I'm twitchy with excitement to view all of the shorts. Well Here's ours (well not yet...). Love it? Hate it? Don't care either way? Let us know. Questions? Comments? We'll try and answer them.

Very funny short! I felt that it was missing a little something near the end but it was shot extremely well, and it was a lot of fun.

I can't really explain it, it just felt like it climaxed too early.

I really enjoyed it though...


Mike

Looks awesome! The concept was funny and the music fit perfectly. A few questions:

1. what did you shoot on?
2. how did you do the tracking shots in the woods?
3. what compression method did you use?

Thanks for the comments. We shot a bit much and in the end had to edit it down quite a bit. So some of the buildup had to go.

It was shot on a pany DVC30 with a 35mm adapter.

The woods shot was something I put together using a modified varizoom flowpod that I bolted to a piece of wood and then put pulley wheels on it, strung a steel cable between trees mounted the camera to it and let gravity do the rest. It had it's complications like, didn't roll and having to do about 12 takes until we got some without any wobble. This shot took the most time to pull off and only lasts about 4 seconds, hahahaha.

This was all shot in one day. we used the car scenes to get to each location. there was supposed to be more river shots but it got dark and thus the night shot on the porch. But if you look close and quick, you can see a glimpse of the river.

Robert and I have some making of stuff that we'll post after the voting that shows the cable cam in action.

(edit) compression used was sorenson 3, set to auto and med high.

We shot a bit much and in the end had to edit it down quite a bit.

Good God, understatement of the year! Hell, that's enough for '07, too. You guys have no idea how much we shot that didn't make the cut. It was a hell of a day, and I was sore for a week (no exaggeration--I'm not in such great shape, shocking as that may be to you) after those twelve takes. We kept talking about how it'd end up being "less than thirty seconds" of footage in the final film. It's less than five. Talk about return on our investment.

As Mike said, we're assembling the behind the scenes stuff, hopefully it'll turn out to be something you guys like.

Just wanted you to know I loved this short! Absolutely hilarious, well executed, terrific acting and great camera work.

Speaking of acting, I remember Paul in your DVC 5 entry. He was excellent in this film too.

And how about that "Bobby" character played by our very own Robert Martens?!! (Robert, I started the previous sentence with "and" just to see if I could get a rise out of you...eh...eh...eh.) Seriously though, Robert, you did an absolutely brilliant acting job in this fim. Well done.

"It's a little used. A little bent, like you were." Full circle with the ending too. Yeah!

Sniff...sniff. "Oh my god! You couldn't get new ones?" LOL! Cracks a weirdo like me up every time!

Bravo!

Bradley

Oh, come on, I'm not THAT anal about grammar; people who insist on using "dived" and "sneaked" drive me absolutely insane. Starting sentences with "and" or "but", or ending them with prepositions are not things that bother me, so long as the result sounds right. So you may relax, the honorable Robert C. Martens approves of your wordsmithery.

Thank you for your kind words, but I've got plenty of problems with myself. My "I'll make you proud" dialogue is short and clipped; I don't know, it sounded all right when I was speaking it, but now it's like I was rushing. My face was all weird looking (more than normal, I mean) with the pantyhose on, and even I can't read my expression when we're preparing for the "job". I also tend not to speak loudly enough, and I can't turn what seems like a subtle, nuanced performance inside my warped--or just dumb--mind into anything more than "not bad for a beginner" to the camera. And I'm so nasally, too, that's what bugs me most. I have to see an ear nose and throat guy, I think there's something wrong with my sinuses. Sinii?

In any event, enough about me. My dad could use some acting lessons (I'm not one to talk, I understand), but he wasn't doing anything that weekend, and it made for an interesting "memories" thing, since I look like him, and all. We could not, unfortunately, use the better of two takes of his performance, where the line was smoother, "It's a little used, and a little bent, but so were you", but I'll let Mike decide if he wants to tell that story. :)

Hey Guys:

Great images, interesting plot and complex shooting. I liked it a lot. I think, you should have had some of the beginning shot at the end, though, for better continuity. I had to actually rewatch the first part to understand that they didn't get away with much money..... If you had him walking into the woods with the fishing, maybe mumbling about hey I brought you something, then flash back to the crime, then flash forward again with the lines about the garage sale, I think it might have flowed better. Just my two cents.

Ohhh, Robert... So self conscious. I thought Robert Was GREAT in this. Sure you speak a little quite, compared to Paul who's yelling the whole time. We'll let the others decide if you delivered or not. But your dad on the other hand, he could use some acting lessons. hahahaha.

The Best take of him. Apparently I hit the record button twice, in otherwords not rolling, and then when I hit stop (record) all I had got was us laughing. Oh well.... it was a long day, forgive me.

Chris, yeah we had a completely different beginning in mind. We actually shot it but I had to scrap it due to time. So I came up with this beginning which is actually ahead, then a flashback. Kind of a short and sweet circle.

This is a GREAT movie! Last challenge, Michael, you lamented that you needed to learn how to tell a story…well, not that I thought there was anything wrong with your storytelling, but I’d say you figured it out and then some!

Sounds like a silly thing to say to an audio engineer, but your voice acquisition is perfect. Then again, so are your camera moves, your editing, shot selections…the list goes on and on. That dolly/crane stuff while the guys are running up the hill is phenomenal. And, as always, you get the most beautiful images with that 35mm adapter of yours—without the tell-tail signs.

About the characters, I laughed out loud when Robert’s character is being the lookout and settles into his spot against the wall. Then, of course, there’s the whole pantyhose over the heads scene—absolutely hilarious! The two main guys did a great job of bringing us into the action with them. The leaves absent-mindedly kicked over the body was an awfully funny touch, as well.

Thanks so much for the big-screen-worthy entertainment! Put back in the stuff you had to slash and enter this one in some festivals, will ya?

I loved your use of natural sunlight which brought out the color of your locations, skin tones, etc. Acting was great and cimenatography superb. You work very efficiently to have shot that all in one day. You've raised the bar for all of us.

My face was all weird looking (more than normal, I mean) with the pantyhose on, and even I can't read my expression when we're preparing for the "job". I also tend not to speak loudly enough, and I can't turn what seems like a subtle, nuanced performance inside my warped--or just dumb--mind into anything more than "not bad for a beginner" to the camera. And I'm so nasally, too, that's what bugs me most. I have to see an ear nose and throat guy, I think there's something wrong with my sinuses. Sinii?
Hmm...I saw things as you intended. Part of the appeal, for me, was your very subtle, nuanced performance. The look on your face through the holes in the nylons had me in stitches--particularly that "I don't know how to respond to your ranting" look at one point. I thought it couldn't have been done better by anyone--Hollywood or otherwise. Even your hand movements when the door was locked (edits there were great, too!) cracked me up. But, as I said before, that little shifting of your weight from side to side next to that building just tickled my mind to no end. I've got to ask, what inspired that?

I really like your forest camera work. That must be one heck of a rig for the cable shot! Pretty nice though. It was 4 seconds that definitely impressed me. Very nice work and funny story.

Side note: My grandma has a TON of used pantyhose if you'd like them...

HA!

As Mike said, we're assembling the behind the scenes stuff, hopefully it'll turn out to be something you guys like.

I can't wait to see it. Sounds like a really unique rig.

A pretty funny thing to me is the scene of where the jeep comes screaching up to the camera. Knowing Paul and how bad a driver he is, I feared for my life and actually, well really, jumped away as he came to a stop. Then when I was sure that i wasn't going to die, I ran back to the camera and you can see it shake a little as i grabbed it. After that was shot, he drove the jeep back to the cabin we were staying at and ran it into a tree. hahahaha.

Okay, I've watched all the films over again. And I have to say, yours is super funny.


You got great actors and the edits and music just add to their performances.

****Do Not Read Before Seeing 'Two Guys'****
So:
The part where he flips his pantyhose= awesome
The cut holes in the pantyhose= awesome
The used pantyhose joke= double awesome
The cartoon-like running past the camera in the alarm scene= awesome
The inadvertent (or maybe planned) premature burial of his friend with the leaves= awesome
The running the wrong way end segment= awesome
I am jealous of your forest fly-over scene, it's beautiful. I'd love to see a picture of how you rigged it.

You guys did an...awesome job. I am taking notes:) Thanks for the lessons and the entertainment.

Brent, thanks for all of the awesomes. hahahaha

Most of the visual things were planned. most of the dialog in this version is ad-lib. There was a lot more ad-lib in my first cut though. basically we'd do a take and an ad-lib would get thrown in that worked. then we put that in the dialog and so on. Most of the dialog started as an idea with a direction it had to go. They would come up with lines that they felt like would be natural to them. then we would pick and choose what worked.

