Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aesthetics'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lighting for Film & Video
    • Camera Operating & Gear
    • Camera Assistant / DIT & Gear
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Post Production
    • Students, New Filmmakers, Film Schools and Programs
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • Directors and Directing
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Business Practices & Producing
    • Camera & Lighting Equipment Resources
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Cinematography News
    • Sound
    • Off Topic
    • Accessories (Deprecated SubForum)
    • Regional Cinematography Groups

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 3 results

  1. I'm putting together a class session on Film Aesthetics and Style. I don't want to just cite GOOD examples. We're so used to seeing it done right, its hard to explain WHY it works. In contrast to all the invisibly good work, I would like to cite examples of movies with BAD Cinematography, Set design, etc. Where students can actually see where things don't work and discuss why. I don't want cite cult films because the earnest attempts that fail become an endearing aesthetic of itself. I also don't want to use student films (I may have to). My instinct is to go to successful filmmakers' early works that aren't quite up to their current standard. Most of what I know of are pretty good (Reservoir Dogs, Croupier, The Duel, El Mariachi) Can anyone suggest examples that just don't quite work?
  2. I'm in the process of cutting a new demo of my narrative work. I am curious on how others consider the presentation of work when cutting a demo reel. Last year's demo can be seen HERE. It was cut with the intention of drawing in small jobs, shorts and student work. It did ok. I considered a lot of the basics in this reel: Strongest stuff (the hook) in the first 30seconds. Keep it under 3min. Very few will watch the whole thing...etc. I'm always looking for ways to make it better. My body of work doesn't have a lot of fancy action sequences, flying jib shots, or slow-mo, but rather Drama, Romance, and Kids. So that's what I tailored it to. I also arranged the edit to be short sequences of well-lit, well-composed, related shots told an emotion or small story. The method made sense to me for a narrative reel. A year later; I still don't have a lot of sweeping jib shots or slow-mo, and I don't have any music videos either. I'm rather handicapped in the music video world; I listen to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Dvořák. When I look around on the web for other examples of reels. A lot I see a lot that are exciting, but mostly montages of "pretty" shots that aren't really connected or related in a way that makes sense. My shots are ok-pretty, but don't have a lot of that...*umph*. My instinct tells me to present my work in a way that best represents me. That's what I'm doing. But my instincts aren't always in tune with what a director or producer are looking for in a DP. What approaches do you usually consider when cutting your reel? Am I being altruistic in the way I cut my reel? Does a viewer care about story in a reel? Would I get better results focusing more on "the pretty"? Thanks, Jeremy Parsons, MFA Mostly a 1st AC. Trying to do more DP.
  3. I'm really interested in the ways cinematographers are using differential focus today. For several years now, I've been seeing more and more sequences on film and TV where very shallow DOF is used and, almost inevitably, the actor's movements will take him/her in and out of the plane of sharpest focus during the scene. Increasing use of steadicam and handheld seems to add to this. In the past, in general, I think shots like that would call for a retake or an edit to cover what was once considered a mistake -- but now it seems that DPs (or directors?) are making an aesthetic out of this. I'm just wondering if someone here might be able to point me to any technical, industry, or even academic discussions of this issue -- how DPs go about it, when is a shot a keeper and when not, etc.? Apologies if this seems like a naive question, but I just haven't been able to find anything searching on my own. Thanks for any input.
  • Create New...