"The Faithful" Trailer, now online - HVX + M2
- Thread starter Haakon
- Start date
Justin Reade
Active member
Nice trailer!!!!
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Great trailer. Lookin' forward to seeing the film!
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Not my kind of a story but top notch work from Haakon (as well as the rest including the editor and such). Also what Haakon mentions is a nice combo of how to go independent. Great ratio of story : gear : crew.
LuckyProducer
Well-known member
wow! that looks so professional and seriously looks like film. hey, how did you establish your lighting? what lights did you use...did you use a dp or do your own lighting? how long did it take to shoot your film and what kind of schedule did you do? like how long did you film for a day and for how many days? i'm curious.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I think they shot 9 days.
peter orland
Well-known member
Top work mate, a great trailer and poster. All you need is a budget and the team that made this work and you should be able to put out a great feature. The lighting in the night interiors was top shelf, you should be really proud of this. Thanks for sharing all the info, it's very inspiring.
holditnowfilms
Well-known member
Great job. You guys rocked it. Now get your asses into gear. Let me spit some scripture in case you are unaware- FAMILY FILMS ARE IN HIGH DEMAND IN ALL FILM MARKETS! Nobody is making them let alone good ones. Everyone is making crap Horror. Talk to some film reps they will tell you. You need to make a feature ASAP. Start shopping that thing around and find some money!
BTW-- Show that thing to 100 random people you will not get one person to see any edge softness. Why? Because of the way the human brain and eyes work. Be proud. You pulled off some sweet camera moves that compliment the genre of film perfectly.
Lighting was invisible and the look polished- which is the way it should be in a family film.
I don't know what's up with people not digging the DOF. Had you not mentioned the M2, 100% sure nobody would have picked up it.
There were a couple of soft moments in focus but they were during fast motion so not distracting. Maybe your 1stAC should not look so relaxed when working-- legs crossed sitting down! WTF? For your part, you could also light to at least an 4.5 to give the brother some breathing room when running around so fast
Keep on truckin'
BTW-- Show that thing to 100 random people you will not get one person to see any edge softness. Why? Because of the way the human brain and eyes work. Be proud. You pulled off some sweet camera moves that compliment the genre of film perfectly.
Lighting was invisible and the look polished- which is the way it should be in a family film.
I don't know what's up with people not digging the DOF. Had you not mentioned the M2, 100% sure nobody would have picked up it.
There were a couple of soft moments in focus but they were during fast motion so not distracting. Maybe your 1stAC should not look so relaxed when working-- legs crossed sitting down! WTF? For your part, you could also light to at least an 4.5 to give the brother some breathing room when running around so fast
Keep on truckin'
LighthouseMedia
Well-known member
I have a question on how you handled audio. What Mics did you use did you record to HVX directly or use a second sound system and what was your experience with the system you used and potential problems?
Hey my friend, no problem! I know that I will be learning, exploring, growing, and experimenting until the day I die - and what better company to share my ideas and stories with than my fellow filmmaking peers?Justyn said:
Hopefully as I continue to make films and tell stories, the more opportunity I will have to share my work with a wider audience -- and the bigger the audience, the more reason there is to reach out and have an exchange! So I am glad there are outlets like this where we can do just that.I find myself at odds trying to deal with that aspect of this business all the time. Just gotta keep pushing forward and deal with it as it comes, I suppose!Justyn said:
Sproketz said:
LuckyProducer said:
Now c'mon guys, you aren't even trying.
Try these posts, I think you will find the content somewhat useful: ;-)http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=593567
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=594100
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=594722
Haha, I guess you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh? I just hope people haven't gotten so used to 1/3" video that shallow DOF starts to look strange to them. Eep!holditnowfilms said:
I think the M2 added an amazing dimension to our film... I'm proud to be rockin it!
Lol... he had his work cut out for him, I can't fault him for anything. Maybe we're getting too spoiled with all of this remote stuff and nice hi-res monitors, eh?holditnowfilms said:
As far as the lighting goes, I think I would've needed 20Ks to get that setup up to a 4.5. We were COOKING the set during some scenes (the dog lady wasn't always the most thrilled), and even then there were times I had to switch to a 1/24 shutter to get the exposure I needed. Outdoor daytime stuff was a piece of cake, but low light interiors were tough. I dunno if it's the HVX or the combo with the M2 or what, but needless to say I was using every bit of light I could possibly throw at it.