The leaves kicking on Paul was kind of fun. we had to do about 4 takes of that but the first one, the one used, is the best. others had twigs and branches hitting him in the head. Thanks for the comments.

Now that sounds like a really fun way to shoot a super short. I'm taking notes for next time on this. Fun entry, nice job you guys.

The acting was excellent, the camera work awesome and the audio very good. On top of all that the story was paced well with super smooth flow.

Robert and Paul carried off all the visuals and I really enjoyed this one.

Bruce

The part where he flips his pantyhose= awesome
The cut holes in the pantyhose= awesome
The used pantyhose joke= double awesome


I concur! That whole scene was hilarious! hehe I also liked how you took a sip of a soda through the "mouthhole" in the panty hose!

Fun short guys and very well shot! I also liked the scene where he kicked up leaves onto his friends body as he ran off! Was that planned or just a happy accident? Either way it fit the mood of the film perfectly!

I just wanted to find out from everyone what you thought of the image quality of the short. I changed quite a few things this go round and wanted to see how you thought it translated. Basically I cranked the detail in various ways. I upped the detail in the camera, I also took off the skin setting thingy, and I hit some of the highlights pretty hard. I have to say on the big screen it's not as pleasing or warm looking, but it has it's thing. I also lit every scene except the in the car stuff and played with colour correction some because for some reason my white balance wasn't really doing it for me.

Man, I want a skin setting thingy--my camera doesn't have that!

Too bad about the warmth being lost on a big screen; your first scene with its gorgeous lighting is what sets the tone for the rest of the film, for me. (That and Mr. Marten's unusual yet endearing delivery. :)

Because I'm not one to tweak camera settings I have no answers for you, only questions. Would you "crank your settings" again, or does it make you want to shoot "clean" and do all the tweaking later?

I ask that question because for me it raises a point about transferring to film, showing it on a big screen, etc. It seems your options are taken away once you commit to in-camera settings.

Well.... I guess that's what i'm trying to decide I think. By doing what I did, I definately locked myself into that look. But shooting flat allows more tweekability but doesn't look the same. I don't think it looks "bad" on the big screen, it just doesn't look as tastey. But as a small web video, I think it has a lot of detaily cut that my others didn't have (which I always thought looked a tad soft as web videos).

Loved that first run, and then they just kept getting better. Great shot in the woods. I'd ask how it was done, but I haven't been letting myself read anyone's threads before I make my own comments, so I'm sure it's up there somewhere. The night lighting was good, but at one point you catch the light reflected in the guy's glasses. I contemplated suggesting that it would have been better if he'd removed his glasses for the shoot as a way to avoid that, but I think the glasses are part of the character.

Smile,
Kris

Mike and Lorinda:

For what it's worth, I recall reading that one should computer tweak as little as possible since that lowers resolution and increases rendering times.

Yeah, I was trying to take that into account--but there's going to be a compromise somewhere if a person is trying for both Web and big screen, maybe?

I don't care about render times, but that res loss can get ugly.

Hey Michael, my 22 year-old son just watched your movie. Just like me, he says that this is quite possibly the best short film he’s ever seen—from both a technical and creative standpoint. He also agreed that you, Robert, have a gift for straight-man comedy and should be acting.

He was impressed with the overhead shot, of course, but commented on the richness of the images. And this is from a young man who’s not that easy to impress.

Just wanted you to know you’ve got a new fan. :)

Why thank thank GREAT man/son of yours. hahahahaha.

When this one was announced, I shot some test footage and tweeked the look specifically for a small window. So I shot, compressed, tweeked, shot, compressed, until I got what I think looked like how I wanted it to look. (it's kind of hard to tell because I do everything on a 12" laptop). Anyway, after it was all done, I made a DVD of it because Paul doesn't have internet. That's when I noticed that it didn't "translate" so well. Then I went through the whole process of trying to tweek the final short for the DVD and found that I couldn't really undo what I did in camera. This is only my 3rd short so maybe I'm just now getting that ahhh haaa, moment and realising that maybe each format doesn't compliment the other in terms of how you process it. Or maybe I just don't know what to do to make them both work.

Well, gosh, Lorinda, I don't know what to say. "Thank you", of course, I just feel like that's not enough. Very kind words from you and your son, pass my thanks along to him. Maybe this'll serve as the reason I need to go ahead with those acting classes I'd wanted to take. I did a little "commercial intensive" back in October, got headshots and everything for it, haven't auditioned for anything yet.

As for the rest of this discussion, 720x480 is 720x480 is 720x480. No two ways about it, you're not going to lower the spatial resolution of your video with some simple color grading. Chroma resolution might become a problem, as DV only gives you 8 bits per component and a 4:1:1 color space to work with in the first place, but if you do all your processing in 16 bit or higher, you shouldn't have problems. The big issue comes in the compression scheme of this format, which doesn't provide much wiggle room as far as color is concerned before you start seeing exaggerated artifacts in your footage. Easy to go too far in one direction or another, and only the slightest corrections really look acceptable. At least, that is, from folks like you and me; I'm sure an experienced color timer could push this stuff farther than we could.

Regarding your question, Mike, I doubt the size of your window is the problem in this case. Without a calibrated monitor on set, you won't know what you're getting on tape, and editing on a laptop with an LCD screen, you can't tell what the video actually looks like. You're correcting the movie to look good on your laptop's LCD, then transferring it to a CRT for viewing, well, it's bound to look significantly different.

That is assuming, of course, that you're viewing the DVD on a CRT television; if it's a flat panel (LCD, Plasma, whatever), then I'd just suggest that they're calibrated differently. I'm no expert in that world, you might want to browse the SDTV / HDTV Video Monitors (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=112) forum.

In any event, when it comes to standard definition, NTSC video, you'd need at least a properly adjusted CRT monitor attached to your NLE to know what you're getting. Preferably one on set, as well, but if you have one to look at while you're editing, I imagine that over time you'd get used to the relationship between your camera's display and the final product, and you'd develop the ability to compensate. Without that (I know they're not cheap, I don't have one yet either, I'm just sayin'), there's no telling what the video really looks like, and you have no yard stick with which to measure your adjustments. What makes a clip look great on your laptop may make it look bad on a CRT, Plasma, or even another LCD display. And what makes it look great on one piece of (comparatively) cheap, low-end consumer equipment may make it look horrible on another.

All of this, in my opinion, is all the more reason to shoot the way you want in camera. Do it once and be done with it. Use a good field monitor when shooting and if nothing else you'll always know that what you've captured is decent. There are other reasons, of course. First off, there's the simple "theory vs. practice" aspect of it: I'm as much a computer nerd as the next guy, and I love my copy of combustion, but DV is fairly unforgiving to the novice color corrector, and it's just not as fun as I always thought it would be. Further, I've found that I usually know more or less what I want from the get-go. I say "I want to shoot it this way, but I'll shoot it flat to give myself options later". When I get to cutting the footage, I always find myself sticking with what I wanted all along. Your mileage may vary, but I say it's good to trust one's instincts.

Besides, if we want to be good directors, it behooves us to hone our decision making skills, right? :) It's good for us to stop waffling, choose a path, and stick with it. I think locking yourself into a look at the shoot encourages careful planning and decisiveness, the latter being something I've had problems with in the past. If you know that "more options in post" is your thing, then hey, go for it. Just don't count the other style of working out too quickly. You might like it.

Yeah, I definately need to get a CRT. I only have LCD in my apt, so that's my only reference. Everything is pretty closely calibrated. I think my eye is just seeing my enhancing blown up really big. The colours all look the same, it's just the little detail stuff that i exagerated in shooting and then seeing that blown up on a big LCD tv kind of screams at you. Also the brightness changes depending on the size I make it so that's frustrating too. The smaller I make it, the darker it gets. So I shot compensating for that on the camera and when I watch it full resolution on anything, it looks a little bright to me. Just kind of talking out loud. Actually I think I'm trying to talk myself out of or into a new camera. MUST RESIST.

I mirror everyone else comments. Darn good. I am thinking if you guys could do a really nice presentation version there is no reason you shouldn't enter this in a few short festivals. It is good on a lot of counts.

Have you told us how you did the overhead shot yet? I may have missed it.

Thanks for that 3+ minutes of fun.

A friend of mine here at the studios (My day job is with a very large post house) did a feature some time back called "Bottom Feeders" which was changed in some distribution chain to "Criminal Minds" or something like it. His film has similar criminal bungles and I always liked that. If you get a chance to pick up a copy of his you should see some similarities. I bought my copy from Amazon.

Good job on the collaborative effort. If this is what happens when two of us get together, imagine what we could do if we all worked on one piece together. It boggles the mind.

Sean