Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I don’t think it’s wrong, just too weak maybe.
If you had used a rim light, it would have separated the subject – but then it also would have looked exactly the same as thousands of other music videos shot against black. So there’s really no right or wrong.
“but a problem can arise when an actor comes in the next day with a different idea.”
Sooo, what happens if the idea is bad? How often does it happen that you have to change things for the worse because of an actor’s leverage?
Do you like working like you did on “Empire of Light”, where you figure it out on the day of shooting? (I feel a stressful pressure to deliver ‘right here, right now’ if I cannot ponder ahead of shooting)
“About the “bad cinematography”, would you include in it great movies with stunning images but that are so beautiful that you tend to forgot what’s their purpose and you simply stare at them?”
Good question, I just know that whenever film critics start with “The visuals are stunning” or “The landscapes are breathtaking”, I can be quite sure that the story is lacking 🙂
Thanks but I was asking if anyone knows any films that use predominantly short travel, slow dolly moves.
“You need that mass to create that slow movement in my opinion. ”
The slider I linked to does exactly that, with or without motor. It creates movement that looks like a heavy dolly move, even when just moving it an inch, which is why I consider it replacing a dolly. You can also pan and tilt. I tried dozens of sliders and none could do it, this does.
I usually embrace limitations as they force my creativity, I’m just not sure if limiting “dolly moves” to 100cm camera travel length will be too much. Many scenes will have long tracking shots (steadicam), so using less movement for the rest of the film, in theory, should work.
But it’s theory and maybe there is something out there for me to watch and get an idea if it’s worth investigating further.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean just push ins. Basically any kind of movement with a dolly, just limited to a very short distance.
“…you don’t really notice while watching… ”
That sounded strange, of course one notices how great his work ‘looks’, but it does so without distracting.
There are different ways that all do the job but I enjoy Roger’s cinematography the most. It’s like good editing, you don’t really notice while watching – it just draws you in completely and irresistibly.
Quite often I tried to analyze how he shot particular scenes or sequences and then forgot what I came to do after watching a few minutes. He would probably blame the ‘good story’ or ‘great acting’ for it but we all know that’s not the whole truth! 🙂
“Bardo” (DP Darius Khondji) has just been nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars, and it’s quite the opposite approach – the steadicam/gimbal, super wide angle lens style is extremely pushy. But I’d argue that it works well for that particular, surreal story and probably helped to draw attention to the movie.
I suspect the ‘detail’ settings to try to mimic micro contrast but that’s just my guess using it in Davinci Resolve. It can introduce a halo effect quickly if overdone.
Could that ‘filmic sharpness’ actually be micro contrast, or a mix of micro contrast and grain? There is a debate whether “micro contrast” is even a thing or just a myth.
I have a Sigma DP Merrill photo camera that uses a Foveon sensor, which in my opinion produces analog-like images like no other digital camera (needs light though). It’s said to have exceptional micro-contrast and color, which cause these analog-like results. I don’t know if it’s true but I recognize that same “filmic sharpness” that you talk about there too.
Outside of Arri I agree that in-camera sharpening can be very problematic if taken too far.