Sound isn't my department so my knowledge of that system is somewhat limited, but I know everything was recorded externally (not to the HVX) and onto flash media/hard drive. We used a Sennheiser shotgun (perhaps the ME66?) for most of it. We didn't have any problems as far as I'm aware... the only drawback to doing it this way is the need to sync everything up in post. I thought that would be a real pain, but the director (who's also editing the main film) had it done within a day or two. So apparently it's not that big a deal. As far as I'm concerned, the audio we got sounds great - there's a lot of post work that still needs to be done (ambient stuff, foley, etc.), but the dialogue all sounds very crisp and clear. We only had to do a little bit of ADR work with two of the actors.LighthouseMedia[ said:
Oh, did someone ask about that? ;-)JasonFox said:
Last edited:
bluetuned
Active member
I commented about that, but I don't want to give the wrong impression. I think that the bulk of this trailer looks GORGEOUS and if the full film looks this nice, then I'm quite impressed.holditnowfilms said:
But, I still have reservations about what some of these adapters seem to be doing to DOF. I'd love to get my hands on one to experiment myself. I'm no fan of the typical depth that you get from 1/3" cameras, but I particularly find the softening I'm often seeing to be quite distracting, especially around the edges. And while it may not be hugely noticeable to some, it is to me. I'm positive I would have noticed the softening because this immediately does not look like what you'd see straight from an HVX.
Maybe I'm being overly cautious about the image. It just seems to collapse the DOF to the point of where I've seen shots with the character's face in focus, but with ears that are halfway blurred, and that's just ridiculous. Watch a lot of professional movies and the DOF isn't always that shallow. Yeah in certain instances it is used for effect, and overall the DOF is less than what you'd get on an HVX, but it seems to me the adapters send things overboard, particularly on the edges. It makes me feel like there is something wrong with my eyes, which to me is quite distracting.
And frankly, it appears that this movie would probably look terrific with or without the adapter, just given how well it was lit, the fluid camera movements, etc.
Last edited:
Well obviously there's something wrong with your eyes!
Haha, no... I kid! I kid! I agree with you - I don't think there's any way you could not notice the effects of the M2 when compared to "regular" HVX footage - those kinds of shots just aren't possible with the stock lens (whether you find them to be favorable or not).
The irony is that when using one of the adapters with a 35mm lens, you're getting 35mm DOF. Not more, not less. It's identical to what you'd get using cine prime whatevers on a top-of-the line Panavision. It's identical to what you're going to get with Red. Now, that's not to say the DOF can't be molded to your liking - one can always stop down or use wider lenses to lessen that shallow effect. Indeed, most Hollywood films are not shot at a 1.4 the entire time! The problem here is that we almost always had to be shooting completely wide open to get enough light with the HVX and the M2, and in turn the shallow DOF effect was maximized. Personally, it doesn't bother me at all - as long as the AC can keep sharp focus, I really like the feel it gives. But either way, it's not the fault of "these 35mm adapters" as it is the conditions, the light levels, and the lenses used. Shooting with a bit of a hacked setup like this can limit your flexibility somewhat and you just have to work with it the best you can. We ask a lot from a $10,000 camera system these days!
I would also offer that even if it was the "fault" of the adapter, 100 people are bound to have 100 different opinions on what looks "better" than something else. If I hadn't used the adapter, I might have gotten a comment like "well, the movements and the lighting are very nice - it's just too bad you didn't use an M2 because the "everything in focus" look keeps it from really looking professional." Or whatever. All one can do is the best they can to create the images that are most pleasing to them and present them as such. I wish I had a Genesis to shoot this movie. Alas, I did not!
Lastly, if you haven't had a chance to check out Brian Petersen's recent post in this forum showing off the results that he obtained with and without the M2, you should take a look. I find it quite striking! Without the adapter, the footage just looks really flat and amateurish to me. And the only thing he did was attach and remove the adapter! So while it's certainly not a magic box that will make all of your footage "look pro," it is another tool in our bag of tricks that many have found very useful. Just look at all of the cool stuff we have to play with nowadays that we didn't have even five years ago! :laugh:
By the way, I really appreciate all of the positive comments you have made and I didn't think you were being negative or overcritical with your statements at all. To be honest, I'm quite humbled by everyone's remarks here. Now we really have to deliver to meet all of these expectations! :laugh: Where are you located? Are you able to come to the screening? It would be great to see you there. We're going to have to have a DVXUser party!!
Haha, no... I kid! I kid! I agree with you - I don't think there's any way you could not notice the effects of the M2 when compared to "regular" HVX footage - those kinds of shots just aren't possible with the stock lens (whether you find them to be favorable or not).
The irony is that when using one of the adapters with a 35mm lens, you're getting 35mm DOF. Not more, not less. It's identical to what you'd get using cine prime whatevers on a top-of-the line Panavision. It's identical to what you're going to get with Red. Now, that's not to say the DOF can't be molded to your liking - one can always stop down or use wider lenses to lessen that shallow effect. Indeed, most Hollywood films are not shot at a 1.4 the entire time!
The problem here is that we almost always had to be shooting completely wide open to get enough light with the HVX and the M2, and in turn the shallow DOF effect was maximized. Personally, it doesn't bother me at all - as long as the AC can keep sharp focus, I really like the feel it gives. But either way, it's not the fault of "these 35mm adapters" as it is the conditions, the light levels, and the lenses used. Shooting with a bit of a hacked setup like this can limit your flexibility somewhat and you just have to work with it the best you can. We ask a lot from a $10,000 camera system these days!I would also offer that even if it was the "fault" of the adapter, 100 people are bound to have 100 different opinions on what looks "better" than something else. If I hadn't used the adapter, I might have gotten a comment like "well, the movements and the lighting are very nice - it's just too bad you didn't use an M2 because the "everything in focus" look keeps it from really looking professional." Or whatever. All one can do is the best they can to create the images that are most pleasing to them and present them as such. I wish I had a Genesis to shoot this movie.
Alas, I did not!Lastly, if you haven't had a chance to check out Brian Petersen's recent post in this forum showing off the results that he obtained with and without the M2, you should take a look. I find it quite striking! Without the adapter, the footage just looks really flat and amateurish to me. And the only thing he did was attach and remove the adapter! So while it's certainly not a magic box that will make all of your footage "look pro," it is another tool in our bag of tricks that many have found very useful. Just look at all of the cool stuff we have to play with nowadays that we didn't have even five years ago! :laugh:
By the way, I really appreciate all of the positive comments you have made and I didn't think you were being negative or overcritical with your statements at all. To be honest, I'm quite humbled by everyone's remarks here. Now we really have to deliver to meet all of these expectations! :laugh: Where are you located? Are you able to come to the screening? It would be great to see you there. We're going to have to have a DVXUser party!!
Last edited:
bluetuned
Active member
Crap! And I just had my eyes checked! Hahaha
Watching it again, it's really the edges of the frame that seem to stick out. Is that possibly an effect brought on by the specific lenses in use, or the wide open F-Stop? I watched the footage Brian Petersen posted earlier, and it still seems apparent to me. I do like the overall effect (it's obviously an improvement over the 'video look'). It just seems like there is a circle where something will be in-focus, and outside of that everything appears soft, regardless of the relative distance to camera. I've seen it more apparent on other footage with different adapters, and I've come across a lot of discussion about it, but maybe I'm just too picky. Oh well.
And I'd love to watch this but I'm not in California for the next few months.
Watching it again, it's really the edges of the frame that seem to stick out. Is that possibly an effect brought on by the specific lenses in use, or the wide open F-Stop? I watched the footage Brian Petersen posted earlier, and it still seems apparent to me. I do like the overall effect (it's obviously an improvement over the 'video look'). It just seems like there is a circle where something will be in-focus, and outside of that everything appears soft, regardless of the relative distance to camera. I've seen it more apparent on other footage with different adapters, and I've come across a lot of discussion about it, but maybe I'm just too picky. Oh well.
And I'd love to watch this but I'm not in California for the next few months.
Last edited:
Yeah, there are bound to be little tradeoffs. Realistically, you're shooting through two different lenses and finding a ground glass in the middle and depending on all kinds of things, the final image probably won't be "perfect." I think you just sorta have to take it for what it is and decide whether or not it works for you. For us, the difference the adapter made in the final image was well worth any compromise. And sure, it's not flawless... but then again, what is?
I think turing said it best on Brian's topic...
I think turing said it best on Brian's topic...
Essentially, that's what it boils down to. And certainly, I'm always trying to find ways to improve on what I'm doing and I look forward to things like Red immensely (which should solve many of these little problems). But I think the most important thing is not to let this or that little technical setback prevent you from shooting, because there is always going to be something better coming down the pipeline. Just get out there and make the best film you can with the equipment you've got! I'm really happy with the way the film turned out and I hope everyone that sees it will be too!turing said: