Please Watch My New Super 16 Film

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

Please give me some feedback on my new short film. It was shot on Super 16.

 

www.demobrianthompson.com/PREMONITION

 

Just download the file Premonition

 

Thank you. I appreciate any and all feedback positive or negative.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Relentless Filmaker

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

Is my link not working?

 

Demobrianthompson.comwww.demobrianthompson.com/PREMONITION

[Guest jeremy edge]

Is my link not working?

 

Demobrianthompson.comwww.demobrianthompson.com/PREMONITION

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

wow!

Amazing photography !

I know its just on computer but this is pretty high res and it looks great for super 16.I just watched tigerland and primer shot in 16mm ,which are great but have a gritty look...and this ...it has a punchy bright look that could almost be mistaken for 35mm on a small screen.Is this vision 2?

 

Interesting choice of 2.35:1...it works well in super 16.Im suprised.

 

Must give more info...camera ....film stock...lenses.....lights....fstops used etc.

Im really curious.

 

I give it 2 thumbs up for an independant short.

 

Constructive critique? Thats tough ,I have to think.... maybe some minor trimming to make it move more?some of it gets a little redundant ,so when you're cycling back through the backtracking you might want to speed the pace to create a sense of the film reaching a peak.

 

But thats just nitpicking.....I imagine its hard to trim shots that look this good.

It's really a cool short.

Edited May 26, 2005 by jeremy edge

[Landon D. Parks]

Nice Film. Well shot, Nice Cinematography, Fair Acting and Pretty good direction. Not the best short film I have seen by any means, but very nicely crafted.

 

You have a great vision, and with work, your vision could be great.

 

To tell you the truth though, it looked to me as though shoot on SD video with a consumer camcorder. It looked Interlaced in places and the highlights blew out more than once.

 

Not the best 16mm I'v seen shot, but as the poster before me said, its just Internet video on a computer monitor, so proper judgement cannot be made.

 

Rating: B-

Edited May 26, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest jeremy edge]

Nice Film. Well shot, Nice Cinematography, Fair Acting and Pretty good direction. Not the best short film I have seen by any means, but very nicely crafted.

 

You have a great vision, and with work, your vision could be great.

 

To tell you the truth though, it looked to me as though shoot on SD video with a consumer camcorder. It looked Interlaced in places and the highlights blew out more than once.

 

Not the best 16mm I'v seen shot, but as the poster before me said, its just Internet video on a computer monitor, so proper judgement cannot be made.

 

Rating: B-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know at fist i thought someone might be pulling a fast one and passing off dvx100 as 16mm.because it was so bright and its hard to detect the prescense of grain.but the more I watched....I could tell some shots could not be video.Like the bathroom shots.

 

Im not used to 16mm looking so bright and clear....I think its nice....I think it reminded Landon of video.So its subjective. I liked the blown highlight scenes.

I think the interlacing he saw has something to do with the wmv degration....I cant put my finger on it but ive watched so much wmv i think im used to it.

 

I think its nice to see people going for a sharper look in 16 rather than the gritty retro look were used to. Some guy recently posted a still of vision 2 7212 that looked incerdible. Pushing the envelope of a medium i think is exciting.

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

This film was shot on Fuji 64D and 500D. In telecine we tweaked out the colors and did a widescreen transfer. The interlacing look is because of the WMV compression or something. Im new to compression so I dont really know what I m doing. However, I tried quicktime and windows media worked better on this film. The camera I used was an AATON with Zeiss super speed lenses. The outdoor stuff was shot on the 64 of course we used an ND.9 I believe that we shot most of it at a 4/5.6 split overexposing by a half stop. Indoors we used natural daylight and daylight balanced KINOS. I was leary at first about shooting everything with daylight balanced film, but I like the look of the 500 D better than any of the other stocks I had seen. The lenses we used were a 9,12,16, 25 and a few shots we used a Zoom but it was a 16 zoom so we could only use from 35-50 and that was kinda weak.

[Guest jeremy edge]

This film was shot on Fuji 64D and 500D. In telecine we tweaked out the colors and did a widescreen transfer. The interlacing look is because of the WMV compression or something. Im new to compression so I dont really know what I m doing. However, I tried quicktime and windows media worked better on this film. The camera I used was an AATON with Zeiss super speed lenses. The outdoor stuff was shot on the 64 of course we used an ND.9 I believe that we shot most of it at a 4/5.6 split overexposing by a half stop. Indoors we used natural daylight and daylight balanced KINOS. I was leary at first about shooting everything with daylight balanced film, but I like the look of the 500 D better than any of the other stocks I had seen. The lenses we used were a 9,12,16, 25 and a few shots we used a Zoom but it was a 16 zoom so we could only use from 35-50 and that was kinda weak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fuji 500d ...thats the reala 500d right? I heard a lot of people complain about the grain but i dont see evidence of high grain even in 16mm here.it looks real nice.

 

Zeiss super speeds must be partly to credit for the nice bright sharp images.Seems like they're used on a lot of big dollar movies so there must be a reason for that. I hope someday to be able to rent some!

[Robert Hughes]

Technically ok, but kind of bleak. Is this the movie you want your grandkids to remember you by?

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

Well its only the second film Ive shot, so probably not, but I hope to learn and move on to bigger and better things

[Robert Hughes]

If it's your 2nd film, then my hat's off to you. You've definately got something happening - keep going.

[David Mullen ASC]

Technically ok, but kind of bleak. Is this the movie you want your grandkids to remember you by?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think someone once said that to be an artist, you have to forget you have a mother.

 

Maybe the same can be said for grandkids. Not all art can made family-friendly.

 

What's wrong with bleak? Some of my favorite photos and paintings are bleak. Some of the most beautiful landscapes are bleak. "Bleak House" is a good Dickens novel. Sometimes I go to the movies to see some artistic bleakness...

[Rik Andino]

Like many have said before it's a extremely nicely crafted film.

The production design I find is very good and fits the story.

The special effects weren't

The locations also fit the story and the way you guys used them is clever.

 

Of course the cinematography is exceptional!

I really love the angles and shots you used to build tension between characters

And the different and innovative ways you cover each scene.

I also liked the sharp slick look which you acheived--

This is another great example of the good work a Zeiss lens can do.

I'm sure without Mpeg compression it looks as sharp as 35mm.

 

Personally I hate the Mpeg compression when you see it streaming on the web...

If you're going to use this on your reel to show to people

You should show them a DVD

DO NOT show them something posted on the web which degrades your skills.

 

As for the film itself...unfortunately I found it very weak in story...

I get the idea somewhat--which is good...

The director was able to express some of the idea to the audience...

But I'm left somewhat in the dark about alot of things...

And I don't feel a strong connection to the characters which I feel is bad.

 

Ultimately it's a technical acheivement...

But as an emotional piece showcasing the director skills as a storyteller

It's lacking much and director's got much more to learn.

 

What I enjoyed the most was the editing montages...those quick shots...awesome!

 

 

Good work and keep at it...eventually you'll get better.

[Dan Lahav]

Well done Brian. I go to film school with this guy and he knows his stuff. Keep up the good work.

[Jordan Brade]

I must say, this looks really good. I loved the way everything looked and the depth it had. Truly amazing stuff.

 

What program did you use to edit it? When you did the telecine, what did you transfer it to (Tape, hard drive, etc...)?

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

This was edited in FCP, in telecine we did a widescreen transfer and transfered to DVCAM. Thanks for the input, it helps to get feedback.

[Matt Serrins]

Technically, the film is very good, and you obviously have a great facility with composition and camera movement. Good job.

