Show Your Work 2006

Gunleik Groven · September 12th, 2006, 07:30 AM

To say hello!

A couple of things made ready the last 24 hours...

http://www.vulture.no/testvid/

Gunleik

Cole McDonald · September 12th, 2006, 09:06 AM

What camera were these shot with?

Gunleik Groven · September 12th, 2006, 09:55 AM

Shot on Panny HVX-200
Straight out of the box model
(No adapter to get the DOF)

The printshop:
Two lights
One fill
One "Spot" (dunno what fresnell is in english)
Shutter: 120/250
Just tweaked the scene files as I felt like
Mildly CC'ed in FCP to make the shots more coherent.

Shot at 1080 psf25

The timelapse
Same camera, same story (no lights tho')
2 secs interval
Removed unwanted birds and mild CC'ing in Shake

That's it I think

Gunleik

Mark Bournes · September 12th, 2006, 10:23 AM

looks great, very clean, sharp images

Dylan Pank · September 12th, 2006, 11:01 AM

Emre, some qick thoughts based on a single viewing.

Some OK camerawork, but some of the scenes seemed underexposed, it wasn;'t a consistent look.

The two male actors were good, better than you usually see in this level of production. The weak link was the actress, you need to get more angles of her in any given scene so in the edit you can "cut" a performance together (ie tighten up timing, use a close up for emphasis when her line readings are a little flat)

Sound - I can sound like a stuck record on this but it was really uneven. The opening montage between the two characters was largely obscured by too much background sound from the restaurant. I didn't get what the conversation between the girl and the customers was about. Like I said, that was on one viewing, but it should really need more. There was also some loud room noise in the kitchen scenes. Like really loud AC or plumming I think.

I think it really needs to be shorter. it felt slack as a narrative at 18 minutes and didn't really hold my attention as it should have done. When you think that TV sit comes in teh US are usually 23 minutes long, excluding ads, they can put a lot of story into those 23 minutes. I'm not saying all stories need to move at that sort of clip, but you're not offering a lot of story in 18 minutes. I think you can get away with a slower pace in a features becuase going in people are thinking abut investing more time in a film and going with the films own speed. With shorts, epsecially those on the web, you need to hold peoples attention a bit stronger.

Gunleik Groven · September 12th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Thanks!

Gunleik

Louis Wilson · September 12th, 2006, 01:58 PM

Appreciate anyone taking the time to give feedback, constructive criticism and technical advice is always welcome. This is obviously the reason why people post on here.

Dylan- Agree with loads of your points, particularly in relation to the music, I also know that the middle section was the weakest. But it was a first film, I'm proud of it and I've learnt from it.

... I'd begin a defence of my choices but you don't strike me as somebody who is open to different ideas. You write as if film is a medium which is black and white (unintentional pun) or right and wrong. Your criticism of the framing of the character for example, makes sense in a film textbook kind of way but it was done intentionally to try and reinforce what was happening in the narrative.

Don't particularly enjoy being told that I'm 'not ready' to do anything though, particularly from an anonymous face over the internet- that's not constructive just a bit condescending.

Anyway the film must have made you a least think for a bit (even if it was about how much you didn't like it!) because it must have a taken you quite a while to get all that down.

Not sure if I've ever been called over-intellectualised before though , so I thank you for that.

Cal Johnson · September 12th, 2006, 05:55 PM

It didn't really grab me... the first scene went on too long. I think what Dylan is saying is that if you really want to do a good job, get a lot of people involved, and shoot a great feature, you might want to hone your skills some more first. Shooting a feature sounds great and all, but what then? Is it going to be distributed, released, pressed to DVD... or just sit on the shelf? Remember, there are tons of people who are just jumping into film making, and many with little experience. Doesn't mean you can't go forward or your movie won't be a great success, but its good to remember that there is no substitute for hard work. We had a class where my fellow instructor showed a music video he had shot. One student was absolutely dumbfounded to hear that he spent 1 month preping (storyboards, shot lists, lighting plans, ect) before he started shooting. I also spoke with a "director" that had no idea what format she was going to be shooting on, did not know the difference between video and film, had no script, no shot lists, no equipment, but was going to be shooting her film and it was going to be great, and she felt absolutely ready to go. You're a lot further along, but maybe you just need to really nail a short before leaping into a really long format program, that's all.
By the way, did you get permission to use the music in your short? Awesome if you did (would take a lot of ground work to get permission to use Eric Clapton) but if you didn't, be really careful. It'll scare the heck out of ya when you get a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, along with a possible request of compensation.

Cal Johnson · September 12th, 2006, 06:07 PM

Wow Jim, pretty cool! So you shot all that footage? Must have been neat to go up in the plane in the cockpit! It seems a little odd to call it a "documentary" because it feels more like a corporate video about how great the plane was (the only people interviewed were the pilots from what I could tell, and there seemed to be no background on the plane itself), but I liked the look of it very much. Nice work!

Scott Tebeau · September 12th, 2006, 11:14 PM

Louis,
Wanted to tell you that I really liked it for is direction and the choices you made. Technically there are plenty of flags for many people who love slick and packaged film. Myself, I love content over presentation. Not for all.

It was refreshing to see a film where its director listened to his instinct and ideas and made the film that he wanted. People might say that the film was crude, slow, with poor production, but I thought it had a sophistication that I don’t always see in fringe subject matter and story telling. It seems to me that your interests are in story content not glossy finish and asking for criticism in forums can be counter productive; if you can’t separate others people’s ideas on film making from your own.

I think that you have something.

Keep on listening to yourself and best of luck with your feature.

Terry Kineda · September 13th, 2006, 02:03 PM

We launched the intro to our upcoming Vodcast a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.kineda.com/?p=968

Shot with a Sony VX2000, but probably going to go with a Canon HV10 for portability. Would love to hear any feedback or comments you may have!

Terry

James Huenergardt · September 13th, 2006, 06:25 PM

Hey Cal,

Actually, I flew that airplane for the airline. I wanted to show what it was like to fly the plane and interview the pilots who flew it.

Yeah, it wasn't a 'true documentary' in the truest since of the term, as I didn't interview more people, but it wasn't a promo/image piece either. I just interviewed the pilots to get their thoughts, and put together some footage I shot while flying and jumpseating.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Jim

Peter Wiley · September 13th, 2006, 06:38 PM

Very nice, but could you explain why the aircraft is being retired?

Carl Downs · September 13th, 2006, 09:18 PM

90% users are PC based... why only quicktime? I know I know... quality is better, controls are better... but for hard headed guys like me (and most people who hate downloaded extra stuff) it is my opinion you are isolating a major audience. Personally I do not like quicktime for the reason it tries to take over my system/codecs and crap... so, cant watch it.

David Liu · September 14th, 2006, 12:50 AM

XL2
Heres a really short clip of a bunch of teenagers enlisting in the army. In Singapore it is a must for all males enlist into the army and serve for 2 years.
Tell me wad ya think ;)

http://media.putfile.com/5SIRMONO-Compressed

OR for a faster load....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwF1Wjyd_vE

September 12th, 2006, 07:30 AM	#736
Gunleik Groven Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Espa - Norway Posts: 151	Just some clips To say hello! A couple of things made ready the last 24 hours... http://www.vulture.no/testvid/ Gunleik

September 12th, 2006, 09:06 AM	#737
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	What camera were these shot with? __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

September 12th, 2006, 10:23 AM	#739
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	looks great, very clean, sharp images __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

September 13th, 2006, 02:03 PM	#746
Terry Kineda Tourist Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Francisco Posts: 4	Our Weekly Vodcast We launched the intro to our upcoming Vodcast a couple of weeks ago: http://www.kineda.com/?p=968 Shot with a Sony VX2000, but probably going to go with a Canon HV10 for portability. Would love to hear any feedback or comments you may have! Terry

September 13th, 2006, 09:18 PM	#749
Carl Downs Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 101	Sorry, no quicktime 90% users are PC based... why only quicktime? I know I know... quality is better, controls are better... but for hard headed guys like me (and most people who hate downloaded extra stuff) it is my opinion you are isolating a major audience. Personally I do not like quicktime for the reason it tries to take over my system/codecs and crap... so, cant watch it.

September 12th, 2006, 09:55 AM	#738
Gunleik Groven Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Espa - Norway Posts: 151	Shot on Panny HVX-200 Straight out of the box model (No adapter to get the DOF) The printshop: Two lights One fill One "Spot" (dunno what fresnell is in english) Shutter: 120/250 Just tweaked the scene files as I felt like Mildly CC'ed in FCP to make the shots more coherent. Shot at 1080 psf25 The timelapse Same camera, same story (no lights tho') 2 secs interval Removed unwanted birds and mild CC'ing in Shake That's it I think Gunleik

September 12th, 2006, 11:01 AM	#740
Dylan Pank Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Portsmouth, UK Posts: 611	Emre, some qick thoughts based on a single viewing. Some OK camerawork, but some of the scenes seemed underexposed, it wasn;'t a consistent look. The two male actors were good, better than you usually see in this level of production. The weak link was the actress, you need to get more angles of her in any given scene so in the edit you can "cut" a performance together (ie tighten up timing, use a close up for emphasis when her line readings are a little flat) Sound - I can sound like a stuck record on this but it was really uneven. The opening montage between the two characters was largely obscured by too much background sound from the restaurant. I didn't get what the conversation between the girl and the customers was about. Like I said, that was on one viewing, but it should really need more. There was also some loud room noise in the kitchen scenes. Like really loud AC or plumming I think. I think it really needs to be shorter. it felt slack as a narrative at 18 minutes and didn't really hold my attention as it should have done. When you think that TV sit comes in teh US are usually 23 minutes long, excluding ads, they can put a lot of story into those 23 minutes. I'm not saying all stories need to move at that sort of clip, but you're not offering a lot of story in 18 minutes. I think you can get away with a slower pace in a features becuase going in people are thinking abut investing more time in a film and going with the films own speed. With shorts, epsecially those on the web, you need to hold peoples attention a bit stronger.

