Jump to content


Photo

here's a little film


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:01 PM

here's a little link for yas.

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

let me know what you think.
  • 0

#2 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:29 PM

Could we have some details on the format and gear used ?
  • 0

#3 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 February 2007 - 05:55 AM

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 by Dennis Kisilyov, 03 February 2007 - 05:56 AM.

  • 0

#4 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:00 PM

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.
  • 0

#5 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:42 PM

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
  • 0

#6 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 09 February 2007 - 06:13 PM

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 ?
  • 0

#7 Morgan Peline

Morgan Peline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 February 2007 - 09:44 PM

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.co...e...TF8&s=books
  • 0

#8 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 09 February 2007 - 10:37 PM

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
  • 0

#9 Morgan Peline

Morgan Peline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 February 2007 - 08:30 PM

Ouch,

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

Sorry!

<_<
  • 0

#10 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 10 February 2007 - 11:30 PM

heh,

well, remember I'm only assuming the pun was intended by the film maker ;)
  • 0

#11 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2007 - 12:34 PM

"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.
  • 0

#12 Lee Maisel

Lee Maisel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 67 posts
  • Student

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:31 PM

HOLEY Place ! ! ROFL!!!!!!!
  • 0

#13 Jamey Johnson

Jamey Johnson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Student

Posted 11 February 2007 - 05:09 PM

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.
  • 0

#14 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 February 2007 - 01:47 PM

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.
  • 0

#15 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 February 2007 - 08:22 PM

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 by Dennis Kisilyov, 12 February 2007 - 08:23 PM.

  • 0

#16 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 February 2007 - 12:56 PM

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!
  • 0

#17 gordon liron

gordon liron
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Other
  • studio city

Posted 13 February 2007 - 08:44 PM

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
  • 0

#18 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:15 PM

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
  • 0

#19 Brian Woods

Brian Woods
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 February 2007 - 11:46 PM

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?
  • 0

#20 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 14 February 2007 - 01:28 AM

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.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Tai Audio

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Abel Cine

CineLab

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Opal

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineTape

CineLab

FJS International, LLC