OTHER: Drawing With Chalk Feature Film Trailer

>What's the value in using emotionally loaded phrases like "You guys were so afraid?"

Maybe because i was there at some point? (wink)
 
Truth is most of us have way more video then film experience so as opposed to film (where you almost can't overexpose the highlights) we all know the video-y look of over-exposed frame thus we tend to avoid it like a plague. Which unfortunately also makes us less willing to take visual risk. By going for middle of the road image we (i said "we" meaning i was guilty of that too at some point) forget that there is nothing wrong with overexposing part of the image... Not only that by doing so we can end up with richer more full image.

So, here, my side note. ...Though when a movie works (as your trailer seem to suggest your does) visuals stop being that important.
 
I'm surprised that the level of illumination from the practicals in the frame has been a subject of discussion. It's the one element I feel I achieved consistent realism with. Practicals shouldn't really blow out to the point where the lampshades no longer have detail as that's not how they appear to your eye in reality. I approach any drama with that one principle of lighting for realism. Practicals should however be a bright source in the frame so that the subjects appear illuminated from them. This means that however bright the practicals are, the subjects should not appear that much hotter so as to make it seem as though the lamps couldn't possibly be lighting them.

When the subjects are far brighter than the practicals, you end up with sit-com style lighting. No practicals were blown out because they shouldn't be. They often are in hollywood films and it bugs me when I see that cause it reads as a mistake. If you look at a film like Birth, you see beautiful work done with practical lamps.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fineline/birth/quicktime_large_new.html
The overall brightness and fill seems to have been lifted in the above preview but you get the idea. The actual film Birth, while being a mediocre movie, has gorgeous cinematography that's far moodier and low key than the trailer suggests. We could have milked out the blacks and lifted the brightness of the DWC trailer in a similar fashion but I'm happy with it as is.
Color correction has been completed and it was less about fixing anything really than it was about making things perfect. The most correction that was done was dimming down some blown out windows in some interior scenes. Overall, I lit the finished product on the day.
 
Michael LaVoie said:
I'm surprised that the level of illumination from the practicals in the frame has been a subject of discussion. It's the one element I feel I achieved consistent realism with. Practicals shouldn't really blow out to the point where the lampshades no longer have detail as that's not how they appear to your eye in reality. I approach any drama with that one principle of lighting for realism. Practicals should however be a bright source in the frame so that the subjects appear illuminated from them. This means that however bright the practicals are, the subjects should not appear that much hotter so as to make it seem as though the lamps couldn't possibly be lighting them.

When the subjects are far brighter than the practicals, you end up with sit-com style lighting. No practicals were blown out because they shouldn't be. They often are in hollywood films and it bugs me when I see that cause it reads as a mistake. If you look at a film like Birth, you see beautiful work done with practical lamps.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fineline/birth/quicktime_large_new.html
The overall brightness and fill seems to have been lifted in the above preview but you get the idea. The actual film Birth, while being a mediocre movie, has gorgeous cinematography that's far moodier and low key than the trailer suggests. We could have milked out the blacks and lifted the brightness of the DWC trailer in a similar fashion but I'm happy with it as is.
Color correction has been completed and it was less about fixing anything really than it was about making things perfect. The most correction that was done was dimming down some blown out windows in some interior scenes. Overall, I lit the finished product on the day.
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael (glad you're part of the group!). :)

btw, Michael was my DP on the film and really brought out the visuals I desired. I've always said to him that it was the fact that the film didn't look 'lit' and looked natural was what really helped draw you into their world. To me it's always been about the story and that the viewer should 'forget' they are watching a movie, but rather they are witnessing real lives (I guess that's what all of us strive to do). And yes, as Michael said, the CC was more about perfecting what we could (which is why I had no issue with cutting a trailer pre-CC).


Todd
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
I don't think it really is an element of discussion. It's the element of discussion for one person.

The problem with forums in general is that it magnifies the views of one individual. And, in my opinion (which is also the views of only one person) what we should be celebrating is the amazing acting and storytelling skills displayed in this film.

Honestly, DVXusers could see Schindler's List, identify one jump cut and then focus on nothing but that one jump cut. And, that's because the overall mindset of the average DVXuser is that of a technician, not a storyteller.

Tell your story. You're damn good at it.
Click to expand...

Thanks again Prodigi :dankk2:

Again, it's so funny when I was cutting this film together because (at that point) I was SO technical! I couldn't stand it if I had a jump cut, or a continuity error (I'm so anal that I'd spend a lot of time 'perfecting' cuts and shots even if the average person would never know or see the difference). I knew the story was there and I wanted everything to be the best it could be so I, too, ended up getting caught up in the technical game. Just ask my wife how many hours I spent on the computer...

I guess the most important thing is that, despite all of the obsession with perfecting the edit and fixing flaws, the story is told and the technical aspects became transparent.
 
There is never "perfect" in craft so the best you can hope for is "truth" in art.
Sounds like from the little you have showed us here, people are picking up on the truth and story. Mission accomplished. It is all i hope for in my work as well.
 
