DVC7-Fossenkemper, Martens "Two Guys in the Woods by a River"

Michael Fossenkemper · December 30th, 2006, 03:05 PM

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.

Brent Graham · December 30th, 2006, 05:29 PM

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.

Michael Fossenkemper · December 31st, 2006, 09:25 AM

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.

Dennis Khaye · January 1st, 2007, 01:40 AM

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.

Bruce Foreman · January 1st, 2007, 02:57 AM

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

Jamey Hastings · January 1st, 2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Graham

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!

Michael Fossenkemper · January 2nd, 2007, 11:23 AM

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.

Lorinda Norton · January 2nd, 2007, 12:21 PM

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?

Lorinda Norton · January 2nd, 2007, 12:25 PM

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.

Michael Fossenkemper · January 2nd, 2007, 12:30 PM

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).

Kris Holodak · January 2nd, 2007, 05:11 PM

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

Hugh DiMauro · January 2nd, 2007, 07:48 PM

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.

Lorinda Norton · January 3rd, 2007, 02:57 AM

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.

Lorinda Norton · January 3rd, 2007, 03:00 AM

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. :)

Michael Fossenkemper · January 3rd, 2007, 09:47 AM

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.

January 2nd, 2007, 12:21 PM	#23
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	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? __________________ Lorinda

January 2nd, 2007, 12:25 PM	#24
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	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. __________________ Lorinda

January 2nd, 2007, 07:48 PM	#27
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	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. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

January 3rd, 2007, 02:57 AM	#28
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	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. __________________ Lorinda

January 3rd, 2007, 03:00 AM	#29
Lorinda Norton Wrangler Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southwest Idaho, USA Posts: 3,066	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. :) __________________ Lorinda

December 30th, 2006, 03:05 PM	#16
Michael Fossenkemper Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NYC, weeee. Posts: 417	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.

December 30th, 2006, 05:29 PM	#17
Brent Graham Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 222	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.

December 31st, 2006, 09:25 AM	#18
Michael Fossenkemper Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NYC, weeee. Posts: 417	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.

January 1st, 2007, 01:40 AM	#19
Dennis Khaye Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 255	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.

January 1st, 2007, 02:57 AM	#20
Bruce Foreman Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Angelo Texas Posts: 1,518	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

January 2nd, 2007, 11:23 AM	#22
Michael Fossenkemper Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NYC, weeee. Posts: 417	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.

January 2nd, 2007, 12:30 PM	#25
Michael Fossenkemper Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NYC, weeee. Posts: 417	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).

January 2nd, 2007, 05:11 PM	#26
Kris Holodak Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 302	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

January 3rd, 2007, 09:47 AM	#30
Michael Fossenkemper Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NYC, weeee. Posts: 417	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.