Original: http://www.entityinspiration.com/vousorig.jpg
Output:http://www.entityinspiration.com/vous.jpg

Shot with XL-1s and Century .3x fisheye. Intended to look cinematic (A Lord Of The Rings esc feel to it was intended) rather than "film" you could say. Thoughts?

Cool. What did you do to brighten up the 2nd one?

After Effects
Duplicate the base footage layer twice.

Footage_3.avi - Set to HardLight transfer mode, with slight guassian blur.. 2 or 3 or so.
Footage_2.avi Set to soft light transfer mode, with same guassian blur amount.
Footage_1.avi adjusted levels

Kevin, I like both images. To my eyes the "original" one looks like it was shot on 16mm and cut on a steenbeck without going through any digital manipulation in post. The second image has more of a "Lord-of-the-Ringish" look; that is, a very "clean" look.

May I ask you, Kevin, what's the difference (for you) between an image being cinematic and one that looks like "film?"

Interesting After Effects tip. I'll try this myself.

Sorry, no feeling or cinelook in neither of them at all. You have to use lighting to create shadows and a totally different picture composition in order to bring that image alive. Unfortunately the shallow DOF isn't enough to create a cinematic feel.

Stylianos, from my point of view, it's nowhere near 16mm even before manipulation, according to my experience, but I have seen really bad 16mm footage which looks like video.

To me, a cinematic look is that of warm color, good lighting, contrasting, high quality imagery. Basically, the general imagery feel you get from a movie in a theater.

Film is much crisper, and more detailed to such things. However, HD, DV, and MiniDV can all get up to par with that if used right. So, in a sense I'm trying to create professional quality imagery, and not trying to make the difference between meidums less obvious.

Cinematic imagery is something that film can create. Same with each medium. They all have their own recognizable characteristics, but all of them have the capability of achieving a professionally cinematic quality outcome.

I wasn't trying to replicate the 24fps, somewhat grainier, super crisp image as produced by film as much as I was trying to create a solid, quality image.

That particular method in After Effects I mentioned, doesn't work the same for every shot. Some different transfer modes are used for different lighting situations.

http://www.entityinspiration.com/vous2.jpg
Also, this one... done a bit different.

I am a film man myself. Love film to death. That being said, I prefer the original image by a factor of at least ten. The other images seem oversaturated and highly aftificial. Very "tampered with" so to speak. The original has cool depth of field effects and doesn't really need alteration to look better, IMO.

You described it perfectly yourself, but when you look at the image it seems like you are looking at it from a pure technical point of view. I guess from that point of view it works to a certain point, but the image itself doesn't work as soon as you compare it to any movies, as I wrote before, there is no feeling in it. You have to create a totally different composition for that.

Are all movies oversaturated? No. I have actually seen many movies with a similar look. You can't compare an image to "any movies" (which, by context, means ALL movies). It just depends on what you are going for. If you are going for a dark and broody mood, then it won't help to have all the lights in your house turned on to 100% and a cold blue-ish tint. But I have seen many movies with similar color temperatures to the original pic above... like The Truman Show.

Well of course that single image doesn't hold the feeling. The feeling created is a mix between the scene prior and after, along with audio. (Music, sound effects, voice tracks, etc)

The scene that shot is going to be in, is a very dark feeling... sort of magical escence to it. Very similar to the scene with Gandolf and Frodo near the fireplace with the ring from Lord of the Rings. Dim lit, eerie, and warm. Music in the back is a very soft soundtrack.. as in this shot it pulls focus from the face.. and then he puts the ring up close.. all the way into the camera.. where in post I'll make a field of energy (some cool lighting effects) run inside the ring itself.. and then the ring floats out of his hand and into the camera.. using the forward zooming ring as a transition to the next shot... which in the story, is a sort of history, explination.. showing visuals of a story that's being told.

Curtis, Well, I was generalising about the any movie remark, and I agree with you, on the other hand he tried to go for a Lord of the Rings look, not the truman show. I can say that it doesn't even look like the truman show, mostly because of the composition and lack of lighting.

Kevin, not to try to put you down or anything, but if you cannot create a feeling in one image, how do you expect to create it in a scene or an entire movie. Even if you add special effects and cool sound, then people will say that the special effects are cool and the sound is good, but they will not hire you as a DP for their next project.

Because in that single frame, you can't tell where it's set and why the things are that way. @_@

You're telling me that if you had a close up that was done with your "perfect" or ideal lighting.. you'd expect them to get an entire feeling of what's going on? Please.

I like the warming of the picture (somehow I tend to like the
warmer color palette more) but the rest is a bit overdone in
my very humble opinion.

Kevin, you asked for opinions, and I gave you one, of course it's only my personal opinion so you don't have to listen to it. Ultimatly the audience is going to judge your work anyway, and then you will be able tell you if you are on the right track or not.

My suggestion is that you check out any frame from the LOTR and then judge for yourself if it has feeling or not. As far as I know all of the frames have the feeling and look, just like the rest of the movie.

Just as well, to say there's no feeling in an image... ANY image for that matter, is completely out of wack. Every image, regardless of it's composition and lighting.. has color. Color conveys feelings, and emotion. Color, in relation to it's surrounding colors, gives a feeling.

To say, "well if you can't create a feeling in one image, how do you expect to create it in a scene or an entire movie" is just eating at the ignorant cookie. A scene's feeling can't be conveyed simply by a single image. Can you tell what an entire movie's about simply by looking at the poster? The *feeling* is created by the interpritation of the image in combination with the previous images set before it.. aka.. the context it's being used in.. and just the same.. if I were to type out

"Hey pokemon is cool." - Can you understand if I was being serious, sarcastic, or supportive in it's context? Sound is also an intregal part of creating a *feeling* from a scene. The way someone says something can set the feeling to sad, angry, sarcastic, funny... anything. A single frame.. if you can successfully convey everything in a scene from one frame.. I'll take what I'm saying back.

The image (vous.jpg) has warm coloring in a dark setting. Now if that image doesn't convey any sort of feeling to you, then you must be blind, or numb to emotion.

You gave your opinion, and I'm giving my opinion about your opinion. As to telling me to go look at LOTR frames? How about you go watch the scene I'm talking about, instead of looking at a single picture... unless you have a sixth sense ability to pick up on scenes and context through single images. ;)

....not to put you down or anything.

Oh, don't worry about me, I don't mind opinions or being told a thing or two. But it sounds like you know all the stuff in theory from some schoolbook, that's good, in that case you only lack experience.

You just have one thing backwards, the feeling doesn't come just because of the colors, contrasts or objects in a scene, it's the combination of all of those elements together which is the compostion, if you have an overall bad composition it doesn't matter what colors, or contrasts you have, people will not like it.

And yes I can tell the feeling in a movie from a single frame, if it's bad, ok, good, or great. Not necessarily if it's going to fail at the box office or not, but I can get an idea of the direction the movie is trying to go.

http://a744.g.akamai.net/6/744/582/000/images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1702692.jpg
http://a744.g.akamai.net/6/744/582/000/images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1702702.jpg
Now, uhh... wouldn't you say those two shots have different feelings/looks to them? A certain scene is lit according to the setting. Lighting, feeling, moods.. they all change throughout the course of a movie.. unless of course your movie is set within the timeframe of a few hours of a day, in the same location.. then sure I can get how you can tell the entire direction of a movie from a single frame. @_@

I lack experience? Now you're definatly assuming things of which you have no clue of.

I said an image, based on the colors/subject in it, can inspire certain moods/reactions to that single image. However, it's *very* far from conveying everything in a scene, let alone an entire movie.

You also, just countered your own statement. You said a feeling comes from the combination of the image/sound/story/setting/everything involved. (Sounds just like what I was saying) Yet, you said you can get the feeling of an *entire movie* based on a single image... so how is that possible since 1) A movie's setting/lighting/story elements change throughout the entire production and 2) A single image doesn't have the ability to convey the sounds/story/settings/mood of an entire movie.

I think you ate the whole cookie jar.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant from a pure image point of view, when I said the composition, I meant that you have to combine the colors, lighting, and subject to create the mood, just by throwing a little color at an image doesn't make it good. I never said, sound story and stuff in this case.

Also, I only said that it sounds like you don't have any experience, since you still sound like one, but of course it depends on what kind of experience you have, film, wedding videos, commercials etc.

Those two images are different, but the look and feel is the same.

Sorry, but I can't continue the chat, it's after 3.30 AM here in Japan and I really need to go to sleep. Can continue tomorrow. See you.

The first image appears less tampered with...

The other images are manipulated too much, however, that is a directorial opinion.

Subtle changes in the original image might reveal a better result. The frames showed contain an action of showing/giving, the ring is important, more important than the person displaying the ring...How important? -- unknown. Relationship to object or other person and/or audience - - unknown.

Two things:
1) We work/are in a business/field where we have to learn to take criticism well.
2) Putting down someone for seeing things in a different way is not an effective way to give feedback.

Please, do not think I am trying to teach anyone anything here. Just got a little disappointed about the way this thread evolved.

I partially agree. But you did ask for opinions and people have
shared them with you. Let's keep it civil all!

Thanks

Yes, I realize I asked for opinions. I got some helpfull opinions. :) Some views though, I didn't agree with and so I stated my opinion on those views in response. As for it becoming a bit "flaming", well it sounds childish but "he started it" =P haha. I can take criticism very well, but I also do like to excersize my right to state my opinions on things, too. :) Critique the criticism.

Ok, lets get back to zero shall we, the image itself does not have the LOTR look in my opinion, simply because of the overall composition. The framing, lighting and subject are a little bit off.

This the way I would do it, have the ring against a simple but "textured" (like a stone wall) background that you light well, then I would light the ring with a an orange or similar gel, and then hold the ring in a different way, so that it can cast a shadow against ones hand or so, and last I would put the ring more towards the center of the image. When you look at an image, the eyes have to be able to find what you want to show instantly, in the image you have the eyes have to look for it even though you have a shallow DOF. I would also keep the shallow DOF you have now.

I believe that I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by look and feel. When you take a picture or shoot a movie, it is the Director's and DP's responsiblity to maintain an overall emotion (feeling) and look so that each frame and scene matches the next, even though certain scenes are night vs day etc. throughout the whole movie.

I hope that this was more of a constructive critisism, and I never intended to flame anybody. I think that Kevin and I just used the words feeling and look in a slightly different way. But I hope that this last post cleared it up.

And last, not everybody is going to like everything somebody else creates, but since he said LOTR, and I can relate to that, of course I will have an opinion, don't get me wrong, I don't expect it to look like the 35mm footage, just to portay a somewhat similar feel and look.

That is very constructive criticism indeed, thank you for that.

I tried to find a picture with the ring frmo LoTR in Frodo's (?)
hand, but couldn't find it. I did find one other (http://www.visimag.com/ultimatedvd/images/d32_feat01.jpg) from LoTR though.

Some other interesting compositions:
http://www.cv81pl.freeserve.co.uk/stratford/ring.jpg
http://www.3d-worxx.de/behind_the_scenes/reviews/realsoft/ring.jpg

Thanks Rob, I'm glad that my last post cleared things up. Now, the big image is great, filled with feeling, the smaller one has a feather in front of the ring which probably shoudn't be there, but it's still an alright shot. I think that in the Frodo image the ring is CG, just because it lands perfectly on his finger in the bar scene.

It might very well be CGI indeed. It is probably somewhere on
my 4-disc DVD edition off LoTR. Heh. Oh, those other images
aren't from me or anything if someone might think so. I just
found those with a quick google image search....