"The Faithful" Trailer, now online - HVX + M2
- Thread starter Haakon
- Start date
loved the trailer. interesting story. nice lighting... great work! but i admit some evil part of me wonders how this would have looked shot with an andromeda with it's huge latitude, and without the dof adaptor.
i guess it's always kinda bugged me that manufacturers are going hi-def when the film-look at this point is really about exposure latitude... dvd's are SD! hi-def imagers make latitude worse! (i'ts just physics: a 1/3" SD sensor must have better exposure latitude than an HD version the same size built with the same technology.). i come from the chip design world, and i can see why they don't--> i'ts cheaper to put more transistors in a small area than it is to blow up the area and use larger elements. anyway i'm just randomly ranting now. i think you did an amazing job with this.
i wanted to ask people how they feel about the "through wax paper" look that dof adaptors sometimes stamp on an image. the softness that you see is not the same softness as from being out of focus (though there is some of that) nor the softness you see from lowered resolution; it's softness due to the scattering at the GG. and it creates a dependent kind of luma and chromatic distortion that i couldn't get used to when i had used those type of adaptors. it is a unique look that you don't of course get with actual 35mm imagers. i wonder how this film would have looked without the dof adapter? or rather the dof adaptor used in just particualr shots?
i guess it's always kinda bugged me that manufacturers are going hi-def when the film-look at this point is really about exposure latitude... dvd's are SD! hi-def imagers make latitude worse! (i'ts just physics: a 1/3" SD sensor must have better exposure latitude than an HD version the same size built with the same technology.). i come from the chip design world, and i can see why they don't--> i'ts cheaper to put more transistors in a small area than it is to blow up the area and use larger elements. anyway i'm just randomly ranting now. i think you did an amazing job with this.
i wanted to ask people how they feel about the "through wax paper" look that dof adaptors sometimes stamp on an image. the softness that you see is not the same softness as from being out of focus (though there is some of that) nor the softness you see from lowered resolution; it's softness due to the scattering at the GG. and it creates a dependent kind of luma and chromatic distortion that i couldn't get used to when i had used those type of adaptors. it is a unique look that you don't of course get with actual 35mm imagers. i wonder how this film would have looked without the dof adapter? or rather the dof adaptor used in just particualr shots?
Thanks for the compliments, ahusain!
I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately while dealing with the footage and I've come to some interesting conclusions for myself. I think most of your comments about the adapters ring true - specifically that the footage they create does have a softer appearance to it (while not being out of focus), and it's a look that most of us aren't used to. I wouldn't go so extreme as to say that it's like "looking through wax paper," but it definitely has a different visual quality to it. While some may feel that the resulting effect is somehow a handicap however (because we're conditioned to feel that "sharp" is always better than "soft," perhaps?), I find it has quite its own character about it. It's definitely unique - and I think that ends up being a strength!
As digital acquisition becomes more widespread and commonplace (it's no longer a shock for even the biggest multimillion dollar hollywood film to be shot this way) - something new is happening that we haven't really experienced with film before. All of these new cameras come installed with the same factory-pressed imaging elements across the line with nothing to distinguish them from each other. The footage from an HVX looks identical to the footage from another HVX, assuming the settings match up. And of course you can tweak the image in camera (and have even more fun with it in post), but there's something about the acquisition block (and surrounding technologies) being identical that I think starts to homogenize a lot of the images they produce. This is much unlike film, where even two runs of the same stock can vary somewhat - and then everything from temperature to development times to the actual processing procedure can (and does) have an affect on the image. People have often said that one of the reasons they prefer shooting film is because of its "organic" qualites, and I think this new crop of 35mm adapters give a bit of that feel back to the digital content they manipulate.
That's not to say that they in any way make the footage "superior;" just different. And despite a few minuses that come along with the adapters, that's a good plus to have. I can definitely say that this is the most "film-like" footage I've ever shot with a digital camera to date (I felt that way even watching playback on set), and although things like the lighting and camera movement definitely play a role in that, there's no question that the use of the M2 did as well. What would it have looked like without the adapter? Again, I refer you to Brian's topic where the results are pretty clear (or not, depending on how you look at it).
The quote I pasted in my last post of this topic still holds true, I feel. No, they aren't perfect devices... but just look at what a difference they make on the cinematic aspect of the image. For me, anyway, it's hard to imagine shooting something narrative with a 1/3" camera again and not using one.
All that being said, of course I'd appreciate more latitude - and when it comes down to shooting something that most people will probably see on DVD in the end anyway, that's a different story altogether. I have my own opinions about the HVX as a camera in general and most people here are aware of them already (another day, another topic). In a nutshell, I chose it mostly for the P2 capability, variable framerates, and somewhat increased resolution. But even if I had chosen to go with a DVX for its strengths, I still would've used the adapter. "Softness" and all. (Haven't people always complained about how overly sharp video looks anyway?)
From my own situtation, however, none of these devices have been the means to an end but rather tools to help me create the best images I can afford at any given time. I like the way film looks, but I hate the workflow and it's extremely costly. Lucky for me, I'm a burgeoning filmmaker in the year 2006 and a lot of the obstacles I face in making "the digital compromise" are constantly being torn down around me. Three years ago, Panasonic handed us 24p in the form of the DVX and that was one big piece of the puzzle. This last year the HVX gave us higher resolution imagers and variable framerate capability to give us the temporal and spacial feel of film. Now, companies like Redrock and P+S have given us adapters to quench our thirst for shallow DOF. All of these things together make a pretty kickass cinematic image (many people in this very topic have commented that this combination has led them to feel that the clips in the trailer are some of the most "film-like" HVX footage they've seen). What more do we want? Well, as you mentioned, better sensitivity and increased latitude would be nice. And whatta ya know... in six months we could very well have Red (which will not only address those issues but give us that true, built-in 35mm lens support as well)! So the matter of the "interesting images" that these adapters create may be a shortlived method of capturing pictures anyway.
Either way, I like what the adapters have been able to offer us and I think it's cool that I'll be able to look back at some point in time and reflect on the experimental technology I tried out that gave my little digital film a unique look all to its own. And in the end, I think most of us are trying to make movies that do that anyway!
I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately while dealing with the footage and I've come to some interesting conclusions for myself. I think most of your comments about the adapters ring true - specifically that the footage they create does have a softer appearance to it (while not being out of focus), and it's a look that most of us aren't used to. I wouldn't go so extreme as to say that it's like "looking through wax paper," but it definitely has a different visual quality to it. While some may feel that the resulting effect is somehow a handicap however (because we're conditioned to feel that "sharp" is always better than "soft," perhaps?), I find it has quite its own character about it. It's definitely unique - and I think that ends up being a strength!
As digital acquisition becomes more widespread and commonplace (it's no longer a shock for even the biggest multimillion dollar hollywood film to be shot this way) - something new is happening that we haven't really experienced with film before. All of these new cameras come installed with the same factory-pressed imaging elements across the line with nothing to distinguish them from each other. The footage from an HVX looks identical to the footage from another HVX, assuming the settings match up. And of course you can tweak the image in camera (and have even more fun with it in post), but there's something about the acquisition block (and surrounding technologies) being identical that I think starts to homogenize a lot of the images they produce. This is much unlike film, where even two runs of the same stock can vary somewhat - and then everything from temperature to development times to the actual processing procedure can (and does) have an affect on the image. People have often said that one of the reasons they prefer shooting film is because of its "organic" qualites, and I think this new crop of 35mm adapters give a bit of that feel back to the digital content they manipulate.
That's not to say that they in any way make the footage "superior;" just different. And despite a few minuses that come along with the adapters, that's a good plus to have. I can definitely say that this is the most "film-like" footage I've ever shot with a digital camera to date (I felt that way even watching playback on set), and although things like the lighting and camera movement definitely play a role in that, there's no question that the use of the M2 did as well. What would it have looked like without the adapter? Again, I refer you to Brian's topic where the results are pretty clear (or not, depending on how you look at it).
The quote I pasted in my last post of this topic still holds true, I feel. No, they aren't perfect devices... but just look at what a difference they make on the cinematic aspect of the image. For me, anyway, it's hard to imagine shooting something narrative with a 1/3" camera again and not using one.All that being said, of course I'd appreciate more latitude - and when it comes down to shooting something that most people will probably see on DVD in the end anyway, that's a different story altogether. I have my own opinions about the HVX as a camera in general and most people here are aware of them already (another day, another topic). In a nutshell, I chose it mostly for the P2 capability, variable framerates, and somewhat increased resolution. But even if I had chosen to go with a DVX for its strengths, I still would've used the adapter. "Softness" and all. (Haven't people always complained about how overly sharp video looks anyway?)
From my own situtation, however, none of these devices have been the means to an end but rather tools to help me create the best images I can afford at any given time. I like the way film looks, but I hate the workflow and it's extremely costly. Lucky for me, I'm a burgeoning filmmaker in the year 2006 and a lot of the obstacles I face in making "the digital compromise" are constantly being torn down around me. Three years ago, Panasonic handed us 24p in the form of the DVX and that was one big piece of the puzzle. This last year the HVX gave us higher resolution imagers and variable framerate capability to give us the temporal and spacial feel of film. Now, companies like Redrock and P+S have given us adapters to quench our thirst for shallow DOF. All of these things together make a pretty kickass cinematic image (many people in this very topic have commented that this combination has led them to feel that the clips in the trailer are some of the most "film-like" HVX footage they've seen). What more do we want? Well, as you mentioned, better sensitivity and increased latitude would be nice. And whatta ya know... in six months we could very well have Red (which will not only address those issues but give us that true, built-in 35mm lens support as well)! So the matter of the "interesting images" that these adapters create may be a shortlived method of capturing pictures anyway.
Either way, I like what the adapters have been able to offer us and I think it's cool that I'll be able to look back at some point in time and reflect on the experimental technology I tried out that gave my little digital film a unique look all to its own. And in the end, I think most of us are trying to make movies that do that anyway!
smelni
Veteran
I have commented before and think this is an amazing trailer for what looks like a winning concept - i really REALLY want to see this - so this comment is more from the technical side.
I own the M2 and it is a great adapter BUT I feel we, as a group of filmmakers get locked in to a way of thinking about DOF and latitude. You can photograph amazing scenes without the use of DOF - you can rely on lighting, comp etc to get the same type feeling of separation. THe problem with these adapters is we are stuck shooting at 1.4 or thereabouts and focus gets so critical that we spend more time on that then the other elements. Edges get soft - sometimes things just look a bit cloudy.
Similarly with latitude - More latitude is what we all want - but remember latitude is only important on image aquisition - once it it captured and viewed you can have an image APPEAR to have the same latitude on film or video - but when shooting you need to compress the lighting ratios to give the range within what is available on video. I guess this is not related really to the M2 but more on a way of thinking. Use four stops instead of eight - doesnt matter just make your gradients less drastic - but yes of course it takes more time.
The reason I bring up the DOF issue is because I believe this trailer would have been at least as effective without the M2 because the material is so damn good, the lighting so beautiful and the camera movement so graceful. Remove the M2 and you prob could have shot 50 percent more in the same timeframe and barely anything would appear soft. Or you could have had more takes - either way your energy could have been focused (no pun intended) in areas that could have had a better impact for the time spend. This is going on my experience of the added time each shot with the M2 requires - even if its seconds for each shot it adds up.
But once again you have my applause.
I own the M2 and it is a great adapter BUT I feel we, as a group of filmmakers get locked in to a way of thinking about DOF and latitude. You can photograph amazing scenes without the use of DOF - you can rely on lighting, comp etc to get the same type feeling of separation. THe problem with these adapters is we are stuck shooting at 1.4 or thereabouts and focus gets so critical that we spend more time on that then the other elements. Edges get soft - sometimes things just look a bit cloudy.
Similarly with latitude - More latitude is what we all want - but remember latitude is only important on image aquisition - once it it captured and viewed you can have an image APPEAR to have the same latitude on film or video - but when shooting you need to compress the lighting ratios to give the range within what is available on video. I guess this is not related really to the M2 but more on a way of thinking. Use four stops instead of eight - doesnt matter just make your gradients less drastic - but yes of course it takes more time.
The reason I bring up the DOF issue is because I believe this trailer would have been at least as effective without the M2 because the material is so damn good, the lighting so beautiful and the camera movement so graceful. Remove the M2 and you prob could have shot 50 percent more in the same timeframe and barely anything would appear soft. Or you could have had more takes - either way your energy could have been focused (no pun intended) in areas that could have had a better impact for the time spend. This is going on my experience of the added time each shot with the M2 requires - even if its seconds for each shot it adds up.
But once again you have my applause.