September 12th, 2006, 11:47 AM	#741
Gunleik Groven Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Espa - Norway Posts: 151	Thanks! Gunleik

September 12th, 2006, 01:58 PM	#742
Louis Wilson New Boot Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6	Appreciate anyone taking the time to give feedback, constructive criticism and technical advice is always welcome. This is obviously the reason why people post on here. Dylan- Agree with loads of your points, particularly in relation to the music, I also know that the middle section was the weakest. But it was a first film, I'm proud of it and I've learnt from it. ... I'd begin a defence of my choices but you don't strike me as somebody who is open to different ideas. You write as if film is a medium which is black and white (unintentional pun) or right and wrong. Your criticism of the framing of the character for example, makes sense in a film textbook kind of way but it was done intentionally to try and reinforce what was happening in the narrative. Don't particularly enjoy being told that I'm 'not ready' to do anything though, particularly from an anonymous face over the internet- that's not constructive just a bit condescending. Anyway the film must have made you a least think for a bit (even if it was about how much you didn't like it!) because it must have a taken you quite a while to get all that down. Not sure if I've ever been called over-intellectualised before though , so I thank you for that.

September 12th, 2006, 05:55 PM	#743
Cal Johnson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 180	It didn't really grab me... the first scene went on too long. I think what Dylan is saying is that if you really want to do a good job, get a lot of people involved, and shoot a great feature, you might want to hone your skills some more first. Shooting a feature sounds great and all, but what then? Is it going to be distributed, released, pressed to DVD... or just sit on the shelf? Remember, there are tons of people who are just jumping into film making, and many with little experience. Doesn't mean you can't go forward or your movie won't be a great success, but its good to remember that there is no substitute for hard work. We had a class where my fellow instructor showed a music video he had shot. One student was absolutely dumbfounded to hear that he spent 1 month preping (storyboards, shot lists, lighting plans, ect) before he started shooting. I also spoke with a "director" that had no idea what format she was going to be shooting on, did not know the difference between video and film, had no script, no shot lists, no equipment, but was going to be shooting her film and it was going to be great, and she felt absolutely ready to go. You're a lot further along, but maybe you just need to really nail a short before leaping into a really long format program, that's all. By the way, did you get permission to use the music in your short? Awesome if you did (would take a lot of ground work to get permission to use Eric Clapton) but if you didn't, be really careful. It'll scare the heck out of ya when you get a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, along with a possible request of compensation.

September 12th, 2006, 06:07 PM	#744
Cal Johnson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 180	Wow Jim, pretty cool! So you shot all that footage? Must have been neat to go up in the plane in the cockpit! It seems a little odd to call it a "documentary" because it feels more like a corporate video about how great the plane was (the only people interviewed were the pilots from what I could tell, and there seemed to be no background on the plane itself), but I liked the look of it very much. Nice work!

September 12th, 2006, 11:14 PM	#745
Scott Tebeau Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: portland oregon Posts: 73	Louis, Wanted to tell you that I really liked it for is direction and the choices you made. Technically there are plenty of flags for many people who love slick and packaged film. Myself, I love content over presentation. Not for all. It was refreshing to see a film where its director listened to his instinct and ideas and made the film that he wanted. People might say that the film was crude, slow, with poor production, but I thought it had a sophistication that I don’t always see in fringe subject matter and story telling. It seems to me that your interests are in story content not glossy finish and asking for criticism in forums can be counter productive; if you can’t separate others people’s ideas on film making from your own. I think that you have something. Keep on listening to yourself and best of luck with your feature.

September 13th, 2006, 06:25 PM	#747
James Huenergardt Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Chehalis, WA Posts: 513	Hey Cal, Actually, I flew that airplane for the airline. I wanted to show what it was like to fly the plane and interview the pilots who flew it. Yeah, it wasn't a 'true documentary' in the truest since of the term, as I didn't interview more people, but it wasn't a promo/image piece either. I just interviewed the pilots to get their thoughts, and put together some footage I shot while flying and jumpseating. Glad you enjoyed it. Jim

September 13th, 2006, 06:38 PM	#748
Peter Wiley Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lewisburg PA Posts: 752	Very nice, but could you explain why the aircraft is being retired?

September 14th, 2006, 12:50 AM	#750
David Liu New Boot Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Singapore Posts: 23	Army enlistment. 2min short clip XL2 XL2 Heres a really short clip of a bunch of teenagers enlisting in the army. In Singapore it is a must for all males enlist into the army and serve for 2 years. Tell me wad ya think ;) http://media.putfile.com/5SIRMONO-Compressed OR for a faster load.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwF1Wjyd_vE