Just some work with the GL2 at DVinfo.net

Corey Sturmer · November 30th, 2003, 04:25 PM

This isn't anything special cinematically...However I did mess a lot with colors, shadows, mids and highlights...as well as trying a new curve correction process that I've never tried before....

I was using a GL2 with WD-58h, Glidecam2000 Pro, shooting in frame mode, 0 db, 1/30th shutter speed....I did curve correction in After Effects as well as color correction and brightness/contrast.

Here's the promo poster:
http://www.joecam.net/AndWh1te(PROMOPOSTER).jpg

Here't the movie:
http://www.joecam.net/AndWh1te(FilmCut).WMV

How does it look as far as the film-look goes?

Bryan McCullough · November 30th, 2003, 07:03 PM

Did you shoot this in 4:3 then add the lettbox matte?

Because it looks like your framing is too low in many shots. But if we saw the entire 4:3 image then it would probably look correct.

Mark Newhouse · December 1st, 2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

How does it look as far as the film-look goes?

It's really hard to tell with the compression artifacts...

Corey Sturmer · December 1st, 2003, 03:30 PM

Yeah, I thought compression would be a problem...Yeah I shot in 4:3, because I don't think the 16:9 looks good at all...Seriously, it looks squished, distorted and unclear...I letterboxed it with a PSD I made. I don't think the framing was low in many shots...in a couple, namely the calculator one, and maybe a couple others...but everything else was pretty deliberate and, yeah.

Yang Wen · December 1st, 2003, 10:59 PM

It doesn't look like film at all because your camera was moving too much.

Chris Hurd · December 2nd, 2003, 12:08 AM

Moving cameras don't make or break the film look. Some episodes of Discovery Channel's "Crocidile Hunter" are shot on film, with handheld cameras doing a lot of radical movement.

Ted Springer · December 2nd, 2003, 02:17 AM

I watched half of it before I got bored.

The reason 16:9 looks "squished" is because it is.... it's anamorphic. It gets unsquished in your non-linear editor and you can end up with a letterboxed copy, or edit everything in anamorphic and have your 16:9 TV stretch it out. Shooting in 16:9 mode gives you good guides as to the top and bottom of the screen for framing (many of the heads got cut off in your video). What I usually do is shoot in 4:3 and put gaffer's tape on the LCD screen for the aspect ratio I want to achieve (usually 2.3:1). That way I have guides when shooting, but I can still move the screen up and down a bit behind the applied letterbox if needed. It has come in handy on many occasions.

As far as film look it kind of reminded me of the most recent Star Wars movies since they were done digitally as well. Even some compression artifacts were in there.

Corey Sturmer · December 2nd, 2003, 07:11 AM

Ted, have you ever seen the And1 mixtapes? It was a parody off of that in case you didn't understand. Sorry you got "bored."

I'm typing from a school computer, but when I get home I'll post an unaltered version of it to compare the two looks....The unaltered looks extremely dry and very video-ish.

Dylan Couper · December 2nd, 2003, 12:41 PM

Never heard of And1 either.

It was ok to watch, but my attention lagged half way through. It runs too long for people who aren't interested in basketball or the people playing. I'd suggest cutting the length down if you are showing it to the general public. Decent editing work though.

Corey Sturmer · December 2nd, 2003, 06:00 PM

Thanks...yeah, you'd kind of have to see And 1 to get the whole joke.

Basically, it's a series of tapes that were made after a competition called And1 streetball...The mixtapes are like "best of" I guess, showing off these players uncanny ability to throw the ball in funny places (like other players faces, in their shirt) do special/"impressive tricks..." the funny thing about it though is that they break just about every rule in the book doing it. So the parody is a bunch of white guys (Stereotype...white guys can't play!) doing the same thing...and they can't really pull it off.

Yang Wen · December 3rd, 2003, 09:24 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Moving cameras don't make or break the film look. Some episodes of Discovery Channel's "Crocidile Hunter" are shot on film, with handheld cameras doing a lot of radical movement. -->>>

Well, certainly if you have a real film camera in your hand and you shoot handheld, no way people are going to not believe it's not film. But if you have a video camera and you're trying to convince people that it's film, then moving the camera like you're shooting a homevideo will not help as far as your film look is concerned..

Yang Wen · December 3rd, 2003, 09:28 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Corey Sturmer : Ted, have you ever seen the And1 mixtapes? It was a parody off of that in case you didn't understand. Sorry you got "bored."

I'm typing from a school computer, but when I get home I'll post an unaltered version of it to compare the two looks....The unaltered looks extremely dry and very video-ish. -->>>

Corey, I've seen those street basketball videos, if you're trying to be totally on the opposite side of the spectrum in your parody, you should have your white players do more hardcore stupid stuff. It just looks like some mediocure players playing a quick pickup game, nothing too comical nor entertaining about it. With the only exception being the guy who got rejected by the rim. I agree with the above post, unless the viewer knows the players in the video, there really is no interest to watch it beyond the first minute or so. You really oughtta put more character into each player, like a token Wigger or something like that. Also if you actually shot this in a playgroud, the connection would be even better.

Corey Sturmer · December 4th, 2003, 07:08 AM

No.

Yang Wen · December 6th, 2003, 12:21 AM

Ok. whatever...

Matthew Groff · December 6th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Haha. Corey, my man, I don't feel that it's appropriate for you to just say no, without stating why you feel that way. People here are trying to give you constructive criticism, to help you out, because this is a community aimed at everyone making better video. Perhaps you took offense to the term "wigger" or something else in the post, but I believe in asking the community for a critique, you, in return, owe it to us to explain your reactions to certain criticism.

I, myself, was extremely bored by the video after about 30 seconds. I don't believe it's interesting because there's nothing to it, there is no substance. It's some guys, lame or not, messing around. To that I say: who cares?

mg

November 30th, 2003, 04:25 PM	#1
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Just some work with the GL2 This isn't anything special cinematically...However I did mess a lot with colors, shadows, mids and highlights...as well as trying a new curve correction process that I've never tried before.... I was using a GL2 with WD-58h, Glidecam2000 Pro, shooting in frame mode, 0 db, 1/30th shutter speed....I did curve correction in After Effects as well as color correction and brightness/contrast. Here's the promo poster: http://www.joecam.net/AndWh1te(PROMOPOSTER).jpg Here't the movie: http://www.joecam.net/AndWh1te(FilmCut).WMV How does it look as far as the film-look goes? __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

December 1st, 2003, 03:30 PM	#4
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Yeah, I thought compression would be a problem...Yeah I shot in 4:3, because I don't think the 16:9 looks good at all...Seriously, it looks squished, distorted and unclear...I letterboxed it with a PSD I made. I don't think the framing was low in many shots...in a couple, namely the calculator one, and maybe a couple others...but everything else was pretty deliberate and, yeah. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

December 2nd, 2003, 12:08 AM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Moving cameras don't make or break the film look. Some episodes of Discovery Channel's "Crocidile Hunter" are shot on film, with handheld cameras doing a lot of radical movement. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 2nd, 2003, 07:11 AM	#8
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Ted, have you ever seen the And1 mixtapes? It was a parody off of that in case you didn't understand. Sorry you got "bored." I'm typing from a school computer, but when I get home I'll post an unaltered version of it to compare the two looks....The unaltered looks extremely dry and very video-ish. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

December 2nd, 2003, 12:41 PM	#9
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Never heard of And1 either. It was ok to watch, but my attention lagged half way through. It runs too long for people who aren't interested in basketball or the people playing. I'd suggest cutting the length down if you are showing it to the general public. Decent editing work though. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

November 30th, 2003, 07:03 PM	#2
Bryan McCullough Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 842	Did you shoot this in 4:3 then add the lettbox matte? Because it looks like your framing is too low in many shots. But if we saw the entire 4:3 image then it would probably look correct.

December 1st, 2003, 10:59 PM	#5
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	It doesn't look like film at all because your camera was moving too much.

December 2nd, 2003, 02:17 AM	#7
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	I watched half of it before I got bored. The reason 16:9 looks "squished" is because it is.... it's anamorphic. It gets unsquished in your non-linear editor and you can end up with a letterboxed copy, or edit everything in anamorphic and have your 16:9 TV stretch it out. Shooting in 16:9 mode gives you good guides as to the top and bottom of the screen for framing (many of the heads got cut off in your video). What I usually do is shoot in 4:3 and put gaffer's tape on the LCD screen for the aspect ratio I want to achieve (usually 2.3:1). That way I have guides when shooting, but I can still move the screen up and down a bit behind the applied letterbox if needed. It has come in handy on many occasions. As far as film look it kind of reminded me of the most recent Star Wars movies since they were done digitally as well. Even some compression artifacts were in there.

December 2nd, 2003, 06:00 PM	#10
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Thanks...yeah, you'd kind of have to see And 1 to get the whole joke. Basically, it's a series of tapes that were made after a competition called And1 streetball...The mixtapes are like "best of" I guess, showing off these players uncanny ability to throw the ball in funny places (like other players faces, in their shirt) do special/"impressive tricks..." the funny thing about it though is that they break just about every rule in the book doing it. So the parody is a bunch of white guys (Stereotype...white guys can't play!) doing the same thing...and they can't really pull it off. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

December 3rd, 2003, 09:24 AM	#11
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Moving cameras don't make or break the film look. Some episodes of Discovery Channel's "Crocidile Hunter" are shot on film, with handheld cameras doing a lot of radical movement. -->>> Well, certainly if you have a real film camera in your hand and you shoot handheld, no way people are going to not believe it's not film. But if you have a video camera and you're trying to convince people that it's film, then moving the camera like you're shooting a homevideo will not help as far as your film look is concerned..

December 3rd, 2003, 09:28 AM	#12
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Corey Sturmer : Ted, have you ever seen the And1 mixtapes? It was a parody off of that in case you didn't understand. Sorry you got "bored." I'm typing from a school computer, but when I get home I'll post an unaltered version of it to compare the two looks....The unaltered looks extremely dry and very video-ish. -->>> Corey, I've seen those street basketball videos, if you're trying to be totally on the opposite side of the spectrum in your parody, you should have your white players do more hardcore stupid stuff. It just looks like some mediocure players playing a quick pickup game, nothing too comical nor entertaining about it. With the only exception being the guy who got rejected by the rim. I agree with the above post, unless the viewer knows the players in the video, there really is no interest to watch it beyond the first minute or so. You really oughtta put more character into each player, like a token Wigger or something like that. Also if you actually shot this in a playgroud, the connection would be even better.

December 4th, 2003, 07:08 AM	#13
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	No. __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

December 6th, 2003, 12:21 AM	#14
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Ok. whatever...

December 6th, 2003, 12:28 AM	#15
Matthew Groff Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 132	Haha. Corey, my man, I don't feel that it's appropriate for you to just say no, without stating why you feel that way. People here are trying to give you constructive criticism, to help you out, because this is a community aimed at everyone making better video. Perhaps you took offense to the term "wigger" or something else in the post, but I believe in asking the community for a critique, you, in return, owe it to us to explain your reactions to certain criticism. I, myself, was extremely bored by the video after about 30 seconds. I don't believe it's interesting because there's nothing to it, there is no substance. It's some guys, lame or not, messing around. To that I say: who cares? mg