Jump to content


Photo

Interesting


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:04 AM

Has anyone else seen this one?

http://www.worldchan...ves/004150.html

What do you all think?
  • 0

#2 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:16 AM

(http://news.com.com/..._3-6034506.html)

"SMS Sugar Man was filmed with eight phone cameras over 11 days with three main characters for less than 1 million rand ($164,100). As well as traditional cinema screenings, the film will be beamed to cell phones in 30 three-minute episodes over the course of a month."

I tried to edit the previous post.. but couldn't... :blink:
  • 0

#3 Matt Irwin

Matt Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 February 2006 - 04:07 AM

Kaganof tells CNet the footage looked ?fabulous? when blown up to 35mm.

Umm... I'll believe it when I see it. I'd imagine anything originated on a cell phone would look horrifying when blown up to 35mm and projected.
  • 0

#4 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 February 2006 - 04:18 AM

[quote Kaganof is the first filmmaker to ever blow up digital video to 35mm film with his 1996 movie ?Wasted!?
[/quote]

He seems to like pushing the envelope.
  • 0

#5 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:52 AM

It could be interesting. Let's see what it looks like and how that look serves the film.
  • 0

#6 John Carreon

John Carreon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Orange County, CA.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:15 AM

I'm slightly confused...

They shot using cell phone cameras?!? $164,000 bucks?!? Where did the money go? Sure, I know those knew razor phones are pretty expensive but?!?

There better be lot's of explosions...a giant monkey...and some tasteful nudity...well it doesn't have to be tasteful...

But I digress...where did the money go? I don't mind pushing the envelope and doing innovative things but that seems like an extremely bloated bugdet...I hope there were no roaming charges...
  • 0

#7 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:48 AM

They still had a crew to move, feed, etc. maybe there was lighting and grip work for the telephones (ha,ha!).
They also had the film transfer to do.
  • 0

#8 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:48 AM

I'm slightly confused...

They shot using cell phone cameras?!? $164,000 bucks?!? Where did the money go? Sure, I know those knew razor phones are pretty expensive but?!?

There better be lot's of explosions...a giant monkey...and some tasteful nudity...well it doesn't have to be tasteful...

But I digress...where did the money go? I don't mind pushing the envelope and doing innovative things but that seems like an extremely bloated bugdet...I hope there were no roaming charges...


I assume it'd because he's paying people. Good actors and crew cost money, you can make make films for a lot less if you're only paying for the camera, stock etc. There are a few feature films shot on Mini DV that could have been shot on Super 16, if not 35mm given their budgets, the format being a creative decision rather than a budgetary one.

There are good film made for the cost of the materials, but they have good scripts and have found good actors who are willing to work on the film. Unfortunately, too many really low budget films fail on both these fronts. How good a film finally will be is 80 % decided before it has even been shot - the script, the casting and who's in the crew.

Although, I'm not too sure about sitting in the front row watching this particular film, but it's not an unexpected that some one would do it.
  • 0

#9 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 28 February 2006 - 12:13 PM

Has anyone else seen this one?

http://www.worldchan...ves/004150.html

What do you all think?


Are you any relation to David Sheehy?
  • 0

#10 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:08 PM

Umm... I'll believe it when I see it. I'd imagine anything originated on a cell phone would look horrifying when blown up to 35mm and projected.


They mean't viewing it with your eyes closed.
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 28 February 2006 - 02:04 PM

Can anyone say corporate sponsorship? Ahem ahem ahem. Don't get me wrong, I love creative things, but aren't camera phones something like 1/4 the resolution of NTSC? It'd be hard to watch on a 10 inch TV, let alone a 50 foot screen in the cinema. I agree, though. It is interesting. I guess SOMEONE needs to use the video mode on those cameras, as people tend to use them once or twice, then never use them again. . .

Regards.

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#12 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 28 February 2006 - 02:33 PM

I'm slightly confused...

They shot using cell phone cameras?!? $164,000 bucks?!? Where did the money go? Sure, I know those knew razor phones are pretty expensive but?!?


Camera and G/E crews with cell phone experience aren't cheap these days, I guess. Can't wait for that 35 blow-up!!! :o
  • 0

#13 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 02:44 PM

It seems these days the competition is about who will go lower in quality and still get away with it.

Trying to pull out as much as possible from super16 or HD is one thing, but this is ridiculous.
Burning film has become like a professional equivalent of the CD/DVD burning mania at home.
Soon everyone will stand in line to burn all kinds of crappy images, drawings and what not to a film print.

Well anyway, the lower they go (with DV, cellphones and such stuff)
the better will plain old 35mm look on screen compared to it.
  • 0

#14 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:32 PM

Maybe this is part of a high tech neo-pointilist movement.
Remember those Pixelvision cameras that were video cameras made for kids and used audio cassettes?
People are still using those with all kinds of mods.
A feature was shot with those-"Nadja" an adaptation of a novel by André Breton. Produced by David Lynch if I remember correctly.
Why be so hard on a film you haven't seen yet.
Maybe shooting on cell phone cams enabled the filmmakers to work in a very discreet way that was necessary to achieve what they were after.
Lots of rubbish gets shot on Panavision cameras as well.
It isn't the wand that counts as much as the magic that comes out of it.
  • 0

#15 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:51 PM

Maybe this is part of a high tech neo-pointilist movement.
Remember those Pixelvision cameras that were video cameras made for kids and used audio cassettes?
People are still using those with all kinds of mods.
A feature was shot with those-"Nadja" an adaptation of a novel by André Breton. Produced by David Lynch if I remember correctly.
Why be so hard on a film you haven't seen yet.
Maybe shooting on cell phone cams enabled the filmmakers to work in a very discreet way that was necessary to achieve what they were after.
Lots of rubbish gets shot on Panavision cameras as well.
It isn't the wand that counts as much as the magic that comes out of it.


When the quality of the image is roughly equivalent to that of a *video disk* ( I mean the records that played back primitive mechanical television signals ) there is very little that you can do with it. Are video phones even 30 fps? I've heard some only do 8-12. I agree Filip; what a terrible terrible waste of good print stock. I don't buy all of this necessity for discreetness bullshit. There are plenty of concealable video cameras ou there. This can only be a gimmick to sell phones.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#16 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 February 2006 - 07:31 PM

Are you any relation to David Sheehy?


Not sure.. If he's in America, probably not. My mob are through Brisbane Australia.

"This can only be a gimmick to sell phones."

Could be, Sony Erricson sponsered the phones.
They are 2 megapix autofocus cameras.

... wonder how long he could record for... & how he did the transfer. I don't know of any post facilities that handle phones! :D

It is supposed to be releasing around May... so maybe we'll see some frame grabs soon.
  • 0

#17 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:58 PM

if the picture accompanying the article is from the film, it does look real good for a cell phone. Aftwr reading the plot synopsys, I can see how this could work. I'm looking forward to seeing it. Any series of visual images can tell a story if they're used right. I have a suspision this one may surprise a lot of you
  • 0

#18 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:08 PM

That is Hardcore Man! Hardcore!

I am eager to see the narative side of this project.
Yes, we can be suprised.

I was thinking...
Why don't i shoot a short with web camera?
Pluged into laptop...
:)

I remeber a music video on MTV shot with web cams.


From an review of the Sony Ericsson W900i used phones:
"Hidden beneath the hood, and likely to silence detractors of music phones, is a whopping 470MB of free memory space (good for up to 240 songs), on top of the Memory Stick PRO Duo slot for an optional 2GB more of storage capacity (yielding up to 1,000 tracks)."
And It looks it goes 640x480@30fps.
(usual disclaimer)


Check this out too:
http://www.theasc.co...kes/page1.html#

Creative use of Lo-Fi. Why not?


Wait till the day comes...
Phones with 2K+ video, 15 stops dynamic range, variable frame rates...

Hehe. :)


Regards

Igor Trajkovski

Edited by Igor Trajkovski, 28 February 2006 - 11:17 PM.

  • 0

#19 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 01 March 2006 - 12:43 AM

I saw "online" the other day and it had a ton of what looked like webcam shots. It was interesting, not a great movie but very cool.
  • 0

#20 kata

kata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 March 2006 - 11:58 AM

from http://smssugarman.com/

The Use of Mobile Technology in SMS Sugar Man

SMS SUGAR MAN is a feature film that incorporates new cell phone technologies in a highly innovative manner.

The film is not only actually shot on cell phone cameras, in itself a revolutionary breakthrough, but the cell phone plays a vital role in driving the film's narrative - in effect functioning as a dramatic character.

All the lead actresses carry a cell phone and constantly film each other. Thus the traditional cinematic practice of having a "cast" who are invisibly filmed by a "crew" of technicians - is radically subverted.

In SMS SUGAR MAN cast and crew fuse - the actresses are in control of filming each other - and in monologue scenes, -themselves.

This conceptual leap mirrors the tremendous empowering effect that cell phone technology has had on our every day lives.

The plot of the film is entirely driven around the potential that cell phones have to enable us explore new forms of communication and new ways of representing ourselves. The consequences of these innovations are hardly studied as yet, and SMS SUGAR MAN makes a contribution to our understanding of how significant cell phone technology has been on our evolutionary social development.

Cell phone media have become so much part of our daily living that it would be impossible to conceive of an urban environment without them. SMS SUGAR MAN is a prescient glimpse into the near future when all our most basic relations with each other are informed by cell phone use, including sexuality and spirituality.
  • 0


The Slider

Visual Products

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Wooden Camera