Why exactly does this look amateur???

E

eivashchenko

I'm trying to learn what doesn't work for filmmaking, as well as what does work, and this video seemed a good example of not working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSh2aK8LC9E&feature=related

I watched pretty much the first ten minutes of this video, and gave up. I simply couldn't suspend my disbelief and get into the movie. I think it's from the amateur look, but I'm not entirely sure why it is amateur. I'd have to give it to the infinity depth of field, the insane amount of blue in it, and something about the camcorder-esque smoothness of it.

But I've seen scenes with a huge DOF and still look professional and cinematic. As well, I've seen very blue-tinted videos and they weren't jarring either.

Any professional opinions on why this isn't quite working?

Also, I don't mean to be a critic; I am honestly trying to learn.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
knightly said:
One last one - This should show the importance of controlling the exposure ratio between the background and the foreground... and the importance of skin tones for associating emotionally with a character on screen.
lq_anamorphic.jpg
skin tone brought back and mids and highlights jacked up into proper(ish) exposure... then a vignette to draw the eye again... I probably used it a bit strongly, but less opacity on the vignette seemed too subtle to me.
anamorphic_adapter_pic.jpg

The whole production could have benefitted from better control of exposure ratios (basically, more fill and less heavy handed color correction).
Click to expand...

Actually I like the first one. It has a cold moonlit look that I like for this kind of thing. A lot of the top stuff from HK cinema uses this kind of light -- for example Tsui Hark's films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The purpose of the regraded images was not to say the previous ones looked bad, but to point out what helped give them the "video/amateurish" look. More specifically that some simple grading could really take a good image and make it have that more polished look being questioned in the original post.

The "look" of a piece of footage is an aesthetic choice made on set by the DP and the Director, then modified in post by the editor or colorist. I don't have a problem with the original look of the film, I thought it looked very good - I was just using the same footage to illustrate a point and to answer the question posed by the OP.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
knightly said:
The purpose of the regraded images was not to say the previous ones looked bad, but to point out what helped give them the "video/amateurish" look. More specifically that some simple grading could really take a good image and make it have that more polished look being questioned in the original post.
.
Click to expand...

Saying something looks video and amateurish is not complimentary and equivalent to saying it looks bad. I wouldn't like it if I shot something and had it dubbed "video and amateurish". But what I'm saying is you altered original footage and proclaimed it better (more polished etc) as if there is an objective standard. I say what you said in the second half of your post -- that these are mere aesthetic choices. Your grading completely changed the aesthetic to a place I didn't think worked as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
Saying something looks video and amateurish is not complimentary and equivalent to saying it looks bad.
Click to expand...

I never said it looks bad, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying there are parts of the image that are over-exposed, and that the grading (which is part of what happens during grading) destroyed some of the contrast that most likely existed before the process.

I'll return to my original statement of purpose. I did alter the images away from what the filmmakers released. I'm pointing out particular pieces of the image that may have led to the OP viewing the end product as having an "amateur" look to it. Re-read the original post, they are the OP's specific terms, which I pulled forward to illustrate why the perception was there as more of a contributing factor to the perception than the frame rate cadence around page 2 or 3 of this discussion. Look back through my older posts on this and other fora and you'll see that I make the same arguments against the "24p is the most important aspect of the film look" arguments that abound.

In a previous post here, I even state that I thought it looked quite professional. I made no judgements about merit here... simply providing illustrations of a concept using the relevant footage to this particular conversation.

I would also argue that if you release something into the world and expect everyone to like it, you're in the wrong business. Example, I found it well done, the OP had issues with it. The audience perception, as well as the filmmaker's choices are both aesthetic issues, and not always ones that align in the ways the filmmaker intended.

The arguments about the east/west style and all of the arguments that have been produced from things I've said are all taken out of the context as examples of specific illustrations of tradecraft issues. Now, let's go back to discussing the perception of the video rather than the intent... as that's all I was doing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think everything has been said already, and I too am new and no expert. However, one thing I noticed that was unconvincing was the characters hair styles. Do female ninjas actually wear make up? Or have any male ones have goatees? Is this suppose to take place like before the 1900s when those styles did not exist?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Theodebernacius said:
I concur. If harmonica44 is not member of the month there's no justice at IndieTalk.
Click to expand...

Lol thanks. But it's not just this film, there are several big budget hollywood movies where it shows women in situations where they would not normally wear make up, such as women in battle, and such. Or how movies that take place before the 1900s and everyone looks so clean, with more modern hairstyles. So even some big Hollywood productions are getting it wrong.

