Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Durham, Land Of The Prince Bishops.

  1. Default Durham, Land Of The Prince Bishops.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MEAO95eC3c]YouTube - Durham, Land Of The Prince Bishops[/ame]

    Set to some copyright free music.

  2. #2

    Default

    Do you come from a stills photography back ground. It's the way you framed the shots. I don't know if I would have used a fade transitions between every shot. Some straight cut from scene to scene would also be nice. The first shot would have been better for me if you had the shot first then put the titles up.

    At the end the music started to fade but ended abruptly before the fade fished doing it's thing.

    Nice piece all in all.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight Blue View Post
    Do you come from a stills photography back ground.
    Well sort of, but nothing serious!

    It's the way you framed the shots
    No doubt because I use a tripod, all the time, when possible!

    .
    I don't know if I would have used a fade transitions between every shot
    It's been said before!

    Nice piece all in all.
    Thanks!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The danger with this sort of movie is it is simply a slideshow that the viewer has no control over.

    I've said elsewhere recently that I have come to the conclusion (presumably centuries after others have reached the same opinion) that shots of buildings and landscapes are best served by stills.

    These allow much more detail to show through and the viewer can look at the still for as long or as short as he likes.

    If you are going to show architecture in film, I think it's important to get movement in there - and the movement has to be appropriate to the subject.

    1. People interacting with the architecture - for example where you are showing steps, show some feet walking up the steps, where you are showing gates/doors, show them being opened or at least people moving through them.

    2. Controlled camera movement - probably out of the reach of most amateurs, moving the camera along on a dolly or on a crane cane really bring life to the detail in architecture as we see the detail from a moving perspective.

    3. Movement in time. An exterior shot in natural light of a building compressed in time will show the shadows in the detail (and of the building itself, if wide enough an angle) move and again give life to the image.

    These are just general thoughts and not really a comment on this particular video.

    Yours did have plenty of shots with people walking through them. I suggest you seek out these shots rather than think people are getting in the way - buildings are designed to be inhabited. By far my favourite shot was the one at 1.15 - just because people were walking in different directions along paths at a junction it gave the film life.

    The shots were all nicely framed and there was a good selection of wide, mid & detail shots together with some iteresting angles.

    I'd have liked some information about what we were seeing - preferably narration, but captions would be better than nothing. The title "the Land of the Prince Bishops" intrigued me, but the film offered no explanation. You also might like to think about putting a map at/near the beginning showing the location (in ths case just an outline of the UK with a blob over Durham) as this helps people from around the world (and the rest of the UK) put the area in some sort of context.

    I hope that doesn't come across as negative - I have a hbit of doing that when my aim is to encourage! I can assure you I've seen far worse films of cities.
    Tim

  5. #5

    Default

    the logo looks daft - and wot no VO ?

  6. #6

    Default

    @Tim: I wanted to reply to this before but forgot, or that thread had moved on, but I disagree with the idea that "landscapes and buildings ought to be shot with stills." I think there is (or can be) a lot of movement in such scenes. In the case of a nature shot, even if there aren't any animals a photo can't capture falling leaves, the currents in a river, a swaying branch, or birdsong like video can; and in the case of a building, the camera's strength is in the movement it can provide with pans, tilts, zooms, and the like. Then again, maybe we don't disagree here, only we both insist that some kind of movement is necessary in a scene to keep it visually stimulating (hence the Ken Burns effect in documentary).

    @Blackadder: I agree that the logo across the top was unnecessary. I've never understood the human urge to put their name on everything--caves, trees, monuments (even when I went to the pyramids names were scribbled on them!). I enjoyed the video, though, and watched it through to the end. The music and some of the scenery reminded me of the movie "Barry Lyndon."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave in Thailand;
    132734I disagree with the idea that "landscapes and buildings ought to be shot with stills."
    <SNIPS>
    Then again, maybe we don't disagree here, only we both insist that some kind of movement is necessary in a scene to keep it visually stimulating (hence the Ken Burns effect in documentary).
    I don't think we disagree about this very much at all. It's just that you've managed to say clearly in about 50 words what it takes me 10 times that many to put not very clearly at all

    I do think that stills (architechture & landscapes) are much better for studying the subject for the two reasons I stated: clarity - you can pick up a photo and move it close to your eyes to study one area in more detail (try doing that in your local Odeon) and the fact that you are not forced to move on to the next image based on the directors decision as to when you should.

    Actually, now I think about it, it's the PURPOSE to which the material is to be used which should decide the medium. Life = video/film = should show movement. Detail = stills. Art - can be either.
    Last edited by TimStannard; 01-28-2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason: formatting
    Tim

  8. #8

    Default

    That's why they are called the "MOVIES" and not the "STILLIES"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Haywards Heath, West Sussex, UK
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Good points already said, just wanted to add that I enjoyed it. I love that track.

Similar Threads

  1. About to Land
    By phatcityhogs in forum User Videos
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 06:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •