Jump to content


Photo

my reel


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:43 PM

I've finally stepped into the 20th century and started building a website. As of now all I have up is my reel, which I guess is the most important part anyway.
Have a look. There is a high res version and a lower res version. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
bradgrimmett.com
And please let me know if the download times are very long.
  • 0

#2 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:35 PM

Lovely, download times are OK for the low res, didn't try the hi res.

Only thing I would fix is the shot of the guy in the hospital halfway through. It seems to be anamorphic but it is left un-stretched, so it looks distorted vertically. Minor thing, really . . .
  • 0

#3 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 November 2008 - 01:04 AM

I've finally stepped into the 20th century and started building a website. As of now all I have up is my reel, which I guess is the most important part anyway.
Have a look. There is a high res version and a lower res version. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
bradgrimmett.com
And please let me know if the download times are very long.


I tried the "hi-res" version and gave up without playing it on my pretty hi-speed DSL connection. The "low-res" plays just fine and the work looks good.
  • 0

#4 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 November 2008 - 01:09 AM

Only thing I would fix is the shot of the guy in the hospital halfway through. It seems to be anamorphic but it is left un-stretched, so it looks distorted vertically. Minor thing, really . . .

Hmm, that's strange. It looks fine when I play it. It was 1.85 and as far as I know is still in the correct aspect ratio. I guess it could be a bit off, but I don't think so. I'll check it out.
  • 0

#5 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7371 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 November 2008 - 01:12 AM

Brad, you might want to use flash for the low res version. I think it'll help the quality. If you'd like I can try to do a conversion to a .flv for you early next week. You'd need to find some coding though to get it properly embedded in the webpage. Aside from that looks ok in low-res, but i think you can get better. what compression are you using?
  • 0

#6 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 November 2008 - 01:14 AM

I tried the "hi-res" version and gave up without playing it on my pretty hi-speed DSL connection. The "low-res" plays just fine and the work looks good.

Thanks. Yeah, I figure I'll leave the high res up there for anyone who really wants a better look. I'll definitely keep the low res up though.
  • 0

#7 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:06 AM

None of the web pages ran properly for me. The launch page didn't have it's photo, and neither reel page would display any video. Sorry.
  • 0

#8 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:40 AM

Hi Brad,

The work itself looks awesome!
One this I would point out is there is a shift in the title position when you go to the default page and click High Rez version. A small thing, but easy fixable.
If Matthew can't see it, he may not have the quicktime plug in for his browser. Adrian suggested a flash file. Another advantage to that is that that format is a little more independent of the Windows vs. Mac conflicts and as long as someone is using a browser that less than 3 years old, it should have the plug in and play fine.

Tom
  • 0

#9 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:32 AM

Hey Brad,

Unfortunately my internet is quite slow so I didn't try and look at your high rez.
I do however think that your footage, which looks great, warrants a slight improvement in the quality of your low rez. Which codec did you use?
  • 0


Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

CineTape

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC