Do you think in the video below, which I made with my friends, the lighting from the street lamps is sufficient enough. Also please tell me if this film is a good first effort.
http://youtu.be/AIKpUCv4iuU
http://youtu.be/AIKpUCv4iuU
lighting Are street lights good lighting for a canon rebel t2i
- Thread starter dpopa
- Start date
If sufficient enough is what you're going for this is fine. It's not
good lighting but the images is exposed.
It's a good first effort. Unfortunately there are so many movies
being made exactly like this yours does not stand out.
good lighting but the images is exposed.
It's a good first effort. Unfortunately there are so many movies
being made exactly like this yours does not stand out.
So you're going for sufficient enough?
The phrase "Low Light" raises my hackles. Although I understand the desire to use available lighting, I don't see it as cinematic. I also didn't like the Dogme95 movement. We are turning artifice into reality... we need to use the tools at our disposal to do so or it doesn't quite make it to our artificial reality.
Full Disclosure, I'm a lighting guy... so reading "Low Light" and "Available Light" in my head turn into the word "Lazy" or "inexperienced"... in the articles online by Shane Hurlbut ( http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/11/05/lighting-basics-going-with-what-is-available/ ) they are using "Available" lighting, but their lighting diagrams show that they've altered all of the lighting in the environment to paint their frame in camera.
Full Disclosure, I'm a lighting guy... so reading "Low Light" and "Available Light" in my head turn into the word "Lazy" or "inexperienced"... in the articles online by Shane Hurlbut ( http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/11/05/lighting-basics-going-with-what-is-available/ ) they are using "Available" lighting, but their lighting diagrams show that they've altered all of the lighting in the environment to paint their frame in camera.
I personally don't like this type of film at all. I didn't like blair witch, nor paranormal activity. BW has a place in history as the first film to make really effective use of (what was then) social networking and the rest of the internet to advertise. The film itself never should have gotten distro like that... it was horrible and I personally found it completely pointless... others disagree.
For me, the point of cinema is the edit. Shots are crafted to impart a piece of information in the viewer, then the next shot expands on that information. With many indie, long shot films... I lose interest (as I did with yours - sorry) after I yell "CUT DAMMIT!" at the screen. I just don't like them... yours may be brilliantly made, I didn't join your cadre of friends/actors outside to find out, because by that time, I was bored.
Cinema (again, for me) needs to show the neat bits and get rid of the boring bits. Otherwise, it's just motion photography, and we moved past that in the late 1800s... and they had shots of stuff happening. again, sorry... I just don't like the style at all and it completely loses me after 20-30 seconds of whipping the camera around rather than simply cutting to the other shot.
For me, the point of cinema is the edit. Shots are crafted to impart a piece of information in the viewer, then the next shot expands on that information. With many indie, long shot films... I lose interest (as I did with yours - sorry) after I yell "CUT DAMMIT!" at the screen. I just don't like them... yours may be brilliantly made, I didn't join your cadre of friends/actors outside to find out, because by that time, I was bored.
Cinema (again, for me) needs to show the neat bits and get rid of the boring bits. Otherwise, it's just motion photography, and we moved past that in the late 1800s... and they had shots of stuff happening. again, sorry... I just don't like the style at all and it completely loses me after 20-30 seconds of whipping the camera around rather than simply cutting to the other shot.
I find it interesting that as really good cameras get cheaper,
movies overall get worse. I'm not surprised, but I find it interesting.
As I said, there is a difference between an exposed image and lighting.
I shoot a lot of reality TV. In most cases we have lighting (Survivor -
Glee Project - Pawn Stars) and in some we have no lights (Amazing Race
- Mythbusters). This Blair Witch/Paranormal style combined with "good
in low light" cameras makes beginning filmmakers work less on their
presentation. This project is little more than point the camera, press
record, and what happens happens.
Reality TV.
As you said, dpopa, you aren't very good at lighting. Yet lighting and
sound is the difference between a group of friends playing with a camera
and a movie. I have found that filmmakers who take the time to write
a script and then learn about lighting and audio make better movies
because they are forced to slow down and think about storytelling and
filmmaking. When I was getting started I was shooting on film. I couldn't
afford to just randomly shoot - I had to learn to tell my story quickly and
well - lighting, audio and editing. Today, filmmakers just getting started
don't have those restrictions - so we get movies like this one.
I got about four minutes in. I couldn't watch the entire movie because
it looked like a few friends playing in front of a camera. Great for you
and your friends and family - not so great for your fellow filmmakers
who learn to light, pay attention to the script and story and take time
with audio and editing. I think your audience is not your fellow filmmakers.
Any thoughts of taking your filmmaking to the next level, dpopa?
movies overall get worse. I'm not surprised, but I find it interesting.
As I said, there is a difference between an exposed image and lighting.
I shoot a lot of reality TV. In most cases we have lighting (Survivor -
Glee Project - Pawn Stars) and in some we have no lights (Amazing Race
- Mythbusters). This Blair Witch/Paranormal style combined with "good
in low light" cameras makes beginning filmmakers work less on their
presentation. This project is little more than point the camera, press
record, and what happens happens.
Reality TV.
