FIQ Critique - Physical Therapy Industrial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Check out the original video without my commentary:
• Health Actions Physica...
In this FIQ Critique - I take a look at this talking head testimonial industrial submitted by Caution Glass. Talking head testimonials are the bread and butter of professional video production - so it's super important to understand how to shoot and edit them.
If you want me to critique your narrative/documentary/industrial - send me an email here: FilmmakerIQ.co...
![Ultimate Guide to Scene Transitions - Every Editing Transition Explained [The Shot List, Ep 9]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKXBAaQB03U/mqdefault.jpg)
Good stuff! Constructive critique is always welcome. Well done and look forward to seeing more!
Thanks for your submission!
I loved the way you critiqued this video! It was very constructive and I found many of the tips helpful for my own work! Keep it up!
This is so valuable John!
Hey man I don’t mean to bring up a separate topic to the video but I have been fascinated about the 24 fps phenomenon and why it is used in films and it’s psychological effects.
I was curious on your opinion on something
Do you think 60 fps or anything above 24 fps could be viable if a lot of other things changed with film?
Fundamental things such as; acting itself, editing styles and even story telling styles?
I wanted to see if you had thought about this and whether you had an opinion of whether it could be viable if everything else we do about film changed in accordance to the frame rate.
Because recently I watched the Gemini man (in 120 fps) and it felt wrong. Like it was real but it felt unreal to watch. Which got me thinking.
Would it be possible to have 120 fps not feel this way if massively other variables were adapted for it as a whole?
Or is something about 24fps too fundamental that anything you do will not work because it is going against a law of how the mind works and relates to film
Just curious on your opinion
haha - haven't I made enough videos about 24fps yet? :P
In short - no, high frame rate will NEVER be viable for cinematic film.
24fps is too significant and embedded in the culture. It's also not just cultural, there's biological reasons why low frame rates lull us into a different mind state than watching high frame rate.
The proof is actually the fact that we've been looking at 60fps in television for 70 years now. If HFR was really the next logical step, it would have happened by now - the technology is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
The way you asked the question is sort of a non sequiter: "anything above 24 fps could be viable if a lot of other things changed"
If you changed the way we perceive motion, then all our current understanding goes out the window too...
So it's not really all that interesting to entertain. It's like asking what if 1+1=3 - all math would change.
@@FilmmakerIQ Agreed, but one interesting thing I saw someone saying is what a filmmaker decided to employ HFR for the sake of intending the film to look more artificial, like a stage play? Let's suppose a film that truly goes all the way to the extreme of formalism and theatricality, with HFR being used to enhance that theatricality. Or what if a movie like Dogville was HFR?
That's not new. There have been plenty of videoed stage plays. They look just like that... Videoed stage plays.
If that's what you lean into, fine. But you trade away cinematic for a different aesthetic. It's no longer cinema.
You have to realize the choice of frame rate is a modern thing. For the entirety of the 20th century, frame rate was forced on you. If you shoot video tape, you were forced to shoot HFR.
So we have plenty of experience with HFR, you guys that have never shot with it think we don't.
@@FilmmakerIQ Nice answer!
What's frustrating is how these questions is just miss the most basic reality.
You want to remake the movie "The Red Balloon"... But what would happen if we used a blue balloon?
Then it would be "The blue balloon"
But what if instead of a red balloon we use an Apache helicopter?
🙄
Then it's not "the red balloon" anymore is it....
1:11 Wait what....
Are you telling me that every time I have seen 4k on video, monitors, tv etc. It should actually be called UHD. And the true resolution of 4k is 4090x2160....
Technically 4K is a movie standard. The broadcast version is UHD... But people generally just call UHD "4K" even in broadcast... So you can get into trouble if you aren't specific when choosing your camera settings.
@@FilmmakerIQ Good to know.
Advertising and marketing replace concepts
i learn a lot from you educational Videos explaining how stuff works and why stuff is like it is today. My Daughter is invited with a short film he made to the Black Canvas Festival de Cine contemporaneous in Mexico. Iam so proud of my daughter.
Could You Do More Histories On Movie Studios. Like Warner Bros Who Recently Celebrated 100 Years?
Nice) it was very interesting to watch it. I need to think what video to send you for critique
I was very pro-Univisium ever since i saw it in Love Death and Robots, it felt like a nice balance to me between having a bit more widescreen than 1.77 but not going to the extreme of 2.39, but it's kinda true that it can be distracting to have those thin horizontal lines when watching through a 1.77 TV
Doesn't work when you have graphics working in corporate environment.
What’s good Moncho Chimpin??
Hey there. Great editing tips 👍🏼. I've edited videos where I've talken out "and Um" and pauses. It's a pain but makes the person speaking sound so much better.
Pain is temporary! The Final Product is forever*
*that's just a saying, don't actually hurt yourself. :)
No to Arial if Helvetica is available
Arial was what the logo uses, Helvetica doesn't match.
Plus, it's so hard to even get Helvetica for free these days. Unless you want a knockoff like Helvetica Neue...
I'm a bigger fan of the free Google fonts.
@@FilmmakerIQ But the Rs in Arial look sooOoOoooOoOOOOO ugly! 😅
Not your place to decide. The client has chosen the font in their logo - you must follow it.
Good afternoon. I am new to the channel. Why did Disney Bought Fox?
They wanted content for the their Disney+ library although there wasn't much of it on D+ in the states
@@FilmmakerIQ Interestsing. The Fun Fact is that Paramount (who made the Sonic the Hedgehog movies) previously bought Sega under Gulf+Western from 1969-1984. So it means that Sega and Paramount we’re together before they made the movies.
I don't like how Honest Trailers in Screen Junkies have this mentality often against any film that is not a widely watched mainstream crowd-pleasing hit. It seems that anything that doesn't fit that bill is dismissed as just a pretentious art piece. Just see their last video for the Oscars, and the comment section as well, it's not just bashing the Oscars.
Which mentality?
@@FilmmakerIQ That anything that is not a crowd-pleasing and easy to digest entertaining hit for mainstream audiences is just a pretentious art piece, and not films that anyone actually watches.
It's the kind of snobbishness that many people still have against Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life, for example. RUclipsr Eyebrow Cinema talked about this at the end of his video about the death of film bro, and how anyone who doesn't just watch Marvel movies is being derided as film bro.
I didn't get any of that from the Screen Junkies video on the Oscars. You know they hit just as hard on the crowd pleasers.
You need to take some of this stuff you're watching less seriously, I'm noticing a trend.
Nothing wrong with your comments regarding aspect ratio early in the video, but I laughed because recently I watched a video of a guy saying that he didn't like the huge black bars of films in his TV, but he also didn't want to lose too much of the image, so he showed how he watched films with some zoom that made the black bars thinner, but not disappear completely, like a "compromise" he enjoyed. That looked exactly like the thin black bars you showed here in the first video you reviewed!
You watch a lot of weird people :P
@@FilmmakerIQ Bizarre indeed.
2:1is close to the ratio on most phones today. And i always zoom when watching on my phone
Close is not good. Unless you're designing for a very specific use case, you can't design for every iteration. For example, this could easily be a embedded in a website where most viewers would not be watching full screen. Stick to the broadcast formats and fill the frame. The addition of letterboxing bars adds additional lines to composition and makes graphic placement harder then it should.
@@FilmmakerIQ But if it is made in a proper 2:1 video file there is no letterbox as embedded. But I hate the pillarbox on 16:9 on my phone and when possible zoom and cut I lot of the frame away. And over 70% of youtube's views is form mobile.
Not all those mobile devices are 2:1... still that's 30% of traffic that's not mobile. You gotta stop think of just what you use and think of EVERY use case.
If this was a personal project or an artistic project I'd say fine with whatever you want to shape it as. But as a commercial industrial piece you must adhere to Broadcast standards.
Delivering outside of spec is just unprofessional.
@@FilmmakerIQthe only place you see the letterbox is on full screen on a 16:9 display, the only place letter- or pillarbox is expected. Embed players have the ratio of the stream.
Yes and it's those 16x9 displays you SHOULD be designing for... Because that's broadcast spec. Stick to broadcast spec when doing client industrial work.
I'm offering advice for professional work. If you want to ignore it, that's fine. But I've had stuff kicked back by QC for far less.
it amazes me how the use of black and white stock footage has evolved into the GTA wasted meme.
Haha that technique actually predates Grand theft Auto by at least 15-20 years