Giacomo Girolamo

It's ok man, sorry if I sound harsh. Maybe you have a point too and we can't get it. I'm still thinking that in some level is rosy retrospection and an estethic change of this times that you really don't like. Maybe someday you will find another example that can show us, or get some knowledge that let you identify the exact reason of what you feel.

Best wishes Fatih

Thank you Giacomo for all the effort and dedication in your valuable replies, much appreciated.

All these info increased my motivation level to buy a DSLR and start doing something, I really need to start with anything instead of just daydreaming.

Damn, what I learned today by just posting this thread is a treasure for me, thanks to all of you guys !!!

You're welcome. If you want to know, I never like to take pictures. My mom has a really good analog camera but I just never interest in that. But than I start to be interesting in cinematography and I realize that I need to understand how a camera works. So I start to read and watch everything I can about cameras, and photography and cinematography, but there's a point in which you can learn the theory but you really need experimenting by yourself. Luckily, know you can buy a entry level DLSR which films in a really good quality (if you think the price you are paying) and is a really valuable tool in the learning process.

If you have time, I really recommend a youtube channel named "Filmmaker IQ", which have kinda longs video (for youtube, about 15 minute, half hour) but in which explain in a really good and clear way all the aspect about filmmaking. The creator has a lot of videos, about focus, about lens, about film, and a lot of videos about history of cinema. I really recommend it for you, if you want to learn or if you find some term that you don't get (for example why a 35mm lens in a full frame sensor is 35mm but "transform" in a 55mm in a asp-c sensor, which is call "crop factor"). Is a great tool for learning. I'm at work too and I can't enter in youtube, so sorry if I don't put the link. Just search filmmaker IQ in youtube and you'll find it.

Bye!

Sorry for the double post but I can't edit the last one again.

Jihed, check a photography page call it 500xp, in which a lot of pictures have this bokeh effect. You can even search (bokeh or whatever you are interest about) and find examples of pictures that later you try to replicate. The great about the page is that you can see the camera parameters when they take the picture, so you can see what lens they use, and what f-stop, shutter speed, etc. the choose for that specific picture. A great way to learn more about photography, which is essential to know about cinematography.

Bye

Well, a couple of things about focus.

First of all, the blur effect in the background is call "bokeh" (I put the term so you can find more information about that). What is important to know is that the focus area (call it depth of field) change with the lens, the distance and (more important and easy to control and understand) the aperture of the lens. If you have a lens with a great aperture (a smaller number F) you can have more things out of focus.

But the "shape" of the bokeh change if you just close a little de aperture, because the camera diaphragm have some blades (5, 7, or more) and that makes a pentagonal (if has 5) shape of bokeh.

You can see what I mean in this gif.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_(optics)#/media/File:Iris_Diaphragm.gif

If you are a photographer, you need to know how to play with this effect so you can make different pictures and effects.

Now, in cinematography, there's someone independent of the camera operator who's call the focus puller, and his job is just that, makes the shifts in the focus (you need to think that the camera maybe is moving fast, and you need to be precise).

About your interest in cinematography, I really recommend that you learn how a camera works. Even if you are not interest in photography, buy a DLSR camera, the most cheap ones (canon 700d for example, the entry level camera in canon) and start learning about how a camera works. The lens in photography are not that precise so they are difficult to use in cinema if you are moving the camera a lot, but for a learning experience they are great. In canon, you have a lens kit which is a 18-55mm (but because the 700d is not full frame, in fact is a 29-88mm, don't worry about that now). The lens are good (for learning) but the problem is that the f number is not so low (about 4.5 - 5.6 depend on the focal length). You can still do some nice bokeh with that lens, but maybe if you want experiment with that effect, you need buy a new lens. You can find some really nice, cheap lens for a couple of bucks, for example, a Youngnuo 35mm (about 56mm in that canon not full frame), which you can have a f 2.0 and have a really nice bokeh effect. Also, around 50mm is a nice focal length to start filming and experiment.

