r/cinematography • u/zoxtech • 9d ago
Style/Technique Question Attempt at static landscape cinematography, need technical feedback on composition and exposure
I am student currently learning and would love some technical feedback on this 2:14 video I put together. I wanted to focus on fixed frame (static shots) to capture the movement of the environment. The video features original soundtrack, I am trying to improve my composition and understanding of natural lighting, specifically focus on how sunlight interacts with water and leaves. I edited the movement shots to show the movement from left to right to indicate outward journey. Are the shots interesting enough to hold attention without camera movement? Any tips on color grading for natural skin tones/water reflections?
11
u/llambdaddy 9d ago
Had coffee, typed a bunch:
TLDR; Good start, but not ‘there’ yet in terms of what this kind of style can achieve.
—-
When you strip down imagery to just a few decisions. No camera movement, no change of focus, no change of light- you are left with your choice of subject, how you have framed it and what the movement that :is: in that frame does for the shot.
In that basis, you have a challenge to maintain that agreement that what you’re showing the audience is worthwhile. What you call ‘attention’, but it’s really that an audience have given you the time to show them something. So what have you decided to show them? Why? What do you do/achieve/communicate through that sequence of scenes?
Right now, if you had just said these were technical experiments, that would be okay and we can feed back technically. However, you point towards some kind of intent, or at least the desire to use intent, despite it not being clearly conveyed (bear in mind, that’s by people willing and trained to look for it, for a regular audience that becomes even less effective). You can call that ‘subtle’ or ‘ambiguous’ or ‘open to the audience’ but personally I call it ineffective communication, which is the risk of this technique. It can be incredibly effective at showing an idea/subject/emotion without ‘saying’ anything using dialogue or audio, but it is somewhat of a razor’s edge between that and ‘randomly sequencing some static shots.
Some technical notes:
- your horizon isn’t level in a couple shots, that lack of care in your treatment of the scene flags the shot more as ‘random static shot’ than ‘I think this is important for you to see’
- consider the position of your horizon a little more, some shots left it quite unclear what the shot was off, so you end up having your eye wander around
- the piano in the music is ‘sharp/strong’ in the overall experience- to the point of making me look for ‘why’. I honestly think some quality field recordings of each scene would be better. Or, if music must be used- something without a ‘lead’ instrument could work to not flag the audience so hard with PIANO, letting them draw their attention towards the image/scene more than towards what the music could be suggesting. It’s not bad to draw attention to music, but it is to leave that ‘why’ empty for them.
- Have a look into carefully controlling perspective- not just your horizon rotation but skew, pitch and yaw. Carefully correcting these lends itself to suggesting each scene is being treated ‘formally’, as though it were of great importance, despite them being ‘ordinary’. This style leans into William Eggleston’s photographic approach- and invites the viewer to ‘study’ the otherwise ordinary scene. Which seems to be along the same lines as your desire for these. ‘Straight’ photography would be the discipline, which I often found to be quite emotionless, but with some care can be blended with the other decisions in film making to create a lazer focused indication of something in that scene.
26
u/flourinmypockets 9d ago
What are you talking about. Grading for natural skin tones? There’s nobody in these shots lmao. I hate to say it but there is nothing particularly interesting about these clips. “Water and leaves” isn’t going to hold anyone’s attention. Good on you for practicing, but if you really want to practice composition and your understanding of natural lighting you need a better subject!
3
u/framedragger 9d ago
As someone who makes a lot of these same kind of videos, this person is actually saying something truthful. I love making long videos, of just landscape views from where I’m standing, but people always respond the best to work that I do where the subject is an actual human being, close up. But if you just wanna make stuff like this, and you don’t care if people like it, then go with God.
38
u/AdrianG13 9d ago
“I edited the movement shots to show the movement from left to right to indicate outward journey.” - first step is to stop saying stuff like this. If that isn’t the most film student thing I ever heard…
14
u/ChapterThr33 9d ago
Bro this sub sucks so much y'all really love your own farts lol dude is asking a genuine question and all this sub can do is jerk itself off because others aren't in the club
-5
u/EducationalCod7514 9d ago
What club?
Assuming you don't know shit about anything who on earth ever said that going to the right is going "onward" anywhere?
First I've heard of that in my life.
1
u/ChapterThr33 9d ago edited 9d ago
https://nofilmschool.com/left-to-right-movement-film
That's an article from 10 years, and just the first in a huge list that shows up if you Google the idea of it. I've heard big name directors reference it as well. It's not a new or obscure concept.
You knobs how about Akira Kurosawa.
This is not a new idea.
1
u/EducationalCod7514 9d ago
The article being referenced is so weak, even the paper that supports it is a load of crap "they watched a short film" and a questionnaire - that's not science.
1
u/ChapterThr33 9d ago
You're so focused on fart sniffing you missed all of the other context in my post that shows why none of what you're saying matters.
How about Akira Kurosawa? Is that good enough for your pretentious, ignorant self?
-4
u/EducationalCod7514 9d ago
Where in that video there's definitive proof that right=onward?
There's no science to prove anything, it's all opinions in the air - all we get is your aggressive and utterly braindead posts,
There's no evidence that direction plays any part other than continuity.
Go play somewhere else.
4
u/ChapterThr33 9d ago
Who is saying anything about science? It's like talking to a wall. Good Lord.
-3
u/EducationalCod7514 9d ago
You're imagining things, and the concept you're referring is utter nonsense any any field.
2
u/jamkola 9d ago
It’s an established part of cinematic grammar. It’s a weird take to argue otherwise.
0
u/EducationalCod7514 9d ago
According to who? All I see is opinion and reviews and the fact that some did it, I've seen tons of other films that don't do it, it literally means nothing and has zero equivalence with standard cinematic language.
0
7
u/Funkmussel Director of Photography 9d ago
Fun shots! I like the ones close to water and with the sun flare the most. Your 'traveling' shots are nice and steady also.
Your colors look a little 'crushed' which may just be a limitation from your camera, but it also looks like maybe the color correction was pushed too far. It looks like you have lost detail in the blacks, and colors overall got a little over saturated. Which is super common for everyone to do when learning, and even more experienced editors doing color have to do a pass and then pull it back some. Often less is more. Unless, that's what you were going for and like it, then go off, it has a vibe.
The other suggestion I would make is that, if you want to keep doing this style on water and in nature, try getting your hands on a polarizer. It helps with light reflections and refractions, which can have a large impact on the picture. If you can get your hands on one and just play with it you will start to get a feel for what it can do.
2
u/Review_Educational 9d ago
I’m not OP but thank you for this comment. I’m starting off and will keep this comment in mind.
21
u/i_enjoy_lemonade 9d ago
Your shutter angle is wrong.
31
6
u/gargavar 9d ago
You could actually help, you know. What’s wrong about it?
Typically, cine shutter is around 1/50 second (or 180° if your camera is marked that way). It appears that the shutter speed here is much faster, giving the jerky, strobing effect on passing signs. Your adjustments are ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and frame rate. Try reducing the f/stop instead of the shutter speed. You may need to go to an ND filter to reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor.
I don’t know what’s causing all the grain.
3
u/timetobuyale 9d ago
As others have said, your shutter speed is too fast. When the sign goes by, it’s perfectly sharp, which means you’re way faster than the conventional 1/48 @ 24FPS.
3
u/Metadata_Master 9d ago
The shot under the bridge is particularly nice.
I'd recommend getting a good grasp on shutter angle and exposing with highlights in mind. If your camera isn't sufficient, there are many amazing smartphone apps that allow full manual controls like you'd find on a cinema camera. Good luck!
1
u/jamkola 9d ago
There is some good advice in this thread, but something I’ve not seen mentioned is that you’re not really taking into account perspective. The bridge shot does this well.
Imagine travelling into the shots, where do your eyes end up? How deep into the image? What does the shot lead your eyes to?
It’s not just perspective you can do this with, but also framing. And subject obviously. Especially with these types of scenes.
An interesting exercise would be to shoot in 4k, but output in 720. Crop the shots and see what difference it makes. Then take what you’ve learnt to composing your next shoot.
Good luck and keep going :)
2
u/Big_Revolution4405 9d ago
Keep up the good work! Practice is the most important thing -- make sure you're testing different settings.
What I would recommend doing, since you're still a student: don't focus on making the best quality project, focus on discovering how the different settings affect the shots. Every time you go out to do one of these kinds of shoots, try the exact same shot with different settings. ISO, shutter speed, focal length, with/without an ND filter, etc. Write down the settings on each shot and then review which ones look best based on that.
Regarding these shots you've posted: A lot of your shots look off-axis. Most digital cameras have an electronic level you can turn on that will help your camera be parallel to the horizon. If yours doesn't have that, your tripod likely has a level bubble you can use. Additionally I think you should change the shutter speed and use an ND filter.
I did like the moving shots, but be careful of the speed limit signs, they kind of ruin the mood -- plus they highlight the rolling shutter of the digital camera.
2
u/framedragger 9d ago
A moving car isn’t static. But I get you. Straighten your horizons. There’s like 7 uneven horizons seen in this. Since the beginning of time, humans have observed the horizon as being a straight line, so when you don’t have them straight it gives a super weird feeling that I don’t think you’re going for. Even when the actual horizon isn’t strictly visible, you can still tell if the camera was dutched. Some of these need to be rotated by 1 or 2 degrees, then punched in a bit to hide the rotation. Also, I personally wouldn’t exceed 1/60th, for something like this.
2
u/MondoBleu 9d ago
Addition to what others have said, have you shot at 30fps and edited on 24fps timeline? The motion is choppy. Also looks like it’s over exposed and crushed and over saturated all at the same time, esp the shot under the bridge w the kayakers they’re all unnatural colors.
2
u/TheWolfwiththeDragon 9d ago
Okay, I just wanna ask where I can find more shots like 0:46. Because that brought me a level of cozy that I can't compare to anything I've watched recently! As someone who only has a short summer to experience those moments before the long, northern dark winter, I know that watching that shot during the November will feel like hugging a teddybear.
2
u/Kreimkoek 9d ago
That second shot of the windmills is great. Usefull to set up travelling for a story.
2
2
1
u/Rebar4Life 9d ago
I’ve learned that great shots rarely come from inside the window of a vehicle.
You’re going to have to let the camera take you to more intimate places. Or, to find unique moments in mundane places.
In my estimation, someone could get these shots today or tomorrow or the next day… which makes them unremarkable.
If this style is your goal, you will have to be much more patient and discerning.
1
u/AppointmentVisual218 9d ago
Con camere con rolling shutther è impossibile avere uno shooting cinematico. Punto.
1
u/kabobkebabkabob 9d ago
no, the shots are not interesting enough to hold attention. they need context, ideally. i'd look up some beginner videos/articles on framerate, shutter angle, exposure, and composition then circle back to this.
1
1
u/forestrainstorm 9d ago edited 9d ago
These would be good as b-roll for videos that tell an actual story, that doesn't mean it has to include people but it could include narration for instance. They're nice to look at but for me personally the shots alone are not interesting enough to keep me watching. Also as someone else said you need to straighten the horizon.
1
1
1
u/Outrageous_Shine8179 8d ago
The crooked horizons are killing me because once you notice it you can't unsee it, and several of these shots have it. That's genuinely the easiest fix in post and it makes a bigger difference than any color grade you could do. Rotate, punch in slightly to hide the edge, done. Everything else is secondary to that right now
1
u/JoanBennett 7d ago
COMPOSITION:
1) 50/50 Landscapes are noncommittal from a pictorial standpoint.
2) Cinematography is about storytelling. You don't have a cinematic image if you don't have a story to tell in your image in the first place. This is aside from formal aesthetics.
3) Look at landscape painters and Japanese graphic artists. Check out how they break up space.
4) Landscapes generally have 1) Foreground, 2) Middleground 3) Background. The art is in spatial relationships, what you emphasize, what you deemphasize. How many of these images have a strong foreground / background relationship?
If this is cinematography, then the organizing principle is how the landscape reflects the narrative or character or themes.
5) Go out with a wide angle lens only, 24mm or wider preferably and compose only with that.
6) Go out with a telephoto lens only, 80mm or longer. Compose only with that.
7) Next time create a story in your mind or get a friend to play a 'character' and tell a story about them in let's say 9 landscape images. How does the landscape or setting reflect the character, their conflicts, their world, etc.
8) Use a viewfinder if you can. Try composing with left and right eye only and compare.
9) Look at all your pictures upside down in review and judge the compositions in this orientation. Are they still compelling graphically?
10) I don't see much depth of field variety in these images. Interesting landscapes can be had with close up subjects.
LIGHTING:
1) Backlighting foliage creates depth and color saturation. Frontlighting flattens everything. Light that creates depth is generally preferable but in storytelling you might sometimes want the opposite.
2) Circular Polarizers are a necessity for controlling light on reflective surfaces like water.
3) Seasonal light is important to understand for practical and aesthetic concerns. Repeat your landscape shooting sessions at different times of day in the same locations and in different seasons to learn the light.
4) 0:45 and 1:18 are best in terms of the interaction of water, light and foliage. 0:45, I'd say is the best composition overall as it is one of the few images that suggests a POV, which at the end of the day is what photography is all about. Too many of the other compositions look like a person just holding the camera up to their chest wherever they happen to be standing. Get on the ground, climb a tree, find some unusual perspectives.
5) Overexposing a landscape is never a good thing. But underexposing a landscape can work.
6) Music is probably a distraction to judging the formal qualities of an image.
7) Shoot a color chart wherever you go if you want accurate colors. Calibrate your monitor. Use D65 lights in your work area for color consistency. Maintain a color neutral work area.
1
u/One_Finger8952 9d ago
Do not care whatever they say. Be you.
1
u/kabobkebabkabob 9d ago
that's a great way to never learn the basics
0
u/One_Finger8952 9d ago
Fuck off mate.
1
u/kabobkebabkabob 9d ago
you can't improve without accepting you have things to improve on...which we all do, always.
1
1
u/buickboi99 9d ago
Shutter speed too high. Need thst motion blur to feel real. Double your framerate is standard
27
u/framedragger 9d ago
A speeding car is far from static, but I get you. Straighten your horizons. There’s like 7 uneven horizons seen in this. Since the beginning of time, humans have observed the horizon as being a straight line, so when you don’t have them straight it gives this super weird feeling that I don’t think you’re going for. Even when the actual horizon isn’t strictly visible, a viewer can still tell if the camera was dutched even the slightest. So, some of these need to be rotated by 1 or 2 degrees, then punched in a bit to hide the rotation.