Cinematography Competition - Need your votes!

Just a little heavy on flashing and that ending really does spoil it. Shame as I did like the rest.
 
Agree with Cosimo.

The random flashing made sense when the scene actually changed, like when someone walks in, flash, hi-fiving, flash walking along.

But otherwise the flashing seemed like...for the sake of flashing?! If that makes sense? Sorry I won't be voting, the ending spoiled it but the best of luck either way :)
 
At the start it looks like there is going to be 4 characters but then only looks like there is two by the end. I would have kept it at 4 characters personally or just used the 2 from the get go.
For the intro, I would start with quick clip people talking and painting the walls then a close up of the face of person A, then flashed to person B then C then D.
Missing a close up of the skateboard + action. Maybe have the skateboard whizz by the camera, or some guy do a trick a grind or kickflip or something to add some interest. Could then of recorded it at 60p and slowed it down. Would have added some more dimension.
Could have also had a scene of them in total darkness with a couple of strobes behind them flashing quickly, creating a silhouette + rim light. Again recorded at 60p (or faster if possible) and slowed down.

Then would probably use a portion of this song if possible, but not sure about possible copyright issues though.

Having said that, I liked it.
 
Last edited:
Quite liked it. Don't know much about video however, how do you get away with copyright issues with the music? I'm guessing part of it was Kanye West's voice?
 
The ending isn't for everyone I guess, but whilst some people obviously aren't keen on it, others have said they think it's the best bit funnily enough!

@AnException, this video was shot last-minute without any planning. I'd planned and shotlisted an entirely different video altogether, but was then given different models and a different location on the day when we arrived - and so had to arrive on location and figure out something to shoot. It was actually only by chance the guy skating brought a skateboard! We shot a ton more stuff with more skating, graffiti and some free running which never made it into the video for various reasons. The location was also heavily used by the public and workmen, so it was a case of shooting when you can in-between.
It's all very well to say, "well I'd have done this and this..." as there's many things I'd have done differently myself had I been able to plan for this video, but under the circumstances I'm pleased with what we pulled off.
 
Last edited:
It's also very well to say "we had no time to plan anything so this is the best we could do". Planning is as much a part of the process so it's rightly judged in-line with the actual production itself. I don't know if it was part of the brief or what but listening crew and cast at the end of something like this just looks incredibly amateur/student as well.

I hope Eyyaz Chishty has permission from the CAA for aerial work?
 
Russinating said:
It's also very well to say "we had no time to plan anything so this is the best we could do". Planning is as much a part of the process so it's rightly judged in-line with the actual production itself. I don't know if it was part of the brief or what but listening crew and cast at the end of something like this just looks incredibly amateur/student as well.

I hope Eyyaz Chishty has permission from the CAA for aerial work?
Click to expand...

That's putting an extreme skew on what I said. It was unfortunate circumstances that removed the planning process but the video had to be shot on that day, and the result is still something we're happy with. And as a matter of fact, it was requested by the client that people were credited at the end of the video.

I have to say, criticism is entirely welcome and most certainly always helpful, but your response is borderline aggressive? I accept that the edit is a matter of preference and I know that the video could have developed into something much more too (and wish it had), but working as an entry-level professional with low-budgets on small productions - things don't always go to plan and it's something that just has to be accepted and worked around, which I feel we (models & crew) did well. If you want to be critical, by all means, but make it constructive - I can't say I've seen such aggressive responses on peoples photography threads and don't see why I am more subject to it because I shoot video.
 
Last edited:
Mainly because your tone in response to An Exception was very much "keep your criticism to yourself". Or so it seemed - the written word can be taken many ways!

Constructive criticism would be that it's far too heavily edited to be in a cinematography competition, imo.

And I'm guessing Eyyaz doesn't have permission from the CAA seeing as you avoided the question? Be careful, because they can and will come down like a ton of bricks on him, you and your client if they want to. I don't know where you shot it but if it's a congested area as your comment re: people and builders seems to suggest then they're even more likely to.

