the TV area. I just stopped because the TVs were playing a trailer of the new Ridley Scott film (Exodus or something). What I noticed was that all the TVs had the motion interpolation turned on heavily and the pic looked very clear but 'awful (to me)'.
I called over a shop assistant, playing dumb I asked why the picture was like it was. He said 'what do you mean?' I pointed out that the film trailer being played looked like Eastenders. He said that the trailer was being streamed off a server and thats why it looked like that and lots of other nonsense. Deep down I was laughing and thinking that this guy either did not know about motion interpolation setting or was trying to fool me.
Anyway I eased his suffering and suggested that there may be some setting called 'motion interpolatiojn or true motion' and can he turn it off. He said there may be such a setting but it would not make any difference to the picture. I said, 'can you please just turn it off so that I can see what the picture looks like without it'. But he just talked around it and would not oblige. I just smiled and walked away. There was no way he was going to sell a TV to me if I was buying.
This is what you get from the staff of Currys - one of the biggest retailers in the UK. -
Does that include D3200 and can I see some early 80's 16mm stock online to compareOriginally Posted by smrpix
As has been stated or implied earlier -- good lenses, appropriate camera support, proper exposure, appropriately balanced lighting, careful color-correction, possible addition of grain and other effects.Originally Posted by akkers
To my eye, Nikon DSLRs produce an image remarkably similar to early 80's 16mm stock (Eastman 7291) as-is.
Does anyone have any experience of this
http://www.photographio.com/nikon-flat-picture-control-videography-photographios-cineflat/ -
Never used one. Bring your own SD card into a retailer and give it a try. Darker parts of the image are said to be not so good.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
You can google it as easily as I can.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
Give it a try, it's free. But given the kinds of questions you're asking you'll be much better served by simply exposing correctly in the first place.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
-
i have a D3200 but not familiar with early 80's 16mm stockOriginally Posted by smrpix
Originally Posted by Dopey2013
Never used one. Bring your own SD card into a retailer and give it a try. Darker parts of the image are said to be not so good.
You can google it as easily as I can.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
Give it a try, it's free. But given the kinds of questions you're asking you'll be much better served by simply exposing correctly in the first place.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
-
Yes, the D3200 is so-so (actually a little better) with noise, so you would always have to set it for sufficient exposure. But that is not unlike plenty of traditional film stocks - all of those required sufficient light, and when given them, they (and the D3200) will put out a nice image. If "great low light capability" were going to be a requirement for someone's interpretation of "film look", the range of options would change considerably.
What Dopey2013 linked to ASSUMES one has already adjusted for correct exposure. Those "looks" are based on Nikon's "Picture Control Utility". The D3200 cannot make use of it or its settings (adjusted or not) - that is reserved for the D7xxx and D5xxx series (as well as a few other models/lines). So the D3200 can ONLY make use of its stock Picture control options capability (which does work in video mode & with clean HDMI out). Note that fan/consumer testing of this feature leads one to believe that this adjustment is only POST-debeyering+POST-downconvert-to-8bit, so(if that is true) it's utility is limited. However, one can still create "flat" outputs to HDMI recorders, which can then be custom-graded in post and provide improved flexibility of exposure. Not as much as higher-end cameras (even from Nikon's line), but better than nothing/standard. Another example of "you get what you pay for". I have tested the "flat outputs" (with my D3200) and the difference is noticeable compared to standard.
Scott -
Thanks. How do you create flat with the D3200, is that the same as shooting RAW?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
Last edited by Anonymous2; 2nd Dec 2014 at 15:59. Reason: typos
-
No Nikons yet shoot RAW for video. I wish they would. They currently shoot Y'CbCr, which is stored on card as up to ~24Mbps 8bit 4:2:0 AVC in MOV container. If going out the HDMI port, it could be captured with a different codec, subsampling and bitrate. Example: going to Atomos Ninja allows 4:2:2 ProRes at HQ rates (usually up to ~220Mbps).
This is much better than what can be stored ON CAMERA, but still not as good as RAW, as that would have retained the full ~14stop dynamic range. It would also have required much greater bitrate, even compared to the ProRes 422HQ 220Mbps - along the lines of 1.3-1.4Gbps.
Some cams do shoot RAW (video/cine): arriraw (from supported arri cams & approved uncompressed recorders), recode raw (from red), Blackmagic cams (CinemaDNG raw), Canons (with ML firmware addon), Ikonoskope, Digital Bolex, highest-end Sonys, a few others. Many more do the "uncompressed clean HDMI-to-visuallyLossless" recorder formats (ProRes, DNxHD), which are good mezzanine options.
Scott -
Oh, almost forgot to add...
To do "Flat" (or something like it) on the Nikon D3200, you do:
1. Turn on Camera
2. [Menu] button
3. [Down Arrow] button to [Shooting Menu]
4. [Right Arrow] button, then [Down Arrow] button to [Set Picture Control]
5. [OK] button, then [Down Arrow] button to choose picture control "look" (let's start with [Neutral] aka [NL]
6. [Right Arrow], then adjust using L or R arrows, to get [Sharpening] down to 0, [Contrast] to minimum, [Saturation] to low, but leaving [Hue] at 0/default and [Brightness] at 0/default or what is necessary for the shot's balanced exposure.
7. [OK] button to save. Notice it now shows [NL*] (as a "custom" preset)
It's not a true custom like what can be loaded/unloaded in the higher end models, nor can you adjust the points of the gamma curve, but it works similarly and almost as well.
Scott -
Thanks.I was shooting a street protest people marching by. Some shots seem out of focus like the crowd are all moving so AF keps changing. Would manual focusing be better? Also if focus is locked won't some be over exposed if it is bright in background?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
That custom preset is just one option i will be able to change back to the default if iwant? -
Think about it differently, ask yourself why would a camera that is not moving have to change focus? Certainly there legitimate artistic reasons but generally you would want to keep focus fixed.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
Thanks.I was shooting a street protest people marching by. Some shots seem out of focus like the crowd are all moving so AF keps changing. Would manual focusing be better? Also if focus is locked won't some be over exposed if it is bright in background?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
That custom preset is just one option i will be able to change back to the default if iwant?
If there is one artistic "film look" thing it is being slow: slow in panning, slow in zooming and slow in focal changes. -
it is the auto focus i think, it keeps hunting as the people pass. Maybe manual focus is better? I am going to try on a practice shoot at weekend where the content is not importantOriginally Posted by newpball
Think about it differently, ask yourself why would a camera that is not moving have to change focus? Certainly there legitimate artistic reasons but generally you would want to keep focus fixed.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
Thanks.I was shooting a street protest people marching by. Some shots seem out of focus like the crowd are all moving so AF keps changing. Would manual focusing be better? Also if focus is locked won't some be over exposed if it is bright in background?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
That custom preset is just one option i will be able to change back to the default if iwant?
If there is one artistic "film look" thing it is being slow: slow in panning, slow in zooming and slow in focal changes. -
Best focus type is very dependent upon subject matter and how you operate the cam. Sometimes AF is much better, sometimes much worse. Sometimes totally manual is the way to go, sometimes manual+quick/singleAF.
Tell us what you are trying to focus on?...How you answer will be telling in how you should operate.
Yes, by all means practice!
...and yes, you can always revert back to the original picture control preset (though you would have to manually recreate the custom set later, if you liked it).
**************
@newpball, SLOW requirement in film is partly dependent upon the framerate, but that hasn't stopped film artists from using things like Swish-pan for decades (e.g. "Some Like It Hot", c.1959), and quick-refocus is one strong reason why there are assistants known as "focus-pullers". So, while slow is more common in film (because of technical requirements), it is not proprietary to it nor is fast proprietary to video.
Scott -
That's what I was trying to say.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
-
sorry i missed thatOriginally Posted by newpball
That's what I was trying to say.Originally Posted by Dopey2013
I thought it was Scott who was replying too whenyou did as he had just before
-
If you have a crowd, and they are in different positions in Z-space, and they are moving, unless you have exposed with WA and/or small aperture (and therefore deep DoF), you will ALWAYS have some of the crowd not in focus. So the point of focusing there is:
Do you have certain individuals that you want to remain focused on?
Do you have a certain distance that you want to remain focused on, regardless of individuals?
If you are focusing on certain individuals, will they remain centered/dominant in your viewfinder?
If #2 is yes, you should most certainly use manual focus.
If #1 is yes and #3 is yes, you should be ok with AF.
If either #1 or #3 (or all) are no, you will have to make a decision about "priorities" of your subject matter. This is where manual+quick/singleAF can come in handy. Or if you get practiced enough, you could do it all manually. This is also another reason why in some situations camcorders make more sense, as they have convenient variable-speed zoom & focus rockers (sometimes built-in, sometimes 3rd party aftermarket addons).
Scott -
would this http://www.sammccauley.com/Product/nikon-afs-nikkor-50mm-f18g-lens/21676/2231.10.7 give shallow DOF in video too?
-
The more wide open the shallower the depth. It's all about controlling the light and camera to give you the desired effect. You use shutter speed, aperture (f-stop, t-stop,) film speed (iso) or gain (db) in video, plus lights and filters to control your exposure/depth of field. All those things interact in a very systematic and logical way -- if you sit down to learn them. The more you understand them, the more you will want to control them manually (and know when not to.)Originally Posted by Dopey2013
-
In your general "film look", most attrbute Shallow DoF with that, which is why I included it in Post #8 above. This can be artistically good, but only if you can handle the focus needs. It is of course completely possible to have artistic Deep DoF in cinema: Citizen Kane a tour-de-force example of that. But to do so with full frame sensors and small grain look requires HUGE light levels to give you equivalent balanced exposure.
Again, as smrpix said, it is a juggling act of multiple variables, all of which affect the image in different ways. That is why to do it well requires knowledge/skill/experience/giftedness/luck. (Most of us have only mild amounts of the last 2 and they are unpredictable, so one has to work with the other 3.)
Scott
<edit>Note that this shallow DoF as a film look often runs counter to the need for deep DoF in your recent camera work. Compromises!</edit>Last edited by Cornucopia; 2nd Dec 2014 at 18:12.
-
Good points and of course, there are no rules in art!Originally Posted by Cornucopia
However for anyone starting I would recommend to do things slow because doing things too fast is often the first big mistake. People move the camera like it is some tennis racket, or zoom in and out like if it is some psychedelic 70's scene.
But once you know the 'rules' you can break em.
-
And "Content is King". A shot of somebody falling from a tall building will be seen worldwide no matter how crappy the exposure, etc.
Quote
