I love cinema. I may not be a cinephile like some of my colleagues Obsessed with minute details about obscure directors from Italy in the 50's. If you're into that stuff, rock on.
I'm more interested in the mechanics and artistry of the process instead of what others have done.
Doesn't mean I don't reference them as support, proof, what to and what not to do. I just don't have everything memorized to the point I'm some autistic neurotic hiding in the back for a Library somewhere.
I'm more interested in the mechanics and artistry of the process instead of what others have done.
Doesn't mean I don't reference them as support, proof, what to and what not to do. I just don't have everything memorized to the point I'm some autistic neurotic hiding in the back for a Library somewhere.
Art is a funny process. I know some great artists who, when asked if they are inspired by so on and so forth, all you get is a blank stare or a huff of derision. But the process of art is mostly mechanical. The time spent making a beautiful painting is mostly knowing how the paints mix and how to apply the brush to canvas instead of how to make it look good. When I shoot, I like to look at how the greats shot stuff. When I edit, the same dealio. But can I remember their names? Naw not really. The technique is the most important thing.It's a way for me to understand how things work and why they work the way they do.
 |
| A Wedding or a Sex Scene? |
Everyone's Doing it!
I don't like fads or when when one style of shooting becomes this uber popular look and feel.
In the sixties, cheaper lenses allowed for Cinema quality variable lenses. So what happened? You get a glut of fast zooms. I can't count how many Italian movies I've watched where an actor suddenly turns to the lens and in one grand motion, we are pushed into their surprised face.
When those lenses came out, DOP's all over went zoom crazy until it was kiboshed by the higher end productions.
Before, and soon after more stationary, prime lenses were used. Why? Well, pushing in tight is a means of telling the audience that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.
That's great, if it's used sparingly. Go watch a modern film and see how often a zoom is actually used. Count the number of times a DP will use a Zoom. You could probably count it on one hand.
The look became synonymous with "artsy" films. This again was not what big studios were looking for. So the look died off as just another "Cinema" style of the past.
Nowadays, there are variations on a look, that seem to work ok. The gritty, rough camera style is popular but works because its part in parcel of the whole story telling, not just a singular camera action. (think American Horror Story and Battlestar Galactica.)
PRESETS FOR EVERYTHING!!!!!
When every idiot nephew and spoiled kid out there could get their hands on FCP and a fairly cheap computer, every reel, and low end production was filled with preset effects and motion titles. I would turn on G4 tv or Rogers TV and be like...oh. look... nice preset. Supervising editors and producers, used to twenty hours for a glare effect were impressed with all the new glitz and glamour and the young guys got all the credit. Jokes on them, I just turn on a switch.
But the tool was there, it was cheap and made things look sparkly. Now, for me, a simple, clean animation looks a whole lot better than something filled with ten layers of preset sparkle.
The Prettiest but Most OVERUSED EFFECT IN MODERN FILM MAKING
My biggest complaint I guess is the Bokeh effect and the DOF drop effect.
I love it. It's gorgeous, creates great visuals and can really set the mood and tone to a particular project.
Let me explain what that is first.
The Bokeh effect and the DOF Drop effect is simply a tight FOV (field of view) with a narrow focal point usually associated with macro shooting, sports/action (telephoto stuff) Portrait/wedding and in cinema where you're purpose is to focus on one person, one idea, one moment with utter clarity and ignoring the rest of the world. Open up the aperture, fighting the shot. You get a neat glory effect in the background. Imagine a tight shot on a beautiful woman, the background is blurred except for some floating balls of light, and all you can see is her face. Amazing.
It will create a neat blur effect with anything too close or too far behind the subject, lights will take the shape of the aperture, and if there is any debris or lens objects, you tend to get these neat little "dirt" effects in camera. I love the look! its gorgeous, especially for portrait shooting.
The problem is it is now so overused I think I have eye sight problems when watching movies.
I liked Blue Valentine, except the whole thing is one giant tight shot.
I know it was for budget, but dammit, I want to see at least one Medium shot.
COME ON.
Go on Vimeo now, look for the indie movies. Tell me how many of them have that focus effect? Blur in and out, Bokeh, all tights.
I bet a good chunk. I'm on there now.
I don't like fads or when when one style of shooting becomes this uber popular look and feel.
In the sixties, cheaper lenses allowed for Cinema quality variable lenses. So what happened? You get a glut of fast zooms. I can't count how many Italian movies I've watched where an actor suddenly turns to the lens and in one grand motion, we are pushed into their surprised face.
When those lenses came out, DOP's all over went zoom crazy until it was kiboshed by the higher end productions.
Before, and soon after more stationary, prime lenses were used. Why? Well, pushing in tight is a means of telling the audience that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.
That's great, if it's used sparingly. Go watch a modern film and see how often a zoom is actually used. Count the number of times a DP will use a Zoom. You could probably count it on one hand.
The look became synonymous with "artsy" films. This again was not what big studios were looking for. So the look died off as just another "Cinema" style of the past.
Nowadays, there are variations on a look, that seem to work ok. The gritty, rough camera style is popular but works because its part in parcel of the whole story telling, not just a singular camera action. (think American Horror Story and Battlestar Galactica.)
PRESETS FOR EVERYTHING!!!!!
When every idiot nephew and spoiled kid out there could get their hands on FCP and a fairly cheap computer, every reel, and low end production was filled with preset effects and motion titles. I would turn on G4 tv or Rogers TV and be like...oh. look... nice preset. Supervising editors and producers, used to twenty hours for a glare effect were impressed with all the new glitz and glamour and the young guys got all the credit. Jokes on them, I just turn on a switch.
But the tool was there, it was cheap and made things look sparkly. Now, for me, a simple, clean animation looks a whole lot better than something filled with ten layers of preset sparkle.
The Prettiest but Most OVERUSED EFFECT IN MODERN FILM MAKING
My biggest complaint I guess is the Bokeh effect and the DOF drop effect.
I love it. It's gorgeous, creates great visuals and can really set the mood and tone to a particular project.
Let me explain what that is first.
The Bokeh effect and the DOF Drop effect is simply a tight FOV (field of view) with a narrow focal point usually associated with macro shooting, sports/action (telephoto stuff) Portrait/wedding and in cinema where you're purpose is to focus on one person, one idea, one moment with utter clarity and ignoring the rest of the world. Open up the aperture, fighting the shot. You get a neat glory effect in the background. Imagine a tight shot on a beautiful woman, the background is blurred except for some floating balls of light, and all you can see is her face. Amazing.
It will create a neat blur effect with anything too close or too far behind the subject, lights will take the shape of the aperture, and if there is any debris or lens objects, you tend to get these neat little "dirt" effects in camera. I love the look! its gorgeous, especially for portrait shooting.
The problem is it is now so overused I think I have eye sight problems when watching movies.
I liked Blue Valentine, except the whole thing is one giant tight shot.
I know it was for budget, but dammit, I want to see at least one Medium shot.
COME ON.
Go on Vimeo now, look for the indie movies. Tell me how many of them have that focus effect? Blur in and out, Bokeh, all tights.
I bet a good chunk. I'm on there now.
The effect should be used sparingly, like the Zoom. Why? Because its a means to tell a story. You focus on one person, one object, remove all other information. Having it in every damn shot is retarded.
It would be like me typing this blog post all in Caps because EVERYTHING I SAY IS SUPER IMPORTANT SO READ IT NOW!!!!!
 |
| HER!!! THERE!! SHE IS MORE IMPORTANT |
In conclusion,
Using popular techniques like Dropping DOF, Bokeh effect, sparkle presets in AE or FCP will not make your crappy film any better. I can rant on this for a while. Learn to tell a story first, shoot it on VHS then worry bout your neat colour effect overlays later.
No comments:
Post a Comment