JVC - Green Screen

[David Chapman]

I think I have to agree with Eric... and actually I feel like I should have imported all my footage that way. We shot a movie trailer to send out with the script to get the whole idea of the feature across to investors. The thing is, it's 80% special effects. We shot it on the HD-100 as a last minute deal because I found out they were going to use the sony f900 and record to tape (at 3:1:1). I figured the 4:2:0 on the JVC would be far better to deal with.

It wasn't until after we shot and captured all 15 hours of footage that I realized Shake didn't like HDV at all. I had to export the final takes from FCP to DVCPro HD before I could work on them. I would have re-imported them that way but we didn't have the Kona and we were pushed for time.

Now we are ordering the Kona LH so we can take it to controlled shoots do capture live through the tower (yes we will be lugging it around) for green screen shots. And I don't think HDV is easier to key than DV. Isn't DV 4:1:1?

[PJ Gallagher]

Speaking of greenscreen with the JVC, here's a short I shot a few weeks back for a competition that required the film to be made in one week, including a list of ten items that was only released on the first day of the comp. My entry is about 90% greenscreen.

It's a rush job, some of the keys worked better than others, and the conditions weren't ideal, but I'm pretty happy with the result and it created a bit of buzz in the festival, and has since screened twice on different local TV stations.

Enjoy :-)

http://www.caliburnproductions.com/SecSoc.html

Cheers
Pat

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by PJ Gallagher

It's a rush job, some of the keys worked better than others, and the conditions weren't ideal, but I'm pretty happy with the result and it created a bit of buzz in the festival, and has since screened twice on different local TV stations.

Very nice!

I have a question about the actors... where are they from (training wise) and are they amateurs, professionals, other?

For my future use, I am trying to to see what things in the production make the difference between a believable scene and a scene that is not believable, then, too, what the difference is between a good performance and a very good performance.

I have noticed in movies that sometimes the first scenes are not believable, or the acting seems bad, but that changes after about 5 minutes when I get used to the character. One such film for me was Sideways.

There are some elements that immediately kill the illusion. One for me is obvious lighting... no matter the level of production. Another is characters that do not look the age of the character they are playing (playing outside their age range, even though the character could be the age they appear to be).

In feature films a little desbelief in the beginning that wears off is okay... such as getting used to Dicaprio's accent in Blood Diamond. However, in short films the believablility has to be instant, or you've lost the viewer for the whole film.

None of this discussion is meant to comment directly on your short. The opening to yours was very believable for me and held my interest.

[PJ Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Very nice!

I have a question about the actors... where are they from (training wise) and are they amateurs, professionals, other?

Leah (the lead), and Dallas (the guy with the gun) have both trained with a school called the Actor's Centre in Sydney (I'm in Australia, in case you hadn't guessed by the accents in the film ;-) )

They're just starting out, so are willing to do a lot of free work with people they know in order to build their show reels, but they do get the occassional paid gig, so I guess you'd class them as semi-pro.

The others are local amateur theatre actors. I do a lot of local theatre, so the rule about not using your friends as cast in your film falls by the wayside a bit, as most of my friends are actually actors :-)

Cheers
Pat