Theodore_Lederman
Well-known member
Haakon,
I don't give out alot of compliments, and I'm too busy to be on here alot, but a producer friend of mine sent me this link, and you've said some nice things about my work in the past...and I don't say these things out of obligation, but sincerity..Great friggin job kid...first of all it's something I actually would want to spend money and see...and visually you did quite well...now I'm sure budget restraints for lighting kept your stop low, and there are a few focus problems that need to be spotted immediately in camera; as a DP you should try to make it as easy as possible on the assistant...especially a newer one...but all in all well done!
I look forward to seeing more of your work, and watch it evolve...and maybe someday a DVX emmy like uncle Ted...Keep up the good work!!
I don't give out alot of compliments, and I'm too busy to be on here alot, but a producer friend of mine sent me this link, and you've said some nice things about my work in the past...and I don't say these things out of obligation, but sincerity..Great friggin job kid...first of all it's something I actually would want to spend money and see...and visually you did quite well...now I'm sure budget restraints for lighting kept your stop low, and there are a few focus problems that need to be spotted immediately in camera; as a DP you should try to make it as easy as possible on the assistant...especially a newer one...but all in all well done!
I look forward to seeing more of your work, and watch it evolve...and maybe someday a DVX emmy like uncle Ted...Keep up the good work!!
Haakon,
First off, commendable job! The reason I think everyone is touching on the M2 look is because it was too tempting not to use it. It's like a guitarist who gets his first wah wah peddle. It sure is great, but they tend to use it on every solo, where its real strength is when it is used in a more subtle way. Finally the graphic design is top notch!
First off, commendable job! The reason I think everyone is touching on the M2 look is because it was too tempting not to use it. It's like a guitarist who gets his first wah wah peddle. It sure is great, but they tend to use it on every solo, where its real strength is when it is used in a more subtle way. Finally the graphic design is top notch!
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
The trailer looks fantastic! And I finally understand that infamous "licking" scene. I can't wait to see this! It really looks like you did a fantastic job as DP.
I feel sorry for the kid, though. My dog is already a real friend (and quite a comedian!). His parents should have gotten him a Pug.
P.S.: If you ever point out my typos again, I'll hunt you down! And when I find you, I'll make sure you "loose" something. ;-)
I feel sorry for the kid, though. My dog is already a real friend (and quite a comedian!). His parents should have gotten him a Pug.
P.S.: If you ever point out my typos again, I'll hunt you down! And when I find you, I'll make sure you "loose" something. ;-)
Pro Swooping Tour
Active member
What was the movie edited with....FCP?
GlimmerGhost
Well-known member
Main character looks like the "flight of the navigator" actor, and resembles in some way"eliot" from "E.T. the extra terrestrial " (probably the feel more than the look). My compliments on whoever did casting for a family movie looking cast, good eye.
burningeye
New member
Nice work all around. The lighting looks pretty good, and you use the natural light well, which is harder to make look good in any video format. I concur with the earlier post that there is still some color grading to do in spots.
About the M2 and it's limitations:
A prior post mentioned the "wax paper" effect, which may be a bit overstated. What I continually see in adaptor output is a softness akin to a Lo-Con filter. The stacking of glass (ground and otherwise) does two things: it beats up the inherent contrast of the taking lenses (Nikons on your film, right?) by feeding scattered light into the darker areas of the frame, which reduces the contrast; also, all that glass reduces the sharpness of the image. These two factors make the image softer and desaturated. Tough to combat. It helps to push the ratios a touch wider lighting-wise. Also, the camera settings can be tweaked for more contrast. But the loss of sharpness is really a "just don't make it worse" problem. Giving your focus puller all he can to work with helps, and just using the best damn glass you can get to begin with.
The DOF issue: I agree that DOF in several shots in the trailer is extremely shallow, distractingly so. This will only grow more distracting when projected in a theater setting. Focus error that looks slight on your 30" edit monitor will be massive on the big screen. Also, there is some real optical edge distortion (others have lumped this with the DOF look, but they are different), especially on the wider glass, that will get nasty on the big screen. Your shots with longer glass look best, both re: optical edge distortion and avoiding the "lo-con" look.
Shooting at 1.4 all the time makes all things optical worse. All glass performs best toward the middle of the lens--contrast, sharpness, edge distortion, chromatic aberration, etc... Aiming for 2.8-ish, especially on those Nikons, would be great if you can manage the lights and crew to wrangle them, but limits are reality. Feature DPs frequently aim for a stop or stop-range at which they shoot the entire film, and build the lighting and camera package around achieving that stop. So, even on big exteriors, they are at, say, a 2.8-4 split (can you say ND?"). And interiors are lit to achieve the same. They do this as part of establishing a "look" to the lenses that is consistent--same contrast, same sharpness, same DOF. Of course, you can make departures from the look, but done well those departures look like choices serving story and not mistakes or unfortunate work-arounds. The same approach would help the vast majority of adpator footage I have seen.
Really, the bulk of what makes feature cinematography look extraordinarily "feature-esque" has less to do with the chip or emulsion catching the light. Lens choice, stop-consistency, ample and well-crafted lighting, time and crew to work it all skillfully, color-timing, fantastic glass, etc... Some of these things are not budget-dependent, but are just real DP skills that improve any image no matter what the capture.
Hope you get the money to make the feature. Best of luck.
ge
About the M2 and it's limitations:
A prior post mentioned the "wax paper" effect, which may be a bit overstated. What I continually see in adaptor output is a softness akin to a Lo-Con filter. The stacking of glass (ground and otherwise) does two things: it beats up the inherent contrast of the taking lenses (Nikons on your film, right?) by feeding scattered light into the darker areas of the frame, which reduces the contrast; also, all that glass reduces the sharpness of the image. These two factors make the image softer and desaturated. Tough to combat. It helps to push the ratios a touch wider lighting-wise. Also, the camera settings can be tweaked for more contrast. But the loss of sharpness is really a "just don't make it worse" problem. Giving your focus puller all he can to work with helps, and just using the best damn glass you can get to begin with.
The DOF issue: I agree that DOF in several shots in the trailer is extremely shallow, distractingly so. This will only grow more distracting when projected in a theater setting. Focus error that looks slight on your 30" edit monitor will be massive on the big screen. Also, there is some real optical edge distortion (others have lumped this with the DOF look, but they are different), especially on the wider glass, that will get nasty on the big screen. Your shots with longer glass look best, both re: optical edge distortion and avoiding the "lo-con" look.
Shooting at 1.4 all the time makes all things optical worse. All glass performs best toward the middle of the lens--contrast, sharpness, edge distortion, chromatic aberration, etc... Aiming for 2.8-ish, especially on those Nikons, would be great if you can manage the lights and crew to wrangle them, but limits are reality. Feature DPs frequently aim for a stop or stop-range at which they shoot the entire film, and build the lighting and camera package around achieving that stop. So, even on big exteriors, they are at, say, a 2.8-4 split (can you say ND?"). And interiors are lit to achieve the same. They do this as part of establishing a "look" to the lenses that is consistent--same contrast, same sharpness, same DOF. Of course, you can make departures from the look, but done well those departures look like choices serving story and not mistakes or unfortunate work-arounds. The same approach would help the vast majority of adpator footage I have seen.
Really, the bulk of what makes feature cinematography look extraordinarily "feature-esque" has less to do with the chip or emulsion catching the light. Lens choice, stop-consistency, ample and well-crafted lighting, time and crew to work it all skillfully, color-timing, fantastic glass, etc... Some of these things are not budget-dependent, but are just real DP skills that improve any image no matter what the capture.
Hope you get the money to make the feature. Best of luck.
ge
DavidBeier
Veteran
nice lighting.
doublearon727
Active member
Curiosity about the score!
Curiosity about the score!
I was wondering what the name of the score that plays in the trailer when Danny catches a baseball on the field. It's very theatrical! What is the name and artist. I would really much much much appreciate it if you would tell me. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/dankk2.gif
Curiosity about the score!
I was wondering what the name of the score that plays in the trailer when Danny catches a baseball on the field. It's very theatrical! What is the name and artist. I would really much much much appreciate it if you would tell me. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/dankk2.gif
Hey everyone! Sorry for the delays in responding to the most recent set of posts - I was gone on a vacation for the first couple of weeks in July and then I got extremely sick and haven't had a chance to get on. It's great to come back to the forums and find lots of wonderful questions though, so I will do my best to answer!
