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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<<<-- 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..

<<<-- 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.

No.

Ok. whatever...

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

Oh, and to address your question about film-look, I didn't notice a damn thing to be honest. I don't know whether it was the compression or the video, but nothing in the video remotely reminded me of film. I don't know if I would have noticed. Film look is not playing with colors, curves, etc. (to reiterate what everyone and their mother has said). It's all that plus production value and good, solid camerawork.



mg