Curt Massof

Sopranos used a shot like this in season one. It's part of a dream sequence where Christopher is being haunted by his first murder victim.

Cool effect.

https://youtu.be/f8rto8GTP2Y?t=30

I get it. It's the mindset of someone that has peered behind the curtain.

Knowing the tricks of how it's done made me feel like I couldn't enjoy films for a while, too.

When I started out in the mid to late 80's, I was a makeup FX creatures artist. Every time I saw the film I had worked on, or any film for that matter, I couldn't get past knowing how it was done. It all felt like watching a random home video. I could picture the rig used to puppeteer the creature. The sculpture sitting in the shop, the paint process, the lighting set up, etc. It took me a while to get past it. I had to train myself to forget all of it, stop analyzing, push aside any memories from set and just watch it for entertainment. 

The fog effect may be a result of a net or stocking between the lens and camera body and amplified by compression and generational loss. It seems to have been a big trend with BetaSP footage back then to produce a more "cinematic" look. Almost all of the BetaSP footage I used to get as an editor back then had footage shot in this way.

If the client isn't providing the ISCI you are creating it, make sure whoever is making the media buy has the correct ISCI number. With out it, the spot can't be trafficed.

They may be going through http://www.midwestgrip.com/

They have an Indianapolis location.

Maybe lower the camera a bit and move it to the left (or right depending) so the lamp next to the couch shows and maybe the wall paintings show a bit. It will make the wall change distance from your talent and add some depth to the shot.

Maybe even move the couch at a 90* angle so you see into the room behind talent. This allows for scene decoration and background practicals or light to add mood and texture.

This can also help motivate the lighting on your talent.

Of course all of this depends on whether it actually makes sense for the scene and It might not matter as much if the area is established in a wide shot.

I was just suggesting ways to get some separation from your subject and add interest to the scene based on this one shot and angle.

So go a little wider with the shot to catch the paintings that are on the wall (and out of frame)? Move them down maybe?

There is a table by the door with a little lamp on it. And theres a 6 lamp right by the couch...again, out of frame. Move them?

Its just an apartment. Not super tiny, but tight enough.

And thank you.

Thanks to all of you.

Seems like your ISO was too low for your lighting, causing you to open up that lens all the way. It's a decent lens but is soft wide open. Try lighting for a T2 or higher.

Check out this article on NATIVE ISO for Canon DSLR. Talks about noise and dynamic range for the Canon line.

http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/

Also, your talent is sitting basically in front of a plain wall which makes the image look flat. Try a different angle to add some depth to your scene.

Maybe show a side table with a practical lamp to add interest and motivate a source for you other light.

Just some thoughts.

Maybe see if you can rent one of these. Takes up to a 1k bulb and has black duv that can be used to skirt and control where the light goes.

This would pretty much do what you need.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/501160-REG/Westcott_7051_PokerLite_Lantern_Softbox.html

I like 360 video that uses CGI video - since its easier to include interesting lighting and camera moves.

 

The big problem with 360 live action is a locked off camera seems the norm. I guess moving the camera is difficult if your trying to hide the rig.

 

There are some pretty good 180 degree videos that can be viewed with a VR headset, it gives you some look around and the VR experience - but the crew can be hidden behind the camera and thus do camera moves.

 

I agree with Curt about the quality - so many of these videos are super compressed and low res enough to be pointless. I guess you need a lot of pixels to properly map to a 360 view. Maybe an 8K source file to do it properly - thats going to melt your typical phone based VR headset. For instance I've yet to see a 360 video on youtube that doesn't look horrible on a headset - the bandwidth isn't there.

I think your point of hiding the rig is key and why the CGI stuff is better, there is no rig to hide, no views to stitch together and you can lens however you want. I think when we see drones using higher res 360 cameras we will see better live action videos. Then it's just dealing with the bandwidth so it's not overly compressed. There is decent some content but I think it will remain a gimmick if it doesn't evolve past a fly on the wall experience. As an overall experience it just feels flat now.

I can definitely see applications where 360 could really take off if they could make it more interactive yet guided in some way. The video, like in TV and cinema is only one key element to the overall experience. Treadmill walkways, surround sound, actual environmental cues like smell and touch would really enhance the experience, much like some of the exhibits at Disney or Universal Studio theme parks. George mentioned traditional cinematography and how a DP uses shots to guide the viewer to where their interest should be. If there were more cues to follow, 360 could be used the same way but instead of the DP guiding you it would be the viewers curiosity based on other senses.

Of course those are closed environment type experiences and not the streaming content we currently have through VR headsets.

360 feels gimmicky to me. It can be cool for concerts, theater in the round, haunted house and museum type experiences but the tech still feels too young.

Most of the stuff I've seen is so muddy and low res feeling that it takes away from the experience. Not sure if it's because I've only seen streaming content that has to pack so much data into a smaller footprint or the cameras just aren't there yet.

Lensing is also a problem. Most of what I've seen is all super wide angle which feels wrong and sometimes makes you feel as if you are a fly on the wall looking at giants around you, not part of the scene.

This part is personal but the lack of the other sensory input is frustrating. Nothing like walking through an environment and not being able touch or smell your surroundings.

Download the AJA Data Calculator app for your phone. It's handy for figuring out storage requirements.

I ran the numbers you listed with some padding (4 hours of footage, UHD, 23.98FPS, ProresHQ) and it says you will need 1.43TB of storage. This includes audio capture as well.

ProresHQ works out to be 356.60 GB per 1 hour of footage.

DNxHR HQ is 314.50 GB per hour.

Hope this helps.