Burningeye: Thanks for the support and your compliments. Many of the problems/limitations you discussed I was very aware of, and I did what I could with the budget, resources, and time I had available. I chose to go with the M2 (even after knowing we were going to have issues with edge softness) because I felt that the end result lent itself far more to our narrative than the bare look of the HVX did alone. The "HD" achromat didn't exist at the time we were filming (some users have mentioned that it has helped to alleviate the edge softness issues) and I was limited on the glass I had (we used Nikon lenses from the 1960s that I got off of eBay - we definitely weren't using Cooke primes on this shoot)!
That being said, I know there are technical issues and obviously lots of things that "could be better," but I'm personally very happy with what we were able to squeeze out of the gear we had. Every project I aim to do better than the last!
I think it's interesting that some people are having strong reactions to the very shallow DOF in some areas - as I've mentioned before, I shot wide open on nearly the entire production because I just couldn't get enough light to the camera through the M2 (and we were cooking the set during some scenes), but necessity or not, I'm actually very fond of the look. Since reading the posts here I have been very analytical of the use of shallow DOF in the last handful of "big budget" films I've gone to, and I honestly don't feel that as a whole our film looks any more shallow or distracting than anything I've seen in the theater lately. Perhaps I subconciously just put all of the really extreme shots in the trailer because I like them so much. ;-) There are a few focus guffaws in the movie, but I will be the first to admit that they were more a result of me giving my AC an inch of DOF to work with (on cranes and Steadicam no less!) and not him being a bad puller. Unfortunately, however, there was just no way to get 2-4 times the light I would need to close down 1-2 stops and give him a little breathing room. So we just did the best we could. And we're learning!
The need for light also forced me to stay away from the "sweet spot" of most of the lenses (as you mentioned as well), which ended up making the image just a little bit softer. It was just another one of those things that I was aware of but had to make a choice. Knowing that everything would ultimately be downrezzed to DVD gave us a little leeway to accept a slightly softer image in the full-res HD frame and still have a good looking final transfer. The stuff on DVD looks very nice.
It's too bad you're in NC - I'd love for you to see it on the big screen and give me your opinions!
DavidBeier and tco: Thank you for your compliments! The pillars don't come with the camera, but I can get you some for cheap if you're in the market! ;-)
bena: Yes, we do have lots of behind the scenes footage and I'm actually compiling that as we speak. Nearly all of that stuff was shot on VX200s and the like, so I have to suffer through the process of logging and capturing all of the data from tape (see how spoiled the HVX has made me?) Needless to say, we're also shooting extensive interviews with all of the primary cast and crew, and everything will be put together nicely for the DVD release. There will be lots of goodies and I will definitely let everyone know when we are done so that as many people can watch it as possible!
Oh, while you're at it, you can check out the brand-new Myspace page for our movie at http://www.myspace.com/thefaithfulmovie! There are some on-set photos there as well as lots of participation with most of the cast and crew. Sign yourself up and become a friend of the film! The page will also have the most current news and updates about the film as we make progress towards completion.
Currently we're in the middle of working on the sound mix and our composer is also hard at work on the score now that we have a picture lock. I am expecting that the screening will take place in Hollywood in September, and I will definitely be updating the website as the time draws nearer and we get a final confirmed date. Stay tuned!
Yes, the film was edited entirely on FCP (5.1 I believe) on a Powerbook G4. As much as I prefer PCs myself (oh how I hope RED will support Vegas!), I must say that we didn't run into a single hiccup or dropped frame with this system. We were nuts with backup (redundancy onto two different hard drives plus one DVD backup for each 4GB P2 card - I believe there are 72 in total) because we were really nervous about losing data that we couldn't get back. Well, as it turns out, we haven't had to use either of the hard drives or any of the DVDs a single time. Now that's reliability!Pro Swooping Tour said:
Hehe - we definitely made the E.T. parallel, but I forgot about "Flight!" I definitely need to watch that one again. We actually had several casting sessions (about five different calls, if I remember correctly) in order to find just the right group of kids for the film, but ironically, the boy who ended up in the lead role, Jake Lefferman, didn't go to a single one! We actually spotted him during a lunch break at one of the schools we were location scouting for, and Jacob (our director) thought he looked perfect for the part. We did an impromptu audition with him in one of the counselor's offices, and Jacob knew right away he was the one he wanted. The rest is history!GlimmerGhost said:
Burningeye: Thanks for the support and your compliments. Many of the problems/limitations you discussed I was very aware of, and I did what I could with the budget, resources, and time I had available. I chose to go with the M2 (even after knowing we were going to have issues with edge softness) because I felt that the end result lent itself far more to our narrative than the bare look of the HVX did alone. The "HD" achromat didn't exist at the time we were filming (some users have mentioned that it has helped to alleviate the edge softness issues) and I was limited on the glass I had (we used Nikon lenses from the 1960s that I got off of eBay - we definitely weren't using Cooke primes on this shoot)!
That being said, I know there are technical issues and obviously lots of things that "could be better," but I'm personally very happy with what we were able to squeeze out of the gear we had. Every project I aim to do better than the last!I think it's interesting that some people are having strong reactions to the very shallow DOF in some areas - as I've mentioned before, I shot wide open on nearly the entire production because I just couldn't get enough light to the camera through the M2 (and we were cooking the set during some scenes), but necessity or not, I'm actually very fond of the look. Since reading the posts here I have been very analytical of the use of shallow DOF in the last handful of "big budget" films I've gone to, and I honestly don't feel that as a whole our film looks any more shallow or distracting than anything I've seen in the theater lately. Perhaps I subconciously just put all of the really extreme shots in the trailer because I like them so much. ;-) There are a few focus guffaws in the movie, but I will be the first to admit that they were more a result of me giving my AC an inch of DOF to work with (on cranes and Steadicam no less!) and not him being a bad puller. Unfortunately, however, there was just no way to get 2-4 times the light I would need to close down 1-2 stops and give him a little breathing room. So we just did the best we could. And we're learning!
The need for light also forced me to stay away from the "sweet spot" of most of the lenses (as you mentioned as well), which ended up making the image just a little bit softer. It was just another one of those things that I was aware of but had to make a choice. Knowing that everything would ultimately be downrezzed to DVD gave us a little leeway to accept a slightly softer image in the full-res HD frame and still have a good looking final transfer. The stuff on DVD looks very nice.
It's too bad you're in NC - I'd love for you to see it on the big screen and give me your opinions!
DavidBeier and tco: Thank you for your compliments! The pillars don't come with the camera, but I can get you some for cheap if you're in the market! ;-)
bena: Yes, we do have lots of behind the scenes footage and I'm actually compiling that as we speak. Nearly all of that stuff was shot on VX200s and the like, so I have to suffer through the process of logging and capturing all of the data from tape (see how spoiled the HVX has made me?)
Needless to say, we're also shooting extensive interviews with all of the primary cast and crew, and everything will be put together nicely for the DVD release. There will be lots of goodies and I will definitely let everyone know when we are done so that as many people can watch it as possible!Hi Aaron! The name of the song is "Breathe Me" and the artist is Sia. You can check out her Myspace page here: http://www.myspace.com/siamusic. It's definitely a wonderful track!doubleaaron727 said:
Oh, while you're at it, you can check out the brand-new Myspace page for our movie at http://www.myspace.com/thefaithfulmovie! There are some on-set photos there as well as lots of participation with most of the cast and crew. Sign yourself up and become a friend of the film! The page will also have the most current news and updates about the film as we make progress towards completion.
Currently we're in the middle of working on the sound mix and our composer is also hard at work on the score now that we have a picture lock. I am expecting that the screening will take place in Hollywood in September, and I will definitely be updating the website as the time draws nearer and we get a final confirmed date. Stay tuned!
GlimmerGhost
Well-known member
haakon, trying to pm you didnt work, sorry if this is the only way i could get in touch.
Haha, no worries SurJones - I'm an 80s freak myself. In fact, the number (and more importantly, quality) of the slew of recent remakes lately are leaving me feeling really down about the state of "mainstream hollywood" right now. I certainly don't subscribe to the notion that "you have to be independent to be good," but at the same time, there sure is a lot of crap out there. I actually spend a good deal of time studying my favorite movies (most are from that era) and deciphering what makes them untangibly more pleasing to me. The things I do pick up I try to incorporate into my films, and I think there is a bit of that in this movie as well. I always prefer a "timeless" movie than one which is constantly recalling current pop culture anyway - it's destined to date itself and become a niche commodity.
Glimmer - my PM box is currently full and I'm having some problems with it, but you are welcome to email me anytime at haakon@cox.net. I actually did get your message, however, and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Thanks for your kind words!
Glimmer - my PM box is currently full and I'm having some problems with it, but you are welcome to email me anytime at haakon@cox.net. I actually did get your message, however, and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Thanks for your kind words!