PDA

View Full Version : My 2010 DP Reel



marlontorres
03-01-2010, 09:18 PM
Another year, another reel... a few months late but oh well :)

9845728

kyle.presley
03-01-2010, 10:06 PM
Nice work Mr. Torres. I've been following your work for a while now... couple years at least. Some nice shots in there. I would suggest faster cuts and more variety, but I am one to talk if you ever get to check out my DP reel. I dig it!

marlontorres
03-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Mr. Torres is my father, call me Marlon... haha

kyle.presley
03-02-2010, 07:09 PM
I was being cheeky. I am old fashioned, though.

PaPa
03-03-2010, 05:39 AM
What lenses did you use for the shots of the woman dressed in white on the beach? Some of those are SOO sharp, i can't believe it's from the 7D.

xqzt
03-03-2010, 06:52 AM
Beautiful footage. I would cut the length of this in half. Cut out the dog shots, definitely the variable speed shot of the dog, its kind of jarring. Think of it as making a new movie out of all those movies. Right now it's kind of like watchin a few shorts back to back. Shorten each small montage. Maximize it by cutting redundant styles of shots... we dont need to see so many different versions of closeups for one. No offense, I am just trying to help... it becomes a bit indulgent. I love the explosions and the warships in the bay, Cut some of those horizon shots from the beginning... Leave one out of the three and cut it in half, or shorter. Don't get me wrong the volume of quality to your work is very impressive, but if anyone wants the volume have them watch those individual pieces separately. Peace... and good luck!

marlontorres
03-03-2010, 07:05 AM
What lenses did you use for the shots of the woman dressed in white on the beach? Some of those are SOO sharp, i can't believe it's from the 7D.

Canon L primes

Emanuel
03-03-2010, 07:28 AM
What lenses did you use for the shots of the woman dressed in white on the beach? Some of those are SOO sharp, i can't believe it's from the 7D.

Canon L primesThe extra 5% sharpness? LOL ;-)

Emanuel
03-03-2010, 07:30 AM
Congratulations! You should include your credits as VFX artist as well IMO. And director if it is the case.

E. :-)

marlontorres
03-03-2010, 08:37 AM
The extra 5% sharpness? LOL ;-)

Hey, I can't help it if I have a few for my still photography. Might as well use it right?!

marlontorres
03-03-2010, 08:38 AM
Congratulations! You should include your credits as VFX artist as well IMO. And director if it is the case.

E. :-)

I'm actually gonna make a separate reel for those as well.

ryan brown
03-03-2010, 10:53 AM
Beautiful footage. I would cut the length of this in half. Cut out the dog shots, definitely the variable speed shot of the dog, its kind of jarring. Think of it as making a new movie out of all those movies. Right now it's kind of like watchin a few shorts back to back. Shorten each small montage. Maximize it by cutting redundant styles of shots... we dont need to see so many different versions of closeups for one. No offense, I am just trying to help... it becomes a bit indulgent. I love the explosions and the warships in the bay, Cut some of those horizon shots from the beginning... Leave one out of the three and cut it in half, or shorter. Don't get me wrong the volume of quality to your work is very impressive, but if anyone wants the volume have them watch those individual pieces separately. Peace... and good luck!

I agree with just about everything here. Great critique. I don't know about cutting it in half, but shortening it with the advice given is spot on.

REALLY excellent work Marlon, and there are some fantastic shots in here. I'm a fan.

-brown

Ben_B
03-03-2010, 11:58 AM
Well done!

I thought the editing was a bit slow at the beginning and I think you could probably lose half the shots from there and make it a bit faster. But the last half was great and I love the typography at the end.

Emanuel
03-03-2010, 12:10 PM
Hey, I can't help it if I have a few for my still photography. Might as well use it right?!;-)

Emanuel
03-03-2010, 12:10 PM
I'm actually gonna make a separate reel for those as well.You do it right. Your reels have future. Written by someone who has followed up your footage since the 1/3" chip times :-)

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 01:12 AM
You mean Son of Celeste? The good ol' days...

Anthonyb
03-04-2010, 11:02 AM
Marlon what precise settings did you use to export your file? It looks great on vimeo.

KickdoeHD
03-04-2010, 11:41 AM
Wow. This is stunning.

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 01:07 PM
Marlon what precise settings did you use to export your file? It looks great on vimeo.

Just H264 at 720p, nothing special.

PaPa
03-04-2010, 05:26 PM
The extra 5% sharpness? LOL ;-)

I believe it's that small level of difference that makes the result that much better. Hey, i noticed the level of detail coming from a compressed HD website..

and i disagree about it being 5% ( i know you weren't giving accurate numbers ) but according to still posted in another thread comparing both the stock lenses and L series ( or USM - can't remember ) the difference is dramatic.

Everts
03-04-2010, 05:43 PM
I like your new avatar :)

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 06:10 PM
I believe it's that small level of difference that makes the result that much better. Hey, i noticed the level of detail coming from a compressed HD website..

and i disagree about it being 5% ( i know you weren't giving accurate numbers ) but according to still posted in another thread comparing both the stock lenses and L series ( or USM - can't remember ) the difference is dramatic.

Not true. See for yourself. Tested it myself.

9863834

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 06:11 PM
I like your new avatar :)

Um thanks... thats flattering... haha

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 07:00 PM
You mean Son of Celeste? The good ol' days...I still have your clips @ one of my hard drives :-)

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 07:03 PM
I believe it's that small level of difference that makes the result that much better. Hey, i noticed the level of detail coming from a compressed HD website..

and i disagree about it being 5% ( i know you weren't giving accurate numbers ) but according to still posted in another thread comparing both the stock lenses and L series ( or USM - can't remember ) the difference is dramatic.For sure. You should have noticed my LOL. It is coming from here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1908515#post1908515

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 07:26 PM
Not true. See for yourself. Tested it myself.

9863834Interesting finding. Thanks for your test and care to report.

Shame you have no the 16-35mm f2.8 L for compare it as well. As matter of fact, we're used to see the "L" class level as a whole. It isn't. There are different quality glass among the several models.

Bryan Carnathan @ http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx:

I find the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens to be at least slightly sharper in the center at all apertures (including f/2.8 vs. f/4) and focal lengths. At 35mm, they are very similar. Because the 17-40 corners are darker at comparison apertures wider than f/5.6, care must be taken to differentiate between differences in corner sharpness vs differences in vignetting. At 16/17mm, the corner sharpness results were mixed with both lenses showing better results at various areas of the frame in various comparisons - the 16-35 is slightly better for a generalization. At 24mm, the 16-35 II wins the corner matchups and at 35mm they are mostly similar with the 17-40 having an slight edge - especially with close subjects (such as the ISO 12233 Chart).

The CA performance is also different between both lenses.

PaPa
03-04-2010, 07:29 PM
I can't seem to find the thread that compares the two types of lenses. I remember one of the images showed a parking lot, grass and a building, and on the right side of the image there was a truck. The detail to me was substantial.

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 08:11 PM
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1908462&postcount=16

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/859/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg/)

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/859/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg (http://img444.imageshack.us/i/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg/)

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/859/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg/)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/859/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/comparisoncropcanonefs1.jpg/)

As already posted through several posts, there are a lot of variables which you can control or not in order to open the doors to the differences or minimize them. Playing with the DOF will be one of the techniques you can handle in order to enhance the strengths of an inferior lens.

Again, the cinema is just a matter of balance. In another topic but related to the same principle, that's why the GH1 codec can rival or mimic 35mm film. Yes, you read it.

Once more, nice test Marlon.

PaPa
03-04-2010, 08:19 PM
thats what i was looking for, thanks!

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 08:51 PM
I'll do an outdoor test of the two lenses tomorrow, to see if there are any huge changes.

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 09:02 PM
Yes, wide shots @ deep DOF with distinct sharpness and multiple aperture settings would be a different test indeed. Don't you have access to the 16-35mm f/2.8 as well?

marlontorres
03-04-2010, 09:13 PM
Wanna give me $1500 so I can buy one?

Emanuel
03-04-2010, 11:07 PM
It depends. What do you have for trade? ;-)

marlontorres
03-05-2010, 02:09 AM
I'll give you an Executive Producer credit on "The Bridge"! lol

Emanuel
03-05-2010, 08:53 AM
It can be worth it. Send me the cast list... :-)

marlontorres
03-11-2010, 09:42 AM
Sorry for the delay on that test, I promise I'll do it today... haha!

alignment1
03-11-2010, 10:25 AM
Beautiful footage. I would cut the length of this in half. Cut out the dog shots, definitely the variable speed shot of the dog, its kind of jarring. Think of it as making a new movie out of all those movies. Right now it's kind of like watchin a few shorts back to back. Shorten each small montage. Maximize it by cutting redundant styles of shots... we dont need to see so many different versions of closeups for one. No offense, I am just trying to help... it becomes a bit indulgent. I love the explosions and the warships in the bay, Cut some of those horizon shots from the beginning... Leave one out of the three and cut it in half, or shorter. Don't get me wrong the volume of quality to your work is very impressive, but if anyone wants the volume have them watch those individual pieces separately. Peace... and good luck!

I also agree with this-- GREAT- footy, but too long/slow- All of the 'eyes' here on DVXuser (as you know I'm sure) are able to capture the message your sending, (in this case your footy reel), in a fraction of the time.

Less is more--makes you want to watch again, crave for more.

**Also- I think varying aspect ratios/dimensions causes disruption for the viewer.
Example: if you have a couple clips at a 2.35 aspect and others at 1.78, I would say make them uniform even if you have to re-cut/crop all to 2.35.

Just some thoughts-- really impressive work though! :thumbsup:

Z

marlontorres
03-11-2010, 11:29 AM
I also agree with this-- GREAT- footy, but too long/slow- All of the 'eyes' here on DVXuser (as you know I'm sure) are able to capture the message your sending, (in this case your footy reel), in a fraction of the time.

Less is more--makes you want to watch again, crave for more.

**Also- I think varying aspect ratios/dimensions causes disruption for the viewer.
Example: if you have a couple clips at a 2.35 aspect and others at 1.78, I would say make them uniform even if you have to re-cut/crop all to 2.35.

Just some thoughts-- really impressive work though! :thumbsup:

Z

As for the aspect ratio, some shots were composed for certain ratios so if i cropped shots that were meant to be 1.85... id be ruining the original composition in mind. As a DP, i'd like to showcase my work as they were originally framed and composed. i dont like cropping things out that arent supposed to be cropped out :)