Premium Members Amando Crespo Posted December 2, 2008 Premium Members Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 This is a shot from one of my latest movies. Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=CuEJ8_vfflk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard James Lewis Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Honestly... Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting. I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up. I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi. When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam? On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy. I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control? Rick. This is a shot from one of my latest movies.Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=CuEJ8_vfflk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Amando Crespo Posted December 3, 2008 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 Honestly... Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting. I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up. I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi. When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam? On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy. I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control? Rick This is a shot from one of my latest movies. Thanks for comments. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=CuEJ8_vfflk I promise you that I´ll try grow up like steadicam operator (working for movies only.) TV. look works are bad or wrong?..... And, for my next movie, I´ll speak with the DP. about the choice of the lengs or the camera high... Just about your council...(May be, taht the DP. ....Sends me to look mushrooms...) Hey boy... I like you and your comment about..... Tank you Thanks.Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members luis castro Posted December 9, 2008 Premium Members Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Honestly... Not mad keen on the lens choice; I felt it was too wide. The warped perspective screamed TV to me. It was somewhere between being stylistically wide (and possibly inappropriate for the piece) and being a comfortable wide. If that makes sense... The walls were playing with my eyes and effected my perception of horizon, even when I was using the top of the door frames as a reference, which I found distracting. I also personally felt that a lot could have been better covered without the use of Steadicam. It could have been a lot more cut up. I'm not a fan of lingering lock offs. I prefer to get right in there to see the emotion, and usually with a better frame than can easily be kept with the steadi. When I shoot things, I very rarely use Steadicam (ironic) I feel camera movement needs to be motivated, and I hate Steadicam for the sake of Steadicam? On the Plus side, I loved the light coming through that smoked glass in the sauna area scenes. I think it could have been take better advantage with some tighter cross shooting nearer the line. That would have looked sexy. I would continue, but then it becomes more of a cinematography question as opposed to a strictly an analysis of the Steadicam operational proficiency. The prior not necessarily being totally under your control? Rick. the planes of steadicam this good, the director is the person in charge of the assembly not the operator, the script so that the one that speaks Spanish, does not have nor idea of in question subject 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.