Cinematography, and even photography, have a LOTS of different things to learn, so start small and don't be overwhelm about all the information. Buy a good but simple and cheap DLSR and start to experiment all the different aspect you can play, and if you are curious and willing to learn, in a couple of days o weeks, you'll be doing greats pictures, and in a couple of month you'll learn a lot of different aspect of filmmaking. Plus, with a DLSR you can start to filming shorts clips, moments or even a short film if you want to. And is going to be a great experience to learn not only about cameras, but also about lighting, and other important aspect of cinematography.

Good luck and be free of ask everything you want,

bye

Ps. Later I read that you ask about anamorphic lens. Don't worry about that now. They are lens only for cinema that have a special look. You can figure it out because the lights (the flare of a flashlight for example) looks like a horizontal line of light or because the lights in the bokeh have a egg shape (stretch vertical) and not round. But trust me, you are not going to use it now, so know they exist and try to identify in movies, but leave it for later in your cinematographer process.

The anamorphic flare:

The anamorphic bokeh:

 

That's why i pick up sequel movies or same the dp's work for to block that kind of answers.....

 

Here's your answer. You're not trying to learn something or debate about an idea. You think you figure it out a revelation, and even when some of the greats DP with years and years the experience say is not like that, you get mad because nobody can see how a truly genius you are.

That's bad in life in general (because you can learn anything with that actitud), but is really bad in a collaborative art like cinema, when you have TONS of information to learn, and the best way is just working with people that know more than you.

I'm not saying you have to say "I'm wrong because he's, whom have more experience, say it", but you need to stop and say "maybe there's something I don't know or I just miss" and try it to figure it out.

Just a friendly advice, and a necessary one in this kind of work.

Maybe if you find some road with this type of lights...

You can have a tungsten yellowish light that came from the road and a bluish moon light that came from the woods. You can use gel or and LSD panel (which is useful for fills too) with a dimmer and color temperature controls.

But to me, in the road, you need to get some light in the woods too, because in the first shot you upload you don't see anything in the back (it's ok though because the main focus is the bus stop) but maybe is just too dark for a shoot on the side of the road.

Ps. They are in the middle of nowhere or is a bus stop in a suburban area?

One of the best christmas movie ''bad santa 2003'' and digitally shot sequel movie ''Bad santa 2 2016''

I'm not saying second movie is good actually is bad but visually far behind the first one like the other sequels shot digitally nowadays and problem not just colors..

bad santa -min.jpg

 

Do you want to know where's the fallacy in your screenshots? (not saying you're doing on purpose, but maybe because ignorance). You think you are comparing two identical shots because the costumes or the location but if you are in a cinematographer forum, you need to look similar cinematography.

I mean, in the first two shots you have in the left and front, up hard light and in the right one you have a much soft 45º light.

In the bar scene you have a rembrandt light and in the right you have an edge light and a lot of soft fill light.

That are all estathics choices, like color grading. But when somebody tell you that (or anything you don't want to hear, to be honest) you start to complain about how misunderstood you are. Try to be humble and, if everyone are tell you something, I'm not saying that you need to change your mind. But at least, try to think about it, instead try to refute them just because.

Bye

Thanks for the reference shot. Can you tell us more about the shots about the two characters? Where are they? At night too? Where's the motivation for the mixing color temperatures, or is just a esthetic decision?

Parabéns Rodrigo!

Eu acho que você faço um ótimo trabalho!

Eu tambén adoro Alfred Hitchcock present, e quero ver pronto seu próximo filme.

Até a próxima!

No, I don't have a clip to post.

I too... didn't get far into the movie. This scene is close to the beginning. But it's very much worth looking for. I'm a cinematographer with over 35 years experience. Screen direction is a major deal to me. I screwed up once in a indie film and I'll never do it again. I'm totally cool with breaking the rules, but usually with a flare... like; if you jump the line, the next shot would be extreme - like extremely wide. With that, I'm ok. Or with any other way that one could creatively concele the line breach. In this scene, there are 4 actors in dialogue and the audiuance needs to follow the story. Crossing the line in my humble view is damaging to the flow of information. Funny, my wife (watching it with me) didn't notice anything wrong.

So... hmmm.

35 of experience and you learn so little?

Maybe the explanation is this:

"I screwed up once in a indie film and I'll never do it again"

Maybe you are so afraid of making mistake that you never going to learn anything else. To me is kinda sad, you are stuck and is all in your own mind. Not trying to do cheap psychology but is ironic that the character in the movie is stuck too.

Argentina, what a beautiful place in the world...

Thanks for sharing your work. I'm gonna be honest but not trying to be harsh. I'm going to talk about things that you could fix with what you have, not about impossible gear or knowledge.

One of the main problem is the sound, which in my opinion is the 50% of any audiovisual work. I know you put work on it, because you can tell you think about the sound you're going to use in post, but at the same time, you can tell, even without read your post, that you don't like to do the post production work. You can tell because the sound isn't mix (which take a lot of work and time) and because you take some shortcuts (for example, when you use the same foot step when the guy step on the wooden floor and on the carpet, in the first shots). At least you are honest with yourself and tell us in your post that you don't like the post production part. That's fine, you don't have to do all, but please find someone whom likes to do post and work whit that person, pay him (or her) o try to do some collaboration, if you are not willing to do it right yourself. Maybe the problem with the sound mixing is because you don't take the time to listen your final cut in different devices. Oh, and talking about post, I believe you can do some color grading to enhance some of the shots.

About the cinematography itself, I really like what you pull off with the light you have. Some shots looks kinda off to me, but is a framing problem. Like the shot of the door before the guy open it. I don't like the way you cut the peephole. I know you probably was thinking about the face of the guy when he opens the door, but you can fix that with blocking and framing, and the first thing your audience look is the peephole, not the guy. I don't like the framing of the clock because the right side is in the dark and the clock limit is not parallel to the frame, but maybe I just too picky here.

I really don't like that you use the same shot about the blonde guy waving like anyone would notice even if was the same shot 5 seconds ago. NEVER treat your audience like they were idiots, because is the fastest way to lose them

The rhythm is slow, is true, but to me is kinda a oniric type of story, not a realistic one, so it's fine. Maybe you could cut it a little more, but to me the rhythm is whatever the story call about it.

Again, great job and keep the good work. I'm trying to be honest because you submit this, but please don't take it in a harsh way because really is not the idea.

Bye!

P.S. Really was so important the faerie light for your story? To me, if you're going to do it, make it right (with light where the faerie is going to move, or a really good CGI work). If you don't want to do that, then you should find another way to make us understand the change in the life of the character.

Daniel Pearl ASC was the cinematographer. He used an Eclair NPR and, for some crane shots a Bolex 5 with MST motor.

Isn't the shutter speed of the NPR 1/48 at 24fps? I should look it up. The NPR does have a variable shutter though.

 

Pearl shot for exposure, he said, without being able to light for mood or anything, something he was only able to do in the 2002 remake.

 

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, they believed shooting reversal at ASA 25 would help disguise the fact that the film was a blow up from 16mm.

Thanks for upload that video! (and in vimeo, which I can watch at my current location)

Very interesting and definitely one of the best horror movies of all times.

Looks greats man, love the shot of the guy at magic hour with some fire light behind him.

Great work!

Yeah, looks great the final result you achieve. Congratulations for pull it off!

A great movie with a minimalist but yet fully live cinematography is Lost in Translation, from Sofia Coppola. The movie was filmed with a low budged and certain gorilla style, and yet has a beautiful quality.

To me, the 180º rule is just to not get your audience confuse. In this case, each shot is usable, because nobody in the audience is going to say "whooa, who's that phone!" if you use the number 2. In fact I kinda like more the second shot.

Bye!