Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
I always think this is a fantastic example of what it means to have someone talk “straight down the barrel”, but then Spike Lee is a film-maker who thinks very carefully about everything he does and tends to know exactly why he’s doing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE0ne430gbA
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Kirk Pitts] “Thanks, I wasn’t completely clear. I know I can save presets and share them. But what I really want is to be able to download some presets from other more experienced users so I can learn from examples. Some example of starting points to work from.”
OK, sorry, I see what you’re saying.
Given that we only released a week ago today, I’m not sure that there will be that many users who have built and shared presets so far, but it might be worth asking on the FCP X Techniques Forum or indeed on fcp.co (if we are allowed to mention it here).
We do plan to offer a presets package when we come to the next release (which should also be available for Premiere users), but so far I’m still experimenting myself because the range of options is so very diverse.
I can tell you that I really like switching to Overlay blend mode for fades and dips. Also if I’m wanting to emulate a film dissolve, I will go for the Inverse sRGB gamma option, or you could set the gamma encoding manually – go for something in the region of 0.5 and adjust it to taste from there.
Beyond that, I’d just recommend that you experiment and see what you like the look of. Because no two sets of shots are alike, and no two people like exactly the same thing (!), you’ll probably always want slightly different settings depending both on the content and the look that you personally prefer.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bill Davis] “Could somebody criticize THAT camera work? Surely. Would that be useful. I suspect not. “
This is the bit I don’t get. Why isn’t it useful to analyse the effect of this?
You don’t need to tell me about the difficulties that one faces on the actual shoot because I’ve experienced them myself over many years, and yes, everything is a compromise of one sort of another and it’s pretty much impossible to get things just right – and frankly I’ve coming away from every single shoot seeing a hundred things I could have done better.
But my point is that I try to learn from analysing my mistakes, and the mistakes of others, as well as looking at what other film-makers do really well. And at the same time I try to think in terms of first principles about what makes a certain type of shot work better for a certain purpose than another.
You seem to be suggesting there’s something illegitimate about that … which is what I’m having a hard time getting my head around.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Obviously the off-axis angle adds a bystander or voyeuristic element to the perception. The in-the-lens approach implies that the subject is talking directly to you. But is there really a right or wrong to doing this?”
My simple plea is for some intelligent and thoughtful appraisal of the way the viewer responds to different eyelines and the appropriateness of particular eyelines for evoking particular effects in particular contexts, and I’ve explained that above for one very particular type of example.
Seeing someone speak to you straight down the lens can be intimate, friendly, unnerving, scary, depending on the context. But the reasons for why this approach evokes these particular types of reaction are really not too hard to work out. You just need to try and remember what it feels like in the real world … which ought to be pretty obvious unless you’re a sociopath or have some other condition that means you just don’t understand how to read other people! Then you factor in the context.
To say that it’s all subjective and hence there are no useful answers is pointless defeatism to my way of thinking.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Kirk Pitts] “I wonder if there will be a way to share presets? I would love to get some ideas on settings with this.”
Hi Kirk,
If you’d like to save any of your dissolves/dips/fades as presets for future use or for sharing with other users, you can do this via the presets option.
Simply click on the Presets/Save As button to save your current settings. (You can find this at the bottom of the Inspector.) The default path is User/Library/Application Support/FxFactory/Presets, but you can save to a destination of your choice. To recall a preset, simply click on the Open button and navigate to wherever you have saved it.
For more information about Super Dissolve, you can find the manual here. Or if you’d like to contact us directly, we are always very happy to try and help.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bill Davis] “I think you’re articulated it very well. Like most creative efforts, there is seldom a single “best” answer just as there’s never a single best painting or song. Rather there are a range of answers that are informed by the nature of the work you’re trying to create.”
Hi Bill, your answer is very interesting, but although you say you are agreeing with Mark, I’m not sure that you are.
My understanding of his comment was that there is indeed a “Platonic ideal” for the eyeline that is very literally “the best choice”, given the film-maker’s intention for the shot, the scene and the film. (That last part is clearly of great importance, unless of course we want to start in on my favourite subject, viz The Death of the Author.)
What you seem to be saying, and forgive me if I’ve got this wrong, is that the creative process is so nebulous and undefined that there are any number of right answers and frankly anything goes if that’s what you want to do, which seems to be the exact opposite of what Mark was saying.
My original point, which was certainly a whole lot more mundane (and I certainly avoided invoking “art”), was that there are choices that communicate effectively, and there are choices that achieve the exact opposite of the communication intended. I adduced the psychological factors that are seemingly inherent in certain shot choices and, while we’re maybe we’re not talking about something that can be conclusively proved, I’m willing to bet that one could pretty easily run tests to demonstrate the plausibility of these factors.
I think, if I have understood Mark correctly, I would intuitively agree that while in practical terms it’s much more likely that one will deviate from the ideal and never exactly reach it, the ideal is in fact definable, but that is to aim for heights of metaphysical abstraction that I’d hesitate to scale.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Mark Smith] “So to make a comparison to language, if a profile shot is the equivalent of 3rd person and straight down the lens is first person, eye line is on this slider control that is movable in coarse or fine degrees between 3rd person and first person . When you have it right for the context of your interview it’s really right and there are lots of degrees of not quite right to completely wrong.”
Yes, I think that’s very well put.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Claude Lyneis] “Thanks Simon, that is indeed the article. I learned a lot reading it.”
You might enjoy this extended interview with Steve Audette where he goes into a lot of fascinating detail about his methods with particular reference to “Gun Control”:
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Michael Gissing] “I like the double camera approach if possible of wider and closer from the same angle. I have a bracket that locks a second BM4k to the bottom one and allows me to frame both. It is entirely different to just shooting wide and punching in as that still looks like a jump when the perspective doesn’t change.”
I know it’s really fashionable to use the punch-in method and obviously it’s a very convenient way of working, but I agree with you that it just looks wrong because of the simple fact of the optics.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Claude Lyneis] “I went back to a favorite of mine, a Frontline story “League of Denial” edited by Steve Audette. In it the eye lines are very close to the lens, but never on it. I know Audette wrote up how it was shot and edited, but I can’t find the link now. Anyway, it is far different looking from the example above.”
Is this the article you were referring to with Steve Hullfish interviewing Steve Audette?
https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-cut-with-steve-audette-of-frontline/
It’s a really fascinating read with some amazing insights into the thinking of an exceptional film-maker.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com