I am wasting my time---arent I ?

T

TheWombat

Messages
343
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Bored out of my skull I have just watched "The war of the worlds"starring Tom Cruise on Beeb 3.Now blockbuster this may have been but it is just another movie with a less than devastating script.My point though----and it is an important one--is------I was completely blown away by the cinematography.To heck with the CGI effects------if you had taken a still frame from 90% of the film--------Each individual frame was frankly stunning ! Any still frame (almost) was a masterpiece in the Photographers art.Ok I know the budget is huge and that the camera is mega expensive.I also appreciate that there is an Art director etc etc.The key to most of it was the lighting which was breathtaking.I realised that in a million years I could never reproduce that quality------I just dont have either the imagination nor the technical ability.
I have loved photography as a hobby/pastime for many years and have no pretensions to greatness----occasionally stuff that I do pleases others and thats fine.I have never felt the urge to shoot video---arrogantly assuming that the still frame captured the moment better.Boy do I now want to know more about lighting.
Now frankly the film was rubbish---but what the guys behind the camera produced was inspirational.I watch little cinema now but if this is a representative example of modern cinematograhy then there is serious talent out there and it blows away the power of the single frame. Or does it ?
Are we so inured to the art of modern film making and media imagery that we become blase about the images and only absorb the overall message ?
I love the still image-----I am shocked though that moving film can do it as well if not better or does that "still" project more powerfully.I dont know.
Am I alone or have I just woken up to a new reality?
Dazed and seriously confused,
Pete.
 
Sorry Flash and Red death----flippancy is all well and good ---but I was referring to the photography.Crap film or not (and yes it was crap) I challenge you to produce anything half as good.I know I couldnt.
Pete.
 
TheWombat said:
Sorry Flash and Red death----flippancy is all well and good ---but I was referring to the photography.Crap film or not (and yes it was crap) I challenge you to produce anything half as good.I know I couldnt.
Pete.
Click to expand...

I have to admit to watching it, and yes, the filmography was quite good. I couldn't do it, and I never will:) It's a combination of the director getting the cameras in the right place, the effects people for jazzing it up, and the editing team putting it all together. No one person could ever achieve anything like it, so I think your confusion is only temporary;)
 
reddeathdrinker said:
I have to admit to watching it, and yes, the filmography was quite good. I couldn't do it, and I never will:) It's a combination of the director getting the cameras in the right place, the effects people for jazzing it up, and the editing team putting it all together. No one person could ever achieve anything like it, so I think your confusion is only temporary;)
Click to expand...

I ended up watching as if I was on a shoot with my camera.Framing and composing was fine-------------The lighting----out of this world.Im sure this must be true of most films.I have just not viewed them in such an analytical way before.Thats one heck of a camera they use---------beyond my pocket.
Pete.
 
I've taken to doing this with absolutely anything on screen... analysing it as a still photo at all points. It gets a bit annoying when you're trying to follow a storyline and my head goes off wondering whether the camera could be a little more to the left...
 
danielfellowes said:
I've taken to doing this with absolutely anything on screen... analysing it as a still photo at all points. It gets a bit annoying when you're trying to follow a storyline and my head goes off wondering whether the camera could be a little more to the left...
Click to expand...

It's worse watching athletics, or any sort of public event on telly. To busy looking at the togs and their gear:D
 
So, I'm not the only one in thinking like this when it comes to watching the telly!
I've been doing that a lot lately, thinking how well composed that shot is, or it needs to be a little to the right, left, etc.
Still, it could be worse, I don't think anyone had thought of applying HDR to films. Now THERE's a challlenge for any filmmakers.

:exit::D
 
High definition ...that’s the equivalent kinda to hdr I'm thinking. :shrug:

I do the same, not just films but dramas, adverts and especially wildlife documentaries. I like to watch for their styles and aims, the frame control, the re-sizing from one scene to the other and how its continuously framed so well ... they all do it, some absolutely superbly time and time again.

I don’t think its any kinda threat to photography though, a still frame which can be viewed intensely will always stand in its own right.
 
FB, HD is the equivalent to going from a DSLR to a Hasselblad :D A huge jump in quality.

As for the photography in films. It's something I've noticed myself doing more and more lately. Imagining that if you pause the film, how good would the resulting still be.

Can't say's I've noticed it in War of the Worlds though, been a while since I've seen it.
 
i know what you mean about how amazing the effects are in modern films but however good the guy is behind the canera it can never give you the same rush of feelings and emotion as a still. take wedding pics for instance when ever i look at at mine i can still remember how i felt and what the day wes like and that then jogs the memories of the other things that happened during the day the no one got pics off. stills are not dead and never will be. in my opinion no matter what the pic is of it will always produce emotion, feelings and sometimes memories where as with video you sit,watch,admire what they have done and then is't kind of forgotten until the next time.
 
the ability to try and reproduce that sort of quality of images is irrelivent, as i'm sure the director and man behind the camera are doing everything they can to get the best shots the whole film will still have went through a team of editors and their staff to get to look like that, not to mention how much wasted film or what ever media they shoot with now lol

it would be like taking a picture and then sending it through a room full of photoshop experts, no matter how dull the origional is it would look phenominal after their done
 
Don't forget that even on outdoors scenes there will be lot of extra light added from huge spotlights out of scene as well as a filters, reflectors and all sorts of light modifiers, then they go through post production as well and thats before CGI stuff being inserted.
 
I saw maybe the third quarter of it last night and had exactly the same thought (When they are in the basement with Tim Robins).

I'm not sure if people who aren't interested in photography ever notice stuff like this. I remember watching No Country For Old Men with a couple of mates and pointing out how exceptional the cinematography was....

Whoosh.
 
donbt watch the war of the world sequal... its terrible
 
AlexW said:
I saw maybe the third quarter of it last night and had exactly the same thought (When they are in the basement with Tim Robins).

I'm not sure if people who aren't interested in photography ever notice stuff like this. I remember watching No Country For Old Men with a couple of mates and pointing out how exceptional the cinematography was....

Whoosh.
Click to expand...

Yup------A selection of stills from that sequence would make one heck of a portfolio.
Pete.
 
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon anyone? ...that was a cinematic fest wasn't it, amazing stuff.

Marcel said:
FB, HD is the equivalent to going from a DSLR to a Hasselblad :D A huge jump in quality.
Click to expand...

:D I could so debate that point!

I’d suggest many of the lenses on these cameras could surpass that of the Hasselblad anyway.. possibly… :thinking: yes I’d be guessing. …so I be ready to duck now. :D
 
I love films that look amazing. Transformers in particular looks absolutly stunning with some of the lighting and sunsets etc
 
I haven't seen it for years but I remember being mightily impressed with The Last Temptation Of Christ. Not alot of clever back room stuff there either I suspect. Just real talent and genius. Martin Scorsese in the chair and Michael Ballhaus behind the camera.
 
There will be a team of people working on getting a scene set up perfectly, check out the credits at the end. Also there will be upto 4 people using each camera together (camera op, follow focus etc...) to get the shots the director wants.

Moving image can be stunning but its much harder than still photography IHMO and it takes a team of talented people to produce something like War of the Worlds.
 
CSB said:
Moving image can be stunning but its much harder than still photography IHMO and it takes a team of talented people to produce something like War of the Worlds.
Click to expand...

$100,000,000 helps too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top