one scene from my latest project...

[matthewd5]

ok i found a group of people in boston who are putting together a bunch of sketches for the boston public access channel.

this clip is one scene from a sketch, i did the camera, lighting, audio etc. i had nothing to do with story, actors/casting etc.

give me some feedback please...

http://www.cluelessandlark.org/thelovebirds.wmv

matthew

[antomic]

matthew...this piece was very funny. i enjoyed watching it.

please take the following comments as constructive criticism...not insults to the work.

it was weird watching it in squeeze mode. i would suggest rendering out a wide version for posting.

i dont know if you are planning for any cut away shots, but it seemed a bit like watching surveillance footage as the camera wasnt moving.

the lighting seemed a little flat. it would have been nice if there was a little more drama to the overall look. Plus I can see the boom operator's shadow moving in the right side of the frame.

i also felt the framing was a little high. a lot of extra headroom at the top, unless you're planning on going extra widescreen with it by letterboxing in addition to stretching it out.

It was cute and funny, and the actors did a great job. The sound seemed pretty good too.

Side note...i did the original marketing art for that shrek face on the back of the cereal box... :D

[antomic]

i just watched it again. too damn funny...

"mmm....bbq chicken...you smell so good!"
"baby, i love you SOOOO much!"

[matthewd5]

thanks for the feedback, i didn't realize it was still anamorphic...

my tv does anamorphic automatically and on my comuter it streams in normal 16:9 format.

i should mention that it was shot in a 200 sq ft loft in boston with more ceiling space than floor space.

finding room for the lightstands was a challenge!

the framing was the directors preference, as well as the shot list.

were the colors a little too much?

i had the boom attached to a c stand and the mic in a stationary location above the actors.

the director asked "can you make it look like a sitcom on tv"

it was a nice experience because i rarely work with actors or do so many staged setups.

i put the first 100 hours on my dvx-100a doing two documentaries.

i suck at lighting, i have read everything out there but this month i'm going to walter graff's lighting thing in NYC so i have high hopes for that. i definitely learn better from someone in person than even the best book!

thanks for the feedback.

matthew

[matthewd5]

ok i've tried it on a couple of different computers and they all play it in 16:9

what player are you using and what version?

i'm using the stock windows media player in all cases.

also, does the picture look at all fuzzy to you?

matthew

[antomic]

picture isn't fuzzy. it's pretty clean. i'm viewing with windows media 9 on a macintosh.

well as far as the director asking for it to look like a sitcom, then i retract my previous statement, but then add, shadows were a bit obvious from the source, but given the constraints of space, there's not more i can say. it doesnt look bad, just flat.

and regarding colors being too much. no, however, it all feels like it's in the same palette, from the brick wall, to her nightgown, and his shirt. everything is warm and monotone. sitcoms are very colorful, almost comicbook-like. i think this may be adding to the overall flat look.

again, i really enjoyed this. it made me laugh. it's fine work, with a little room for improvement.

[BLUESPIDER]

This is really not my cup of tea. I applogized if I didn't laugh. The acting on the male side was really anoying. I'm not quite sure what he was trying to be. Whatever it is didn't work for me. The girl on the other wasn't too bad. As far as lighting, I agree with antomic, lighting is flat. I didn't like the shadows it was casting. I forgive you since you said you weren't that good in lighting. It takes some practice and you'll soon be a pro. As for your camera work, I can't say a whole lot because its just a wide shot. I don't know if this was intentional by the director. It just made it boring to watch. IMO, cutting to some CU maybe would spice it alittle more. Maybe it would of made it funnier. The audio wasn't bad or was it good. It sounded distant. But I can hear what they said. Overall Matthewd5, I give you props for at least going out there and shooting projects and finishing it. I meet people all the time who's all talk and no film. At least your doing something. Keep it up man, you'll improve and become a bad ass one day. Peace!

[matthewd5]

thanks.

not to make excuses but i tried doing some shadows more but they wanted the lighting pretty much just like that, even.

that is just one shot, there are close ups and a few other shots, someone else is going to be editing it, i just wanted to post one raw shot out of the camera, that is why i left in the slate.

i am really looking forward to walter graff's lighting class on the 29th!

i have stocked up on lights but never really had a chance to use them, my previous work has pretty much just been run and gun documentaries.

matthew

[Bermudaforce]

Is this a comedy, like SNL or MadTV?

[matthewd5]

yes that is what they have in mind.

it is shot sort of flat and has just a few close-ups as per their request, i think its all to add to the look of it being shot on a stage or something, plus they know less than zero about filming.

i have zero to do with the stories, it was just a chance to help someone out and a chance to shoot some stuff different from whatever i normally shoot.

i jump at chances to shoot stuff, especially things different.

i'm also going to be helping a student at a local college who would otherwise have to use a crappy school camera.

i figure i have this camera and a car full of gear, crane, dolly, lights etc. and i'd rather wear them out than have them sit in the garage or closet!

plus i'm looking for an excuse to get a second dvx-100

[lincolnlog]

yeah it is really flat... you said it was shot in a loft? use some Cstands and fly some lights over their heads... you really need a background light to kill those shadows... sitcoms do have flat lighting, and do not have shadows like that... where is your kicker?

[matthewd5]

it was a studio apartment, 200 square feet and i think that included the bathroom!

they were kind of inpatient with the setup time as it was. there was so little space to setup, i think i had 4 lights as it was.

the space was sort of an l shape and the kitchen was where we were shooting and i had plenty of c stands but unless i had an appropriate boom to safely suspend the lights above their heads there wasn't much else i could do.

ultimately i would have put a softbox or better directly above their heads but i've never needed a boom that can go up that high so all i had were regular light stands.

matthew

[lincolnlog]

theres always a next time ;) sucks that you where rushed

[matthewd5]

i try to learn something every day and definitely everytime i use my camera and on this project i'm learning to try and explain to people how long this stuff can take.

its really hard when they ask for an estimate, they schedule like 15 minutes between shooting two totally different sketches in the same studio apartment and then less than an hour to shoot each sketch.

each sketch can have as many as 4 different scenes/setups and as many as 7 takes.

ended up taking around 3 hours for 2 sketches starting from the minute i opened up my light case.

i thought it went pretty well.

i have so little lighting experience and i am pretty much counting the days till the walter graff lighting thing.

i have learned so much from reading quite literally every post on here and reading at least a dozen books but lighting is the one thing that i have been unable to learn hardly anything from those sources.

the walter graff articles and newsletter have helped a bit because they show diagrams of placements and the real world shot in stills.

matthew