 

However, as other people have noted, I found the film lacking in the storytelling department. The film strikes me more as a trailer or as advertising than as a narrative. I understand that there is a story behind the film (synchronicity/coincidence/grace of god with the four characters), but I don't indentify with any of the characters. I don't see any of their stories or development, just the outcome/downfall. And after the first 3.5 minutes, it's don't really care to see the rest, and since I don't really know the characters and already know the outcome. Depressing films are fine, but without purpose (identification with the character or situation), they come off as excessive or manipulative, which is what some people are responding to. Seeing characters act desperately or unwittingly is fine, but there has to be some background as to why they're driven to act that way (i'm thinking of the drug addict here).

 

Normally, I woulnd't reply to a film posted on this board for fear of being too harsh, but obviously, you're talented and have a facility with film and composition. However, keep in mind that narrative film is about character and story, not spectacle and shock. I only say this because you are obviously talented and I believe that constructive criticism will do you well. Good luck, and keep making films.

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

MStone you are so right and thank you for the critizism. I am not bothered about harsh comments with justification, because I need to know how my film affects people and I want to learn. I appreciate you taking the time to watch it and give me some feedback thank you so much. And on the drug addict, there actually was a back story that he was fighting with his pregnant girlfriend and he didnt want to be a dad, but our actress bailed on us a half hour before the shoot leaving us to, have him yell into an empty door, and have a stand in in the hospital so not showing the mother in the bed. But all the points you brought up are valid. I definately have a way to go as far as storytelling goes. Thanks for the comments.

[Guest 22west]

This film was well shot. What camera and lenses did you use?

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

The camera was an Aaton LTR 54 Super 16, with Zeiss lenses. If you read some of the earilier posts I listed the lenses used. If you have any more questions let me know

[Guest jeremy edge]

The camera was an Aaton LTR 54 Super 16, with Zeiss lenses.  If you read some of the earilier posts I listed the lenses used. If you have any more questions let me know

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can I ask where you did your transfer?

Was it done in SD and if so do you know what they did it on?

Also do you think that there is an advantage of dvcam over mini dv?

 

Im still reeling over the lack of grain you have in this 16mm footage.

I just got back some stuff from vision 2 500t 7218 and i have to say i see much more grain in my footage. I attempted to overexpose a little as well.but of course I could be not paying enough attention to my range and exposing for the highlights too much.

 

still two thumbs up!!

Edited June 2, 2005 by jeremy edge

[Jeremy Montana]

Technically, the film is very good, and you obviously have a great facility with composition and camera movement.  Good job.

 

However, as other people have noted, I found the film lacking in the storytelling department.  The film strikes me more as a trailer or as advertising than as a narrative.  I understand that there is a story behind the film (synchronicity/coincidence/grace of god with the four characters), but I don't indentify with any of the characters.  I don't see any of their stories or development, just the outcome/downfall.  And after the first 3.5 minutes, it's don't really care to see the rest, and since I don't really know the characters and already know the outcome.  Depressing films are fine, but without purpose (identification with the character or situation), they come off as excessive or manipulative, which is what some people are responding to.  Seeing characters act desperately or unwittingly is fine, but there has to be some background as to why they're driven to act that way (i'm thinking of the drug addict here). 

 

Normally, I woulnd't reply to a film posted on this board for fear of being too harsh, but obviously, you're talented and have a facility with film and composition.  However, keep in mind that narrative film is about character and story, not spectacle and shock.  I only say this because you are obviously talented and I believe that constructive criticism will do you well.  Good luck, and keep making films.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't mean to be pedestrian, but I found this comment to be exactly mine. Had he not wrote that, I would have. I want to thank you for sharing your film, and please bring back your future projects as I think you can do some work with characters and storylines and create much better work.

 

Congratulations on having a finished film, and keep trying!

[Guest John Lasher]

Did you do 2.35 w/ common topline? common center? or did you jury-rig one of those 1.33x anamorphics somehow?

[Guest Relentless Filmaker]

We had our telecine done at CCI Digital in Burbank they are awsome, We had them do a widescreen trasnfer and cropped for 2:40. Wich in my opinion was a mistake as I said before because if you crop in telecine you can not manipulate the image any further once they crop it.