Matthew W. Phillips

Can't you say Cinematographer?

Justin,

 

You had some interesting shots. I liked the low level view of the guy in the woods, neat effect. I was trying to establish the plot here. Is it gang/hoodlum related? It was a very small clip and difficult to make much comment on but the pieces I see seem to have good lighting and looked clear.

 

Keep it up though.

 

Eric

Sir, it was a demo reel. Demo reels don't have plots. They are just a montage of the DP's work.

When you shoot film stock, you're required to learn quite a bit about how to shoot beforehand. You need to get your exposures right, sure, but most of all you need to BUDGET YOUR STOCK. This forces creative efficiency. When you have all the 60-minute tapes in the world, you can pretty much run wild.

I totally applaude this statement. This point right here is why I personally believe digital will not overcome film as the professional medium no matter how technically superior digital is supposed to get. (I know this may get backlash.) People, by their very nature, cannot put as much effort into something that is unlimited as in something that is limited. If you are wearing a $9,000 suit, aren't you going to be more careful eating with it on than you would be wearing a $10 t-shirt? Same sentiment here, and I think everyone serious about honing their skills should learn film. But the point is moot because digital is cheap and most people like the cheapness.

I think people like George Lucas actually set a bad example for filmmaker's because he shot over 200 hours of footage for Attack of the Clones on digital. There is no reason at all that anyone should shoot that much footage to get what they need. If you are careful, you shouldn't even need more than a 6:1 shooting ratio. But it was digital so Lucas went off.

Levon, from a technical aspect, I thought it looked really good for a digital shoot. You nailed exposure right on buddy. Props for that. I agree that the audio was way too low but if this is a rough cut, you can work that out. Your lighting was good IMO but it was very straightforward. Maybe that is what LondonFilmMan is referring to.

As far as his comment about you not putting much into it, I think he is being unprofessional and caddy. A critique is something that is to include suggestions for improvement, advice, etc...not silly childish comments that cannot benefit anyone.

Keep up the good work!

P.S.- I would love to see what you could do with film if you worked on it.

I think that, if you wanted it to look like grindhouse, you should have shot it in Super8 format. No offense, but that didn't look like grindhouse at all.

take it a science lab and have them freeze your stock in absolute zero for about a month. :P

That will do it.

Is Wal Mart still processing Kodachrome by sending to Dwaynes for $3?

Last I heard, it was $4.88, but yeah, I think they still do it.

18fps: 3min 30secs

 

24fps: 2min 50secs

 

:D

No, actually a 50' spool is 3600 total frames so:

18 fps= 3 minutes 20 secs.

24 fps= 2 minutes 30 secs.

So here comes the brutal honesty.

 

This looks like it was made by someone under 14 - I realize that's a possibility. If so, that's fine, you've got plenty of time to learn the ropes...

 

 

 

...This film has very, very little craft behind it. Work really hard on your craft if you want to continue. I'm assuming you're very young, and if so that's fantastic. Get a head start now and you'll be leagues ahead a few years down the road.

I'm not so sure I think age has anything to do with how well a person makes a film. I mean, if you are new to film at 80, are you going to be better than someone new to film at 14?

I watched the film and I think it is on par with many other first films I have seen outside of the fact that the camera used was not as good as some people with bigger bucks but that isnt a technical flaw on your part. That is a monetary constraint.

ThomS, I think you were honest from your perspective but I dont think you really give much room for encouragement. I highly doubt that your first film was all that great either but the process he went through making this film is much more of a teacher than all your storyboarding ideas, book reading, and criticisms combined. Filmmaking really is a hands on thing.

As far as storyboarding goes, I know a lot of, IMO, great filmmakers who dont storyboard at all. Some people like to go with the flow and see what will work best at the time. All the planning in the world will not prepare you for what's going to happen on the set, especially if something unprecedented happens.

For the one who made this film, you are not any worse of a beginning filmmaker than anyone else. Consider the points that everyone has made but ultimately learn by DOING. If everyone did what someone else told them, there would never be innovation.

But if you shoot 24P, then it has to add a 3:2 pulldown to convert basically 24 into 60. Pulldown is the addition of extra fields in a certain order because simply splitting 24P into fields gets you 48, so you have to find a way of inserting 12 more fields every second in some subtle pattern.

The XL2 also has 2:3:3:2 pulldown for film out.

There's some confusion over that. The XL2 actually has a 4x3 3CCD set-up, but it pulls a smaller 4x3 image from the center of the 4x3 sensor area, not using a border area on all sides. Then when it is in 16x9 mode, it uses the full width of the sensor but less of the height.

 

The Sony PDX10 had a similar design.

 

The end result is that the 4x3 and 16x9 modes use about the same total number of pixels to create their images, so there is no loss of quality when switching into 16x9 mode. But that's not the same thing as saying it has a 16x9 native CCD.

Actually, the XL2 is, for all important reasons, native 16:9 CCD. The total area is 4:3 but who cares when the 16:9 area is the effective pixel area. It is native in the sense that you dont have to squeeze or stretch it to achieve true 16:9. Camcorderinfo.com even mentions that Canon uses "oversized" 4:3 chips just for the purpose of cutting out a good 16:9 image.

I personally do not see where the outcome would be any different than a 16:9 chip with the same effective pixel count as the XL2. I think sometimes people get so technical that they lose sight of what's important.

I bought the same camera while I was in school not too long ago. I bought the camera off ebay and it was in pristine condition. Although you don't have a lot of options to tweak in camera, it can still produce some surprisingly nice images. I wouldn't claim to cut your teeth on this camera as far as technical know how is concerned, but if you are working on framing, composition, story telling or just trying to get that super8 look, then this is a great camera. I would consider selling mine, but I would ask a little more than $30 since it is near flawless condition. Good luck.

Mike

How much do you want for it? I'm currently the high bidder for one on eebay but I'll be outbd before it's over and I'd prefer not to wait for shipping from Sweden.

Yes, I was thinking about shooting some indoor footage with Pro8mm ASA 100 Tungsten Color Negative stock. I have an incandiscent kit so will I have to use a filter to white balance? Pardon the noob question but I'm switching over from digital where all I have to do is use a bounce card and press a button. My kit is

a 3-light 1250W kit (2 500, 1 250).

Also, with a 1250W kit, would that be enough light for ASA100 or should I go with ASA 500?

Appreciate any reply.