When voting on a film...

armisiano

armisiano

Veteran
So I wrote something in my film's thread the other day.

Twenty minutes after writing it I thought it was kind of stupid.

An hour after writing it and since then I've felt it really wasn't.

I wrote the following, "...I'm kicking myself in the head daily realizing I'll never be able to afford anything high def... I'm worried that people will judge some based on that, not the fact that it's standard def, that's a conscious notion, I mean the subconscious things, like the lack of picture clarity, and color quality you get with 4:2:2 sampling."

Do you think this is true? Do you think we tend to vote higher for films shot in high def simply because they're high def (and therefore have a better resolution/picture clarity, and often better color simply because of the camera's engineering)? And do you think because of that users submitting projects shot in SD will statistically suffer, though their technical disadvantage isn't really their fault or a reflection of their talent or skill, merely their pocket depth?

I'm very curious to hear peoples thoughts on this. Please share.
 
I hope that most people will judge your film based on the story.

Now, the last 3 festivals have been won by movies made with the RED camera. They were also pretty good films.
But... this is a filmmaking site for the most part. Therefore, members may be more slanted towards the quality of the image above everything else.

It's really hard to say.

I've managed to place as high as 5th or 6th in one Festival and I've also made the finals the last few times out. All with the HV20.
It may be HD but it doesn't compare to some of the other professional cameras used around here. I would like to think that the stories I've told are what's responsible for my placement. On the flip side, I've also been told to start using a "real" camera. :)

Maybe some of the big winners will be able to shed more light on the subject but I really think it's all a matter of opinion.

I personally would love to see the public vote come back. I want to know who keeps giving me crappy ratings! :grin:

MAH
 
Personally I vote according to storytelling ability and how a film makes me feel, more than the actual image. If a film is able to make me relate to the characters and root for them... hell, even boo for them, then they;ve struck a chord in me somewhere that I;ve managed to forget for a short while that I'm watching a 6 minute short film.

Some people are unable to look past how many gigapixels there are supposed to be seeing in a movie. I had seriously considered just lying and saying that I was shooting on the RED, just to see how that would skew views and ratings. Then I said screw it: I would just make sure that enough people KNEW about my film this time around.

Some of the results definitely skew towards the big cameras, but coincidentally, the same guys who entered using the RED were also excellent storytellers, good directors, DP.. whatever... or they simply had higher production values. One of the things I've noticed is that the ones with higher production values have better thought out stories, longer development processes AND they have longer shooting times. So some serious effort is going into some of these projects, as well as cash to pay for cast, crew and locations, but moreover, for production design.

Until some of us can afford to use the RED, the best we can do is ramp up our production quality by following some of the same development (story and otherwise), production timelines, and post-production processes, that some of the other productions are. It really does help to get a much better film in the end, one that people will forget for a time that wasn;t shot on RED.
 
Time fest 3rd place was a dvx I believe. SD can still look great in the right hands. Some Twilight fest films shot in SD were fantastic. I firmly believe that the voters on this site pay more attention more important things than image clarity.
 
Actually Dustin just made his film on the Panasonic Lumix, just for kicks, and how he used that camera to frame his shots was very effective. Yeah, I got the sneak peek at it and I actually encouraged him not to even MENTION the camera.. just to see what people would say. Hopefully they'll be commenting more on the story and the "wtf" nature of it all, than on the camera itself.

Now as for the haters... well some people are just out to drag others down, out of their own insecurities of jealousies or whatever, so we will see some voting that will make us go "wtf?", but the voting system is supposed to protect against spite and other people like that. As to whether it works or not... well that discussion has already been had. A LOT. so let's not go there once again.
 
After watching "a little mouth to feed" I believe the HVX can hold up with the best of em. That films looks amazing. That was an HVX correct?

puckthemad said:
Some of the results definitely skew towards the big cameras, but coincidentally, the same guys who entered using the RED were also excellent storytellers, good directors, DP.. whatever... or they simply had higher production values. One of the things I've noticed is that the ones with higher production values have better thought out stories, longer development processes AND they have longer shooting times. So some serious effort is going into some of these projects, as well as cash to pay for cast, crew and locations, but moreover, for production design.

Until some of us can afford to use the RED, the best we can do is ramp up our production quality by following some of the same development (story and otherwise), production timelines, and post-production processes, that some of the other productions are. It really does help to get a much better film in the end, one that people will forget for a time that wasn;t shot on RED.
Click to expand...
 
This is a topic that always loops back around. I believe that HD subconsciously draws people closer to your film. Then again, some people like to see that you can make something really amazing in SD. I mean if the Mona Lisa was created out of really dull crayola crayons wouldn't it just be that more impressive?
 
Because this is a filmmaking forum, I think most people are more aware of picture quality than the public in general. What this means is that although we might try to focus on the story, we can't help but see the things we are trying so hard to avoid/ add to our own films. And I believe it does affect our impression of the film. Personally I believe this is not a problem. If you want a balanced view of how the world at large will view your film, have several test screenings with a good cross-section of people represented. If you want to see how your film technically compares with other filmmakers - join the next fest!

Just my thoughts on the subject. But then, I am new to this so what do I know?!
 
Something to consider too

There may be a which came first the chicken or the egg phenomenon with these films that are winning first with Red.

Are the films using Red winning because they were shot on Red? Or are they shooting on Red because they are making a winning film.

In other words, does the fact that the entry was shot on Red have something to do with how dedicated / professional the team was using it. I mean take O2, Fat Monster went nuts with that. People flying in from all over the country, getting a hold of a soundstage with a spaceship set on it, hiring professional actors, etc.

I'm not saying that teams that don't use Red aren't dedicated, but shooting on Red could just be one thing in a long laundry list of things that the teams using it weren't willing to compromise on, or set the bar extremely high for. Then in every other area of production they shot for equal heights.

Now temper that with the fact that Jason won 2nd in Love Fest (after a piece shot on Red) with basically one camera set up and an HVX.

Temper that with the fact that other films shot on Red place lower than films shot on other cameras.

So I think there is NO question that a film shot on an HVX, DVX, HV20 can win. It's just that teams using Red are likely pulling out ALL the stops possible.

All things being equal, I'd love to see Zak walk away with this one with the D90. Just to show it can be done. Because it can.

If we can find the clip of Mark Johnson and I on the set of the spaceship from Dustin's time fest entry you can compare HVX and Red. It was a gag shot shot on the HVX for Dustin while the rest of the crew was off shooting with the Red. Little attention was paid to lighting, and except for some latitude at the very high end of the spectrum, it holds up fairly well at 1080 and even better on the web. The fact is that the HVX is simply ENOUGH. It's enough for a high quality striking image that draws you in to the story and doesn't make quality a concern or issue.

For the web I would say the same for the DVX.

Is there a difference. Will that difference be extreme in some forms of presentation? Yes. Is there still a difference online? Yes. Is it enough for a mediocre story to pull ahead of a great one? No.

So again, it all comes back to content.

THere's just no doubt in my mind that a WELL SHOT* film with stronger content shot on HVX, DVX, HV20 would beat the pants of a well shot film with lesser content shot on the Red

*well shot, meaning in a way that serves the film/story.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
All things being equal, I'd love to see Zak walk away with this one with the D90. Just to show it can be done. Because it can.
Click to expand...
Just thought I would touch on this.

Zak made IFHY with the HV20 and it failed to place in LoveFest.
Yet it did fantastic in the regular festival route and everyone around here seems to really love it now. Still, it didn't even place in the top 3 at the time. Odd?

Makes me wonder why? Especially due to its popularity.

Not trying to play Devils advocate, just "Things that make you go Hmmmm...."

I also thought that Winter Lilacs was overlooked so maybe there's something to be said for pimping your thread or just general popularity within the forum.

Either that or my taste in films is vastly different and misguided. :D


MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Just thought I would touch on this.

Zak made IFHY with the HV20 and it failed to place in LoveFest.
Yet it did fantastic in the regular festival route and everyone around here seems to really love it now. Still, it didn't even place in the top 3 at the time. Odd?

Makes me wonder why? Especially due to its popularity.

Not trying to play Devils advocate, just "Things that make you go Hmmmm...."

I also thought that Winter Lilacs was overlooked so maybe there's something to be said for pimping your thread or just general popularity within the forum.

Either that or my taste in films is vastly different and misguided. :D


MAH
Click to expand...

Winter Lilacs got into SXSW, to support your point...
 
Another reason I'm pimping the hell out of my films this time around. In Twilightfest it didn't feel like that many people even SAW my film. SO I;ve made a concerted effort this time around to promote the hell out of both of my films, not just here but outside on Facebook and on my own website. That alone is a good exercize in itself and provides a lot of the deliverables that some film festivals will ask for later down the line, in terms of production stills, BTS footage, etc.

I LIKE the new aspect of promoting your film outside of DVXUser and I can only hope that more people will start doing it.

At least this time around there's a higher visibility and the more people watch my film, well the more people will actually rate it.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Just thought I would touch on this.

Zak made IFHY with the HV20 and it failed to place in LoveFest.
Yet it did fantastic in the regular festival route and everyone around here seems to really love it now. Still, it didn't even place in the top 3 at the time. Odd?

Makes me wonder why? Especially due to its popularity.

Not trying to play Devils advocate, just "Things that make you go Hmmmm...."

I also thought that Winter Lilacs was overlooked so maybe there's something to be said for pimping your thread or just general popularity within the forum.

Either that or my taste in films is vastly different. :D


MAH
Click to expand...

I didn't like IFHY much at all in Love Fest.

I liked the after Lovefest cut.

The Love Fest Cut was 6 minutes and felt rushed and undeveloped and was crazy shaky cam through out.

The post Love Fest cut is nothing short of brilliant with an extra three minutes that have more content and better pacing and allow for a bit more variety in the way the film is shot, so the shaky cam is less daunting.

The film, like much of Zak's work (all?) is about the magnitude of small personal moments and in a rushed cut those moments hardly get the chance to shine that they deserve.

Whether you agree with my assesment of the work or not, the post LoveFest cut is a different movie than the Lovefest cut, and the film was in the top 5. It placed 4th.

So what it did after love fest and what it did during love fest is kind of a mute point IMH0. It's definitely a different movie, and for my viewing experience, it's a VERY different movie.

Ironically. Several people thought that it was shot in Red, BTW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top