This topic contains 7 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago.
July 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM #47564
I wanted to get some feedback on my latest video. A very short Save the Date video!
July 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM #196103
Was this was shot as an invite for a wedding, or a simple engagement annocemant? Either way. well shot, well edited.
July 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM #196104
Nice job and I think it was an invite video. Good idea as I have very seen one like that before.
July 15, 2012 at 2:59 AM #196105
It is a invite video. I wanted to do something a lot shorter then a full engagement or love story that would be a little cheaper for couples and could be easily shared with friends
July 16, 2012 at 7:02 PM #196106
July 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM #196107
Color me old fashioned, but I’ve got a beef with this. You have 11 shots in a row in which primarily the camera, rather than the subjects, is in motion. I watch entire films — 90 – 120 minutes in length — in which there aren’t 11 dolly or Stedicam shots in all. There’s no fire hosing in your piece, which is good, but to my eye the constant camera movement is a) repetitive, b) without reason vis a vis the event, and c) slightly nausea inducing.
When I cop to being “old fashioned” I’m suggesting that the film/video media has always struck me as being about capturing motion, not about creating motion: moving stuff happens — people run, walk, dance, etc., — and the motion camera records what they’re doing. Cuts occur as a means of moving our eye from one point to another (See Walter Murch In The Blink of an Eye) specifically without moving the camera back and forth; the cut is the antithesis of the pan.
Moving the camera can be highly dramatic. In fact, the first time a film was made in which the camera moved audiences were astonished and delighted. Following Rocky up the Art Museum steps in Philadelphia decades later with a freely moving camera was heralded as a triumph of film making in its day. But to me to continually move the camera around essentially static figures as you do really negates the value of this technique.
October 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM #204533
Jon, the constant movement would be OK if the talent was moving as well and the music matched the movement. My reaction to the piece is it's similar to a short music video. In music videos, the motion and music should have complementary pacing. I didn't see that here.
Jack's criticism of too many moving shots is valid, but I think I see what you're trying to do and the concept is good. I would not have used the slider. A static overhead or a few low level shots might have been better than multiple slider shots. Sliders evoke elegance and dignity and I don't think this piece can be described as being elegant. It's playful with more than a hint of exhuberance and the sliders don't say that.
As I said, it's a good concept and even though I'm a little late to this conversation, I hope you'll post more examples.
January 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM #205467
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.