Albert Smith

16fps is a very slow frame rate, its going to be choppy, as you are seeing less frames, with larger gaps in time between them, then if you shot at a higher frame rate. even 24fps is some what "choppy". there is really no way around this...maybe some frame blending techinques could be used but that might not be the best thing.

Hey,stills look very good. I have a couple questions on the setup, although they may seem a little bit "newbish". Mainly on the power of these lights. I have really never worked with anything above 2k...and for interiors never seen a reason to go over 1k thus far, although I have never shot such a large space the amount of power you seemed to use was really suprising to me. an 8k,5k, how many 2ks? my question for you is how do you decide how powerful of lights your going to need for a setup. The obvious is size, and interior/extiror, but how does the look play into it? Also you had said this was a struggle working with a low budget, what would have you done diffrently if you had a larger budget to work with? thanks alot! -Jake

lighting is geat but why is the camera always going in and out I cant stay i enjoyed that, almost headache. but the lighting is great!

shot on 35mm and we have to watch it on myspace in a crummy flash file BOOOO! haha. I thought it was shot beautifully. Only cristcems on cinematography I can really say are I would have thrown in a little backround light behind the lead at the table...just so he wasnt against a completly black backround. But I cant say I loved t he story, I honestly didnt get it, maybe I just didnt watch it close enough or smething but I didnt get the connection between the police thing and im oding...what was it saying?...I also though the voice overs and ending were only so so. Never been a big fan of voice overs I think there are much more creative ways to tell your story visually without having to do that...its also kinda cliche guy almost dies and now stops taking life for grantit. for such a beatiful film it bothered me I just didnt get the point to it...comments?

Just to let you know, I have looked into that alot and all most all film festivals dont care where shorts have been shown, maybe some european festivals are different...but well sundance is about as big as they get in america and they dont care, neither did toronto, or slamdance, or well any of them I've seen so far.

its all video so the pitcture sharpeness isnt noticablly diffrent with either, but the dvx lens is wider...and it is leica....the canon goes longr but its unnecssary for most uses. 20x zoom is alot.....4.5-45 should cover you

60fps played back at 60fps will look smoother but its still "progressive"...it will not look like 60i yes it will be smoother but it will still retain "the movie look" rather then the "real" look of video.

Haha, looks pretty cool. deffinetly over the top, which can be a good think haha. 35 adapter deffinetly made a big diffrence, I love the Robert Rodriquez reference.

the steadicam flyer is your best bet for sure. Dont jump into it though I would go somewhere and test it out and see what its really like. Learning to use a steadicam takes some time for sure, I have only given it a go once and went in very arrogant "how hard could it be HA, I can do this" and then I tried haha...I wont say much other then we decided we werent going to be able to shoot the film steadicam pretty fast.

dont even bother....the dvx100 is far far more capable camera. gl2...or xm2 (pal version) are well...I cant say much good about them....they shoot only interelaced video, (they do have "frame mode" but thats not very good) and they allow no where near the picture control the dvx will allow. Take some time and learn to use the dvx100 you wont be dissapointed....they dont even make gl2s anymore do they?....consider that the gl2 was a 1700 "prosumer" camera the dvx100 is a 3400$ proffesional camera...not that the terms or money really matter but the camera does cost more for a reason.

I think some people are missing the idea...the concept would be to convert film which by its nature is shot at a "progressive" frame rate onto video into an interlaced format with out a pulldown mean actually making the film 60i.....in my mind this would mean shooting 30fps....not 60fps.....as video really is 30fps...the 60 frames are really half frames....simply shooting and playing back film at 60fps is not really relevant. it might look smoother or something but enn....I think imax is shot and proejcted at higher frame rates isnt it?....anyways off topic...but yea any more information on this concept would be very interesting to me

Im just curious about this cause I think it could be interesting to do. My question is, has anyone tried to shoot film at 60fps and then transfer that into 60i interlaced video. Now I dont mean use a pulldown and get slow motion or anything I mean into actually 60i, so you would get the "real" video look....actually this would only meaning shoooting 30fps right?....I just think it would be interesting to see film turned into this motion....it would be really awesome for documentary filmmaking I think. Anyone hear of this? ever...would it even be possible?

The film is now up in its entirety, the only version up right now is the medium resolution but the others will come soon if you want either the high or low res. Let me know what you guys think, any feedback would be appreciated as long as its constructive. thanks

I know its a great stock, I've shot some 16 with it. it is wonderful. just curious to see what it could with super8. seems like it could do alot...super fine grain, and latitude....that still looked great though, any footage?...would have guessed it was 16 by the grain...so fine.

I know pro 8mm has manufactured some of this stuff in super 8 cartridges, and it seems like the results could be really impressive. anyone shoot it?

if its just for web...or even on dvd...you can up saturation a bit with out any real noticable problems....but keep changes somewhat subtle. also warming the palete often brings out color a bit. some footage just looked a little flat. um if its going to be about 2minutes I would compress it to 15mbs or so. in fcp just got "export using qt conversion" or w/e it is. set quality to high and compress the music with mpg4 codec.

?

Cut it down for sure. Maybe switch the song too, slow songs dont help, your not trying to make a creative peice here. Just like a bussinese grad uses a resume your going to use your reel to attain work. Im not saying you cant be creative, but, you want to keep peoples attention the best you can. flashy and fast...it maybe be cliche and w/e but it works. I would cut the clips of that band playing they look like shots from a live show in poor light to me. Also I would do some cc to some of that stuff, the bw thing with th ebag over the guys head looked over done. high contrast cen be cool but i think you pushed the footage too much. the thing you started with looks too flat and unstaurated...if you have fcp the 3way color corrector could deffinetly pop some life into that stuff if you work with it...I know premiere has some good filters too or any im sure does. also Id just make it qt If i were you. up the quality...made have a couple versions in diffrent qualities. flash is just enn. I donno qt is kinda the standard. and yea shorter with that stuff Id try to do it in under 2minutes for sure. also as far as cinematorgaphy goes you might wanna get some more stuff in there. the lighting I saw wasnt very impressive. you want some stuff that shows skill difficult setups are good...night exteriors are the biggie. to the above psot, you dont need music rights for a reel...well technically Im sure you do, but I highly doubt youll get sued for making a reel to it....especially if its just on the web.

...the will of god eh...... anyways I hated that you mixed aspect ratios why did you decide to chop down footage to like a cinescope aspect ratio. keep it all 16:9. The start moves kinda slow, not a bad idea "I am going on the world race..." but it didnt really work....I aslo really dont like your overlayed images and the dissolves and shitty transitions between them. whats with the ripple effect...avoid the cheezy fx. Also try to keep the pictures covering the whole frame so you dont have black on the edges...its a proffesionalism thing....having a little picture with black on all sides are even 2 doesnt look as good. You also didnt even say what the hell the thing is....I know its a race....and it involves third world countries...thats about it. Aslo starting where you ended in this case really didnt work. maybe you have actually had people say why there going on the world race at the end or something....also that intro title....ennn, if your not expeirnced with graphics keep it simple. I completly ripped it apart...Im not trying to be an a**ho** im just giving you some solid critscem to improve your work.

its a dark comedy....I dont mind negative feedback, infact its much more usful then postive feedback. But please dont simply call the script atrocious when you havent even seen the film yet....you saw a trailer. how could you possibly judge ascript on a trailer?...but then you go on to say "its really not bad"....but somehow the acting and script are atrocious. if your going to say stuff like that please explain your self a little more...and make more sense.

dvx100 24p....of course ha. Also used a letus 35 adapter and nikor primes.

In the film I just shot we chose to do some long steadicam takes and it worked very well and also did some slightly unusall coverage, it just depends on what you want. there is sooo much possibility for diffrent ways to show scenes, but i think its a good idea to start with basic coverage and get an understanding of what cuts well together before trying to do diffrent stuff. If you only shoot one angle and turns out when your editing it doesnt really work well your done for. it takes time to devlop a sense. I still have alot of trouble with it and we have been shooting stuff for the last few years....if you dont start with some basic "rules" or "guidelines" you dont gain any understanding of what really works and your just shooting around the dark.

I havent read the posts completly on here but the simple answer is this...basic "coverage" (good word to know) of 2 person dialog consists of....the scene is ran 5times...you want your actors to be able to pretty much keep the lines the same in every take for the easiest editing. if lines vary it can get you into trouble sometimes. 2 over the should shots from each person or medium-wides 2-closeups of each person 1 "master" which in this case would be 2 shot with both people in frame...master is usually done first....masters are generally wider shots used to save your back and give you more to cut to. that is as basic as you get and if you watch most hollywood films you will see this formula alot and its a good starting place....also a thing that you abslutly need to know and remember is not to cross "the line" the line refers to an imaginary line that goes right through the middle of the two actors or in almost any scene. if you shoot on one side the actors you stay on that side. so if you shoot over one actors left shoulder you shoot over the other actors right shoulder. if you dont do this the shots will not cut together well and visually not make sense. btw, most film are shots with one camera, because lighting is set for one angle....and it would often just be a waste of film ( assuming they are shooting film)....additonal cameras are usually only brought on for action sequences or special fx.....or if u had a 2nd camera unit.

Film was shot on a dvx100a with letus 35a adpater and nikon primes. I dp'd and co'edited the film. Me, Brad, and our design guy Nick are all 19 or younger...this has been are largest project so far, critscem is welcome and would be appreciated. currently only a trailer is up on the site, but well have the full film up in the next couple days. www.TURKEYDAYMOVIE.com

first suggestion, make a quicktime version.