"cinema" style

I use the 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and the 25/1.4, but there is nothing wrong with the camera or lenses it's just the my desired result that is some what unattainable. I wouldn't be selling my M43 camera, but rather adding a new camera.

I can't argue with you as I have a dslr myself, only aps-c but there are things I can do with it that I can't do with compacts and one of them is I can't part with my macro glass. Canon has the new consumer FF camera, not as big of a profile but that big sensor.. that and a wide angle lens.. I have the 28mm 1.8 because it's wide, can shoot close and allows for shallow dof with great blur. It's not as wide on my camera but would be on FF. 85 1.2 is a beauty too though out of my $ range.


I did this during the recent photo challenge. The results had a very three dimensional look.. it was fun but had I more time, because it was starting to rain, I would have worked my background better and eked more out of it.
 
I have done bokeh panoramas before and personallu I find it's just to time consuming to shoot or edit in this manner.

Doing the Brenizer was pretty easy for me even for the first time. Take the lens off autofocus and set your focus on the subject, set your white balance which can't be on auto either, then you can shoot a series of maybe nine shots and photoshop elements wove them together with the click of a button. Then it's a crop the edges and pp as you would anyways. For more depth, more shots moving outward. I don't think there is a lens that can do that given Ryan starts out with a good lens and then pieces it. Either way, if you are thinking you want FF then you are probably ready to go FF and as you said you don't have to give up your 4/3 so the best of both worlds.
 
G-Peck-UE-L.jpg

Gregory Peck as MacArthur
 
Silly question, but what's the easiest way to drop the cropped image into that black frame? (LR4 instructions in particular would be helpful if possible).

Thanks!

I don't think it can be done in Lightroom....at least not any way that I can think of. I use Photoshop Elements, but it can be for free with GIMP or online with the free photo editor pixlr.com in their emulation of Photoshop.

Open up your image, crop and enter the ratio for the crop so that length is 2.35 and height is 1
There you will have your cinematic cropped shot. Now if you want the "black bars" like you're watching it on your fancy TV, go the menu and create a new image (or maybe it's worded new blank image) and it will ask for some dimensions. I usually just plug in the width and use the same number for the height (because I'm too lazy to do the calculations).

Return to your original cropped image and select the whole image, then select cut, then close the image (there's nothing left there anyways) and you should be in front of your large black square (it may be white, but you change that easy enough with the paint bucket tool). Then select paste and you have pasted your cropped image onto the black background. Then use your crop tool again and for dimensions, use 16 for width and 9 for height.

Let me know if any of that needs clarification.

There's a video here. Photoshop Tutorial: Cinematic Widescreen Cropping - YouTube
 
I can see what you're saying. I don't think the shot was perfectly suited for such an extreme crop. I kind of just tried to shoehorn it into the concept. I still like both of them and they're definitely different. I think the new one has a bit of a horror film feel to it.
 
I don't think that all landscape photos can be converted to cinema anyway. We are all just tinkering but I think one should shoot with the idea they will convert to cinema so that they can get all the elements they want in the photo present.
 
yup, that's definitely true. The more you visualise what you want before shooting, the better your shot will be. I'm looking forward to trying out the manual sweep panorama trick once I have a camera capable of such speeds :)

In my scene, there was a better shot where a cyclist filled up the empty space on the right and provided some interest, but the lady on the left had a really unflattering facial expression at that moment :tongue: I don't know her but I'd rather not post that shot anyway.
 
I think that the effect looks really cool, and I suspect that it would pay to be shooting in 16:9 (or whatever the widest ratio your camera allows) and to be looking for scenes that suit this processing style. After a quick browse through my recent flickr images I found that very few would stand to be cropped so aggressively.
 
Yeah, Nic....you're right. As Kristen kinda pointed out and I have also observed in my own library. You can't just crop down a shot and put black bars above and below. We're used to composing for the whole frame and one of the mantras in photography is to fill the frame. When the frame is properly filled from the start it doesn't leave much room for the crazy crops needed to even get to 16:9.

When they work, they really look cool. I think when you first get turned onto them, it's a bit like the saying that when you have hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.

And then there is subject and story. Kelly's shot 2 up from this post is properly composed for the frame, but seems more like a photograph than a still from a movie. I think the most successful ones have no connection between anyone in the frame and the lens.
 
Back
Top