Jump to content


Photo

Improved First Reel


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 25 April 2007 - 02:26 PM

I've updated the reel after the critisms made in the previous thread.

I've had to delete the original so I've started a new thread to avoid confusion with the original link.

New Reel

Let me know what you think.
  • 0

#2 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 25 April 2007 - 04:00 PM

I really like the sequence in which the black couple make out, should really be one of the first shots on the reel. Explosive stuff, definite show stopper. Girl on the phone is great too, moody but not obvious. Very nice work.

All the walking around the woods is nice wide angle work but could be summed up much quicker- it's just a bit of a drag given we don't know the narrative context of that sequence. The weight sinks it. To be honest, the rostrum shot of the drawing is much more captivating (and unexpected but no less proof of ability).

Well done for finding music that isn't grating indie guitar strum/whining too- that alone will set you apart from the rest. ;)
  • 0

#3 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 25 April 2007 - 04:08 PM

The weight sinks it.


Don't quite understand?

Well done for finding music that isn't grating indie guitar strum/whining too- that alone will set you apart from the rest. ;)


Thanks, its amazing what you can find free with the Guardian, (unfortunatly I have to admit my prefered type of music is club/dance :ph34r: , which isn't really suitable for a showreel.)

Edited by Andy_Alderslade, 25 April 2007 - 04:09 PM.

  • 0

#4 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 25 April 2007 - 04:22 PM

Shots in the opening sequence are too long, it's too big a sequence, it is out of context as a silent extract and as a result has no clear narrative to grip your viewer in. I'd lop it down and stick the stuff with couple, the rostrum drawing (maybe even some b/w) and the girl on phone in first as a taster, and then go into a shorter version of your woods sequence.

I know and appreciate what you are trying to do by building up suspense, but it really is about first impressions and best images need to be at the front. The couple making out is WAY too powerful to be sitting halfway through. If you show us the make out scene first, you've got us through the rest of the reel!
  • 0

#5 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 25 April 2007 - 04:25 PM

Shots in the opening sequence are too long, it's too big a sequence, it is out of context as a silent extract and as a result has no clear narrative to grip your viewer in. I'd lop it down and stick the stuff with couple, the rostrum drawing (maybe even some b/w) and the girl on phone in first as a taster, and then go into a shorter version of your woods sequence.

I know and appreciate what you are trying to do by building up suspense, but it really is about first impressions and best images need to be at the front. The couple making out is WAY too powerful to be sitting halfway through. If you show us the make out scene first, you've got us through the rest of the reel!


Thanks for the tip
  • 0

#6 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 April 2007 - 07:45 PM

I think this new one shows your ability much better than the old one, great job. I disagree with Tim, I think it's good how it is, except for the second and third shots, which could be replaced with something more visually powerful - it would break up the scene, but I thought they were from a different part of the film anyway the first time I watched it.

Edited by David Sweetman, 25 April 2007 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#7 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:09 PM

I think this new one shows your ability much better than the old one, great job. I disagree with Tim, I think it's good how it is, except for the second and third shots, which could be replaced with something more visually powerful - it would break up the scene, but I thought they were from a different part of the film anyway the first time I watched it.


Thanks David,

What are second and third shots you are refering to? The ones of the guy looking down at the paper?

Cheers,
Andy
  • 0

#8 Jamey Johnson

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

Posted 04 May 2007 - 02:53 PM

Andy,
What were the shots of the guy with the cellphone shot on?
  • 0

#9 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 05 May 2007 - 10:02 AM

Andy,
What were the shots of the guy with the cellphone shot on?


Super 8 - Vision 200T shot a Beulieu 4008.
  • 0

#10 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 May 2007 - 01:44 PM

I really liked the 16mm work out of everything (the intimate scene)

The lighting looked really impressive. Out of interest, what did you do for the lighting on that scene?
  • 0

#11 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 05 May 2007 - 02:52 PM

I really liked the 16mm work out of everything (the intimate scene)

The lighting looked really impressive. Out of interest, what did you do for the lighting on that scene?


Are you refereing to the couple 'at it' on the bed? If so that wasn't 16mm but DV shot on a Canon XL-2 + some post grading.

Because its DV and I was trying to shoot wide open the light levels were very low - a single 800W redhead, with several layers of diffusion right of camera at eye waist level. A single practicle 100W lamp was placed to the left of the performers for some fill. The bulb was partialy raped in black-rap.

The 16mm on the reel, was the 'evil box' short footage (Super 16 Aaton), the black and white footage of the estate agent in the haunted house (Regular 16mm, Bolex RX4) and the boy in the train station (regular 16mm, push processed)
  • 0

#12 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 May 2007 - 07:02 PM

Are you refereing to the couple 'at it' on the bed? If so that wasn't 16mm but DV shot on a Canon XL-2 + some post grading.

Oops.. that's embarrassing...

Because its DV and I was trying to shoot wide open the light levels were very low - a single 800W redhead, with several layers of diffusion right of camera at eye waist level. A single practicle 100W lamp was placed to the left of the performers for some fill. The bulb was partialy raped in black-rap.

The 16mm on the reel, was the 'evil box' short footage (Super 16 Aaton), the black and white footage of the estate agent in the haunted house (Regular 16mm, Bolex RX4) and the boy in the train station (regular 16mm, push processed)

Ok thanks. I really everything about it apart from the shadows, they were a little off putting, and the objects behind the characters on the close up of 'his' hands (down to set design mainly I know, but could have been cheated and shot against the blinds maybe). But apart from that, it honestly looked like something you would see on some kind of an 'R&B' music video on MTV.

Nice work.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 05 May 2007 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0

#13 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 07 May 2007 - 06:18 AM

Oops.. that's embarrassing...


Thats okay, you're watching a compressed version on the internet, and its progressive video in a low light interior so the difference is at its least.

Ok thanks. I really everything about it apart from the shadows, they were a little off putting, and the objects behind the characters on the close up of 'his' hands (down to set design mainly I know, but could have been cheated and shot against the blinds maybe). But apart from that, it honestly looked like something you would see on some kind of an 'R&B' music video on MTV.


yes unfortunatly when the walls are bright white, its hard to avoid shadow in that sort of scene. The objects - personally I have less of a problem with because at least their out of focus when in shot, so you're not drawn to them. Unfortunatly, though i'm to blame as well, these are many of the problems of shooting video on a 1/3' chip, you constantly feel like your fighting the limitations of the technology.

Well thats when the director is obssesed in a film look, or obsessed in DOF - you can't get something for nothing, its infuriating, and whats wronge with embrasing a 'video look' or even embracing deep staging.
  • 0

#14 Andrew Willis

Andrew Willis
  • Guests

Posted 12 May 2007 - 05:32 PM

Looks great,
I'm just wondering if the stuff with the drawings and the fire superimposed was done in camera or in post? It's a really cool shot.
  • 0

#15 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 13 May 2007 - 06:34 AM

Looks great,
I'm just wondering if the stuff with the drawings and the fire superimposed was done in camera or in post? It's a really cool shot.


Andrew,

Thanks, those shots were from my undergrad final project film at UKC. The majority of the film was shot by a fellow student - but I photographed those scenes.

We did the drawings and maps on specially purchased textured paper. They were mounted on the wall and lit only from one side with warm, jelled lights. I photographed them in 35mm stills film one by one. We had prints made for reference, but then I scanned the negatives using a stills neg/slide scanner, and scanned them at the highest resolution possible.

Then using a specific program called 'Imaginate' (though others are able to do that now) I was able to design movements over the high-res picture, that meant it could zoom in/out, move horizontally/verticaly and also rotate on all x, y and z axis.

Of course if you zoomed in enough you would see film grain, but that actually added to the texture of the image - and in-fact the main fault of these sequences was they were to high quality to fit in with the rest of the film that was shot on DV on a Canon XL1. Not to criticize the DV footage, but film and DV often don't cut together well - hopefully I'll upload a full version soon if you want to see other sequences shot like this in the film.

Best,
Andy
  • 0


Opal

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Glidecam

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineLab

Opal

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks