The best online film school for serious filmmakers. Download your free blueprint to making a movie or film: wolfcrow.com/how-to-make-a-movie-a-complete-blueprint/
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I've always tried to understand why I like low angle shots over high. As a videographer I would always shoot people with the camera at hip height. Shots are always perfect, but understanding why always eluded me. I don't know if I agree with your analysis but it's an interesting take
If my Cartoni 12 SDS is my wife. Then my Satchler Activ 8 Flowtech is my mistress. The reason I didn't marry Satchler is due to recurring step-drag issues I keep having=/ I've owned 2 Aktiv heads and both have given me issues with the tilt drag=(.
On the technical side, your claims just don’t bear out what I’ve seen with my own lying eyes. There are plenty of cameras under 10k that produce amazing results when shooting RAW. Does a Venice or Alexa look BETTER than cheaper cameras? Of course! Do they look drastically better to the extent that the average person will notice? Not in most situations. It’s odd you keep bringing up The Creator because I certainly didn’t see people leaving the theater saying, “that movie looked like it was shot on a cheap camera!” I wasn’t aware they used an FX3 until recently and I wouldn’t have been surprised had someone told me it was shot on a Venice, Alexa, or Red Raptor VV (and I’m definitely pickier than the average cinema-goer). I’m not a DP but I’ve been in the business for a while and, though I tend to work in the lower-budget range, I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of people on big budget shoots. You’ve shot some lovely work and I’m happy some of it has gotten a theatrical release in India. But you haven’t shot big budget films either. The camera package is an incredibly small part of the overall budget so there really isn’t a reason for them to try to save money on a cheaper package. When I’ve talked to bigger DPs about cameras these days, they spend a lot more time discussing features, workflow, and IO instead of image quality. This wasn’t always the case. When the original Alexa was released it was heads and shoulders above other digital cameras in many respects. But the difference is FAR LESS drastic today. The vast majority of DPs I know have told me that, when it comes to image quality, things have never been closer (though they still obviously have their preferences). One of the best looking shows I’ve seen is Better Call Saul (and I’ve watched it on a 65 inch OLED). The first three seasons were shot on a Red Dragon 6k which you can now find for a few thousand online; season 4 used an Varicam 35, and the last two seasons were Alexa LF. The whole shoot, they also used a BMPCC4k and later BMPCC6k for certain shots and the DP raved about both of them. I couldn’t tell the difference between cameras/seasons nor could the average person. I certainly don’t think seasons shot with an Alexa LF look any better than those shot with the cheaper Red Dragon.
While there is certainly a difference, I think that a lot of your claims are drastically overstated and perpetuate the mindset that causes indie filmmakers to spend far too much of their budgets trying to get an Alexa over things that make a much bigger difference in the image quality such as lighting, production design, and number of shooting days. I’ve seen many lower budget films shot on cheaper cameras that looked amazing (yes, in a theater), because they didn’t blow their whole budget on an Alexa. I’ve also seen SO MANY films, made on similar budgets and shot on an Alexa, that looked very cheap because they didn’t have the money for more important things. I remember a friend who worked on a horror film with a 500k budget. The director/producer wanted to shoot Alexa and, to accommodate that, scheduled the shoot for 8 pages a day. When the DP pointed out that this wouldn’t give him enough time to light, the director just told him, “but that’s why we paid for the Alexa; so it will look professional!” In contrast, I know another friend who directed a feature shot on a mirrorless camera for less than 100K and it looked BETTER on the big screen because they had more time to light and shoot. I myself produced another film in which the director also really wanted an Alexa even though it meant camera was almost 1/3rd of our whole budget. I told him (and the other producer) that we could potentially get 50% more shooting days if we went with a cheaper camera package (and by that I meant a RED Dragon-X or maybe an Ursa-Mini Pro). They felt the Alexa was worth the sacrifice. I transcoded the footage myself and worked with the colorist myself. I loved the look of the film but it wasn’t a large increase over what we would have gotten with the other two cameras (I’d used them on previous commercials I’d directed and seen the raw footage as well). More importantly, I believe that many scenes would have looked BETTER if we’d saved that money for more shooting days because it would have meant we could have shot certain outdoor scenes at a better time of day AND had more time to light on indoor scenes. I also KNOW that it would have meant we would have gotten more coverage AND better performances of our actors who needed a few more takes and a bit more time to get into the scene.
I've rented Manfrotto "fluid" heads (all models), most of Sachtler heads (from Ace to Video 20), some Vinten heads (Vision 5), Cartoni (Focus HD). And from my experience - Manfrotto is not suited for professional work like all others brands I've mentioned above. I own two Manfrotto heads (500 and 504x). And while I have no questions to 500 head: it works OK for 130$ price, my 504x is just disaster, its counter-balance system doesn't work as advertise and max payload of 12 kg is... well, VERY optimistic (in reality it can't work with 3 kg setup). Finally it has broken after 2 years of careful operation and I switched to Miller CX6 head. The difference is like day and night! Miller head (as Sachtler and other well-established brands) just works, buttery smooth diagonal panoramas, real 12 kg max payload, and real counter-balance system from 0 to 12 kg. Personally I like CX6 more than Sachtler FSB8 mk1, CX6 is more in Video18 league for smoothness. With good head you can't ruin you take because of jerky panorama with tele lens or unstable very slow pannnig (that was usual case with Manfrotto) and you can shoot faster and better. Good head "overlives" any camera you have, so from my opinion no point to spend your money on cheap one. Buy once, Cry once!
Besides the T8 fluid head (payload 2-10kg), we have a T6 fluid head with a payload capacity from 0 to 7 kg. It will better counterbalance very small sized cameras, like what you used in the video, as its counterbalance is specially finely-tuned for smaller camera setups. For the tripod legs, in addition to the StediFast HD, we offer its smaller counterpart, the StediFast, which features the same fast-locking mechanism but in a more compact size. The T6 Stedifast systems' price starts from $796, extremely competitive against Manfrotto with way better performance.
The fact that one of the tripods you are “evaluating” is also the sponsor of the video kind of makes the whole video suspect. It is a poorly disguised advertisement.
I prefer my Cartoni, and the OConnor when I need it, as stated in the video. I also own SCG and have used it for the last five years. Can't make it any more clear or honest than that.
Excellent Sareesh! The short film is nice 😊 I have been wanting to move from my Miller Air with 2-stage carbon fibre legs to something with fully adjustable counter balance. If suddenly clients ring out of the blue and say, “Hey, we love you so much that we want to double your rate!”…then I’d jump on a Miller CX or Cartoni Focus HD. In reality I think the SCG T8 looks really excellent for the price. I would be interested in your view of the “sleek” legs? They look similar to the Miller Rapid Lock…wondering if they are as good. Thanks again Sareesh.
Thank you! I've just had the StediFast HD for a couple of weeks, but as per my discussions with SCG, the legs are designed for many years of use, with premium alloys. It was buttery smooth in all my tests. My review of the product is due next Monday.
Hmm, I guess the market is different in India. Manfrotto makes a lot of fluid heads - also non-Nitrotech. But yes, you do pay a premium for their products.
Come on, Wolfcrow, don't blow smoke. This video is a sales promo for the SCG gear. I've been a sub for years and don't mind you making some $$$, but I don't like it disguised as a gear review. We can take the honest truth.
To be fair, he’s been using the product for nearly five years before taking the sponsorship, which shows his commitment to authenticity and discretion.
I used my Cartoni for my film, and use OConnor when I have to. I have also used the SCG for the last five years, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend them over other brands in that price bracket. Ultimately all I can do is share my experience. Looks like you couldn't take the honest truth! Just kidding.
Thank you, Sareesh, for accepting our sponsorship offer.😊We've long admired your work and are thrilled to devote our first sponsorship to your channel. Your videos and tutorials align perfectly with our mission to support the filmmaking and video creation community. We are both delighted and honored that you have continued to use our products for nearly five years and have now accepted our sponsorship.
