|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Delmustator Community Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2008 Posts: 72 Location: NC Area
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
joberg Community Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9447
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, the future is here in terms of small hand-held cams and "cheap" production/film. What I don't like about the short is that they wanted to cram as much visual effect into one frame. I get tired of seeing those because they look too much like a video game (hate the traffic in the sky à la StarWars).
If you want to ''recreate" the BR feel it's easy to fall for the one big mistake that a newbie would make: to take all the iconic props/sets/special/practical effects and try to put them all into one frame and do it for the duration of the whole movie
Ex: smoke, park-meter, flying cars, neons, animals, umbrella, crowds of various characters, etc...
Not all the images that Ridley gave us are saturated with those. Some of his shots are really "simple": a piece of the set on the left, the main character in the middle and an off focus right side with shadows.
Just my 2 cents...and thank you for sharing btw |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
amfx74 Community Member
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Posts: 138 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is very well made and nicely shot. The props and set look great but I agree with Joberg in there is a little too much in some of the scenes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Noeland Community Guide
Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 1328
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you watch the behind the scenes video, it's very clear that this film was done as a promotion for the technology involved in making it. It's not really meant as an original piece of fiction. It's basically a commercial for the newest Canon digital camera system, lens packages, sound systems, etc. And for Stargate Studios. ( http://www.stargatestudios.net/page.php?section=4&page=427 )
The opening was a green screen set, which was obvious. It had the look, but lacked all the soul. As these kinds of things often do. Irony?
The outdoor footage up in the mountains is gorgeous. Really stunning. But again, it's very clean and clinical. It's almost too damn crisp. But, I think that is the whole point of this is to show just how much detail can be packed into the frame.
I love working with digital video cameras, and I can't wait to get my hands on the newer Canon cameras, but I always found myself bumping the focus a little so the footage wasn't super crisp and clean. I just liked the footage better that way.
BUT, thanks for posting this, I did enjoy watching Nicolette Sheriden in a piece like this, it was interesting. _________________ I don't have enough blasters! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
hirohawa Community Member
Joined: 18 May 2006 Posts: 1067
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Noeland you should look into some nice diffusion filters as they take some of the artificial crispness/sharpness out of the digital cameras.
Film is still the way to go, expensive and finicky and definitely more work with VFX but has there been a better looking film than Lawrence of Arabia, or Blade Runner? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|