Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Kefalari Dramas Greece with Panasonic g9 and leica 12 60 4k 60fps

  1. #1

    Default Kefalari Dramas Greece with Panasonic g9 and leica 12 60 4k 60fps

    hallo to everyone!

    im new here and im new generaly with videos and photo editing..

    this is my first ,more serious, try video at Greece in a place with full of water streams and cool breeze atmosphere..

    a video that i was made just when i had a motorcycle trip..

    check it and let me know how ive done it as a beginer!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFmNsPzXUjk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    11,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hi Malllllias (sorry it's very difficult to read how many ls are in there) and welcome.

    OK. generally the shots are good - often very good. Certainly they seem to my eye to be technically in focus, well exposed with good colour. Colour/grading - even content, they all match very, very well. The stills in part two looked very different - higher dynamic range, more saturated (thogh these all matched within themselves). Still good, but different.

    I don't think the two pasrts belonged together.

    I liked the gentle movement you got into some of the shots.
    One or two shots - I wasn't sure what the subject of the shot was - where I was meant to be looking.

    The music for part one didn't complement the visuals, for me. The main pulse was fine - it suited the lazy feel of the shots, but the occasional contrasting bits of music called out for equally contrasting types of shot/subjects but we didn't get those. As it was it just felt out of place for me.

    I have often said that the longest "pretty pictures to music" should last is 60-90 seconds and this is no exception. After one minute I've seen lots of lovely shots, but absolutely nothing which makes me expect to see anything different another minute down the line. So, unless I was analysing this, why would I watch more? I'm just expecting more of the same - this comes down to structure. There is no progression, no journey so, unless it's me here looking at this on a Sunday afternoon offereing free suggestons to a fellow film maker I'm probably not going to bother watching for much longer.

    Lack of a structure is the most common fault with these sort of movies and one of the most difficult things to address. It really doesn't matter how many brilliant shots you have, you need a story, a narrative, a journey - something which makes our viewer want to know what comes next. This isn't easy - especially with with beauty shots - but it is one of the essentials to making a film.

    To look at this another way: If we took all these clips and arranged them in another order, would the film be any different? In this case I suspect not.

    Or another way: Could this film has started somewhere else? Could it have ended somewhere else? The answer is Yes! It doesn't really matter which shot you started with or ended with - it would make no difference to the film.

    Finally - the dissolves! Please NO! Dissolves have their place, but like just about every technique they need to be motivated, Here they have been used to ease the film from one shot to the next. Why? If it's because a straight cut felt like the two shots didn't belong together, then it is because the two shots don't belong together - and a dissolve is not going to change that! Watch any professional film/video and count the dissolves. Generally you won't find any. Dissolves are the first thing to go in the progression from a hoe movie maker to an enthusiast/hobbyist. Make that change now!

    As an aside, in the (few) instances where a dissolve is appropriate, avoid dissolving on movement unless that movement is in the same direction and at the same speed in both shots.

    Given your competence with a camera, I don't belive you will have taken the above as insulting criticism, but as constructive criticism as how you can take the first steps to becoming a better editor. I hope you take it that way.
    Last edited by TimStannard; 07-14-2019 at 03:53 PM.
    Tim

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimStannard View Post
    Hi Malllllias (sorry it's very difficult to read how many ls are in there) and welcome.

    OK. generally the shots are good - often very good. Certainly they seem to my eye to be technically in focus, well exposed with good colour. Colour/grading - even content, they all match very, very well. The stills in part two looked very different - higher dynamic range, more saturated (thogh these all matched within themselves). Still good, but different.

    I don't think the two pasrts belonged together.

    I liked the gentle movement you got into some of the shots.
    One or two shots - I wasn't sure what the subject of the shot was - where I was meant to be looking.

    The music for part one didn't complement the visuals, for me. The main pulse was fine - it suited the lazy feel of the shots, but the occasional contrasting bits of music called out for equally contrasting types of shot/subjects but we didn't get those. As it was it just felt out of place for me.

    I have often said that the longest "pretty pictures to music" should last is 60-90 seconds and this is no exception. After one minute I've seen lots of lovely shots, but absolutely nothing which makes me expect to see anything different another minute down the line. So, unless I was analysing this, why would I watch more? I'm just expecting more of the same - this comes down to structure. There is no progression, no journey so, unless it's me here looking at this on a Sunday afternoon offereing free suggestons to a fellow film maker I'm probably not going to bother watching for much longer.

    Lack of a structure is the most common fault with these sort of movies and one of the most difficult things to address. It really doesn't matter how many brilliant shots you have, you need a story, a narrative, a journey - something which makes our viewer want to know what comes next. This isn't easy - especially with with beauty shots - but it is one of the essentials to making a film.

    To look at this another way: If we took all these clips and arranged them in another order, would the film be any different? In this case I suspect not.

    Or another way: Could this film has started somewhere else? Could it have ended somewhere else? The answer is Yes! It doesn't really matter which shot you started with or ended with - it would make no difference to the film.

    Finally - the dissolves! Please NO! Dissolves have their place, but like just about every technique they need to be motivated, Here they have been used to ease the film from one shot to the next. Why? If it's because a straight cut felt like the two shots didn't belong together, then it is because the two shots don't belong together - and a dissolve is not going to change that! Watch any professional film/video and count the dissolves. Generally you won't find any. Dissolves are the first thing to go in the progression from a hoe movie maker to an enthusiast/hobbyist. Make that change now!

    As an aside, in the (few) instances where a dissolve is appropriate, avoid dissolving on movement unless that movement is in the same direction and at the same speed in both shots.

    Given your competence with a camera, I don't belive you will have taken the above as insulting criticism, but as constructive criticism as how you can take the first steps to becoming a better editor. I hope you take it that way.

    Wow..
    i wasnt expect that! thanks for your comments! ofcourse im not feeling insulted..! i want criticism...
    i knew some thinks from the begining when i was made that clip. i knew that have no story to tell, only scenes from the place..
    the coment about dissolves i didnt expect it.. i think youre right... im new, i want to learn..
    thanks again!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    11,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mallllias View Post
    i knew that have no story to tell, only scenes from the place..
    Then you create one. It doesn't have to be anything clever - it can simply take us through the day - start with morning shots, have brightest short shadw shots in the middle and a sunset (cliché, I know) at the end although it probably wants a bit more than just that. It could also take the viewer on a journey - quite literally go from one place to another (show some form of transport - wasn't this meant to be a motorcycle trip? - between locations, but mix it up - sometimes show packing to leave, sometime show the journey, sometime show the arrivel). This need't even be accurate - you could show the places out of order, the travel shots need not necessarily be from between the two places you shot - unless you are being strict in making a documentray) it's all just creating some sort of story.
    Another technique is to have someone or a coupe of people appear in one or two shots at each locations to give the impression they are making the journey. Show someone pointing at or looking toward something then show what they are looking at.

    Anything which helps one shot lead to another helps to keep the viewer interested. Don't just show them images, make them wonder what the next image is going to be.

    That's the objective, anyway. Not always so easy in practice.

    Good luck
    Tim

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    11,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mallllias View Post
    i knew that have no story to tell, only scenes from the place..
    Then you create one. It doesn't have to be anything clever - it can simply take us through the day - start with morning shots, have brightest short shadw shots in the middle and a sunset (cliché, I know) at the end although it probably wants a bit more than just that. It could also take the viewer on a journey - quite literally go from one place to another (show some form of transport - wasn't this meant to be a motorcycle trip? - between locations, but mix it up - sometimes show packing to leave, sometime show the journey, sometime show the arrivel). This need't even be accurate - you could show the places out of order, the travel shots need not necessarily be from between the two places you shot - unless you are being strict in making a documentray) it's all just creating some sort of story.
    Another technique is to have someone or a coupe of people appear in one or two shots at each locations to give the impression they are making the journey. Show someone pointing at or looking toward something then show what they are looking at.

    Anything which helps one shot lead to another helps to keep the viewer interested. Don't just show them images, make them wonder what the next image is going to be.

    That's the objective, anyway. Not always so easy in practice.

    Good luck
    Tim

Similar Threads

  1. Greece, Ouranoupoli.
    By origin in forum User Videos
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 01:06 PM
  2. Island Hopping in Greece
    By dreamteam in forum User Videos
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-24-2017, 06:51 PM
  3. Drone videos from Greece
    By hayabusagr in forum User Videos
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2016, 03:31 PM
  4. Greece is the Word
    By TimStannard in forum User Videos
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 04-10-2016, 04:00 PM
  5. Greece
    By Explorer in forum User Videos
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2012, 10:11 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
  •