Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Sorry Hank, I hope you don't think I was being funny, I really do have a some major crap to deal with right now, and believe me, I'd much rather be in the position to relax and post here!
I'm sorry to hear how things have been going, and I hope things turn right for you (and your family) at the earliest opportunity. I'm not happy the way things are going right now either, but I can see an end to it, so that's what keeps the spirit up. Chin up mate ;-)
Regards the B&W, I have to say I preferred the toning of the previous one, looks somehow more of a uniform and clean tone. All I will say is watch out for sharpening, in fact, if you're simulating film in this way, don't use it at all because you never had any sharpening on your film photos. I can pick-up the sharpening too easy on this one, whereas the first one looks better. Sharpening can make things look digital.
I've added your pic to my post due to the page break:
No worries mate, I've got my chin up and I am persevering. These troubles will pass. Hope things get better for you as well.
I don't do any sharpening in Ps. Must have been an artifact that was introduced when I scaled the image to post here. Made a few adjustments to tonality and used bicubic-smoothing during reduction this time. Probably used bicubic-sharpening before.
Looks better than before, and BTW, if you happen to shoot JPEG, don't forget to switch the sharpening off on the camera, because in-camera sharpening is often bad. Panasonic are the worst offenders for sharpening, but Canon are almost as bad sometimes!
Beautiful pictures Bjornlo, Horo, TheSavage64, and Hokulea. I have to voice a different opinion then that of pumeco, Bjornlo... I think the images are not overdone. This is a matter of taste and I tend to like a lot of color and impact in my images. I also like Van Gogh so...
I remember a long time ago seeing prints done from Ektachrome where the colors were so hyper-saturated... I had never seen anything as amazing and I've never forgotten it. I tend to hyper-saturate my images often, it is an artistic statement by me to produce the desired effect, so I obviously go way beyond what pumeco is referring to in your images. A lot of the most popular images going around in the public sphere (like fb etc..) are like this also, which shows that a lot of people like images where the color pops much more than if one was actually 'there.'
There is one thing I notice. The gravel in the tractor scene is hyper-sharpened. That can add energy to a scene or be jarring. It is the type of thing people react to without even realizing what they are reacting to. I have noticed that type of effect especially with a high 'clarity' in camera raw. I don't think the effect is good or bad, just one needs to be aware that like hyper-saturation, it can effect different people differently.
I've shot several rolls of Tri-X. It really is versatile like you said, but I actually don't care much for it's grain structure. For sure it's almost grainless, but not as sharp as it could be. Ilford's line of Delta films (100, 400, 3200) is where it's at IMO. Just insanely sharp, and soulful tonality.
By the way, the forum software wouldn't let me manually inset quotes without a date attribute. How the software generates the number used for it I don't know, so I just put empty quote marks in. It interpreted that as zero, so now it looks like I'm keeping score for a game. Anybody know how to fix that?
You mean you want to do it like this
Thanks, chohole; that'll work.
That was done using the quote thingummy next to the bold/italic/underline wotsits, just adding the name manually.
Is there a way to embed images into the body of the text yet?
I was wondering because if there is, I could assign some macros on my computer so that I can easily insert the old style smileys. After all this time, it doesn't look as if DAZ is going to put the old smileys back, and they've not even added them to the list of current ones, so any other way to use the old smileys would be great.
If there was a way to insert images into the body of text, we would effectively be able to use the far superior smileys again!
Been looking at old black and white photos that people have colourized lately and thought I'd go the other way.
Using the colour replacement tool in Photoshop.
The red pocket-rocket reminds me of fun times I had when I owned an MG Metro, I loved driving that thing!
PS: Nice photo's Dan, they all look contemplated rather than just shot :-)
taken with nikon fe 400 iso kentmere
That's pretty surreal - at first glance I noticed the windows were desaturated, but took me a moment to realize surroundings were too!
Thanks I develop my own b&w film then scan using my own film scanner(photoshop retouch), heres another one taken with Olympus SPN chrome (rare one) + kentmere 400
http://www.cameraquest.com/olysp.htm
(dining room)
10.jpg taken with kentmere 400 and olympus half frame camera
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TqaRGVLcfy8/TauOLxrv5pI/AAAAAAAAAyU/oelQ6cnYO2E/s1600/IMG_2827.jpg
last one using my digital compact camera on a subway
(union)
A Japanese, I just spotted a Japanese!!!
Welcome to the thread, donchan :-)
Now, post some more Japanese, please!
So at school I was told about a film festival in the area called the City and Neighborhood Film Festival. Entries are up to 3 minutes long, and portray a single neighborhood within the larger Twin Cities area of Minnesota (and and a bit of Wisconsin). Here's my entry. Top prize is $2,000, so wish me luck!
https://vimeo.com/52667333
BTW, I had to rush to get mine in for the deadline, so here's the more polished version I would've submitted if I could. Basically I cropped out the sprockets in the corners, and changed the editing a bit at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZSDICzbVBU
Good luck! Nice place to make a film. And this is real film film? Not digital film? I'm taking that from the talk of light leak and loading? Of course you could have added the effect in afterwards I suppose? And grain. The final sequence where you are looking over the shoulder of the jogger sat on the end of the jetty I particularly liked, did you zoom in for that or move closer? Or both, I couldn't decide, but it was an interesting shot. Sort of creepy almost?
Good work, Beamer, all the luck.
Thanks David and Horo!
Yep, this is real 16mm film (half the size of professional 35mm). For that final shot the camera moved closer on a dolly (platform on wheels, on PVC pipe for track). This I had built several months ago, very similar to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyguAKPaTP4
I wasn't going for a creepy feeling so much as a relaxing, contemplating feel. But hey if that's the vibe you got, maybe I should have tried something else. Thanks for the feedback!
Yep, this is real 16mm film (half the size of professional 35mm). For that final shot the camera moved closer on a dolly (platform on wheels, on PVC pipe for track). This I had built several months ago, very similar to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyguAKPaTP4
I wasn't going for a creepy feeling so much as a relaxing, contemplating feel. But hey if that's the vibe you got, maybe I should have tried something else. Thanks for the feedback!
Ah... I imagine it must take a long time to set all this up and put together a film? As for the vibe, well, don't worry I'm no film critic and besides my favourite genre is SF horror, so I'm always willing something nasty to happen - preferably involving a green bug eyed monster. But that's the shot that stood out for me, that and all the wonderful Autumnal colours, light and scenery.
Well I have to say I love the look of it, Dan, very nice, bloody nice in fact - yummy!
I have to admit I envy the use of real film but I don't envy the inconvenience of developing it. B&W stills was as far as I was prepared to go where developing is concerned, and that was only because I could develop it at home. I've never looked into whether it's possible to buy the equipment cheap enough to develop a cinema reel at home though, and things might have been different if I had if it's cheap enough (used, I mean).
Can't comment on the footage you filmed because I don't know your area so I don't know if you covered enough aspects of it for such a project, but one thing I do know is that you definitely have a talent for placement and scene composition, there is absolutely no doubt about that, knew that even from the first video you uploaded from the D90.
Great closing shot, peasant, and very pro, best of luck!
Now, I have a bunch of Brinnen videos to get through, only managed the first one last night and my brain is already fried!
PS: Saw the new Bond movie last night and thought it was quite cool. However, the opening titles weren't sexy enough and that's sort of expected from a Bond movie. My Spore didn't even twitch at it. The opening track was ok, quite Bond-like, but the closing track was an absolute piece of junk, it was about as Bond-like as knitting.
Pisses me off when things like that happen, because I suspect whoever wrote/performed it had friends in high places. It was just an utterly plain, boring piece of music that didn't have any hook to it whatsoever and certainly does not belong on a Bond movie. It was the first time I never bothered sitting through the credits. It was like a built-in demo you find on a home keyboard or something.
@Hokulea. If I drive to Flagstaff on US180 I will get to see that same shot. I live here at the Grand Canyon. great stuff
I'd say shooting it definitely takes more time, because it involves loading film, winding up the camera after every 25 seconds, and double-checking I have focus and aperture correct. Editing isn't anything special though, since I'm editing a digital scan anyways. If were using a flatbed editor and physically cutting it, that would be a different story.
@Len
Thanks for the compliments! I totally see where you're coming from. The whole lab "inconvenience" was working against me. Basically Hurricane Sandy screwed my lab over, and was a day late in getting my film out. I had to ask the director of the film festival if he could accept my entry a day late in light of the circumstances, which he did, thank goodness. Shooting and processing film on a tight schedule is a pain, but in the end I felt it was worth it.
I just saw Skyfall last night, and loved it. I kept in mind your comment about the closing credits, and it indeed sounded boring to start out, so I didn't bother staying.
boat picture
@Dan
When you say "my lab" you mean the lab you use, or your lab?
Hope it wasn't too bad if it caught your house.
@eireann.sg
Wow, that's some houseboat, and a good pic!
"My lab" is Cinelab in Massachusetts (East coast). Hahaha no we don't get many hurricanes in Minnesota, being right smack in the middle of a continent. But in all seriousness, one arm of the storm actually reached Wisconsin, just a few hours drive from here. Sandy was one effin' huge system.
One of my 16mm projects at school (silent).
Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/53571689
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc3MPHn4Oac
Looking good again, Dan, and I tell you what, I could see very clearly, that effect I was trying to explain before and none of you believed me.
That flicker effect the tubes were simulating on that bike video was clearly visible in your video, too. If you look especially at the part where he's messing with the wheel, you can see the flicker very clearly all over the bodywork! I don't care what you say this time, you must be crazy if you can't see it, there is definitely a flicker that is either down to the shutter of the camera or the equipment they used to transfer your film (possibly both).
It is something that is being ignored by all those software packages out there that are simulating film. Just remember who told you they're missing the flicker effect when it finally dawns upon those that makes such software - and suddenly, it's everywhere. There is definitely a flicker visible whenever film is in use, so you peasants need to get a monitor with a faster response time if you cannot see it.
It's one of the things that makes film look like film when you simulate it, and when it is missing, we know something is wrong. While I'm on the subject I might as well also point out that I finally figured out what's special about the D90 (100% confident). I mentioned that for the most part it was actually the Nikon lens that made the D90 look good, and it is, but it still manages to have something the others don't even when you're not using a Nikon lens on it. So what is it?
It's actually down to how bad the compression is on the footage itself, and the likeness is made because cinema often uses anamorphic lenses. And how do they connect? When you defocus an anamorphic lens just slightly, you get a slightly stretched bokeh, and it's that slightly out of focus bokeh that the D90 is unwittingly imitating due to how muddy it's footage looks. The only difference is that the muddyness of the codec looks as if the bokeh is stretched in all directions. In other words, one of the D90's biggest problems (codec quality) is unwittingly giving a desirable aesthetic: one that gives the vague impression of the bokeh you get from a slightly defocused anamorphic cinema lens.
As far as I'm concerned, the D90 aesthetic is now dissected (I was 100% determined to do that, and I learnt a few things doing so).
Anyway, back to your filmmaking, hurry up and make an atmospheric Horror Film like Eraser Head, or a directorial masterpiece like Night on Earth. Oh, and stop trying to kill your sister on the hammock you evil bazzard (yes, I spotted the other video) :-D
I know sisters can be a pain in the arse, but If you kill her, you'll have less actors to film, peasant!