UKP - an Ignatius Fischer motion picture

Edgen said:
welcome to the party ignatius! I'm looking forward to checking your flick. Very very very slick poster. Makes you wonder what they are 'doing' :)

cheers!
/j
Click to expand...

Excellent, thank you, sir. I surfed your site a couple of weeks ago, you have some incredible music online!

IF
 
ignatius said:
Excellent, thank you, sir. I surfed your site a couple of weeks ago, you have some incredible music online!

IF
Click to expand...

Thank you ignatius! Again, all the best with this fest!

/j
 
Hi Robert,

Here are a couple raw frames:

spoon02.jpg


office02.jpg


mary01.jpg


ivan01a.jpg


mary_and_wyatt08.jpg
 
Last edited:
Brandon Rice said:
I like #2, the CU of the hand. I like the framing.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Brandon. Framing was certainly an exercise in this little production due to the layout of the location - I found myself searching more than I ever have for "the right angle" and not having very much latitude. I refrained from posting anything too "telling", as well, I didn't want to give anything away ...

IF
 
RobertE said:
Thanks for posting some screen shots. Beautiful lighting. What did you use for lighting?
Click to expand...

We used all practical fixtures and replaced the lamps with custom wattages/temperatures, all in all a technique I would love to use every time. I was able to shoot fast and the actors never had to wait for a lighting setup. It's pretty rare to find a location ready to go, though, isn't it?
happy.gif


IF
 
Last edited:
ignatius said:
Hi Geoff, thank you too, I'm glad you dug the reel.

We shot UKP with a stock DVX B in 24pa and in-camera Squeeze mode. I took a few days to determine what format I was going to use, and had the contest requirements allowed for it, I would have shot 4:3 and cropped to 16:9 or 2.35 (my personal favorite, but one I'm growing out of using on SD footage). Since the parameters specified an "anamorphic print", so to speak, I did tests with the in-camera sqeeze vs. an FCP stretch vs. a Photoshop stretch. I asked Will Stewart, who shot The Men Who Fell with an anamorphic adapter, what his opinion was on the adapter vs. in-camera squeeze and he thought the squeeze was only slightly softer than the image the Panasonic adapter gives. That made me confident enough to try it and I'm now glad Dramafest had such a requirement.

IF
Click to expand...

Looking forward to your short. I had a similar dilemma, but finally decided (based on a lot of info gathered here) to just do the in camera squeeze (24PA) and apply an additional 2.35 matte in post. It's worked out great so far and I just watched a rough DVD out of my short (my way of doing monitoring) and it looks fine. I honestly can't tell much of a quality difference at all between the squeeze or regular old 4 x 3.

Adapter is too expensive, don't know if the cost benefit ratio is worth it, and uprezzing sounded too risky, possibly problematic. But the squeeze is just fine IMO.

All the best, looking forward to UKP.

Ben
 
Thanks, Ben, much appreciated. I think the in-camera sqeeze plus a 2.35 crop will make a killer image - I decided to stay with 16:9 for UKP so I could keep more vertical space. I like your poster and your tag line, "Regular Programming will be interrupted ..." indeed.

I agree that the adapter is expensive and I feel it's obsolete as well (not to mention the focus issues!).

IF
 
Last edited:
ignatius said:
We used all practical fixtures and replaced the lamps with custom wattages/temperatures, all in all a technique I would love to use every time. I was able to shoot fast and the actors never had to wait for a lighting setup. It's pretty rare to find a location ready to go, though, isn't it?
happy.gif


IF
Click to expand...

Well the lighting looks great. Are you planning on having any synopsis or tag lines or are you keeping the story a mystery until we get to see what it's about?
 
I was considering trying to write a tag line or a quick synopsis, but I don't do so well with those (two of the most important skills for a screenwriter!). ; |

I hope the lighting works okay, I'm already second guessing certain choices ...

IF
 
Ignatius,

You said that those were 'raw' screen grabs? Any color correction/grading? I especially like the composition of the last shot with the guy holding the glass.
 
Thanks, RobertE. Yes, the screenshots are just raw frames, no grading, etc.

On another note, I think I came up with a tag line for the short: The labor of love ...
 
Thanks for stopping by our thread. It has been a bit since I have checked in here. It looks like things are moving along nicely. I like the grab of the girl with the reflection of the guy in the microwave. Happy accident or well thought out genius?
 
jontuttle said:
Thanks for stopping by our thread. It has been a bit since I have checked in here. It looks like things are moving along nicely. I like the grab of the girl with the reflection of the guy in the microwave. Happy accident or well thought out genius?
Click to expand...
With IF, always genius.....except for the 95% dumb luck modifier.


All I remeber during shooting is...."Dude, check out his head, Oh I'm so gonna use that."

Sorry Ignatius, but it works like a champ....
 
Bayne said:
With IF, always genius.....except for the 95% dumb luck modifier.
Click to expand...

With friends like these ...

Yes, it was a happy accident - but aren't most cool shots (Fincher not withstanding, ha ha). There's another angle in the same scene that is four times better, you'll dig it, Jon.

I really enjoyed At The Park's BTS, you guys put together some cool stuff.

IF
 
The rough cut is now being shown for critical opinions from close friends (you know, the vicious ones), and we're gearing up to do a little bit of foley tomorrow. The rough cut also contains a CC pass. So, hopefully I'll be compressing as soon as the specs are released.
 
Wow! Nice looking poster and grabs! (though everytime I see the one with the guy holding the glass and looking at it, I hear... "Spots? There are spots on this glass!" :grin:

Seriously, though.... the work looks great.

ignatius said:
... had the contest requirements allowed for it, I would have shot 4:3 and cropped to 16:9 or 2.35
Click to expand...
I am confused by this statement. There are many here who shoot 4:3 and crop. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Congrats and good luck!

-Ted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top