Show Your Work 2004

Donald Gregory · September 7th, 2004, 09:38 AM

"Stuff looks pretty funny. Kind of like a Jack Black comedy."

Yeah, I had Jack Black in mind for the buddy character, but he like, wanted money and stuff to play it. So I got Jason Muzie instead :)

Derrick Begin · September 10th, 2004, 09:33 AM

Rock In Roll!

TONIGHT!

Bankim Jain · September 12th, 2004, 05:49 AM

Seriously how many succesful films were shot on Dv like video format to be later transferred onto 35mm for thetrical releases

Michael DeMattia · September 12th, 2004, 08:24 AM

I just wanted to thank everyone who has taken there time to view my website (mdfilms.net), I really took everyones comments to heart. I will be working on many things in the upcoming months. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Michael
MDFilms

Richard Alvarez · September 12th, 2004, 08:29 AM

First, define "Succesfull". Do you mean succsessfully shot, transfered, sold and MADE money, or do films that lost money count too? ("Tadpole" for instance, lost money but was considered a success)

Bankim Jain · September 12th, 2004, 09:51 AM

Hey actually that was a typo ... i meant successfully shot transferred made some money or atleast recovered wht they had put in.

I am planning a project which would be shot using Panasonic DV200 & JVC GYDV5000E all PAL later to be trnsferred onto Film for commercial release.

I had contacted one such Film transfer company in Taiwan but their reply was Both his reply to my mil is as belows

========================

Dear Bankim:

Thanks for your inquiry on our Video to Film transfer service.
If you shoot in DV format, no matter how good is the resolution in TVL, the video signal you output from camera for transferring to film is fixed at 720x576 in 4:3 and if you are going to crop it into 16:9 (which is reasonable for a closer aspect ratio to 1.85 35mm format), the resolution you use in the video framing is only 720x405 which is really not enough for theatrical release. In our experience, even you implement software interpolation, the picture will still looks soft and blur.

If you are really restricted by budget, try to use HD camera. Sony HDCAM is a good choice, which is of highest resolution (1920x1080) and lower cost than 35mm. The next choice is Panasonic DVCPRO-HD which is even better in cost but resolution is lower(1280x720) but has three times of pixels than PAL DV. The cheapest HD camera in the market is JVC GR-HD1U which is also 1280x720 in resolution but much cheaper than DVCPRO-HD and definitely cheaper than GYDV5000E and AGDV-200.

Regards

Video Center Manager

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:37 PM
Subject: DV to 35mm transfer.

Dear Sir,

We are a Production house based in India. We are producing a Film using JVC GYDV5000E & Panasonic AGDV-200 both PAL format with camera resolution of about 800+TVL. We are shoting it in 4:3 format but keeping in idea of 16:9 cropping when we do edit or the film transfer. We anticipate its transfer onto 35mm at 24fps. We wish to know how very cost effective could it be if we were to choose you along with your quality expertise, are there any special efforts we need to put to have a good quality of blowup onto film from DV PAL to film 24fps 35mm. So far in India there have been no attempt to do such an production on DV and later to be blownup onto 35mm for theatrical releases so we are a bit skeptical about the quality of output on the silver screen. We would like to know your view on this subject before we approach your company to undertake our assignment.

We look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Bankim Jain
Director - Coverage TV

==============================

But i still felt there might be such facilities around te globe helping guys like us to accomplish our dreams on the SILVER SCREEN...after it the idea that gets shot & directed well to get foot falls into the theatre rather than the medium which it is shot on.

...the wait is on for views !!!

Bill Pryor · September 12th, 2004, 10:02 AM

Many very good movies have been shot with relatively cheap DV cameras and transferred to 35mm for theaterical release. In my opinion, one of the best looking ones was "The King Is Alive," which was a Dogme95 release. It was shot with PD150s.

It is true that the Sony 1080i HD format will give you the best looking picture from just about any camcorder, but it is expensive to buy or rent. I have heard of the Panasonic Varicam being used quite a bit because it is significantly cheaper than Sony, and rental houses seem to be giving good deals on long term rentals.

What makes a film successful, however, has little to do with what it was shot on. It has more to do with the story, acting, and production values. I consider "The King Is Alive" a great story with tremendous acting, and it was shot by world class cinematographers who knew how to use the type of gear they had for a look that worked wonderfully for them.

However, before you shoot anything with any camera, be sure to do a test with whatever lab you plan to use for the transfer. Most of the ones here will do a low cost transfer for you, and if you do the final project with them, they usually apply what you spent on the test to your bill. You might be better off looking at labs that have more experience in dealing with DV formats.

Cesar Turturro · September 12th, 2004, 01:45 PM

We made, in Argentina, a low cost film with an XL1, without filters, just sun light. Check my link www.creavision.com.ar/malvinas.html

We shot in 16:9 and frame mode. Just some low motions shots we do it in normal mode.
Thanks

Cesar Turturro

James Hamer-Morton · September 12th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Okay, I'm a little wary of this, but I figured since I have the first 1:30 filmed and edited and the rest of the short untouched as of yet, I might as well upload and throw it out to you guys to see what you all think... Intro titles and any music aren't in there yet, but any comments that might improve the filming process would be very useful :)

I'm shooting it using an XM2 (i.e. a PAL GL2 for those who don't know).

http://www.volvi.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Late_For_Work.wmv

Cheers!

Rob Lohman · September 14th, 2004, 05:36 AM

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31230

Derrick Begin · September 14th, 2004, 06:54 AM

"BERT PRENTICE CEO"

Saturday Oct. 2nd, 1pm
Coney Island Museum, 1208 Surf Ave. @ W. 12th St.

http://www.coneyislandfilmfestival.com

More Festivals to come, including the West Coast.

Cheers!

Lathe Austin · September 15th, 2004, 05:24 AM

Yeah....here's what I think.I can tell that you like to keep the camera moving and that's great, that's just part of your style and there is nothing wrong with that but you still need to keep the camera movement clean and simple. When she's lying in bed the camera is going to different directions all the time. I mean one time the camera is pulling away from her and then it cuts to the camera pulling away from her at like a 20 degree from the other angle. And then it cuts back to the first angle. There's no point to it. It's almost like taking two different takes of the same thing from slightly different angles and edittig them together when there is really only a need for one. Basically for something so simple as someone lying in bed try not to over do it with the camera movement because it serves no real purpose. Unless your trying to strech the length of the short out?

Hopefully this helps. I mean we all have our personal styles and I realize that. So I guess that only thing you can do is look back over it and see what you think. Just trust your gut.

Rob Lohman · September 15th, 2004, 05:32 AM

After reading carefully I see this is an unfinished piece, almost
wrote something up that it didn't make a lot of sense. Heh.

I agree with Lathe's assesment. It seems to be taking too much
time with nothing really going on. As they say in making films
"less is usually better" and "show instead of tell". Do we really
need to see her enter the bathroom and then "zoom out" on the
door? Do we really need to see her lying in bed for "so long" etc.?

Michael DeMattia · September 16th, 2004, 08:31 PM

I have posted on here before about a project I'm doing for my church. The whole thing is 18 mins long so I cant really post the whole thing up. I wanted to share the ending of the film. If yoy want more info about this please e-mail me. Its going to be shown next weekend then sold on DVD w/ extras and so on. I'd like to hear your thoughts about the ending. Please note that I have rights to use passion of the christ music. Thank you for you time.

http://www.mdfilms.net/ending.mov

Michael
MDFilms@mac.com
MDFilms.net

Imran Zaidi · September 16th, 2004, 08:41 PM

It's really hard to judge the feel of the film, having not seen all that led up to this ending. I will say that it was more frightening to me than it was anything else - that music is quite scary. The 3 superimposed layers at a time was a touch confusing to look at, especially when some of it was in fast-motion. It's possible though that seeing it small on a monitor might make it more confusing and perhaps it's clearer on a regular t.v.

It was intriguing though, and impactful. But again, it's hard to judge since it's just a tiny little snippet. What is the film actually about? Perhaps that will help.

September 12th, 2004, 05:49 AM	#588
Bankim Jain Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 219	How many films are ... Seriously how many succesful films were shot on Dv like video format to be later transferred onto 35mm for thetrical releases __________________ Cheers !

September 12th, 2004, 08:24 AM	#589
Michael DeMattia Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 35	Thank You I just wanted to thank everyone who has taken there time to view my website (mdfilms.net), I really took everyones comments to heart. I will be working on many things in the upcoming months. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Michael MDFilms

September 12th, 2004, 09:51 AM	#591
Bankim Jain Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 219	Hey actually that was a typo ... i meant successfully shot transferred made some money or atleast recovered wht they had put in. I am planning a project which would be shot using Panasonic DV200 & JVC GYDV5000E all PAL later to be trnsferred onto Film for commercial release. I had contacted one such Film transfer company in Taiwan but their reply was Both his reply to my mil is as belows ======================== Dear Bankim: Thanks for your inquiry on our Video to Film transfer service. If you shoot in DV format, no matter how good is the resolution in TVL, the video signal you output from camera for transferring to film is fixed at 720x576 in 4:3 and if you are going to crop it into 16:9 (which is reasonable for a closer aspect ratio to 1.85 35mm format), the resolution you use in the video framing is only 720x405 which is really not enough for theatrical release. In our experience, even you implement software interpolation, the picture will still looks soft and blur. If you are really restricted by budget, try to use HD camera. Sony HDCAM is a good choice, which is of highest resolution (1920x1080) and lower cost than 35mm. The next choice is Panasonic DVCPRO-HD which is even better in cost but resolution is lower(1280x720) but has three times of pixels than PAL DV. The cheapest HD camera in the market is JVC GR-HD1U which is also 1280x720 in resolution but much cheaper than DVCPRO-HD and definitely cheaper than GYDV5000E and AGDV-200. Regards Video Center Manager ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: DV to 35mm transfer. Dear Sir, We are a Production house based in India. We are producing a Film using JVC GYDV5000E & Panasonic AGDV-200 both PAL format with camera resolution of about 800+TVL. We are shoting it in 4:3 format but keeping in idea of 16:9 cropping when we do edit or the film transfer. We anticipate its transfer onto 35mm at 24fps. We wish to know how very cost effective could it be if we were to choose you along with your quality expertise, are there any special efforts we need to put to have a good quality of blowup onto film from DV PAL to film 24fps 35mm. So far in India there have been no attempt to do such an production on DV and later to be blownup onto 35mm for theatrical releases so we are a bit skeptical about the quality of output on the silver screen. We would like to know your view on this subject before we approach your company to undertake our assignment. We look forward to your reply. Best regards, Bankim Jain Director - Coverage TV ============================== But i still felt there might be such facilities around te globe helping guys like us to accomplish our dreams on the SILVER SCREEN...after it the idea that gets shot & directed well to get foot falls into the theatre rather than the medium which it is shot on. ...the wait is on for views !!! __________________ Cheers !

September 12th, 2004, 01:45 PM	#593
Cesar Turturro New Boot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Argentina Posts: 19	low cost film with an XL1 about falkland war We made, in Argentina, a low cost film with an XL1, without filters, just sun light. Check my link www.creavision.com.ar/malvinas.html We shot in 16:9 and frame mode. Just some low motions shots we do it in normal mode. Thanks Cesar Turturro

September 12th, 2004, 02:35 PM	#594
James Hamer-Morton New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Peterborough, UK Posts: 14	Late For Work (first 1:30) Okay, I'm a little wary of this, but I figured since I have the first 1:30 filmed and edited and the rest of the short untouched as of yet, I might as well upload and throw it out to you guys to see what you all think... Intro titles and any music aren't in there yet, but any comments that might improve the filming process would be very useful :) I'm shooting it using an XM2 (i.e. a PAL GL2 for those who don't know). http://www.volvi.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Late_For_Work.wmv Cheers! __________________ James Hamer-Morton

September 7th, 2004, 09:38 AM	#586
Donald Gregory New Boot Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Elyria, OH Posts: 16	"Stuff looks pretty funny. Kind of like a Jack Black comedy." Yeah, I had Jack Black in mind for the buddy character, but he like, wanted money and stuff to play it. So I got Jason Muzie instead :)

September 10th, 2004, 09:33 AM	#587
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	Rock In Roll! TONIGHT!

September 12th, 2004, 08:29 AM	#590
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	First, define "Succesfull". Do you mean succsessfully shot, transfered, sold and MADE money, or do films that lost money count too? ("Tadpole" for instance, lost money but was considered a success)

September 12th, 2004, 10:02 AM	#592
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Many very good movies have been shot with relatively cheap DV cameras and transferred to 35mm for theaterical release. In my opinion, one of the best looking ones was "The King Is Alive," which was a Dogme95 release. It was shot with PD150s. It is true that the Sony 1080i HD format will give you the best looking picture from just about any camcorder, but it is expensive to buy or rent. I have heard of the Panasonic Varicam being used quite a bit because it is significantly cheaper than Sony, and rental houses seem to be giving good deals on long term rentals. What makes a film successful, however, has little to do with what it was shot on. It has more to do with the story, acting, and production values. I consider "The King Is Alive" a great story with tremendous acting, and it was shot by world class cinematographers who knew how to use the type of gear they had for a look that worked wonderfully for them. However, before you shoot anything with any camera, be sure to do a test with whatever lab you plan to use for the transfer. Most of the ones here will do a low cost transfer for you, and if you do the final project with them, they usually apply what you spent on the test to your bill. You might be better off looking at labs that have more experience in dealing with DV formats.

September 14th, 2004, 05:36 AM	#595
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31230 __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 14th, 2004, 06:54 AM	#596
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	"BERT PRENTICE CEO" Saturday Oct. 2nd, 1pm Coney Island Museum, 1208 Surf Ave. @ W. 12th St. http://www.coneyislandfilmfestival.com More Festivals to come, including the West Coast. Cheers!

September 15th, 2004, 05:24 AM	#597
Lathe Austin Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Springdale, Arkansas Posts: 34	Yeah....here's what I think.I can tell that you like to keep the camera moving and that's great, that's just part of your style and there is nothing wrong with that but you still need to keep the camera movement clean and simple. When she's lying in bed the camera is going to different directions all the time. I mean one time the camera is pulling away from her and then it cuts to the camera pulling away from her at like a 20 degree from the other angle. And then it cuts back to the first angle. There's no point to it. It's almost like taking two different takes of the same thing from slightly different angles and edittig them together when there is really only a need for one. Basically for something so simple as someone lying in bed try not to over do it with the camera movement because it serves no real purpose. Unless your trying to strech the length of the short out? Hopefully this helps. I mean we all have our personal styles and I realize that. So I guess that only thing you can do is look back over it and see what you think. Just trust your gut.

September 15th, 2004, 05:32 AM	#598
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	After reading carefully I see this is an unfinished piece, almost wrote something up that it didn't make a lot of sense. Heh. I agree with Lathe's assesment. It seems to be taking too much time with nothing really going on. As they say in making films "less is usually better" and "show instead of tell". Do we really need to see her enter the bathroom and then "zoom out" on the door? Do we really need to see her lying in bed for "so long" etc.? __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 16th, 2004, 08:31 PM	#599
Michael DeMattia Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 35	125th - Ending I have posted on here before about a project I'm doing for my church. The whole thing is 18 mins long so I cant really post the whole thing up. I wanted to share the ending of the film. If yoy want more info about this please e-mail me. Its going to be shown next weekend then sold on DVD w/ extras and so on. I'd like to hear your thoughts about the ending. Please note that I have rights to use passion of the christ music. Thank you for you time. http://www.mdfilms.net/ending.mov Michael MDFilms@mac.com MDFilms.net

September 16th, 2004, 08:41 PM	#600
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	It's really hard to judge the feel of the film, having not seen all that led up to this ending. I will say that it was more frightening to me than it was anything else - that music is quite scary. The 3 superimposed layers at a time was a touch confusing to look at, especially when some of it was in fast-motion. It's possible though that seeing it small on a monitor might make it more confusing and perhaps it's clearer on a regular t.v. It was intriguing though, and impactful. But again, it's hard to judge since it's just a tiny little snippet. What is the film actually about? Perhaps that will help.