fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 You should beg, borrow or steal Dario Argento's Dracula 3D. Whatever you do don't pay money though. There's a bit of the argument in this example that parallels the whole LOTR's frame rate controversy. Insomuch that as you fail to stick to the traditional technical tropes of film look, you're going to be making stuff that messes with expectations. With LOTR, it was a different frame rate that upsets that expectation, with this 3D movie it's really bad lighting compounded with bad grading/colorization. With the 3D flick, I might even be generous and guess that maybe the director wanted the campiness of a video look as it fit the goofy narrative? Cheap-looking on purpose, perhaps? Who knows. Did the director ever clarify? Maybe he just got lucky with great cinematographers on earlier films and screwed on this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quirky Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I was searching the internet for hand held footage for the D600, because I wanted to see how well the image stabilization worked. I came across this video done by an amateur, hand held, no scene setup, and no special lighting at all, yet I was surprised how film like much of it looked. > Michael nahua 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you wish to achieve really "cinematic" look, you don't leave your shots on the mercy of any in-camera stabilisation. Well, for what it's worth, when I shoot one of my next documentaries it'll be with an Oly OM-D and I'll rely heavily on the 5-axis stabilization. In fact, I've decided to use that camera pretty much because of the stabilization feature. I will be, as you say, at the "mercy" of the stabilization. However, I'd frame it as a "reward" not a "mercy." I'm perfectly confident, under the conditions I'll be in, that I'll achieve superior cinematic footage with that gear than I would with most all else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Holy smokes that Dracula 3D movie looked horrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why don't you post a question about his complete settings (framerate, shutter-speed, manual focus or auto (guessing manual unless af on that camera is really slow/set to a slow setting), wb, auto exposure or not, lens(es) used, and how he graded it afterwards. I don't see anything that can't be accomplished on any dslr/mirrorless that has decent video-features. I was searching the internet for hand held footage for the D600, because I wanted to see how well the image stabilization worked. I came across this video done by an amateur, hand held, no scene setup, and no special lighting at all, yet I was surprised how film like much of it looked. > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quirky Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Well, for what it's worth, when I shoot one of my next documentaries it'll be with an Oly OM-D and I'll rely heavily on the 5-axis stabilization. I'm perfectly confident, under the conditions I'll be in, that I'll achieve superior cinematic footage with that gear than I would with most all else. Good for you, and good luck. That's all besides the point, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Good for you, and good luck. That's all besides the point, though. Okay, but so are most of the responses to this thread. I'll defend myself by saying that the OP asked why some cameras are more "film" like than others, and stable lensing is a traditional aspect of cinema industry shooting...so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Well, like said, the "filmic look" you're talking about is very subjective, a bit like the "hot babe look." Perhaps you should define what exactly the filmic (cinematic?) look means to you first. Without that this conversation is, and is going to be rather pointless. As for that Vimeo clip, there was nothing special about it in technical terms. The point is, the same footage could have been shot with quite a few other similar cameras within the genre, and you couldn't tell the difference. The D600 is neither particularly good, nor the worst, in creating the proverbial "filmic look." Whatever that means to each of us. To keep things in perspective, taste developes slowly. People now might look down on "Reverie" with it's videoish 30p and the "bokeh" stuff, now seen in great profusion, but back then it was a revelation. In 2009, a 7D clip was posted in my favorite forum, and it was the reason why I bought the 7D: Can you imagine? People raved about this! The times they are a-changing, but the fundamental things apply as time goes by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Can you imagine? People raved about this! Sure, there's some good lensing in that video and I like the editing choices. Yeah, I see a handful of common DLSR shooting mistakes that could be avoided and thus "fixed; some of the frame rates are too high for my tastes and the coloring is too uncontrolled, for example, but otherwise is still looks solid to my eye. Put it this way, I'd guarantee you that I could put an Alexa in the hands of some people (maybe on this forum), send them out into this environment, and they wouldn't make anything half as compelling or cohesive. And, even though it's already an anachronism, I still enjoy the image, flaws and all, from the sensor of my 5DII. It's like loving a filmstock that's not as good as others, but suits your sensibilities, youknow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Why don't you post a question about his complete settings (framerate, shutter-speed, manual focus or auto (guessing manual unless af on that camera is really slow/set to a slow setting), wb, auto exposure or not, lens(es) used, and how he graded it afterwards. I don't see anything that can't be accomplished on any dslr/mirrorless that has decent video-features. These are all good questions. I don't have a Vimeo account, but maybe I should open one. I have a feeling there is more to this than specifications and settings. I'm thinking along the lines of the transfer function from light to codec. I suspect some cameras mimic film more than others due the sensor's response, and what happens in the data pipe, just as some cameras have greats specs but really don't look great subjectively. There is some art to camera design still. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I suggest you check out the video examples at filmconvert.com. That should give you an idea of the power of post processing. I can certainly agree that you may find a camera that has better "out of the box" presets, or that can possibly be tweaked better in camera to suit your idea, than others. It certainly helps with minimizing work if you find something you can use as is - hopefully not at the cost of other useful video features though. These are all good questions. I don't have a Vimeo account, but maybe I should open one. I have a feeling there is more to this than specifications and settings. I'm thinking along the lines of the transfer function from light to codec. I suspect some cameras mimic film more than others due the sensor's response, and what happens in the data pipe, just as some cameras have greats specs but really don't look great subjectively. There is some art to camera design still. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 I suggest you check out the video examples at filmconvert.com. That should give you an idea of the power of post processing. I can certainly agree that you may find a camera that has better "out of the box" presets, or that can possibly be tweaked better in camera to suit your idea, than others. It certainly helps with minimizing work if you find something you can use as is - hopefully not at the cost of other useful video features though. Thanks! I took a look at it. I thought the techniques they were using were educational. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.