What do you think about this project?

File: Sequence 01.Still002.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019852
And pics related are obviously stills from the first video I made

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:02:10 21:36:37

>>3019852
Do whatever you want.

>>3019852
just bee urself OP.

didnt read btw. we only care about photos. wall of text = gay.

File: Sequence 01.Still005.jpg (5MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019856
Yeah, I know it was kinda like a fucking blog post. I just wanted to include the full context of my idea, and get feedback on if people thought it might be an okay use of time, or if it's something people might even be interested in turning on?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:02:10 21:41:03

>>3019858
okay. i read your text.

i say go full retarded with it. like extreme closeups or full abstract. challenge aka. troll the viewer hard.

like video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMCeDBn1Zu0

>>3019858
>>3019861
also dont be a faggot and deliver. make yourself a youtube channel and upload shit in a fixed schedule. id watch the fuck out of it. lots would too.

File: Sequence 01.Still0041.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019861
LOL, might not be as abstract as warhol. But yeah, I'll consider doing close ups for sure. My first test at the beach was okay, but the waves crashing sort of sound like pure white noise, not my ideal concept, but I know some people like it

>>3019862
Yeah, I'll do like 2 per week starting off. My idea for it is just to have going in the background, just nice looking scenes, pure landscapes good sound if they want something to fill the emptyness, and like 15-30 minutes long each, long takes like 1-3 minutes long. The 4k is a bitch to work with. Took like 20 hours to export the full video, it's currently uploading to youtube, I want to test it out on my 4k tv on youtube first just to see if I need to make adjustments to my workflow, then I'll make the channel

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:10 22:02:09
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160

>>3019871
make them minimum 1 hour each. why not do loops? make it "natural" but artificial too. looped video and looped audio. i mean, if its too straightforward they would look like these testers for HD screens they have at the retail shops.

So you want to make bumps for adult swim?

File: Sequence 01.Still0031.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019875
I absolutely would consider doing that. I'm going to do one more test using Davinci to grade the footage and export instead of premier to see how long it would take. The video I just made took roughly 20 hours to export a 20 minute video. So an hour long video, I'm obviously looking at roughly a 60 hour long export, which is pretty absurd, but I'd do it. Just want to check to see if there's a more efficient program to color and export. I heard fcpx is pretty fast for some reason.

>>3019877
What's bumps?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:10 22:01:16
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160

>>3019879

Bumps are little interstitial videos they play during commercial breaks so you know what channel you're watching.

They've been doing pretty much exactly what you're describing as the house style for their bumps for a few years now.

https://youtu.be/9k4f4OeFZDs

File: Sequence 01.Still0061.jpg (5MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019880

Nice, yeah that's basically what I want to do. But with no music, or if I did have music, just really slow ambient type music that would fit the scene. Something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTW2MxfqVLI

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:10 22:25:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160

>>3019883

Cool man. Roll with it. Just know that the comparison to what adult swim does will be made at some point.

>>3019883
>slow ambient type music
dropped.

dont be vulgar.

File: Sequence 01.Still0071.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3019884
Oh yeah, I'm sure of it. Never saw the adult swim stuff, I haven't had cable in nearly a decade, so I'm a little bit unaware of some of those things. I have no problem with that though

>>3019885
LOL, it was just an idea I've been toying with. I was considering it only on the videos where an area I go to is VERY silent and has little ambient sound. Do you think that would be poor taste?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:10 22:40:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160

File: Koyaanisqatsi.jpg (134KB, 709x1000px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 709x1000px

>>3019852
Its been done many times and i enjoy doing it as well. have fun.

>>3019887
>Do you think that would be poor taste?
have you seen the pasta of british animal documentaries vs american animal documentaries?

>>3019852
what's up la jolla

i think you have a decent idea, and you only want to make sure you take these videos in places that make them actually interesting. your composition in these is pretty boring, the only one i really like is >>3019871 because the channel of water leads the viewer's eye to the wave. the others aren't that interesting, and having video rather than a still won't change that much.

File: Sequence 01.Still0081.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3020070
No, I havent seen that. But yeah, I'll try to keep it no music.

>>3020074
Yeah, I get you. Obviously I want to have good compositions. I go to La Jolla frequently for photos and this time I went was a bit odd. The tide was so low that a lot of the popular tide pool features weren't anywhere near the water. And I really think the fog didn't help too much. But yeah, I'm going to make an effort to keep my compositions the best I can

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:11 08:51:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160

File: kpop_ew.webm (954KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1000x562px

>>3020077
resize your photos please

File: Sequence 01.Still009.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>3020092
Under normal circumstances I would, but I just wanted to post the full resolution stills from the video, I apologize if you can't see them

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:02:11 09:43:01

>>3019862
>>3019875
>>3020074

I uploaded a test video the other day. I'll end up adding more footage to it and looping it to 1 hour.

I'd like some feedback if possible just about the video in general. Obviously, you don't have to watch the whole thing, just want some general feedback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQYuwOdilIA

>>3023473
Looks good OP. I'd suggest going back when theres better light though, flat light with no clouds doesn't really do it for me

>>3023473
well finally
I don't know where this is but it's amazingly pretty and chill

that being said, maybe I'm the wrong audience, but I kinda skipped through most sequences

some were a bit too dark, but I see you had some tough conditions to work with
but I mean even after watching like half of it I felt my hair getting damp and the air being a bit salty, so I think you achieved your purpose OP

not to be a gearfag, but could you tell what you're using?

the last three seemed somewhat similar, maybe because of the angle; especially the two with the somewhat overhanging cliffs

overall I appreciate this because it's clear there was thought and effort put into it, so props to you anon, keep going

>>3023816
I'm retarded, it said in the title sequences where it is derp

>>3019852
If you're taking pictures for the sake of taking picttures, you'll just end up going through the motions.

Think about what means a lot to you, what you're interested in, and what you have to say. Before you line up a shot, ask yourself, why should the viewer care about the picture? Why am I trying to capture and share this slice of time?

>Is this /p/ approved shooting?
no such thing, just have fun

>>3019852
im not triggered by this idea

sidenote dont use log on a foggy cloudy day, makes no sense. shoot pp6 or 709

>>3023816
>maybe I'm the wrong audience, but I kinda skipped through most sequences

It's all good. I expect people to watch this as more background noise and nice scenery rather than intently watching it.

>not to be a gearfag, but could you tell what you're using?

I was using a sony a6300, with just the 16-50 kit lens and a Rode Videomic Pro for audio

>last three seemed somewhat similar, maybe because of the angle

Yeah, im going to shift the clips around a little bit, this was more just a proof of concept for me to get the workflow correct and check the upload on some 4k displays

>sidenote dont use log on a foggy cloudy day, makes no sense. shoot pp6 or 709

I didn't shoot log. I was shooting a modified version of pp5. I think I changed it to a cine profile, its like a step below s-log2. I don't like shooting log most the time, I don't really like taking my ND filters out to deal with the elevated iso. The base iso for my pp is 200. I'd say in most situations, log on a cloudy day is unnecessary, but even with the clouds, the range of my pp5 was barely getting in the shadows and highlights.