Thank you, Sareesh, for accepting our sponsorship offer. 😊We've long admired your work and are thrilled to devote our first sponsorship to your channel. Your videos and tutorials align perfectly with our mission to support the filmmaking and video creation community. We are both delighted and honored that you have continued to use our products for nearly five years and have now accepted our sponsorship.
The reviewer of OUATIAmerica described Leone's work as silent films with signature narrative scores. Your break down of every visual element fits like a glove. Thanks!
I don't agree with the second theory, I don't think they simply don't know or don't want to deal with colours in detail. It's more unlikely to me, especially in today's world. However, the third theory is more likely to be reality and also what I think about this topic. As you mentioned most movies and tv series are prepared in rec2020 or dci-p3 color gamut. Not just because of the HDR but because it is prepared in a wider gamut. The internet copy of the movies (most likely illegal) are also in that color space and they are not converted. I remember years ago downloading some movies and loving the little washed out look + tint & magenta shifted colours (due to it's DCI-P3 movie playing back at srgb/rec709 monitor).
I just saw Yorgos Lanthimos's Kinds of Kindness - shot almost entirely at extreme low angles to create the exact opposite effect of "showing someone who is powerful". In fact, in many scenes, the person in power is seated, in stasis, or not framed low, and the moron or fool or cuckolded character is shot with the extreme low angle. It's such an extreme inversion it's seemingly used to make every single actor feel small and powerless and tiny and insignificant. Pretty clever though. Funny movie too, obviously, if you're into Yorgos. It's about the locus of control and power and stuff, and it's obviously that direct inversion isn't unintentional, but it's still effective and powerful enough to make one question whether that rule of "low angles make you look powerful" creates that effect truly in an audience inherently -- or whether it's only because people haven't been shown enough films that do the opposite true. It definitely was true in Citizen Kane that low angles made him seem huge. But yeah. Just goes to show you can break the "rules" pretty aggressively and do it with style.
The 1955 film, East of Eden (directed by Elia Kazan) is perhaps one of the most distinct examples of how a cinematographer (Ted McCord for this specific film) could use high & low angles. Good content.
Just by some of these clips i am interested in what films they come from. Do you happen to have a list of the movies you used to make this video? Thanks!
Another reason is depth. It's a lot easier tog get depth when shooting up because the ceiling or sky is higher. When looking down, the floor stops the scene much quicker.
Low angle shots just make people feel big and awesome. That's it. A great low angle shot will make the person in frame look 1000% cooler when compared to an equally great high angle shot. That's all there is to it.
Great video as always, man! As a storyboard artist, I had been told earlier on in my career to use low angle shots more often than high angle ones when dealing with a sentient subject in frame. The reason most people gave me was that it helps to frame characters better in low angles and avoid background clutter distracting from the subject's actions. I was unconvinced with this explanation and prodded a lot of people to come to a better conclusion for this 'convention'. Most of the things you have said in the video were exactly what other artists and directors had told me. But the one pointer coming from a creative director for animated shows, one of the few people I actually revere as a co-worker/mentor, explained to me how characters and situations rather than conventions should influence the use of camera angles. I will try to paraphrase the essence of what he told me: " The camera angle is the first and arguably the most important blocking tool for telling a story. It tells the audience how to feel about the subject in frame. It is also the simplest to achieve as well as get wrong, depending on whether or not you know what you want to say in a scene. If a subject should be relatable for the audience, maintain an eye level angle at most times. If a subject demands respect or authority, use low angles. If they are pitiable or sneaky, use top angles. Once you have those conventions down pat, ignore them in scenarios where the story becomes the subject and controls the narrative, rather than the character dominant in that scene. The camera is the the eye of the audience, but you are in control to of what and how you want them to see!"
Adding to the technical, often there is going to be stuff on the floor, cables, marks for the actors etc, or sometimes the floor just isn't cinematic, so another reason to angle the shot up so you don't see the floor!
I have read book on cinematography or directing where was said that low angle is more natural for the people in the cinema theater. Now when people watch youtube and films on the laptop or phone eye level or slightly above angle feels better because the viewer hold screen below his head level.