So why in the preview did one of the ninjas put the sword between another's legs, then stop? I thought he was suppose to attack him, unless they were just practice fighting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonna add, story, story, story. Even a trailer must have a plot. I can imagine NvsA doesn't either, but if the trailer had a beginning, middle and end, it wouldn't feel so amateur as well. Story is everything (Evil Dead as an example of wonderful campy amateur fun; it had a plot)

rayw said:
I VERY MUCH like the idea of deconstructing why a film "looks" the way it does, and hope to see many more of this kind of question posed.

Neither wikipedia nor IMDB cite a budget, however, reviews on IMDB repeatedly remark on it's low budget, which in and of itself really doesn't answer the question, it's just a contributing factor, surely.

From the trailer some of the scenes look fine, while others look like the camera is "too close" to the subjects.
I'll guess for a more cinematic look a director will back off and zoom in a wee more.
It's probably a VERY subjective skill that definitely alters some of the perspectives.

The image at 0:20 is absolutely horrible. Why? Probably because the cinemetographer centered the face to the frame?

What's the shot term for the camera angles turned on a slant? Dutch Angle is it? Well, like any spice, a little goes a long way. Too much is too much.

And that fist spark shot at 0:40 is unforgivably cheezy. Someone get me a baked potato, please.

I agree that too much of the trailer looks like it's in the same (inexpensive) forest environment and utilizes too many of the same shot compositions regarding angles, distances and themes.

And the SFX at 1:09... yeah. That.

So, this is roughly a Predator knockoff.
Then lettuce see the trailer for Predator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-d8-t3W6Ac
(Wacky, eh?!)
@ 0:10 actor on left third, cinematographer not afraid to tighten in a little and cut off the top of Arnold's head, got cigar smoke in there for environmental interest (like rain, fog or breath condensation this is surprisingly a bigger thing than most appreciate) DOF background is blurred distinguishing the foreground.

Up to 40 seconds in note the number of shots where the camera is below normal eye, even shoulder, level. This is done to make your subjects seem "larger than life!".
I recall quite a few eye level shots (but Dutched!) in the NvsA trailer.
Also, the scenery and subject changes quite a bit in this trailer. This gets more to an editing thing rather than a cinematography thing, though.

0:41 Billy @ 1/3 of frame, Ramirez @ 2/3. Note triangle of perspective between the two actors and the camera. Also DOF fore/background distinction/definition.

0:43 Dutch @ 2/3 frame and cutoff at forehead. DOF fore/background. Note: GET THE [EXPLETIVE] CAMERA IN ON THOSE FACES!

0:46 Dillon @ 2/3 frame. Blah blah blah, I'll shaddap about it already.

Another HUGE advantage as far as trailers go is that Predator can utilize dialog whereas NvsA cannot. It's almost impossible to read subtitles in a trailer.

Okay, so watching the NvsA trailer again it's largely issues of too much of the same scenes construct, too much shot within 2' or a meter at eye level, no DOF utilization, poor framing, night shots are just... difficult, no environmental effects or interest, SFX and alien costume suck, and the editing is just bad.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There has been excess blue in Terminator 2, Don't Say A Word, and Traffic off the top of my head. So it doesn't seem amateur since those movies aren't considered amateur, but that's just my opinion. Is this the trailer for a real movie you have made, or a faux trailer?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The fact that it's video has nothing to do with the terrible cinematography. THAT is what makes everything look cheap and weird.

With that said, I'm a big fan of this movie, but you have to realize that Sushi Typhoon makes all their movies for about $100,000. It's equivalent to Asylum in terms of how they produce films, with markedly better results, in my opinion at least. They make fun movies.

But the "amateur" looks is bad cinematography. It ALWAYS is, for the most part.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
eh I watched it, and didn't think it was half bad. What got me though was one, the costuming. The costumes looked to halloween costume-y I guess haha. I'd suggest more real looking costumes, maybe dirty them up a bit so they look worn and not like they just walked out of party city.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To extend on what I said earlier after watching it again, I actually believe that some of the amateurishness from this really comes from the idea itself.
Taking this plot into consideration, it's hard to make it not look terrible..... I'm not sure I can even picture this done right.. (maybe if it had better lighting, more settings, better actors, and more of a gritty less power rangers feel to it)

Judging by the kind of budget that these people obviously had, I think it was almost a mistake just deciding to make this. I'm pretty sure it would take a hollywood director through hell trying to make this actually good lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top