"A Verse Before Dying" - AF-100 Western Short

I'm out of town but finally got a chance to watch it. It looks really good! First, I already have an AF100 on preorder so keep that in mind when you read my visual comments. I've been trying to figure out why I like the 16mm portions so much more than the AF100 portions. Was the dream sequences desaturated less? I've watched it a bunch of times and I am starting to feel that the image of the AF100 is just sharper looking to me and therefore something I am just not used to seeing. The 16mm portions felt more contrasty and more saturated and I REALLY liked them a lot. Don't get me wrong, I still really like a lot of the AF100 shots as well, just trying to understand what I am seeing. I personally feel the act of desaturating but leaving in a little color does make a scene colder, just like the battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan. I'm just not sure if that's not just me :)

The other thing I wanted to mention was sound. First, wow, given I read that it wasn't ADRed, that was an amazing job at capturing the dialog! It is very clean. That said, I feel that some more ambience in the scenes would have really added to the feel of a western. Especially wind blowing outside, some creaking, some banter. I felt some of the scenes were just really clean and almost sounding as if in studio.

All that said, great job and thanks for sharing! I really enjoying it and I am excited about getting my camera shortly!!!!
 
Grimepoch, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that no 16mm footage was used in the final film. I think Barry had it just so he could shoot some comparisons. Which means that the whole film is AF100 footage!

Again, maybe I am wrong but I thought I had read that in this long thread.
 
Benjamin Eckstein said:
Grimepoch, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that no 16mm footage was used in the final film. I think Barry had it just so he could shoot some comparisons. Which means that the whole film is AF100 footage!

Again, maybe I am wrong but I thought I had read that in this long thread.
Click to expand...

Correct, Benjamin. There are only two 16mm shots in the film, and they're the flash frames in the dream sequence, so not even long enough to register as "shots."
 
Oh yea, the film is 99.99% AF100. :)

The color grade is aggressive in the dream sequence so it stands out a bit more.
 
TimurCivan said:
Oh yea, the film is 99.99% AF100. :)

The color grade is aggressive in the dream sequence so it stands out a bit more.
Click to expand...

Well I can say I was SERIOUSLY impressed with the dream sequence. If that was really being aggressive with the color grade, it handled it EXTREMELY well. That to me is some of THE BEST footage I have seen with the AF100. I really liked it and watched it a few times because I was taken for how artistic it looked, to the point, I thought it was film :)
 
I agree. It was very smooth. But the lighting and the contrast made a huge difference for me as well. The image just melds together so well. I really enjoy when I see something that looks so together, if that makes sense.

It just shows you how much grading can make a HUGE impact on the visual acuity of a scene. The diversity between the dream/non-dream sequences I think shows a really strong diversity to the shooting possibilities on the AF100. For me, that is something that interests me. In any case, thanks again for talking about what you all did. I've really appreciated it.
 
for stuff like that, it's best to shoot has clean to the look of the rest of the film as possible. baking in a look for "dream sequence" might bite you in the arsh later on if you decide that look isn't working for you, or anything else. something like that left to the grade where you have finer control and more options isn't bad practice at all.
 
MattinSTL said:
Lectro 205 (wireless) w/ trams (lavs) on actors... in combination with a 416 on boom. I suspect that most audio is from the wireless... except when running would cause almost unavoidable clothing noise on the lavs. The activity in the cabin, and those lines, are also boom because that was shot as a continuous take. Emilio didn't have a good place to hide a lav since his shirt was unbuttoned. He was lav'ed at times... but mostly boom on him.

I had a combination of regular lavs as well as -10db lavs... and I used them in different places depending on the volume and intensity of the lines + wind issues. I stuck the lavs tight between two layers of clothing so that no cloth could move on either side of the mic... which worked well as long as the actor wasn't moving wildly. (I did this by using "toupee tape", but was prepared with needle and thread if I needed to get extreme... the toupee tape, and gaff, required frequent attention... and a fresh application between scenes. A couple times my first "rigging" didn't work to my satisfaction, and after one take I'd ask for a second to make a fast tweak. The easy-going, yet professional attitude of this shoot made that possible... and I think the results reflect that. Some shoots I go on, if at first it doesn't work, they pretend like they won't mind those issues later on, but they always do... so... I appreciated the respect given to location sound on this shoot. A tweak usually only takes 2-10 seconds or so... and can be the difference between clothing noise, or not.)

