Short made with XL1

Bradley Miller · February 21st, 2002, 02:51 PM

Hey Joe, isn't this the first person who noticed we had no light to work with?

I agree 100% with you Chris, but unfortunately we were restricted to whatever light we could bounce onto the subject due to various conditions. Oh well.

Joe Redifer · February 21st, 2002, 03:20 PM

Yeah. Gotta get me some lights, man! Chris, did you download one of the MPEG versions? The Quicktimes were artificially brightened a bit so you could see things better, but the MPEGs were not. The DV version was not brightened, either.

Justin Walter · February 22nd, 2002, 02:47 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Miller : he posted this short in the hopes of getting others to post some of their work. (This is something I am going to start offering on www.film-tech.com in the near future..."user video submissions".) I can tell you that the BEST thing any of us can do to better ourselves as "film" makers is to watch other people's productions and learn from them. -->>>

Interesting..., although I don't agree with the premise, but I'll get to that later.

Sounds like your looking to start an on-line community of video makers that influence each other through their work. Its a nice thought, I know I've dreamed of something similar (not an on-line community, but a small group of people who work together on projects and influence each other...) I've had to conclude through my own efforts that what I wanted wasn't really possible. However, I believe the on-line community you propose is quite possible. It would only take a few people who were dedicated to it to make it work, and you have a much larger pool of candidates on the internet. Let us know when your ready and lets see if there is anybody out there.

Back to your original premise that, "the BEST thing any of us can do to better ourselves as "film" makers is to watch other people's productions and learn from them." I firmly disagree with this point (yes, it does have value not to mention other benefits, don't misunderstand). Other activities will increase the value and quality of our films far more. Such as looking to the other arts for inspiration and exploring uncharted (in the film sense) areas of human endeavor.

John Locke · February 22nd, 2002, 09:46 AM

Joe and Brad,

So which one of you guys had the task of rewinding that tangled mess of film? Bet that cost one of you a few beers to convince the other one to do it.

Joe Redifer · February 22nd, 2002, 04:53 PM

No one repaired that mess of film. It went straight to the garbage dumpster. Thank goodness for old reject reels that are never picked up by the depot!

mdreyes23 · February 25th, 2002, 09:32 PM

Joe, I'm doing this from memory...I'm downloading a copy of the clip again but it's taking awhile...anyway, wanted to ask you a question on the finger pointing thing (when you point directly into the camera). Is that a fisheye lens...what types of lens' did you use during the filming?

Bradley Miller · February 25th, 2002, 09:55 PM

That was nothing more than the XL1 with it's optional wide angle lens set at maximum. The camera was moved closer to Joe to obtain the exaggerated effect and framing.

mdreyes23 · February 25th, 2002, 10:00 PM

Cool. Good thing to know. I haven't had much experience with that. So pretty much that's what would happen with a Wide Angle Adapter as well. Just have the camera close up.

February 22nd, 2002, 09:46 AM	#19
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	Joe and Brad, So which one of you guys had the task of rewinding that tangled mess of film? Bet that cost one of you a few beers to convince the other one to do it. __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

February 21st, 2002, 02:51 PM	#16
Bradley Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Rockwall, TX, USA Posts: 77	Hey Joe, isn't this the first person who noticed we had no light to work with? I agree 100% with you Chris, but unfortunately we were restricted to whatever light we could bounce onto the subject due to various conditions. Oh well.

February 21st, 2002, 03:20 PM	#17
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	Yeah. Gotta get me some lights, man! Chris, did you download one of the MPEG versions? The Quicktimes were artificially brightened a bit so you could see things better, but the MPEGs were not. The DV version was not brightened, either.

February 22nd, 2002, 02:47 AM	#18
Justin Walter Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Justin Walter - Salt Lake City Posts: 51	<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Miller : he posted this short in the hopes of getting others to post some of their work. (This is something I am going to start offering on www.film-tech.com in the near future..."user video submissions".) I can tell you that the BEST thing any of us can do to better ourselves as "film" makers is to watch other people's productions and learn from them. -->>> Interesting..., although I don't agree with the premise, but I'll get to that later. Sounds like your looking to start an on-line community of video makers that influence each other through their work. Its a nice thought, I know I've dreamed of something similar (not an on-line community, but a small group of people who work together on projects and influence each other...) I've had to conclude through my own efforts that what I wanted wasn't really possible. However, I believe the on-line community you propose is quite possible. It would only take a few people who were dedicated to it to make it work, and you have a much larger pool of candidates on the internet. Let us know when your ready and lets see if there is anybody out there. Back to your original premise that, "the BEST thing any of us can do to better ourselves as "film" makers is to watch other people's productions and learn from them." I firmly disagree with this point (yes, it does have value not to mention other benefits, don't misunderstand). Other activities will increase the value and quality of our films far more. Such as looking to the other arts for inspiration and exploring uncharted (in the film sense) areas of human endeavor.

February 22nd, 2002, 04:53 PM	#20
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	No one repaired that mess of film. It went straight to the garbage dumpster. Thank goodness for old reject reels that are never picked up by the depot!

February 25th, 2002, 09:32 PM	#21
mdreyes23 Registration Incomplete -- contact Admin. Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Virginia Posts: 108	Joe, I'm doing this from memory...I'm downloading a copy of the clip again but it's taking awhile...anyway, wanted to ask you a question on the finger pointing thing (when you point directly into the camera). Is that a fisheye lens...what types of lens' did you use during the filming?

February 25th, 2002, 09:55 PM	#22
Bradley Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Rockwall, TX, USA Posts: 77	That was nothing more than the XL1 with it's optional wide angle lens set at maximum. The camera was moved closer to Joe to obtain the exaggerated effect and framing.

February 25th, 2002, 10:00 PM	#23
mdreyes23 Registration Incomplete -- contact Admin. Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Virginia Posts: 108	Cool. Good thing to know. I haven't had much experience with that. So pretty much that's what would happen with a Wide Angle Adapter as well. Just have the camera close up.