As you said, dpopa, you aren't very good at lighting. Yet lighting and
sound is the difference between a group of friends playing with a camera
and a movie. I have found that filmmakers who take the time to write
a script and then learn about lighting and audio make better movies
because they are forced to slow down and think about storytelling and
filmmaking. When I was getting started I was shooting on film. I couldn't
afford to just randomly shoot - I had to learn to tell my story quickly and
well - lighting, audio and editing. Today, filmmakers just getting started
don't have those restrictions - so we get movies like this one.
I got about four minutes in. I couldn't watch the entire movie because
it looked like a few friends playing in front of a camera. Great for you
and your friends and family - not so great for your fellow filmmakers
who learn to light, pay attention to the script and story and take time
with audio and editing. I think your audience is not your fellow filmmakers.
Any thoughts of taking your filmmaking to the next level, dpopa?
'I find it interesting that as really good cameras get cheaper,
movies overall get worse. I'm not surprised, but I find it interesting."
Amen.
I tried my hand at event work (just to make some cash to finance gear purchases) and I HATED it. So much so I can't even really bring myself to do it anymore. Anytime I try to shoot in "available light" I get so pissed off I'm about to explode. I spend the entire time frustrated that "Man if I could just throw a LITTLE key on there"... "This is SO flat, I really need some rim light on her". It's like working on an engine with a pair of vise grips and a broken screwdriver. Too frustrating for me.
That anybody would try to shoot a film, where they COULD light it in available light just blows my mind.
movies overall get worse. I'm not surprised, but I find it interesting."
Amen.
I tried my hand at event work (just to make some cash to finance gear purchases) and I HATED it. So much so I can't even really bring myself to do it anymore. Anytime I try to shoot in "available light" I get so pissed off I'm about to explode. I spend the entire time frustrated that "Man if I could just throw a LITTLE key on there"... "This is SO flat, I really need some rim light on her". It's like working on an engine with a pair of vise grips and a broken screwdriver. Too frustrating for me.
That anybody would try to shoot a film, where they COULD light it in available light just blows my mind.
I don't think lighting is your biggest problem. Literally half of the movie is out of focus. Your actors are your #1-connection to your audience. If your audience can't read their expressions, because they're constantly out-of-focus, that's a major problem. Plus, it's just annoying. I wouldn't use the T2i for a movie like this. I would want something with auto-focus.
How is the movie, overall? I'm sorry to say this, but I think it takes too long to get where it's going, and when it does, the tension just doesn't build the way I know you intended it to. I do think this is a solid first-effort, though. Nobody knocks it out of the park the first time out. NOBODY. Keep at it, dude, and build on this success. Most first-time filmmakers have difficulty making something that is even slightly coherent, and I believe you're ahead of the curve.
I can't say that I agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, that movies are getting worse, as cameras are getting cheaper. I see no evidence of that, whatsoever. What I DO see is a steep rise in films that have a truly unique vision, and I believe that to be true both for big-budget stuff, and zero-budget stuff, and anything in-between. 'Tis the age of variety, and I embrace that!
How is the movie, overall? I'm sorry to say this, but I think it takes too long to get where it's going, and when it does, the tension just doesn't build the way I know you intended it to. I do think this is a solid first-effort, though. Nobody knocks it out of the park the first time out. NOBODY. Keep at it, dude, and build on this success. Most first-time filmmakers have difficulty making something that is even slightly coherent, and I believe you're ahead of the curve.
I can't say that I agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, that movies are getting worse, as cameras are getting cheaper. I see no evidence of that, whatsoever. What I DO see is a steep rise in films that have a truly unique vision, and I believe that to be true both for big-budget stuff, and zero-budget stuff, and anything in-between. 'Tis the age of variety, and I embrace that!
Hey dpopa, I watched your film and actually quite enjoyed it. I have to admit I did get a little impatient at times, but overall I think it was a great first effort. Lighting may have been an issue, but if it looks like how you want it and you're happy with it then it is well lit. I do have to admit that some of the going in and out of focus shots were a bit annoying after a while, but overall I enjoyed it.
Next time you may want to take the advice that was given here, and perhaps plan out shots more and work on lighting and such. Then when you get done with that you can post it up here or send me a link, and I'd be glad to see how you've improved.
Next time you may want to take the advice that was given here, and perhaps plan out shots more and work on lighting and such. Then when you get done with that you can post it up here or send me a link, and I'd be glad to see how you've improved.
Wow I can't get my T2i to look that bright in street lights. How did you do it? What lens? With mine all you can see is the lights themselves, but the streets and houses are completely black.
Maybe he used a 1.4. lens. Which could result in the constant going in and out focus.
Holy shit, I just read about Dogme95... Remember me to pick up some canned hate, since I used it all on Dogme95.
Making movies is an art, limiting yourself would be like telling a writer to sit and write only what he hears people say.
If they don't like that, they should go shoot documentaries.
Here's the only one I've seen where it seemed they really took the challenge to heart: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208911/ Quite a good film and they used a location where the ambient noise made it's own room tone to cover cuts "Dancer in the dark" wasn't too bad, but I don't like bjork that much in general (the ending made me inappropriately happy though)... but it wasn't a truly dogme film.
"Dancer in the dark" wasn't too bad, but I don't like bjork that much in general (the ending made me inappropriately happy though)... but it wasn't a truly dogme film.