There are two reasons why the practicals are used in the frame, one is the one you mentioned (to give the reason for the source of illumination) but also to establish the "bright point." We are talking about physiology of the eye where it tries to look at the frame and find the darkest and brightest spot to give itself a range of values. When you have a bright point of a practical (including its pool of light spilling on the objects around it) you can easily underexpose your characters as by then th eye can accept it because it gets full range out of the frame. By excessively dimming the practicals you shoot yourself in the foot because then you have to establish the bright point in some other way by either strong back light or what not.

And yes i totally understand that the "practicals conversation" is totally besides the point and i continue it only because some people here might find it somehow useful (and in all reality it gets more responses and views to the original poster, so there is some advertising value in it).
 
There's 3 or 4 shots in the preview with practicals and in all of them the practicals in the frame are dimmed just below the clip point and on a vectorscope appear as the brightest object in the frame. To then have the subjects appear lit from them in terms of direction and brightness is a challenge. I buy this frame in terms of both subjects being lit by the lamps. Even though Pooja on the right has darker skin and needs far more light than Todd.
DwC.jpg
 
Honestly, I can't stand video blowouts and they are nothing like film. Overexposing a video image in this class (HPX170, HVX, XL-H1. Anything SUB RED ONE honestly) makes the image look disgusting and when you project blowouts it looks even WORSE.

Even if the intent wasn't to avoid the blowouts like the plague I would have and I do it ritually. At the same time, Patryk has given a good bit of information: shooting yourself in the foot because now you have to establish an acceptable source of bright light. That'll come in handy one day.
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
You are doing exactly what you are supposed to be doing. Hell, if I was in a position I'd invest in your next film. You've already shown everyone here that you have the goods.

PS - I'm not insulting anyone who is critiquing this movie. I just want DCP to hear LOUDLY that while other filmmakers focus on the perfect lightsaber effect he's doing the real job. Great acting and great writing is what this is supposed to be about. Everything else he can hire.
Click to expand...

Another Prodigi statement I 100% back.
I'm jls4 and I approve this message! hahaha

Todd,

But all in all stories are why people go to the movies, technical items help people make stories. For some of us, we haven't even gotten to the point of full control of a movie to be as obsessed with the technicals. That being said, you have a GREAT movie and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.
 
Hey Todd - I'm in NYC, and if you do have a screening anywhere in the area I'd love to be invited. Loved the trailer. BTW I'm a music biz guy too...
 
Ted Spencer said:
Hey Todd - I'm in NYC, and if you do have a screening anywhere in the area I'd love to be invited. Loved the trailer. BTW I'm a music biz guy too...
Click to expand...

Hi Ted,

We are still trying to secure the theater (a lot of red tape we're going through right now) but I will let you know when/where it screens in NYC. Yeah, the music biz is a tough one, but glad to see you're part of it too.

Todd

ps. Brandon- checked out your trailer as well. Great job and engaging as well!
 
Hey Everyone,

Just dropping a line to let everyone know that I'm having a screening of the film at the Tarrytown Music Hall ( http://tarrytownmusichall.org/ ) on December 12th, at 7:30pm. This is a screening for cast and crew but I'd like to open the screening to my fellow dvxusers as well.

Tarrytown is about 1 hour north of NYC (Hudson River Line from GCS to Tarrytown). Not quite sure about parking (I'll find out more about that soon).

Hope to see some of you there.

All the best.

Todd
 
Well, hopefully we'll get interest at some of the festivals we've submitted to, and a few other sources, but if we can't get distribution, we'll distribute ourselves.

We are looking for sales agents and reps but know it'll be a hard sell (Drama... tough genre. No named actors.... can't work off of the 'who's in it' angle). Our biggest chance is word of mouth and reviews (we have sent out screeners).

We know a theatrical distribution will probably not happen (unless a miracle at a big festival happens...) but our options are open. Even with the festival circuit we are kind of caught up. Years back this type of film would go over great at festivals (not saying that it won't now), but this film is relatively 'safe'. No offbeat characters, no risky or experimental filming techniques or bizarre story lines. This is just a good traditionally well-shot story with 'real' people and many layers. We also think this film will appeal to a large audience since so many people will relate to the characters. It's another one of those "if this film actually got out there it could do real well..." First, we have to get it out there.

We're pretty confident that the film will play well overseas so we will also push that angle. At this time, we have our hands full.

Fortunately we feel the film is pretty solid and should move audiences so perhaps there is still a market for just a simple film with a good story.

The 'film' part is over. Now comes the 'business'.

Todd
 
Big movie trailer -- congratulations! Now comes the hard part, selling it.

You've already identified the major obstacle yourself: no name talent.

But you have achieved the big movie look ... even though you haven't shot 35mm -- which you should have with that kind of budget and no major special effects to force you into the digital world.

The easiest mistake you can make now is sell yourself short. Don't even say your movie is anything less than a great movie.

All you have going for you is that you've succeeded making a great picture without playing it safe by putting exploitation elements into it.

The festivals might not recognize you because you don't have big name talent and you don't have weird stuff in your movie. So it's up to you to go forth with your head held high and insist on being treated like a big time director and producer.

As someone has already suggested, you could use an agent here, an agent who's dealt with this type of movie before, because you need to approach the big studios or one of the major art movie distributors that can take you up to a higher level.

Henceforth, don't talk about the budget or the technical aspects of the movie to those people who will pick up your movie for distribution or exhibition; I think that's the consensus here.

Go for it, and ... break a leg :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top