- Posts: 5829
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm
John Paines wrote:Eugenia Loli wrote:Here's a short film, shot with the A7S II in slog2, using the Phantom Luts. Perfectly cinematic.
Which just goes to show how differently we all view material. There's nothing there which this viewer would associate with "cinematic", and the closeups in particular scream, to these eyes, "video camera".
Without a commonly accepted definition -- a specification, really -- what does "cinematic" mean, other than "I like it" or "good production values"? Excluding artifacts like grain and projector weave, film itself can look like a million different things. So down with "cinematic"....
I have to agree.
Cinematic is a much abused term. For me, it means storytelling intent.
In this example, the biggest issue is the constant mismatching of shutter speeds. There’s shots with different shutter speeds randomly intermixed with 180 deg shutter shots. I find this incredibly distracting and quite un-cinematic.
There’s the always classic video problem of clipped whites. The scene with her crossing the road after the evening scene. Lost and blown highlight detail. Un-cinematic.
Looked like a few IS lock ups too....again...un-cinematic...
Hello rolling shutter. Sideways verticals on the train....un-cinematic.
Now was this a good film ?
Sure. It had an idea and it executed it well enough. Performance was good. I felt the pace could have moved a little faster. I wished the transformative moment was a bigger difference visually to what had come before. I don’t think it’s enough to simply have the environment. I would have liked to see that environment treated in a different way. Made more visceral perhaps to contrast what has gone before.
Cutting to the “beach” was a nicer idea.
Intention. Intent is cinematic to me.
This film has a lot of intent, some occasions lovely shots but it was de-energised in my view by some technical in-consistencies and shot choices.
It went form a cinematic idea with great intent, and it shed a lot of it’s cinematic potential because of those technical deficiencies. This is my subjective and personal opinion.
Kudos to the film itself. But for me this fails as an example of “cinematic”
JB