You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

V3 - Concept Trailer

Posted: Wed, 31st May 2006, 10:51am

Post 1 of 19

Larik47

Force: 721 | Joined: 20th Jan 2006 | Posts: 10

CompositeLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

TeamTV is a group of local video enthusiasts situated in Reading, UK. Our members comprise of anyone from complete amatuers to those in (or wishing to be in) the video/film industry.

"V3" is a piece of concept work our group has been working on simply to show what we can do with next to no budget and still achieve close to professional special effects - FXHome has been a key part of this.

In the beginning "V3" was a series of effects tests and originally shot that way, but when the material came out as it did, we decided to edit it together into a trailer format. The film itself may yet be produced in full, but don't hold your breath!

As an amatuer group, we thrive on exposure and coverage, and so are proud to submit this as our first piece to FXHome, and ask that onyone who likes it, would like to use/host/show it etc contact us - also the iPod Video version of the trailer should be available above to download and take with you.

We understand the concepts and ideas shown in the trailer are generally ripped off or stolen from many sci-fi shows and movies - we're not trying to be them, or steal for profit, just borrow their effects and play with them.

Please visit our webpages at http://www.teamtv.org.uk and http://www.deltafilm.co.uk

You can contact me through FXHome or at larry@deltafilm.co.uk

We hope you enjoy.

"V3" ©2006 TeamTV


More Info
Posted: Wed, 31st May 2006, 11:05am

Post 2 of 19

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

As a proof of concept, this is excellent work. Visually at least, taking each scene/shot on its own, there is some serious talent at work here.

Taking it as a whole though, it does seem a bit disjunct and while each shot looks good as a still image, in motion its clear you need to improve on some of the correography and physical motions of your actors.

Parts of it come off as quite Casshern-like, in fact, but therein lies the continued reference that whilst its visually impressive, its lacking elsewhere.

Your description of this film has cleverly all but eradicated every chance of bad review. Its a test, you're amateurs, you know its a rip-off, its your first piece, you praised fxhome's products.etc

One thing you haven't brought up however is something i've never had issues with before in other users' movies: the nudity.

Completely. Pointless.

...as far as i can tell, at least. Perhaps there is compositing which is so seemless, i haven't even noticed it? Please can you clarify.

I love boobs, don't get me wrong, but i don't respect the random insertion of boobs just for the sake of it and this shot seemed excessively gratuitous, in every meaning of the word. Since you've clearly demonstrated your profficiency at every facet of post production with the previous shots, the nudity shot is redundant at best, even if it does have something funky in.
Posted: Thu, 1st Jun 2006, 7:46am

Post 3 of 19

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

WHOOOO NUDITY!!!... errhumm... uhh I agree I think the nudity shot was.... ah hell ... it was pretty cool... I have to admit that it made me do a double take on the film...

I give major kudos to your two actresses, I have worked on films with nude scenes before and even though this was simply topless I can imagine it would still be a little awkward, So well done!

The rest of the film, the opening was very cool, although I have to admit that seeing Lightsabers used in Films that aren’t Star Wars related (or making fun of lightsabers or star wars in general) gets to me... so a few minuses for the sabers.

The few seconds of saber fight was very good, it moved well and the carpark was a wise choice and was lit well.

There is a shot in which a man in a white shirt is shot in the chest, this was very well done.

My last point goes on the voice over... it sounded like some one with a deepish voice straining to make it deeper... a pro-tools job could have fixed this... and although the voice over was irritating it didn’t detract form the feature over all..

Nice green screening, and overall a very nice job.

Congrats on a nice peace of ass... err I mean work...yeah... work.

Kudos!
Posted: Thu, 1st Jun 2006, 10:33am

Post 4 of 19

Larik47

Force: 721 | Joined: 20th Jan 2006 | Posts: 10

CompositeLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thanks very much to both Xcession and SpyroVision for your comments!

On the nudity specifically - everyone I have personally shown the vid to has taken some issue with it - and the issue is a Marmite-like one, they either love it or hate it, and I can see why either way. It didn't really fit with the theme of the piece and had little composite or grading applied to it - one thing was the metonymy or significance of that shot being differently coloured to the other shots, but without a backing story it doesn't really matter.

All in all, the project was so we could try new things and the inclusion of the nudity shot was because it was our first attempt at doing a nude scene - we benefited from the experience, but then it does seem out of place in the piece.

Thanks once again for accurate feedback!!

@SpyroVision - I will pass your kind kudos on to them, but (and it's a very easy mistake to make lol) it's actually an actor and actress! The bloke has long hair razz
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jun 2006, 5:09am

Post 5 of 19

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

HAHAH! oops... damn. No girl on girl action for FXHome.

lol

Yes indeed, pass that along.

Ill also say a big "KUDOS!" to FX-Home Movie Acceptors, the fact they allow films with a tad of nudity in them actuly works to their credit as a respectable film makers forum....

Kudos to you Larik47, Kudos to your actors and kudos to FX-Home.

Hmmm... im out of kudos, better go make some more!
Posted: Sat, 3rd Jun 2006, 2:35am

Post 6 of 19

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Very nice! The grading looks really good and the actors seem fairly decent to. Can't wait to see what you guys conjure up in the future.
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 12:45am

Post 7 of 19

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I haven't seen this movie.

Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site. I hopefully don't have to say that I, with many others, believe that that is very wrong.

Since most of my friends are also Christians who, hopefully, don't want to pollute their minds with this, it make recommending FXHome to them something I can't really do.

Also, in following the FXHome software licence agreement, I would have to basically say:

"Made with software distributed on a porn site"

which obviously makes legal use of this software a little hard.

I’m not going to be associated with an online community that supports this stuff. It would be a constant temptation. I’m not going to be involved with the forums, and I am going to remove all my movies from the cinema.

This is a little sad for me, since this site held so much promise. I learned a huge amount of stuff about movie making here. I hope the FXHome Team will reconsider their position on this issue.

-Ryan
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 2:48am

Post 8 of 19

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

Ryan wrote:

Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site. I hopefully don't have to say that I, with many others, believe that that is very wrong.
The dictionary describes pornography as:
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

Larik47's movie features one extremley short shot of a naked couple, in a perfectly natural act. It is neither explicit nor does it feature sexual organs. It is shot in a tactful, artistic way. To describe it as porn is utterly ridiculous and incorrect.

I presume by that rationale you consider Botticelli's Venus or Michelangelo's David "pornographic"?

If you don't want to watch it, fine, but don't accuse FXhome or its members of producing something they aren't. Having a hissy fit and removing your films simply makes you look infantile and petty.

Ryan wrote:

I haven't seen this movie.
Then how can you comment if you haven't seen it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Larik47, there's some really nice stuff in the trailer. I'd be interested to know how you did the invisibilty effect, as I need something similar for a film I'm working on. Your team obviously has a lot of skill, and I look forward to seeing something more substantial from you. Hopefully the comments from the more close-minded individuals won't put you off posting here.

Big thumbs up from me. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 2:54am

Post 9 of 19

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Ryan wrote:

I haven't seen this movie.

Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site. I hopefully don't have to say that I, with many others, believe that that is very wrong.

Since most of my friends are also Christians who, hopefully, don't want to pollute their minds with this, it make recommending FXHome to them something I can't really do.

Also, in following the FXHome software licence agreement, I would have to basically say:

"Made with software distributed on a porn site"

which obviously makes legal use of this software a little hard.

I’m not going to be associated with an online community that supports this stuff. It would be a constant temptation. I’m not going to be involved with the forums, and I am going to remove all my movies from the cinema.

This is a little sad for me, since this site held so much promise. I learned a huge amount of stuff about movie making here. I hope the FXHome Team will reconsider their position on this issue.

-Ryan
Hey Ryan, I'm Also a Christian, and I really don't think this film degrades The Website FXHOME at all. It's someones personal work. You can choose to view it or not.

Let me also point out that this isn't porn, and I'm also Not offended by it. Nudity Isn't wrong. Nudity intended only to provoke a sexual response IS however (With my beliefs, that is.)
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 3:19am

Post 10 of 19

Cadaver

Force: 405 | Joined: 13th Apr 2006 | Posts: 19

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker

Gold Member

Ryan wrote:

I haven't seen this movie.

Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site. I hopefully don't have to say that I, with many others, believe that that is very wrong.

Since most of my friends are also Christians who, hopefully, don't want to pollute their minds with this, it make recommending FXHome to them something I can't really do.

Also, in following the FXHome software licence agreement, I would have to basically say:

"Made with software distributed on a porn site"

which obviously makes legal use of this software a little hard.

I’m not going to be associated with an online community that supports this stuff. It would be a constant temptation. I’m not going to be involved with the forums, and I am going to remove all my movies from the cinema.

This is a little sad for me, since this site held so much promise. I learned a huge amount of stuff about movie making here. I hope the FXHome Team will reconsider their position on this issue.

-Ryan
Ryan,
I'm a Christian as well, and I agree with Bryce007 and Alex Reeve whole-heartedly. I may not agree with the content in the feature, but it definetly does not degrade the site, and it's up to you to decide whether to view it or not. By using your logic, that would make any computer (or any internet-able device) a pornographic kiosk. But in how you use it, you have made a concious choice not to visit porno sites. The same goes for this site. You can choose whether or not to view this video, if you so desire to classify it as pornographic.

In a nod to Alex, if you look at this video and site this way, i'd advise you stay away from movie theatres. And art galleries. And computers. And cell phones. And televisions. Heck, you might be better off in amish country. =P

-Cadaver
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 3:20am

Post 11 of 19

brennanmceachran

Force: 330 | Joined: 14th Oct 2005 | Posts: 176

CompositeLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm pretty sure Ryan wont read any of this... becasue ofcourse he doesn't visit any 'porn' sites.

But it truely is a shame you don't want to watch this short video, for it is one of the best on the whole site. Great Work Larik47!!
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 4:11am

Post 12 of 19

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Ryan wrote:

Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site.
Ryan, with all due respect, have you taken the time to think through your statement and decision? Please note, I am not referring to your religious beliefs here, nor am I initiating a discussion on religion, which is a restricted topic on the FXhome forums.

Instead, I'm referring to your conclusions about nudity, pornography, and pornograhic web sites.

For instance, Schindler's List contained nudity, yet I am unaware of anyone classifying it as porn. If you've seen it, do you think the nudity in that film is pornographic?

The FXhome.com Cinema section provides a link to a movie that contains some nudity, yes. You can watch that movie if you choose to.

Google.com also provides links to nudity, if you choose to enter certain search words and then click the links. Do you think that Google is also a porn site?

In both cases, you have a choice of what to click on and what not to.

In the same way, you have a choice whether to watch certain TV shows or films at your local cinema. Just because a TV station shows a movie/show that contains nudity doesn't make it a porn TV channel.

Incidentally, prior to this, did you ever have an issue with any FXhome movies that contained strong/graphic violence?
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 8:22am

Post 13 of 19

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Its good to see so many FXhomers talking sense when it comes to Ryan's post. We've had films with nudity in them a few times before but although the validity of including these scenes has sometimes been questioned I don't think its ever been attacked in such a silly way. Following on from a great reply from Hendo I'll add some feelings I had which are not quite as friendly.

a) FXhome is not a porn site and to say it is insults the FXhome team and the members of this community!

b) "Apparently there is some nudity in this. In the Christian community, to which I belong, that's porn. So that makes FXHome a porn site." - This is maybe the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on FXhome.com.

c) In the Christian religion NUDITY does NOT equal PORN.

d) The website clearly states the movie is 15+. Are all video stores which provide movies over U certificate porn vendors? No. If you think so then you are wrong.

e) You better not buy any video software from any company as its all going to be used at some point for films with naked people in (not just naked but porn as well, although they seem to be the same to Ryan). How can you fund the makers of such software or visit their websites at all!

f) It might be best to stop watching all DVDs, Blu-ray and HD-DVDs as all these standard have been influenced by the porn industry (real porn, not just naked people). It was the porn industry which was the major force behind the "multi-angle" feature being included in DVD spec.

Lets get back to the topic now and not make any more posts about Ryan's message and talk lots about this rather impessive vid...
Posted: Mon, 5th Jun 2006, 11:44am

Post 14 of 19

Larik47

Force: 721 | Joined: 20th Jan 2006 | Posts: 10

CompositeLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hello all, I've been away on a filmshoot for a couple of days and haven't had a chance to check back in depth, and didn't realise there was a discussion brewing!

I'd like to thank everyone for their kind (and sensible) words defending the inclusion of the nude shot in V3 - the choice to include it in the final cut was a tricky one, but I didn't quite anticipate the response. If I may, I'd like to add to what others have already said:

@ Ryan - I am sorry that the concept of nudity seems to equate to pornography with you, but I believe it to be a little short-sighted and reactive to judge a single 1-2 second shot without even viewing it. As others have stated, there is plenty of art in the world containing nudity - should it also be branded and/or censored? I respect the beliefs of everyone who visits FXHome and their choice of whether or not to view the videos posted, but I would like to point out that I have Christian friends who helped in the production of, and watched, this movie and were not offended - also there are Christians posting here who also say they are not offended.

Bottom line - offending people was not my intent nor the intent of anyone on the production crew - just to add a stylistc shot to a piece of concept work and to try a type of shot we had not previously attempted. The 15+ rating was also there purely to warn of this.

I respect the decision not to watch, or those who feel the shot does not work in the piece or contribute for whatever reason, but I stand by my decision to include it, and thank the FXHome team for allowing the posting. Violence, nudity, foul language and many other 'questionable' things (I'm sure this vid doesn't have all of them!) have been a part of film and video almost as long as it has existed. In order to make something which dimly compares to professional work, amateur filmmakers require the flexibility with what they can shoot and show.

I would not agree with pornography on this site (if it was by definition pornography) but this certainy is not.

I would just like to say thanks again - schwar, Hendo, brennanmceachran, Cadaver, Bryce007 and Alex Reeve. Sterling chaps.

Right! Now that's over with (for now wink ) I'll just say quickly that there may well be something more substantial on it's way in the coming months - principal photography is complete, and I have a month or two of grading and a large composite to do.

@ Alex Reeve - thanks very much for your comments! - as soon as I find the time I will write a tutorial on how I accomplished the invisibility shot for you, and anyone else who can make use of it.

Nothing puts me truly off, except spiders....I hate spiders...
Posted: Tue, 6th Jun 2006, 11:37pm

Post 15 of 19

Psychedelic

Force: 0 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2005 | Posts: 12

Member

Can you explain how you make the invisible effect, like in the trailer? Continue with the goog work....
Posted: Wed, 7th Jun 2006, 3:04am

Post 16 of 19

A Man

Force: 800 | Joined: 14th May 2006 | Posts: 13

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

that trailer was pretty damn cool. if you aren't worried about giving away some trade secrets, i would like to know how you did most of the stuff in the trailer.
Posted: Wed, 7th Jun 2006, 7:49am

Post 17 of 19

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I imagine the invisibility was done using a displacement filter of some kind, like the one in VisionLab and CompositeLab Pro. You can view a brief example on this page:

http://fxhome.com/visionlab/

Scroll down to the 'Composite filters' section and click 'Movie 1'.
Posted: Thu, 8th Jun 2006, 9:21am

Post 18 of 19

Larik47

Force: 721 | Joined: 20th Jan 2006 | Posts: 10

CompositeLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Yes the invisibility effect was achieved with a Displacement Map, it takes some testing to get the exact settings, but it creates a very nice effect (again tutorial coming soon!)

The transition between visible and invisible however used one or two other effects to make it appear more fluid.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008, 10:54pm

Post 19 of 19

p77

Force: 1000 | Joined: 18th Jan 2008 | Posts: 11

VisionLab User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

looks damn profesional
where is the rest
id like to see more of that