35mm short film

C

chrisBcornell

Member
Greetings All,

My name is Chris and I have been on this site for a while as a browser, just never found the need to post. Well, I just completed a short film, and I thought that this would be a good venue for basic reviews. The film was shot on 35mm and the online version does not do the quality justice. Once I free up some upload space I will put up the higher quality version. There are some naughty words so if your not into that, look out. Thanks in advance.

Chris

Full Screen Version:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-326678620469304325&q=b+roll+film

or just watch it at myspace:
www.myspace.com/brollfilm

 
Last edited:
chrisBcornell said:
There are some naughty words so if your not into that, look out.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be listen out? :)

anyway, I clicked on the link, but no video, just a buch of pictures to click on- of other activists- I would like to check this out ....
 
Ok at first I was like oh god here we go another crappy thing, some cheap stuff, the guy is just doing normal day stuff.

But then that freaking news anchor came on tv and I started getting more into the film. WOW the idea and the script were great. Good job really good short.
 
Yeah actually go to the myspace link that he posted and you can see the production pictures. They actually used 35, that camera is huge.
 
How did you edit your film? Did you do a telecine, and if so, how much for how long of footage?

Some details of your post workflow would be nice.

What camera/lights did you use? Sound?
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
How did you edit your film? Did you do a telecine, and if so, how much for how long of footage?

Some details of your post workflow would be nice.

What camera/lights did you use? Sound?
Click to expand...

Transfered from 35mm negative in LA to 1080i HD resolution (that is the nice looking version). We shot about 1900 feet (21 minutes) and the price to transfer to HI-DEF came out to 325 for everything(thanks to CCI digital in LA for the nice price). The film was cut on FCP 5.02 and compositing was dealt with in Adobe After effects ver. 6.5. Work was done on a dual core G4 with 1 gb ram.
All in all, I thnk that the HD stuff is too new for us. We had a very tight post schedule, and we ran into all sorts of problems with exporting, dropping frames and other random things that no one could figure out. This combined with the fact that nobody we know has an HD set and every DVD we have is Standard DEF. Maybe someday the full HD version will rear its ugly head but not now.

THe film was shot on th ARRi IIIB modified to shoot super-35mm. THere were 2 mole richardson 2k's and 3-lowell .650k and a few mole 1k's. All the sound was done in post using a marantz digital chip recorder and a Seinhierser shotgun mic.
 
lucidz said:
how much did this cost to make start to finish? especially the film footage?
Click to expand...


The total cost was 1600-- we were able to swing some good deals. We planned to spend about 2400 but ended up saving a lot of cash. The Film was the biggest cost-camera rental+film+proccessing+telecine=about 1300.
We saved money by buying short-ends (film) and we got all sorts of student discounts.
 
holy crap thats way cheaper than i'd have thought. nice work.

are you a film student? What possessed you to go to these lengths for a short? I'd be terrified to touch 35mm until i thought i was the hoss with DV, just because i basically suck so bad.
 
I look forward to seeing the higher quality version. I liked what I saw, but had a REAL hard time reading the opening credits. Good story, btw. I was almost expecting the news anchors to conclude with a story about a man shooting his wife. :thumbsup:
 
KOVAROVA said:
what made you choose to shoot 35 and not video?
Click to expand...

I shot on a DVX on my last couple projects and I like it. But all the projects that we shot on DVX, the goal (visually at least) was to make it loook like film. This time, we thought it would be easier to just shoot film and achieve the look automatically... ha ha ha.
Well, we got a great deal on the camera, and we had the money, and my team thought that it would be best to shoot on the dying medium we calll film, so we pulled out all the stops and shot super 35.
The fact that we shot film attracted a lot of people to the project (actors and crew) because although not always the case, film shoots tend to be more professional and organized. I think that everyone has had the experience of people cutting corners on set because "it's only digital." Sadly this attitude sometimes brings across sloppy work. There are some great looking digital shorts but I am just speakig from my experience.
Plus, there is just something cool-magical-nostalgic...whatever, about shooting film.
 
Blaine said:
I look forward to seeing the higher quality version. I liked what I saw, but had a REAL hard time reading the opening credits. Good story, btw. I was almost expecting the news anchors to conclude with a story about a man shooting his wife. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

hmmm, We considered that, but we thought that it would be a little to contrived (whatever that means):undecided
 
lucidz said:
holy crap thats way cheaper than i'd have thought. nice work.

are you a film student? What possessed you to go to these lengths for a short? I'd be terrified to touch 35mm until i thought i was the hoss with DV, just because i basically suck so bad.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, I am a film student- san diego state university

2. While this was technically a class project, I am here to make the best film
possible, not to meet a class' criteria.

3. While I am accomplished in the realm of DV, they are two different beasts,
and techniques are different. Sensivity to light and contrast ratios differ.
Quality of light used would be different as well to produce the same effect.
 
It was a good idea. I also found it quite funny because I’m also in SD. :) My only gripe is that I thought the lighting was a bit flat. That may be from looking at the low rez version.. but since you shot 35 I would have hoped to see more painting with light. Dramatically it may have helped to paint deeper shadows as the story progressed. The lighting mood did not seem to change.

Is it any different on your higher-rez version? What are your plans with the short?

thanks for posting

(BTW. just my .02)
 
KOVAROVA said:
It was a good idea. I also found it quite funny because I’m also in SD. :) My only gripe is that I thought the lighting was a bit flat. That may be from looking at the low rez version.. but since you shot 35 I would have hoped to see more painting with light. Dramatically it may have helped to paint deeper shadows as the story progressed. The lighting mood did not seem to change.

Is it any different on your higher-rez version? What are your plans with the short?

thanks for posting

(BTW. just my .02)
Click to expand...

Yes, those white walls did not help us. THe higher rez version produces a little more depth in the environment, but the location's white walls were a let down. Hmmm you live in san diego eh? We are shooting another 35mm short at the end of this month and we are looking for some gaffers/grips.... there is a free meal and DVD out of it...
Well the plans are to send this bad boy out to some festivals, just posting here for the free publicity and public commentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top