Lonesome Jim, The Trailer!!

Wow - that looks really good for a DVX. Really good lighting for the most part. Great job.

Keep it up!
 
Looks like Liv Tyler has a thing going for Affleck's.

Great looking trailer. Do big budget movies usually use a 35mm adapter? The video was small so I couldn't readily tell if this one was using one.
 
churchie04 said:
Looks like Liv Tyler has a thing going for Affleck's.

Great looking trailer. Do big budget movies usually use a 35mm adapter? The video was small so I couldn't readily tell if this one was using one.
Click to expand...

I saw pictures of them shooting and they had somekind of a wide angle adapter on.
Glass in front of glass isnt good.
 
Now THAT looked great. I'm really believing that with good composition, framing, lighting and editing, you could shoot a movie with a Canon Optura and project it in cinemascope in a 50' screen, and it would hold up. As long as the story, acting, directing and all the elements are top notch, I don't think most audiences care what format or resolution the original footage was in. And if you don't believe me, I have four words for you:

1) Blair
2) Witch
3) Open
4) Water
 
i heard that this d.p. hated, HATED, that they were shooting on miniDV (they were orignally going to shoot on film) and bitched and pouted about it. i think i actually read that interview on this site. i could be mistaken though.

looks like a good film actually. i didn't know casey affleck could act.
 
Man, that trailer makes it seem like a light romantic comedy between Casey Affleck and Liv Tyler. That's a *part* of the film, but it's a lot more interesting than that. I don't like the way that trailer was cut at all. It's seems misleading and makes the film come off as very one-dimensional. I thought it was a really solid film and well worth seeing--least of all because it was shot on a DVX. FYI-- no 35mm adapter or anamorphic adapter was used on the production. Phil Parmet, the DP didn't hate the DVX, I think he appreciated it for what it is, but he prefers to shoot on film. We all love the DVX, but let's get real--who wouldn't rather shoot 35mm film?
 
NO CA$H said:
IThat film was shot with the DVX100a, right? It looks amazing.
Click to expand...


Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but remember, a good deal of the "wow" factor is coming from the 35mm transfer as the 24p DV footage takes on the characteristics of whatever film stock they're using.
I had a friend who got all excited because they shot 28 days later on an XL1 and had to remind him it looked decent because of the film-out.
:)
 
jrv3034 said:
Now THAT looked great. I'm really believing that with good composition, framing, lighting and editing, you could shoot a movie with a Canon Optura and project it in cinemascope in a 50' screen, and it would hold up. As long as the story, acting, directing and all the elements are top notch, I don't think most audiences care what format or resolution the original footage was in. And if you don't believe me, I have four words for you:

1) Blair
2) Witch
3) Open
4) Water
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true filmmaker.
 
I don't think so. The trailer looks to be of similar or lesser quality than the color-corrected DVD version Phil Parmet let me screen before our interview. That was *before* any filmout. So that's the look of the DVX plus color correction and grading in post, not any special qualities attributable to a film transfer.

PANA-MAN said:
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but remember, a good deal of the "wow" factor is coming from the 35mm transfer as the 24p DV footage takes on the characteristics of whatever film stock they're using.
I had a friend who got all excited because they shot 28 days later on an XL1 and had to remind him it looked decent because of the film-out. And that was an XL1 for goodness sakes!
And all hardcore Canonites, please do not take that as a bag on the XL. They're very good cameras.
:)
Click to expand...
 
jrv3034 said:
Now THAT looked great. I'm really believing that with good composition, framing, lighting and editing, you could shoot a movie with a Canon Optura and project it in cinemascope in a 50' screen, and it would hold up. As long as the story, acting, directing and all the elements are top notch, I don't think most audiences care what format or resolution the original footage was in. And if you don't believe me, I have four words for you:

1) Blair
2) Witch
3) Open
4) Water
Click to expand...


Did Open Water do well in theatres? I saw this film and it sucked. Boring as hell. Blair Witch. That was a long time ago, but I remember I liked it. I'll rent it again to remind myself of it. The sequel sucked though, that I remember.

update: is lonesome jim coming in theatres or dvd anytime soon?
 
Barry_S said:
I don't think so. The trailer looks to be of similar or lesser quality than the color-corrected DVD version Phil Parmet let me screen before our interview. That was *before* any filmout. So that's the look of the DVX plus color correction and grading in post, not any special qualities attributable to a film transfer.
Click to expand...


Barry, you're telling me that DV footage (DVX or otherwise) doesn't benefit from taking on a film stocks characteristics in any way? That doesn't make any sense. I understand that careful color correction and grading in the post phase contributes significantly to any digital footage, but to say that a transfer, this one or any other, is a complete non-plus falls a little shy of reality.
I understand the DVX's capabilities and it is a very capable camera. And I didn't get to screen the DVD (you moderator guys get all the perks!) but my point is that physics are physics, and to repeat again, DV does take on the characterstics of the film stock it is transferred to. Whether it's a little or a lot. It's just logic.
 
Nope. What I'm saying is that the trailer looks just like it was cut from the digital version of the film. NOCA$H said that the trailer looked amazing. You responded that the "wow factor" was mainly due the 35mm transfer. I responded that the trailer looked similar or *worse* than a color corrected DVD version done *before* any filmout. The trailer was most likely cut from the digital version. So in this case, how could the "wow factor" be from the film transfer?

I'm commenting only because I have direct experience from both screening a color-corrected pre-release DVD and a discussion with the DP. Incidentally, Phil Parmet considered the filmout tests to be extremely close to the digital version of the film.

I totally agree that a filmout *can* have a significant effect on the final look of video-film transfer, but I don't see any evidence that that's what's going on in this case.


PANA-MAN said:
Barry, you're telling me that DV footage (DVX or otherwise) doesn't benefit from taking on a film stocks characteristics in any way? That doesn't make any sense. I understand that careful color correction and grading in the post phase contributes significantly to any digital footage, but to say that a transfer, this one or any other, is a complete non-plus falls a little shy of reality.
I understand the DVX's capabilities and it is a very capable camera. And I didn't get to screen the DVD (you moderator guys get all the perks!) but my point is that physics are physics, and to repeat again, DV does take on the characterstics of the film stock it is transferred to. Whether it's a little or a lot. It's just logic.
Click to expand...
 
looks great, and I'd watch it even if it wasn't shot on the DVX, especially if there's more to it then the trailer's pitch that it's a love story.
 
I wouldn't normally go see a film like that but since it was shot with the DVX and directed by steve buscemi I'll see it.
 
I think it looks good. More independent films are streaming more towards performance than they are story, aka Garden State. This is definitely a performance/character driven film. It even tells you in the title of the film. I like how more Independent directors and such are taking risks in their films and not relying on the same Hollywood bullshit you see every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top