Reasoning. Most people don't even have a problem with frame interpolation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Filming techniques/methods that still baffle you because they are still used
- Thread starter Boss Doggie
- Start date
- Status
Angry Fork
Member
I'm okay with shakey cam if it's used properly. Cloverfield is one of the few that did, also because it wasn't that shakey. The movie was made much more intense and real because of it. Shakey cam in conjunction with bad, quick editing is what turns people off. Fight/chase scenes like in Quantum of Solace are dreadful to me.
Lens flare again is alright if it isn't abused. It makes things look prettier and more 'cinematic' or whatever. It's okay in moderation. It's something I never even noticed until people brought it up with screenshots of Abrams films.
People seem to hate things because they're overused or abused and that's fine, but in the hands of the right person you don't notice them but subconsciously they make things work right. People like to bitch about CGI but don't realize how much better it made Zodiac look visually and they never even noticed it was there.
Lens flare again is alright if it isn't abused. It makes things look prettier and more 'cinematic' or whatever. It's okay in moderation. It's something I never even noticed until people brought it up with screenshots of Abrams films.
People seem to hate things because they're overused or abused and that's fine, but in the hands of the right person you don't notice them but subconsciously they make things work right. People like to bitch about CGI but don't realize how much better it made Zodiac look visually and they never even noticed it was there.
Don't think so but Avatar 2 will be.
10% of Avatar's budget is 25 million though which ain't cheap. Was he talking about a flat costs (Film is film) or cost in relation to overall budget of a particular film?
I hated most fight scenes in TLOTR movies because of this.
Fallout-NL
Member
Shaky cam in Transformers. With live action, the shaky cam allows them to hide a lack of choreography. Lazy, but I see the reasoning. With CGI.... what the hell? You can do anything with computer animation, why the hell do you want to hide it? Why do you want to spend millions having artists make giant robots, and then make it impossible to see what they're doing by adding a fake shake to it.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Zooming. It serves no purpose and completely breaks the immersion.
I notice it all the time and it makes me mad. Firefly and Battlestar Galactica are especially guilty of that.
I notice it all the time and it makes me mad. Firefly and Battlestar Galactica are especially guilty of that.
I think it's used to ground the CGI effects a little more into reality. I really enjoyed because of that in Battlestar Galactica, but when you have a sci-fi epic like Avatar this documentary style feels out of place.Zooming. It serves no purpose and completely breaks the immersion.
I notice it all the time and it makes me mad. Firefly and Battlestar Galactica are especially guilty of that.
Beerman462
Member
I think Saving Private Ryan used the shaky cam so well. When I watch the the beach scene they do such a good job of making it seem like you're there the way the camera swivels and shakes with explosions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqSg7WO4tT4
God I have to watch the whole movie now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqSg7WO4tT4
God I have to watch the whole movie now.
Nah, he was talking in regards to Avatar 2 and 3. He even wants to go 60fps for them instead of 48.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Yeah seems like it. My bad.
Like I said, mistake of word
I am talking about camera technology nowadays prevents shakiness and flare. Back then these were considered flaws in cameras due to the lack of technology.
And you call them artistic direction, I call them "pandering to the audience because they're more used to it".
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
So the OP is a realist ? I'm particularly a formalist myself and disagree with you about everything you said . I just don't like when they are done wrong, or done excessively (e.g Paul Greengrass ).
. I just don't like when they are done wrong, or done excessively (e.g Paul Greengrass ).Beerman462
Member
If your talking about movies where the perspective is from a camera being used by someone in the cast then a hand held camera can only fix so much movement. If your talking about a camera that is supposed to be from the perspective of someone in the scene then that can be done very well. I think Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers did it the best. There are really bad uses like the first transformers. I don't know what was happening in any of those fights.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Filming in general I mean.
24fps
Shaky cam (oh fuck you cloverfield)
Lens flare (unless it's a 70s sci-fi throwback film)
BLURRING OF BACKGROUND.
This looks completely fine on lower resolution screens I suppose, but if you're at an IMAX watching a film (see the first ~4 harry potters and sherlock homes for awful offenders) and suddenly everything but the main character's face is blurred out, it looks RIDICULOUS. Instead of being distracted by the background characters walking around, I'm left wondering why the fuck everything is suddenly blurry as hell.
It makes no fucking sense and I want it to stop.
Example: 1:13:40 into Goblet of Fire, Harry's face enters the foreground, and the entire background, despite -nothing being in it-, noticeably blurs. Why u do dis?
Shaky cam (oh fuck you cloverfield)
Lens flare (unless it's a 70s sci-fi throwback film)
BLURRING OF BACKGROUND.
This looks completely fine on lower resolution screens I suppose, but if you're at an IMAX watching a film (see the first ~4 harry potters and sherlock homes for awful offenders) and suddenly everything but the main character's face is blurred out, it looks RIDICULOUS. Instead of being distracted by the background characters walking around, I'm left wondering why the fuck everything is suddenly blurry as hell.
It makes no fucking sense and I want it to stop.
Example: 1:13:40 into Goblet of Fire, Harry's face enters the foreground, and the entire background, despite -nothing being in it-, noticeably blurs. Why u do dis?
Cosmic Bus
pristine morning snow
I... do you understand how cameras work?
I mean of course you don't but I am just so startled by this little bit. It's the most stunning post of the thread.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Film Grain. Kill it with fire. Any Blu-Ray with it, I turn off instantly and almost will never watch it again, unless I really, really, REALLY like the movie.
btw. Talking about quick editing; Edgar Wright is an absolute master of it and probably makes better use of it than anyone else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY6mymW4oA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Y98tKxyQ1Xw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Y98tKxyQ1Xw
I... do you understand how film works?
I mean of course you don't but I am just so startled by this little bit. It's the most stunning post of the thread. Even moreso than the last guy.
Do you mean artificial film grain on a digital film?
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Aw come on, the wipe to the Imperial Fleet and Vader's introduction in Empire Strikes Back is AMAZING.
Of course he doesn't. And even digital has a certain amount of grain to it naturally sometimes.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
360 degree camera shots, looking at you Bay!
Something recently that I actually liked was the use of one take for the whole film in Silent House, was actually pretty cool.
Something recently that I actually liked was the use of one take for the whole film in Silent House, was actually pretty cool.
Oh, they're ok in the original trilogy, but I felt like they were really out of place in the new one.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Yes. Never understood why it was done.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Along those lines, a movie that features a fight that consists of two people taking turns attacking the camera needs to give up on fight scenes entirely.
300 is really the only movie I remember seeing with artificial grain. What other films have used it?
Robert Rodriguez's stuff has done a few times.
I was indeed. But it appeared obvious because he said "every film on blu ray", which would include every film not shot on digital.
Beerman462
Member
I'm really annoyed that a movie like the Artist exists. We have color cameras and microphones on cell phones ffs. Don't these guys know this..
TheChewyWaffles
Member
That quick-zoom bullshit that was used to death in 24 and found its way into too many other shows. I hate that shit.
That same logic would also rule out films without grain altogether, so that seemed unlikely.
Image quality is an interesting issue when it comes to digital films, I personally greatly prefer it. I just got Garden State on bluray, and the IQ is complete shit, really disappointing. That's not inherent in film of course, just 35mm can be beautiful, and 65mm can make for stunning transfers (such as 2001), but there is still nothing I know of that looks as good as Avatar for example, not even Baraka.
It's funny cause some people on the videogame side argue that 60 FPS games lack "that cinematic feeling"
Nearly every live-action movie shot digitally(that I've seen) has a layer of grain added to it. Even the likes of Avatar:
Compare that to Toy Story 3, which looks as clean as possible:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked