here's a little film

[Brian Woods]

here's a little link for yas.

http://www.b-mp.com/minigolf.mov

 

let me know what you think.

[Nick Mulder]

Could we have some details on the format and gear used ?

[Dennis Kisilyov]

This looks like 3perf 35mm.. Kodak Stock, just a guess.....

 

If it's Super 16 - I would love to know what camera this was.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Dennis Kisilyov

[Brian Woods]

sorry for the delayed response. this was shot as an experiment using fuji 500d. it was shot with a super 16 bolex ebm.

 

if anyone would like to let me know what they think, that would be good too.

[Martin Yernazian]

It looks ok, Horrible sound, and the composition well.... lets live it there,

But as an experimentation it's ok as I said....

Thanks for showing it....

 

Best

[Nick Mulder]

sorry - composition is way off in many shots... did you consider a tripod or perhaps wider lens to stop all the jiggling ?

 

the edit from the four players to the bearded player walking on makes moses 'jump' which makes the edit seem like the film was crunched in a projector or something...

 

People fall out of frame regularly... Your horizons are tilted but only just so much... Loss of contrast from flare...

 

All valid techniques if applied thoughtfully... Not so sure if this is the case here though ?

[Morgan Peline]

Hi,

 

I didn't understand at all what the story was about. What was the conflict? Was the Christian man upset with the group of men because they were uncouth? If so, where in the story are we explained this?

 

The sound was terrible so you never knew what they were saying or discussing anyway.

 

I thought the cut from the group of three golfers to the cut of him at the first hole quite strange.

 

I didn't understand the reason for hand-held.

 

I found the fact that you couldn't see his feet or the golf ball a lot of the time, as he was playing golf, quite disturbing.

 

In a typical American style 3 Act Structure, the end of your film would actually have been the end of Act I - the revelation of the main conflict, not the end of the story as you made it. It would be the start of the story and we would watch to see how the Christian man resolved his conflict with the uncouth (? - if that indeed was the problem) men.

 

This wasn't a true story as far as I am concerned.

 

 

 

Sorry. I can't help being critical. I'm reading a Syd Field book on problem solving for screenwriting at the moment...it's a very good read. You should try it. It's like 3 act structure brainwashing.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Screenwriters-Proble...TF8&s=books

[Nick Mulder]

I didn't understand at all what the story was about. What was the conflict? Was the Christian man upset with the group of men because they were uncouth?

Holy place = 'Hole'y place

[Morgan Peline]

Ouch,

 

I've been watching too many serious art house films recently and obviously need a sense of humour overhaul!

 

Sorry!

 

<_<

[Nick Mulder]

heh,

 

well, remember I'm only assuming the pun was intended by the film maker ;)

[Brian Woods]

"well, remember I'm only assuming the pun was intended by the film maker."

- your a tack my boy, sharp. it was, but not necessarily for you to catch it.

 

"I didn't understand at all what the story was about. What was the conflict? Was the Christian man upset with the group of men because they were uncouth? If so, where in the story are we explained this?"

- next time i'll make it less subtle.

 

"...It's like 3 act structure brainwashing."

- yep.

 

"the edit from the four players to the bearded player walking on makes moses 'jump' which makes the edit seem like the film was crunched in a projector or something..."

- good point. i'm going to fix that.

 

thanks everyone for the feedback. some of it was/is quite usefull. i would have liked to have heard a little about the acting or how the film made you feel, but this was interesting too. anyways, thanks so much for watching. i really appreciate it.

[Lee Maisel]

HOLEY Place ! ! ROFL!!!!!!!

[Jamey Johnson]

Hey Brian,

What was the Puppies short on your site shot on? Wasn't it posted on here previously? It looks familiar, but I couldn't find it in a search.

[Brian Woods]

ay there jamey.

 

that was actually done by my friend adam. it was shot digitally. as to the specifications, i'm not too sure. it may or may not have been posted here. if you want to get in touch with adam about it. you can usually find him commenting in the 16mm section. look for adam berk.

[Dennis Kisilyov]

Brian, did you transfer this at 1080p or something. Does not look like Sup-16 telecine...

 

You got this with a Bolex EBM.. Wow.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Dennis Kisilyov

[Brian Woods]

Brian, did you transfer this at 1080p or something. Does not look like Sup-16 telecine...

 

You got this with a Bolex EBM.. Wow.

 

ay there dennis.

 

yes. this was an hd, 1080p transfer. this was on the same roll as a music video we're selling so we figured, "what the hell". our transfer was dirt cheap anyways.

 

i'll put the ebm up against any camera. we have a indelible connection. this was also shot on FUJI 500D!

[gordon liron]

Brian, did you transfer this at 1080p or something. Does not look like Sup-16 telecine...

 

You got this with a Bolex EBM.. Wow.

 

 

hmmm... not to instigate or anything but I don't see how this could have looked like anything but a bolex. You earlier post mention 3-perf 35mm and kodak stock. I don't see that at all. The grain is really obvious!

 

 

Brian,

 

 

Speaking for the cinematography only, I'd have to say it was a good experiment (not sure if it was your 1st). I really didn't feel like the images were driving the story which is our goal of course. I think you should really think about your shots for your next project and really try to raise the bar. Challenge yourself with a couple of shots you have never done. Bolexs are usually cheap or can be obtained for free...spend some time with your shots...I thing you'll be most pleased when you start to develop your style.

 

 

good luck

[Nick Mulder]

I didn't understand the 3-perf comment either - I mean, how can you tell if it was 3-perf ? I thought maybe I had a gap in my knowledge but ...

 

The grain really is apparent - shooting 500 (outdoors) will do that

[Brian Woods]

hmmm... not to instigate or anything but I don't see how this could have looked like anything but a bolex. You earlier post mention 3-perf 35mm and kodak stock. I don't see that at all. The grain is really obvious!

Brian,

Speaking for the cinematography only, I'd have to say it was a good experiment (not sure if it was your 1st). I really didn't feel like the images were driving the story which is our goal of course. I think you should really think about your shots for your next project and really try to raise the bar. Challenge yourself with a couple of shots you have never done. Bolexs are usually cheap or can be obtained for free...spend some time with your shots...I thing you'll be most pleased when you start to develop your style.

good luck

 

oh gordon.

 

i just don't understand. do you think my images aren't driving the story because it's not like other films you've seen or perhaps because there's no sound? the thing is, this is how i like to make movies. i didn't get a chance to fix the sound, but other than that i don't care if the people on this board think there's something wrong with my composition. i'm a perfecty knowledgable and adroit person when it comes to any sort of compositional standards. i know what everyone on this board wants to see. i'd rather see and show the world from a different point of view. i'll put some better sound on this sucker tomorrow. i'll also fix that weird jump with moses and the waters background. if i don't sucker you into liking this film more, we'll just agree to disagree.

 

thanks for the comments. anyone watch the acting at all?

[Nick Mulder]

anyone watch the acting at all?

When it was in frame - yes...

 

As this is a cinematography forum, most users will comment more on technical aspects or the elements of film-making that interest them particularly - ie. camera, lighting, composition etc ... So you might expect the type of response you got, which it appears you have in any case as you talk about being "perfectly knowledgeable nd adroit person when it comes to any sort of compositional standards" and knowing "what everyone on this board wants to see" ...

 

Was this film put here as bait ? some kind of litmus test ?

 

You seem to be holding something back, or at least your responses have been very aloof - interesting, but more so than the film itself.

[Dennis Kisilyov]

I didn't understand the 3-perf comment either - I mean, how can you tell if it was 3-perf ? I thought maybe I had a gap in my knowledge but ...

 

The grain really is apparent - shooting 500 (outdoors) will do that

 

 

For me the registration was so steady I though it was a larger neg. size.

 

Grain at 500 speeds can be evident even in 3perf, it did not look anamorphic, yet it was wide screen. I heard the camera making a lot of noise, hence I did not think it was a Arri SR , yet was too steady for any other Super 16mm cam. My assumption was that it was a modded old-school 35mm to 2 or 3 perf. That would explain the HUGE amounts of noise. As 35 should sound louder than 16.

 

Why this got shot on ISO 500 in a sunny day, I don't know.

[Brian Woods]

nick,

 

"when it was in frame"??? - people enter and exit the frame. that's a choice i make over having the camera slightly adjusted to pan or tilt with the subject. i do not do this for one reason. it annoys me. the reason i may come off as aloof to you is because i expected more useful things to be said on this board. not just mundane problems the hollywood people might have. how presumptuous and calculating of me to expect someone to give me honest feedback(positive or negative) that doesn't sound like it was taken from the cinematography 101 book. furthermore, i apologize for my last post. i was frustrated. reading it now i realize how a**ho** it would be perceived. anyways, not a litmus test.

 

dennis,

 

it was shot that way just as an experiment. i kind of like it though. it has that so ugly it's pretty thing happening. i'm going to experiment with some 200d ektachrome today.

[Jamey Johnson]

i'm going to experiment with some 200d ektachrome today.

 

 

Brian,

I'd like to see the 200d ektachrome when your done- if you are able to post it.

[Nick Mulder]

For me the registration was so steady I though it was a larger neg. size.

 

Grain at 500 speeds can be evident even in 3perf, it did not look anamorphic, yet it was wide screen. I heard the camera making a lot of noise, hence I did not think it was a Arri SR , yet was too steady for any other Super 16mm cam. My assumption was that it was a modded old-school 35mm to 2 or 3 perf. That would explain the HUGE amounts of noise. As 35 should sound louder than 16.

 

Why this got shot on ISO 500 in a sunny day, I don't know.

 

 

Thats pretty sherlock holmes stuff! and yes, I need to brush up on my 35mm facts'n'figures so I think I would have gone along with it had we not known the answer yet. Still the grain would have been the factor that made me wonder about 16mm - hell, even super8 on a good (noisy) day - and the fact that 35mm is usually put aside for productions with all the other bells and whistle to go along with it ...

[Nick Mulder]

nick,

"when it was in frame"??? - people enter and exit the frame. that's a choice i make over having the camera slightly adjusted to pan or tilt with the subject. i do not do this for one reason.

....

It has that so ugly it's pretty thing happening.

It was handheld, and it didn't just seem like shakey-cam but more like the operator-was-having-trouble-holding-the-cams-viewfinder-up-to-their-eye-cam (often an issue with those not used to a Bolex with 400' mag). As you are probably aware actors act with their whole body, and for instance the shot where the protagonist is about to take a put he is head-down concentrating on the putter, ball etc... yet the camera is wobbling about cutting just on or above his hands... My interest in that moment lies in his particular interest as that is the way the flow of the film that you have made leads me, but I am distracted by the framing constantly cutting into that area.

 

Again, like I said, its all valid stuff with many a fine precedent - Its just not doing it for me in particular.

 

aesthetics / po-mo etc... ugh.. I personally want to learn how to make those 'beautiful - oooh ahhh' shots well before I start making 'pretty' ugly ones.