Jump to content

Sraiyanti Haricharan

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sraiyanti Haricharan

  • Rank

  • Birthday 11/24/1993

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Chennai, India
  • My Gear
    5D mkii; Arri Alexa, Sony FS7, Canon 1DC, Canon and Nikon DSLRs

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

2298 profile views
  1. Yea. I sent out the stupid "his own" thing before realising the ironic gender exclusiveness.
  2. For example, taking something like the documentary Leviathan into consideration, could it be said that most of the footage you see is directorial and/or cinematographic? Or would you say it's based on a solid storyline?
  3. While it's true, Tyler, that there's a whole new level of post production dependency, I do think that there are good, relatively fast, cheap, dps. In the indie film circuit alone you see sooo many films that clearly seem low budget but with good framing, composition and shots. If you had to choose between a good, cheap, relatively fast dp who would give you well composed, well lit digital images and a cheap, fast, not so great dp who just wants to get the job done and is of the "we'll just fix it in post" attitude, who would you pick? Obviously the more efficient one. This doesn't have to
  4. So it comes down to semantics then, I suppose. I think the confusion was that a lot of parallel points were addressed within the original argument. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that cinematography isn't synonymous with storytelling. That's not what made it seem like you're undermining the importance of cinematography. The other statements about lighting not changing much in terms of story was what we were hashing out. Either way, to each his own, yes.
  5. I disagree with this. I definitely think certain things come across better when shot a certain way. I don't think there is one particularly right way or the best way but I do think certain things are more effective one way rather than the other. No, I don't think The Office would be as funny without the fake interviews or looking into the camera. And I think it would ultimately bizarre if it was shot film noir style or with just one spotlight on an office desk with two characters shot across it with perfectly symmetrical compositions. I am not sure if it would be as funny then. It may be more
  6. Sorry but The Office UK is a mockumentary. It is purposefully shot in a "documentary style" in the old school sense of the word. So in that manner of speaking, I'm sure a great deal of thought went into making it look the way it does. The atmosphere you're getting from the "lack of stylised lighting" is also very much a cinematographic and directorial decision. I'm slightly newer to this field than a lot of people on the forum but I have never once worked with a director, even in film school, who hasn't been concerned with perfecting the visual elements of the story. I'm yet to find som
  7. This is a very interesting thread. I personally feel like the line between cinematography for documentary and cinematography for fiction has blurred a little. It's so often you see extensive, well planned, light set ups in documentary films and like someone pointed out, a lot less effort put into sculpting light in fiction. That may also have to do with the fact that psychologically we're programmed to think that documentaries are "realistic" and "ugly-pretty" and so are pleasantly surprised or confused when talking heads are lit up elaborately or there is very little hand he
  8. I totally agree with you both about the Go Pro. It's extremely hard to seamlessly incorporate Go Pro footage into a film if you're trying to make it blend in. It almost always shows as far as I've seen and is quite irritating. I was thinking of the A7s ii or the GH4 but the people I'm working for have an in-house 5D that they want to use. If I'm renting another camera, might as well go for the BMPCC which is only slightly more expensive than the A7s ii. Although, I'm aware of the issues the BMPCC has with regards to clipping the highlights. So there's really no way to upscale 720p wi
  9. Okay so I've posted a similar question before where I asked how to deal with 5d footage when half of it has been shot at 720p (for the 50fps) and half at 1080p. The best solution I found after all your suggestions was to batch convert to ProRes. There was a slight loss of sharpness in the 720p of course though but it did the trick. So this time around I wanted to know if there's a workaround this issue. I could really do with a few high speed shots in an upcoming shoot but it's a shoestring budget. The cameras we have at our disposal are a 5d mkiii and a GoPro Hero 4. Would it make sense
  10. Happy ending. Streamclip was almost seamless and all the footage is now at 1080p ProRes 422. (My old computer couldn't handle AE and PP at the same time.) So far I've shown it to 3 other DoPs and no one has even mentioned resolutions. Safe to say the 720p has camouflaged. Phew. Thanks, guys.
  11. I'm editing on Premiere CC so that's convenient then to use AE to scale. So, I tried upscaling some of the footage in Premiere itself and there's not so much the problem of grain but more a problem of sharpness. Especially in the closeups. I mean, at the end of the day, it shouldn't look like there was a focusing problem throughout the film. That's honestly the only reason I'm considering coming down to 720 but you're right, there's honestly a noticeable loss of detail in that case. If you had to pick between scaling on AE and using Media Encoder or Streamclip to convert to 1080, which wou
  12. It's to be screened in a bunch of different places. I'm not sure what screening systems they're using as yet. Is there that much of a difference between upscaling before the import and upscaling in the software itself? I mean, do you get cleaner footage despite losing detail when you convert it externally? Ultimately, it's about 7 - 8 minutes of 720p footage and 7-8 minutes of 1080p footage. Because it was shot on cinestyle, the sharpness is down to 0 in the 1080 footage too so it may just seem like the 720 is slightly softer and not show too much. But generally speaking, is downsc
  13. Hey, So if you had half your footage shot at 720p to get high speed shots at 50fps and the other half at 1080p, at a frame rate of 24, would you upscale or downscale the footage? The camera you've used is a 5d mkiii. I ask because images lose quite a bit of sharpness while upscaling but not having a full HD output might not be the greatest thing for projector screenings.
  • Create New...