In the shots where there was no need to hide the mic... I didn't. When you see the back of the actor, his mic is right out in the open... with fur on it (in the wind)... or simply foam, if not in the wind. When I don't have to hide mics I don't. Why risk clothing noise when you don't have to?

I prefer a boom mic... but more and more I'm finding that productions rarely want to deal with the issues that a boom adds. Booming can slow down a shoot at times... and in my experience... 80% of the time... people end up preferring the lav track... only because the boom couldn't get close enough due to framing, lighting, etc. The reason the cabin audio is more crisp... i.e. brighter... is because that's the 416... instead of a tram that's "buried" in the actor's clothing.
Click to expand...


hey Matt..isnt this contradicting the sound dvd? as in i got that lavs are the very last option you want to use for this kinda of filming..but here i see most is lav? am I missing something?
 
jambredz said:
hey Matt..isnt this contradicting the sound dvd? as in i got that lavs are the very last option you want to you for this kinda of filming..but here i see most is lav? am I missing something?
Click to expand...

This is a question worth asking. I have noticed that I actually like the sound of Lavs versus a boom most of the time, especially in the case of no budget.

What's the story, Matt?
 
xmephestox said:
for stuff like that, it's best to shoot has clean to the look of the rest of the film as possible. baking in a look for "dream sequence" might bite you in the arsh later on if you decide that look isn't working for you, or anything else. something like that left to the grade where you have finer control and more options isn't bad practice at all.
Click to expand...

Boy do I agree.

But, that being said I know Timur took some time to experiment with the camera and look in a look he was going for. If in general one can shoot as flat as possible then dial in the look in post rather than initial in the camera this gives the greatest flexibility. And, it's good to hear the you guys were able to carry out aggressive grading without the footage falling apart.

I'd really like to know (and perhaps the only way to really know is to experiment) but I'd like to know how much one can push footage. How flat can one shoot and still get "the look" in post?

Stephen, it would be interesting to know if you could have graded the AVCHD raw footage as aggressively as the 10 bit ProRes.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Boy do I agree.

But, that being said I know Timur took some time to experiment with the camera and look in a look he was going for. If in general one can shoot as flat as possible then dial in the look in post rather than initial in the camera this gives the greatest flexibility. And, it's good to hear the you guys were able to carry out aggressive grading without the footage falling apart.

I'd really like to know (and perhaps the only way to really know is to experiment) but I'd like to know how much one can push footage. How flat can one shoot and still get "the look" in post?

Stephen, it would be interesting to know if you could have graded the AVCHD raw footage as aggressively as the 10 bit ProRes.
Click to expand...

Well, we pushed around the footage quite a bit, and you can see the results. A few pages back I posted some "raw" stills (before grading) and the graded "after" shots. Those should give you an idea of just how far you can push the footage.

As for grading raw AVCHD footage, I'm not sure I can answer that. Transcoding to ProResHQ is part of the high-end workflow we used for the film, and it's becoming fairly standard in the post world to deal with ProRes files. I've never tried to grade raw AVCHD footage, and the color suite we worked in can't read/process AVCHD files directly.
 
Kholi said:
This is a question worth asking. I have noticed that I actually like the sound of Lavs versus a boom most of the time, especially in the case of no budget.
Click to expand...

If the lav rustles with clothing movement, or you need a hidden mic on skimpy clothes, you'll want the boom. If its a wider shot and you can't get the boom in close you'll want the lav. When all else fails you loup. LOL
 
Duke M. said:
If the lav rustles with clothing movement, or you need a hidden mic on skimpy clothes, you'll want the boom. If its a wider shot and you can't get the boom in close you'll want the lav. When all else fails you loup. LOL
Click to expand...

So is this a new shift in sound for films? from what i got from teh sound dvd you'll want a boom most of the time and only if the shot is 2 wide u'd use the lav. Shotgun mics(outside) and hyercardiods (inside) on the boom dont provided a more full quality? Would really like the expert sound guys to chime in...cuz i'm a sound novice.
 
I can't speak for Matt, our sound guy, but here's what I know…

Many of the shots in the film involve steadicam/movement, and would have been very, very difficult to boom. And sometimes, it's just too hard to get the boom in a position that doesn't throw a shadow somewhere. I believe we boomed when we could, but it wasn't always possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top