DVX Movie Sleepover Nightmare at Blockbuster.

[John C Lyons]

Jarred keeps all the axed footage for his private collection...

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

the shed scene got pretty hot during filming but all the good stuff was cut. Dont worry, i put in a good fight but it didnt go very far.

Some friends /people in my production company are over so we're taking a look at the film again.

Make that two male buts, overlooked the second
and Zero breastesses.!

But seriously.

-There's lots of good things about the way this movie was shot. Though I can tell it's DVX I can see why one reviewer mistakenly thought 35mm. A lot of it doesn't look that far off from Scream or certainly a made for basic cable drama like the 4400.
-Content wise definitely better than some "made for Sci-Fi channel" stuff I've seen.
-The acting probably isn't going to win an Oscar, but the cast, by in large, turn in credible and likeable performances. They don't have that weird low budget quality where it's not horrendous but you just can't put your finger on why they seem amateur or why you don't quite buy it.
- Those lake shots were disjecta quality!

Q: Why no 24p conversion of the non DVX footage? Graeme Natress's film effects does a great job of performing this conversion with motion that's comparable to the DVX and minimal resolution loss since it "smart" deinterlaces only the moving parts of the frame. Seems like the car shot and pool shots, which even stuck out to my GF, would have edited together a lot better with the DVX stuff.
Q: I noticed there was a little black noise in the van interiors in the opening sequence. Is that avoidable. I had some similar trouble shooting in a dark environment, but was able to crush the blacks (right terminology?) in post using proc amp in FCP. Is there a way to avoid getting the noise in the first place?
Q: Some skies were blown out. Is the method copying the clip in your NLE, placing the copy on top of the original, keying out the sky in the top copy, and correcting the gamma, brightness / contrast, color correcting, or even adding a grad filter to the bottom clip, a kind of novice only DV for fun fix that wouldn't hold up for pro standards, or was there a look the DP was going for, or was there just not time / money to do this. Read that the DP for 28 days (way different budget I know) would shoot separate sky plates on location to replace the sky in post, and I have used the method I described and I know Lyons has been experimenting with it as well.

I have one other question I know but can't think of now. hmm...

BTW my girlfriend, who just happened to be around doing some real estate research on her computer when we were watching, got totally caught up in it and was talking back to the screen by the end. That's big deal, considering her favorite movie this year was the Penguin movie narrated by Morgan Freeman (which is actually good BTW, but is no Kung Fu Hustle). When she saw your name in the credits, she finished the movie by saying “Oh there he is … Jarred Land.” And then in a selfloathing tone “I can’t believe I know his name” translation - can’t believe this DV/film geek stuff has rubbed off on me to such a degree just by J.Dan boring me with it so frequently

 

[Jarred Land]

Thanks.. the lake shots where a fluke, I took my assistant out in a boat on the lake for the fog stuff one morning and caught it, and the water ski stuff was just me bored waiting for a setup so i turned the camera around.

the whole 24p conversion was supposed to happen, I cut the movie here in Vancouver with Boon via an offline, then sent it off to NY to do the online on a Avid Symphony. Somewhere the 24p got thrown out in favour for a 1080i uprez for the HD channels, so they thought since it hit interlace anyways the quality hit from doing a 60i to 24p hit wasnt worth it. After new york it actually came back and we did a re-cut and reshoots, and I killed as much of the 60i stuff as i could, because when i saw it it looked soooo bad it took me out of the movie. I shoulda woke up early those days of shooting and poured draino in those stupid sonys.

That noise wasnt a camera fault, it was from too much damn smoke. those van interiors where actually shot inside a stage and we smoked it so much it clogged the heads on one of the DVX's. Its digital noise from the fog messing with the compression.

As for the sky blowing out, we couldnt get away with it. We had 20x20 silks, but when shooting a field with a lake in the middle of summer you cant get away from it. We knew it would be blown out before we even started shooting, but the director approved it so we went with it. The grad idea wouldnt of worked, because there is talent in the top of those shots, and to do a tracking matte rotoscope in DV color space wouldnt get by the germans.


And tell your girlfriend im terribly sorry that she got trapped in our little world

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

And tell your girlfriend im terribly sorry that she got trapped in our little world

That's all right. She secretly likes knowing the pro/cons of shooting letterbox vs. squeeze.

enough to buy me one of these babies:

yeah.. no hummer yet but im sporting a nice new rhinestone jacket and man do i feel like dancing.

Ok I couldn't resist...


Jarred on the outside...

Now, click to see Jarred on the inside after completion of successful "B" flick ("B" stands for "Bedazzler Funds Source")
http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/leslie_beat_dazzler?mid=230721289




:laugh:

 

[Jarred Land]

hey, dont diss my super fly threads. I paid good money for my bling bling jumpsuit and super fabulous perm.

 

[Rasquachemedia]

being a newbie to the dvx, i really enjoyed seeing the difference between the dvx and the video look (car and pool)

It looks better than 28 days too (of course they had some amazing scenery to work with, i can't believe they had the opportunity to empty the streets and highway, at first i thought it was an awesome green screen work, but than i say the bonus features and was impressed that they got the gov't to allow that)

in any case, it was great to watch the dvx in action.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

being a newbie to the dvx, i really enjoyed seeing the difference between the dvx and the video look (car and pool)

It looks better than 28 days too (of course they had some amazing scenery to work with, i can't believe they had the opportunity to empty the streets and highway, at first i thought it was an awesome green screen work, but than i say the bonus features and was impressed that they got the gov't to allow that)

in any case, it was great to watch the dvx in action.

Yeah they did all the angles all at once so it would be shut down for the shortest time possible at like 4:30 in the AM. They even had one of the producers on an XL1. In fact this was one of the major reasons they went DV, because they could have as many cameras as they wanted with a small crew, or even in a pinch, a non-shooter on one of the angles.

It's really not a fair comparisson though because for 28 days they ripped the stock zoom off and the face of the camera off and adapted it to use 35mm cinema prime lenses. Also - did you see 28 days later on the big screen or at home. No telling hoe this would look blown up.

While I agree with you that this looked less like video, it didn't have that strained DV trying to look like film quality that 28 Days had sometimes, I can't agree that it looked better, IMHO. 28 days made the video quality work as an aesthetic choice and had a huge budget comparitively, as well as the time to light the hell out of stuff and replace blown out skys with burnt sunsets in post, etc. Its also way more gestural compared to the slice of life (most of teh time) look of this film. Agree it looked more like film. Can't agree it looked better -- no slight on Sleepover Nightmare, just that 28 days later is an incredibly shot movie - and I'm a BIG DVX fanboy.

Here's a cool article from American Cinematographer on 28 Days Later
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/

 

[Barry_Green]

It's really not a fair comparisson though because for 28 days they ripped the stock zoom off and the face of the camera off and adapted it to use 35mm cinema prime lenses.

No modification to the camera, they used a lens adapter (I think it's available from Optex). They used high-definition prime lenses, the Canon EC and EJ series IIRC.

Also - did you see 28 days later on the big screen or at home. No telling hoe this would look blown up.

Oh, there's telling -- I can tell, I saw it in the theater. I thought it looked grainy and soft and basically awful and completely out of focus the entire time. The wide shots of London looked quite bad -- there was so much edge enhancement it looked like someone had traced the outlines of the buildings with a white crayon.

But I was sitting reasonably close. I'm sure if you were towards the back of the theater it would look much better.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

No modification to the camera, they used a lens adapter (I think it's available from Optex). They used high-definition prime lenses, the Canon EC and EJ series IIRC.

I knew it was something besisdes just a mini. micro, or g 35.

Oh, there's telling -- I can tell, I saw it in the theater. I thought it looked grainy and soft and basically awful and completely out of focus the entire time. The wide shots of London looked quite bad -- there was so much edge enhancement it looked like someone had traced the outlines of the buildings with a white crayon.

But I was sitting reasonably close. I'm sure if you were towards the back of the theater it would look much better.

Yeah. That's what I mean. You can't compare DV footage blown up on the big screen to watching it at home and say the home version looks better. Of course it does. 28 Days at home on your small screen looks better than 28 Days Later on the big screen.

Sleepover Nightmare would look better on my home TV than blown up for the big screen.

But would sleepover Nightmare look better than 28 days on the big screen? Based on your report of your 35mm blowup, I think it would look more like film and have less DV "ugliness". Although you also said in that report that it looked pretty soft on the front row (though still better than 28 days) but way better from the back row.

So all I'm saying is that you can't say which one looks more like film when you are comparing one contender on its home turf (a TV screen) and another in a forced alien context that magnifies all of its flaws. That's why I was asking the guy he saw it in a theater or not. Not saying that 28 days looked better because he saw it on a big screen (if he did) but saying it would look worse.

I can't presume to know as much about the technical or aesthetic side of this as you Barry (almost everything I know originated with you), and while I agree that Sleepover Nightmare would probably have less of the DV problems in a blow up and look more like film (a technical/aesthetic end), IMHO, the storytelling and gestural quality of the lighting and cinematography (technical achievement but purely aesthetic end) in 28 Days was excellent. I was ready to go with the look, and felt it served the story. I liked it better in the big screen than when I rented it in fact because it was uglier.

The cinematography in Sleepover is exactly what is should be IMHO for that genre and budget (which is part of that genre) and its not bad, just a different style. More light. Less specificity. Less time. Less $. Crazy to compare the two on an artistic level. (again, IMHO). And Crazy to compare the two as to which looks more like film unless its a big screen vs big screen or small screen vs small screen. (once again, IMHO, although, like most here, I suspect the DVX would come out on top)

 

[Rasquachemedia]

JDANSTAN, is saw 28 days later at home on dvd. I totally agree with you that the overall cinematography in 28 days later was better. My comments were centered on the video over flim look produced by the cameras.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

JDANSTAN, is saw 28 days later at home on dvd. I totally agree with you that the overall cinematography in 28 days later was better. My comments were centered on the video over flim look produced by the cameras.

Yeah. Did look more like film on TV, for sure. Would seem like they would maintain that relationship as they up rez and given Barry's tests.

As for cinematography. Don't want to take away from Jarred's accomplishment. We should all be so lucky as to get a cool little gig like this. They're just apples and oranges in that department.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, jdanstan, I agree with all you've said. And yes "28 Days Later" had a much more "movie" look to it, because it had a budget of $15 million, versus the budget for "sleepover nightmare" which was probably more like $150,000. I had no problem at all with the filmmaking in "28 Days Later" (storytelling, yeah, but filmmaking?) other than how it actually looked, resolution/grain/noise-wise, on the big-screen blowup. On TV it's probably magnificent.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Yeah, jdanstan, I agree with all you've said. And yes "28 Days Later" had a much more "movie" look to it, because it had a budget of $15 million, versus the budget for "sleepover nightmare" which was probably more like $150,000.

Good guess. I think it was quoted as $200k elsewhere in the the thread. Somehow I got it in my head that it was $21K (I think that's number of days filmed), and was running around telling my little rag tag crew "let's make a movie and sell it to block buster ... like this Thursday...woo hoo ... yeah!" At 21K it would be the ultimate model for the perspective venture capitalist. I know they more than made their money back, but not with such a ridiculous margin as I hade misunderstood. I was wondering how they blew up 2 cars and kept 50 people in hotels for 3 weeks at that price. :laugh:

I had no problem at all with the filmmaking in "28 Days Later" (storytelling, yeah, but filmmaking?) other than how it actually looked, resolution/grain/noise-wise, on the big-screen blowup. On TV it's probably magnificent.

Eh, still looks a lot more like video than Sleepover Nightmare, and as I said I preferred it on Big Screen because of the rough quality of the strained medium/media, which I thought worked for that piece -- "The Zombies have eaten all the film lab people ... we'll have to make our movie on DV ... or something ... like ... that ..." Wouldn't feel that way so much about November (I'm guessing). Of course then people use the argument for personal drama pieces that the DV is like home video which makes it feel more real or intimate. Probably all just marketing. :happy:

 

[Jarred Land]

Sleepover cost just over $300k to complete, $200k to shoot. 100k spent in post, ( even though it doesnt look like it. ) we finished it on the big boy Avid machines in NY and did the complete sound mix at Lionsgate studios with Gino Vannelli, did a second edit and did an uprez etc.

It cold of been shot and finished for $150k, if i woulda done the offline here as an online and never took it to NY, skipped the fancy sound mix and worked for free. It does look like a 150k movie, maybe even a 100k movie, which it is supposed to (the whole 80s thing) I even thought of doing a transfer to 8mm then a rescan to really make the 80s feel come alive but that idea got killed pretty fast.

 

[asylumproductions]

I just got a chance to see the flick over the weekend. Not bad, but I would like to know were all that money went. Why not just edit the whole thing on FCP, sound mix, everything and save a **** load of money, with just as good results? The picture looked very good, and made the DVX shine in most scenes. I saw you were credited as 2nd unit DP so I guess you did all of the lake shots, which looked beautiful. Good idea to shoot it all during the day, very cost effective!The under water scenes really bugged me. Why not add a filter to give it more of a filmlook to match the DVX? I think that really hurt the overall look, there was also some 60i footage of the car flipping that stood out like a sore thumb. One more gripe. The blood looked way too pink. I have noticed while shooting my feature, I have had to really darken the blood to make it look right with the DVX. Overall nice job, and congrats on the distb. deal which is huge! Just making a feature is a huge task to take on, and very few seem to get it finished at all. Nice nod to 80's cheese horror!

*Just saw some previous posts about post, so it kind of answered my questions.

 

[arielman]

Hi Jarred
Just received your movie in the mail . I bought thru Amazon.com
my 2 boys and I sat down Saturday night with Popcorn and drinks , lights off and movie begins ...........In the end everyone thought it was well done and my boys hate corny Horror movies so this says a lot. The blood looked good on my old Sony 27".
We were disappointed that the DUDE who was going to roll the "FAT ONE" and the hired help ( trying not to give anything away here ) were killed . Bummer !!!!
It is really nice to see what the DVX can do ..Again Jarred ...well done ...Ian , Matt and Colin

 

[Jarred Land]

Thanks guys Ian, glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Kevin McCallister]

Saw 6 (six!) copies of the movie in my local NJ Best Buy. However, none of the NJ Blockbusters within 50 miles of me carry the movie for rental. Is your distro deal with them a regional one?

 

[Jarred Land]

blockbuster oddly enough has a wierd way of distributing dvd's to thier stores, they have thier own little regions that they send different titles too, like horror rents better on the west coast so they put them there... that said, people have told me its in blockbusters all over the US, so i dont know the method to thier madness.

I saw it in Virgin records last week when i was in chicago.. only one copy left to boot.. i was so proud for a moment; then it passed.

 

[Staven]

Hey Jarred, do you know if it exists at any blockbusters in Vancouver?