Stay away from mentioning/thinking of budgets as well. I'm assuming by budget you mean for 'stuff' (kit etc), and maybe a bit for crew? In terms of our projects, almost all of them have £0 expenditure on anything but two shooters, so often when students etc come to us applying for jobs and they say "we made this with a budget of just £200", it's both irrelevant and naive.

Anyway no offence intended from my post. If you're entering something into a competition it should be the best you can do with no excuses etc, hence my comment.
 
Russinating said:
Stay away from mentioning/thinking of budgets as well. I'm assuming by budget you mean for 'stuff' (kit etc), and maybe a bit for crew? In terms of our projects, almost all of them have £0 expenditure on anything but two shooters, so often when students etc come to us applying for jobs and they say "we made this with a budget of just £200", it's both irrelevant and naive.
Click to expand...

Why would one ignore budgets? The industry operates on budgets. Your possibilities, equipment and resources rely on budgets. If someone makes an excellent feature on a budget of £500 as opposed to £10,000 - that means something - and if you have worked on any productions with limited to very limited budgets, as you claim to have done, you would know that resources are limited and planning is not always as smooth of a process as a production with a sizeable budget.

Likewise, why would we refrain from entering into a competition simply because things didn't go according to plan? The outcome is what matters, and I'll say again, we're pleased with it. I think to say, "well we won't enter because our shoot didn't go the way we wanted" is more of a cop-out than anything. Perhaps this is why your 'shoots' consistently have no budget?
 
Last edited:
Russinating said:
In terms of our projects, almost all of them have £0 expenditure on anything but two shooters, so often when students etc come to us applying for jobs and they say "we made this with a budget of just £200", it's both irrelevant and naive.
Click to expand...

I dread the quality of your "shoots" then if they are £0 expenditure. Production value costs money.


Russinating said:
And I'm guessing Eyyaz doesn't have permission from the CAA seeing as you avoided the question? Be careful, because they can and will come down like a ton of bricks on him, you and your client if they want to. I don't know where you shot it but if it's a congested area as your comment re: people and builders seems to suggest then they're even more likely to.
Click to expand...

Depends on the drone, the CAA only care if it's an aircraft over the mass of 20kg. You need permission for commercial use but it depends if this was classed as "commercial use"

So far drone complaints are only in the double figures and there have been only 1 leagal case in the UK, and that was some idiot flying to close to a nuclear power plant, so hardly the ton of bricks you are scaremongering about.

Although you are not allowed to fly closer than 50 meters to a person, which he was in clear breach of.
 
Last edited:
Deific said:
Why would one ignore budgets? The industry operates on budgets. Your possibilities, equipment and resources rely on budgets. If someone makes an excellent feature on a budget of £500 as opposed to £10,000 - that means something - and if you have worked on any productions with limited to very limited budgets, as you claim to have done, you would know that resources are limited and planning is not always as smooth of a process as a production with a sizeable budget.

Likewise, why would we refrain from entering into a competition simply because things didn't go according to plan? The outcome is what matters, and I'll say again, we're pleased with it. I think to say, "well we won't enter because our shoot didn't go the way we wanted" is more of a cop-out than anything. Perhaps this is why your 'shoots' consistently have no budget?
Click to expand...

You do realise by budget I'm talking about expenditure, as per the original post when I mentioned it? I'm not talking about project values/what the client is being charged.

You mention 'feature'. As in, feature films? Since when are we talking about films or anything even for broadcast? That's a completely different ball game.

Airitech said:
I dread the quality of your "shoots" then if they are £0 expenditure. Production value costs money.
Click to expand...

Welcome to forum, friend of Deific :rolleyes:.

Not always. What are you spending the money on?

Airitech said:
Depends on the drone, the CAA only care if it's an aircraft over the mass of 20kg. You need permission for commercial use but it depends if this was classed as "commercial use"

So far drone complaints are only in the double figures and there have been only 1 leagal case in the UK, and that was some idiot flying to close to a nuclear power plant, so hardly the ton of bricks you are scaremongering about.

Although you are not allowed to fly closer than 50 meters to a person, which he was in clear breach of.
Click to expand...

It's actually scary that you've registered here specifically to post that, and you're so wildly off the mark. Why post about something that you clearly have no clue about?

The CAA do care, no matter the size of the UAV, whether that's a Hubsan X4, Phantom or something larger, either as soon as you put a camera on it, if you're flying it in congested areas or if it's for aerial work.

The fact that you think permission isn't required for anything under 20kg is ridiculous. It's pretty difficult to get over that weight for a start, even an octocopter carrying a Red Epic won't get there. If a UAV is over 20kg then you're probably talking large scale models or fixed winged, but whatever it is you then also need the aircraft to be certified airworthy by an independent body. Anything under 20kg the Chief Pilot is responsible for this test before each flight, but you still need permission from the CAA as well as appropriate pilot training.

What do you mean "if this was classed as commercial use"? It's a commercial for a company. It couldn't be more obvious. Taking a picture of your gran's house and giving it to her for free for her birthday is technically aerial work, so my mind boggles how you think this isn't.

You are allowed to fly within 50 meters of people under your control, which the 'actors' in the video were, so this is actually the one stipulation he's not in breach of.

Again, you're making up figures about an industry which, based on your previous 'knowledge', you obviously don't know anything about. There's fines and prosecutions handed out every week, and they're just the ones that are reported.

If you're already flying drones then please for your sake and for the sake of anyone who's unfortunate enough to be near you when you are, stop and read up on things, and if you still want to carry on flying then do things properly.

Start here: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90
 
Says the man who recently shot his first wedding recently solo, must have been a big career step up for you from being a trainee and even then they weren't great pictures you have a lot to learn about framing, yet you seem to think you know more than others that actually work in this industry and frequently work alongside drones.

The CCA will allow you to fly within 30 minutes under direct control and closer again with permission but the pilot must be insured as well as having public liability cover, then the production insurance company must also allow the use of the UAV as well. There is a limit though. A job I was on this summer the octocopter company wouldn't fly as close to the actors as the director wanted so we had to get in a techno crane instead. (Think it might have been about flying overhead in close proximity)

Commercial use is getting paid, we don't know if he is registered for commercial operation or if he got paid he can give his time freely if he wishes. You also don't know if this video was sold to the clothing company or given freely as it was a film competition I would guess the latter.

You can give those photos to your nan the all you have to prove is that it was your own time and you weren't paid.

I don't fly drones commerically at least if I did my public liability cover is 10 million ;-) but don't worry you wouldn't get near my kind of gigs.

Also I only work on jobs that have big budgets.I like getting paid.

Don't know the op.
 
Last edited:
What has wedding photography got to do with anything in this thread? :confused:

CCA? You mean CAA? I have no idea what you're talking about in that paragraph.

Aerial work has nothing to do with "getting paid".

Aerial work, as described in the Air Navigation Order, means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the purpose of the flight
Click to expand...

If you don't understand that then basically if someone, anyone, is benefiting from your flight, then it's deemed as work. If the video was sold or not, if the operator was paid or not, is completely irrelevant. It's work.

Just for your information, and mainly because I don't know where the ridiculous wedding comment came from, I'm a BNUC-S qualified pilot and two companies I own and operate are licensed by the CAA to conduct aerial work with an SUA.

If you don't fly drones commercially then how you can even comment is beyond me. Everything you've said is incorrect which is just starting to make me think you're a troll.

Deific, if this guy isn't your mate then apologies for derailing the thread somewhat. At least it's staying at the top of the forum, though :p
 
Airitech said:
I don't fly drones commerically at least if I did my public liability cover is 10 million ;-) but don't worry you wouldn't get near my kind of gigs.

Also I only work on jobs that have big budgets.I like getting paid.
Click to expand...

Can you point me in the direction of some samples of your work please?
 
Airitech, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Russ is a fully qualified UAV pilot with CAA permission to undertake aerial work. His statement of the regulations is absolutely spot on. If he were to fly with your interpretation of the regs he would be breaking the law and (if caught) subject to some very hefty fines, not to mention being stripped of his PTUAW.

Your statement of public liabilities is also completely wrong. It will only cover you if operating within the law.

I am also a UAV pilot but due to some medical issues cannot obtain PTUAW. I wouldn't even THINK about flying commercially (despite the many offers I've had) without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom