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

"Expendable" (2 more new scenes online)

Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 7:25pm

Post 1 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member



SCENES DONE


SCENE 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jI95RtqsElw
SCENE 8: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wh3jD1IB-rs
SCENE 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3sYtlEvHWAA
_______________________________________________________________________

synopsis:

David Layne is a CIA field agent who has just arrived back at the U.S. from a survalence mission in Europe, and he doesnt get a friendly welcome home. Instead he's welcomed with tear gas, bullets, and punches, all coming his way.

He's been framed for the assassination of U.S. senator Cooper who was vacationing in Europe the same time David was there. After getting his closest "CIA" friend to do some snooping around, Scott Williams (CIA friend) gives David an address, the information that David finds at this address is bigger than him, the CIA, and nothings going down without a fight.
________________________________________________________________________

Pre-production

STORY: 100%
SCRIPT: 100%
CASTING: 100%
LOCATIONS: 100%
FILMING DATES: 70%
__________________
Production

FILMING: 40%
___________

Post-production

FINAL EDITING: 0%
VFX: 0%
SOUND: 0%
________________________________________________________________________

And now for some stills




________________________________________________________________________

*UPDATES*

2/16:
Next filming date is the 18th so more stills to come. And I'll probable show the some of the scene consedering it doesnt give anything major away.
________________________________________________________________________

*UPDATE*
2/18:
Well today we shot a small scene, and is on my youtube page. This will be the only seen from the movie released untill the full film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh3jD1IB-rs---Heres a very rough cut of scene 8
________________________________________________________________________

*UPDATE*
2/19:
I've just built a steadycam out of my old tripod in order to control the camera better.
_____________________________________________
made a new logo when I got bored ^^^

Last edited Sat, 28th Jun 2008, 4:58am; edited 15 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:04pm

Post 2 of 49

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Looking nice, is this by any chance a Bourne style film? smile Looking good, poster isn't too bad and as for the stills...looks as though this'll be something to look out for.

Good luck

B3N
Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2008, 9:53pm

Post 3 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Ahh... Much better first reaction than my last thread. I'm glad you liked the poster.

Yep its a bourne style film, hand held cam and all.

There were a couple really nice shots I wanted to post but they were a little to blurry so I left them off.

expect more pics and a clip from the 18th-20th

Thanks for posting

Last edited Wed, 7th May 2008, 8:53pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 1:29am

Post 4 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Looking good. I wish you good luck on this. One small warning though... Many people do not like the "Shaky Camera" effect used in the bourne trilogy. I would be careful not to overdue the shaky camera movement, because people get really confused easily if this is the case. Looking forward to the movie.
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 1:49am

Post 5 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well good luck on this. One thing though, make sure you get the scenes lightning right. Cause in these pics you posted, I can only see one of them clearly. So watch out for this.
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 2:20am

Post 6 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I thought I would address the lighting comment first, what pics can you not see clearly, I thought one of the best lit pics was the one with the guy with the glasses (Dan Allen).

And about the shaky cam, people who dont like shaky cam dont care if you over do it or not the'll still hate it, but if you over do it then nobody likes it.
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 2:26am

Post 7 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well that's weird cause I think the guy at the door is the best lit one. And the guy with the glasses is the one I can't see most. Do you have a bigger image
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 3:20am

Post 8 of 49

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This thread is cool, reminds me of something I would make; both thread and movie-wise.

Remember that while cultivating your light to have the most dramatic, atmospheric effect you can, you need to also control just how much light you have in the first place.

The odds are that even if your image looks too bright, it could always use more light. This is sometimes true outdoors and almost always true indoors. The lighting looks angled/softened pretty well, but I think you have too low an amount for your camera to properly register a crystal-clear image. More light in your lighting set up (higher wattage, higher intensity lights, etc) = altogether better lighting setup. You might want to check out a recent video response of mine that addresses a similar issue.

I, too, would like to see larger-resolution versions of those images. wink
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 4:13am

Post 9 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Thanks for the info and posting.

BTW does anyone have any tips on getting rid of ghosting, just curious cause theres some in my scene and its starting to kind of bug me.

EDIT: heres those higher res. pics and 2 more


as you can tell theres some ghosting


NEED MORE LIGHT!!





[/img]

Last edited Sat, 28th Jun 2008, 5:00am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 4:34am

Post 10 of 49

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Looking good, I like the poster.
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 7:23am

Post 11 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

thanks
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 5:05pm

Post 12 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

yeah, I'd reshoot the whole scene if I were you. Because it'd be bad if one part of the movie is good, and the other is crap.
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 6:29pm

Post 13 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

RodyPolis wrote:

and the other is crap.
I wouldnt go that far smile, its not crap by no means
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 7:14pm

Post 14 of 49

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

"Shaky camera" eh? this seems to be becoming a trend now of filmmakers not wanting to waste time setting a tripod up, I hope the art of cinematograohy stays and doesn't get eaten away by the shaky camera.

The new high resolution images are alright, grainy and under-lit. So yeah, I also vouch for doing another reshoot on them. Get this film up to scratch! smile
Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2008, 9:19pm

Post 15 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rebourne wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:

and the other is crap.
I wouldnt go that far smile, its not crap by no means
I mean that compared to the other one. I mean u don't want people watching the movie then when this scene comes they go "wow, what happened?" I think it'd be better off if everything has the same quality. You're using an HV20, right? I heard it's a pretty good camera, specially when it's HD. and yeah, I use the word crap a lot. still good luck
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 1:53am

Post 16 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Rating: +3

B3N wrote:

"Shaky camera" eh? this seems to be becoming a trend now of filmmakers not wanting to waste time setting a tripod up, I hope the art of cinematograohy stays and doesn't get eaten away by the shaky camera.
I'm really sick and tired of hearing that crap.

It's not a trend it's a "style" there's more than one art of cinematography. I'd say that "shaky cam" done right takes more time than "setting a tripod up". You have no idea how many story boards and takes I went through before getting the shots I wanted. So dont tell me or many others that "we dont want to waste time setting a tripod up."

...

It seems to be becoming a trend now of filmmakers wanting to say that that they hope "shaky camera" will not eat away the art of cinematography. When in fact it added another style of cinematorgraphy, it didnt take away.

see I can do it to.

...

Ok sorry I got a little sidetracked there, Yeah I figured you didnt mean it like that Rody, I just wanted to make sure.
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 2:28am

Post 17 of 49

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I hate "Shaky camera". I like "Handheld camera". The difference between those two are that the first one is what most amateurs use, the second one is an acquired skill.


As far this film goes, is every shot under lit?
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 2:44am

Post 18 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

DirectorBryce wrote:

I hate "Shaky camera". I like "Handheld camera". The difference between those two are that the first one is what most amateurs use, the second one is an acquired skill.
Ok well B3N was was obviously talking about "handheld camera" I'm sorry I got confused... not much else to say... you pretty much broke me down on that one...

As far this film goes, is every shot under lit?
for now...
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 2:45am

Post 19 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, I really don't mind the camera shaking, as long as you don't over do it. By that I mean when it gets to the point when I can't see what's happening, or when you use it in a conversation that's supposed to go smooth. Still good luck. If you need any help regarding Compositing, give me a call
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 3:50am

Post 20 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've tried both handheld and tripod, and have far greater luck and preference with the former. Reason? I don't know. But this isn't "the direction cinematography is headed" as much as it is a form of visual storytelling. Hitchcock used handheld. Other people did too. It's not a new or "MTV-style" that some people sadly defame it as.

I'm sure when movement in cinematography, like the crane or dolly, came around people said the exact same thing. Well nearly all my movies are done completely and entirely handheld, including Madison Street Boys, and I have no problem with it. The only recent movie I've ever made that was almost completely done on a tripod, dolly, and crane (all "locked" shots) was Redemption, and that to me was a colossal failure.
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 4:44am

Post 21 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rebourne wrote:

B3N wrote:

"Shaky camera" eh? this seems to be becoming a trend now of filmmakers not wanting to waste time setting a tripod up, I hope the art of cinematograohy stays and doesn't get eaten away by the shaky camera.
I'm really sick and tired of hearing that crap.

It's not a trend it's a "style" there's more than one art of cinematography. I'd say that "shaky cam" done right takes more time than "setting a tripod up". You have no idea how many story boards and takes I went through before getting the shots I wanted. So dont tell me or many others that "we dont want to waste time setting a tripod up."
I'm gonna have to disagree. First off, it's not crap. It's called preference. I don't quite see why you've gotten 2+ for that post. Second of all, too much "Shaky Camera" can literally kill a movie. Bourne Ultimatum was an amazing movie, but a lot of people that I know hated it because of the constant camera movements. For action scenes, yes, it is an efficent form of cinematography, but for the whole movie? No. In my experience, it repels the audience instead of the intended effect.
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 5:07am

Post 22 of 49

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Howabout we drop the handheld vs. tripod debate for a thread made for that and let this one remain a production thread.
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 5:18am

Post 23 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I +1'd him, if you're wondering. And after this little note I'll stop. But it's nice that someone brought it up and I thought I'd expand on the last few posts. After this I swear I'm done. And I'm sorry if this is wasting this thread's space. But I find it pertinent.

Thrawn wrote:

Bourne Ultimatum was an amazing movie, but a lot of people that I know hated it because of the constant camera movements. For action scenes, yes, it is an efficent form of cinematography, but for the whole movie? No. In my experience, it repels the audience instead of the intended effect.
You're stating something said in opinion basically as fact, and that's just wrong. Just as entirely static movies, like Tarantino movies, are effective; so can be handheld. The second two Bourne movies are notorious for handheld cam, but they've also employed a sort of avant-gard aesthetic that isn't common for many handheld-shot films. Put bluntly, they aren't good examples because they're simply too wiry and too 'movement-y', and this is true. Just as bad shot-composition happens with poor tripod-placement, a semi-overactive handheld cinematographer can oftentimes make movies too jarring to watch. (Bourne Supremacy comes to mind over all others.) But then I think it's equally as effective, so that point kind of dwindles.

I mean, Bourne essentially pioneered such wiry and ecstatic movement in filmmaking and it was overall highly-successful. I agree there's a group that doesn't like so much of it (myself included), but it's still an effective style.

I'll go ahead and cite my two supposedly "crap" favorite movies: Mission Impossible 3 and Deja Vu. Both employ handheld cinematography almost the entire time through and the cinematography is flawless and beautiful. As does Children of Men and The Prestige: both of which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography.

Don't naysay something like that. Especially something that takes an awful amount of good-timing and talent to successfully pull-off and look professional. I'm proud to have a brother and a best friend that I believe are both extremely talented at the style, and I wouldn't change to tripod for the world because of this.
Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2008, 9:07pm

Post 24 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

First, off Frosty G is right. I apologize to Rebourne to using his thread space for an argument that has little to do with his movie. I, like atom, want to make one last post on this subject.


Atom wrote:

You're stating something said in opinion basically as fact, and that's just wrong. Just as entirely static movies, like Tarantino movies, are effective; so can be handheld. The second two Bourne movies are notorious for handheld cam, but they've also employed a sort of avant-gard aesthetic that isn't common for many handheld-shot films. Put bluntly, they aren't good examples because they're simply too wiry and too 'movement-y', and this is true. Just as bad shot-composition happens with poor tripod-placement, a semi-overactive handheld cinematographer can oftentimes make movies too jarring to watch. (Bourne Supremacy comes to mind over all others.) But then I think it's equally as effective, so that point kind of dwindles.
First off, If you didn't notice, I stated my views as an opinion, not a fact. I was just stating that the preference of using a tripod is not crap. I would appreciate if you would't ignore that. Also, I was just warning rebourne about how this style can be carried away, even to the point of ruining a great movie. That also probably was also based upon my opinion along with quite a few other, but the point still stands. I also remember saying that the shaky style of cinematographer could be quite efficent, so I wasn't saying that the style is good for nothing. Nothing personal, but why Rebourne got 2+ for his post is beyond me. Not that his post was a bad one, but that his post was totaly oblivious to what B3N was saying.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 1:19am

Post 25 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Thrawn I see what your saying but he didnt say I prefer tipod over handheld. By said that he hopes handheld doesnt eat away the art of cinematography.

Basicly stating that handheld wasnt an "art of cinematography"

And thats what kind of ticked me off.

So yeah, not a preference, crap.

Ok done with this discussion, back on topic.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 1:52am

Post 26 of 49

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Settle down kids. The thing is, both styles are acceptable, as they both can be incorporated into solid cinematography(Cloverfield). I don't like shaky cameras when it's not necessary. People tend to put them in the same catagory, but there are two types of shaky cam: the intentional, and the unintentional. The intentional is usually used to pull an audience into a movie, commonly for suspense. An unintentional shaking camera occurs when someone is inexperienced with operating a camera.

B3N, stating that people are 'too lazy' to set up a tripod is blasphemy. I've learned it's much harder to accomplish a good 'shaky' shot than a static shot.

Anyway, Rebourne your movie looks as it has potential. I suggest you do what Ben said, light your scenes more.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 2:10am

Post 27 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rebourne wrote:

Thrawn I see what your saying but he didnt say I prefer tipod over handheld. By said that he hopes handheld doesnt eat away the art of cinematography.

Basicly stating that handheld wasnt an "art of cinematography"

And thats what kind of ticked me off.

So yeah, not a preference, crap.

Ok done with this discussion, back on topic.
Well, I guess it depends on your point of view, but to me it's a preference. And calling it crap is a little extreme wink Anywho, keep us updated on the movie.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 2:37am

Post 28 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Alright then... glad thats over

*UPDATE*

Today we shot a small conversation seen where Scott Williams (CIA "friend) gives David the address of the actual assassin.

It's almost done rendering and I'll put it on youtube tonight, this will be the only seen from the movie released.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 3:39am

Post 29 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh3jD1IB-rs

A very rough cut of scene 8 also using it as a project for tv class.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 3:57am

Post 30 of 49

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I really liked the camera work in the hallway part of that scene. Good job.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 4:02am

Post 31 of 49

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This looks great! Aside from the obvious age issues, the cinematography is a little too up-and-down, but generally spot-on and the nice cuts between focus pulls make it look all-the-more professional.

Good work, keep it up.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 4:28am

Post 32 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Nice Job, Rebourne! The acting from the red-haired guy was a little below average, but otherwise I was impressed. The camera, as much as I hate to admit it considering the last little discussion, was excellent. I look forward to the next clip. One thing, though, is that when the first guy is walking away from the cafe/resturant there was a noise that was either a drum roll or just the wind. If it's a drum role, I would make it more distinguishable. While on the other hand, if it was wind, then I would get rid of it, using audacity or something similar. Nice Job!
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 7:32pm

Post 33 of 49

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

well...


the locations at least look good.
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 9:19pm

Post 34 of 49

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Great. The camera work is cool. The acting is not great but it's above average for the most part. The only thing I would suggest is the wardrobe. Try not to make it so simple. Like the red-haired guy was wearing a basic t-shirt. That's not bad but it make you think of a kid coming home from school. So try not to make the outfits so teenagerish. Other than that great
Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2008, 9:57pm

Post 35 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

RodyPolis wrote:

Great. The camera work is cool. The acting is not great but it's above average for the most part. The only thing I would suggest is the wardrobe. Try not to make it so simple. Like the red-haired guy was wearing a basic t-shirt. That's not bad but it make you think of a kid coming home from school. So try not to make the outfits so teenagerish. Other than that great
On the wardrobe thing we didnt want to do what a lot of people do and make it super obvious that he was a cia guy, basically we didnt want to put him in a suit and sunglasses and all that stuff, we wanted him to look like anyone else.

Thanks for everyones comments

I forgot to mention that I edited this pretty quickly so that I could use it for a school project today and forgot to take out the wind. This is not the final cut and the wind wont be in the actual movie.
Posted: Wed, 20th Feb 2008, 12:15am

Post 36 of 49

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I agree with Rody about the wardrobe. Even if you wanted him to look like anyone else. He looked too simple and actually might I say; forgettable. I would at least give him an open jacket or a hat or something else to wear. It kind of gives the movie the "kids filming in their backyard" vibe.

Other than that, most of the cinematography was good. I especially liked the part where the guy held the red-haired kid up against the wall. You also had great music and locations. Just one more thing to add. I don't think your going to use them anyway when the film is complete, but those titles look very plain.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 2:34am

Post 37 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I actually had all the titles in the "century gothic" font, which looks really good but when I put it on my laptop to rendere it swiched it to "ariel". It will be fixed for the real movie.

About "the red hair guy", he wears dress pants and a white butten up longsleeve for every other scene except for this one.

Thanks everyone for you comments. please leave a comment if you have one.
Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2008, 7:37pm

Post 38 of 49

JUIDAR

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

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kewl stuff! I wish my film didn't have so many special effects in it, it takes long enough just to do things like cutting, shooting, and color correcting and that sort.

I look forward to seeing how this turns out as a whole how long is it suppose to be when finished?
Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2008, 1:38am

Post 39 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Not sure yet probably about 30-40min. thanks for commenting.
Posted: Wed, 7th May 2008, 8:41pm

Post 40 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

UPDATE

SCENE 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jI95RtqsElw
SCENE 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3sYtlEvHWAA

Whats up guys haven't posted in awhile, anyways I've got 2 more scenes on my youtube account,

Any comments or criticism is welcome

Let me just clear this up SCENE 1 is VERY rough the blue screen is VERY rough and there are a couple other shots and some stuff we have to do to tell the story cause you wont really understand with the edit we have up

I put these on so my friends and people that helped me with it could see it. None of the scenes are the final edits.

The next few weeks and are going to be very interesting since the scenes we'll be shooting will have different camera techniques and styles.
Posted: Sun, 11th May 2008, 12:53am

Post 41 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

anyone... anyone... anyone... Bueller...
Posted: Mon, 12th May 2008, 1:38am

Post 42 of 49

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Looks like its going good, looking forward to the finished film
Posted: Mon, 12th May 2008, 4:33am

Post 43 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

double post ahead.

Last edited Mon, 12th May 2008, 4:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 12th May 2008, 4:33am

Post 44 of 49

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It's good to see some more scenes of your movie. The first scene defiantly needs more editing, but it's pretty good. There are a few "logical faults" as far as the script goes, but as far as the film goes, the only thing I can think of off of the top of my head is lighting. More depth would help. Good job so far. Looking forward to more scenes.
Posted: Mon, 12th May 2008, 11:57am

Post 45 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Thrawn wrote:

It's good to see some more scenes of your movie. The first scene defiantly needs more editing, but it's pretty good. There are a few "logical faults" as far as the script goes, but as far as the film goes, the only thing I can think of off of the top of my head is lighting. More depth would help. Good job so far. Looking forward to more scenes.
Yeah first scene gets really screwed up, nothing is the final edit. More shots have to be put in the 1st scene and the tv will play something different, and it will be motion tracked.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 1:30am

Post 46 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

New logo... only logo I've made for Reborn Studios, I like it but a lot of people I've talked to have told me its slightly creepy...
Posted: Wed, 4th Jun 2008, 4:56am

Post 47 of 49

chchaisson

Force: 60 | Joined: 1st Nov 2006 | Posts: 45

Member

Hey, Rebourne. Looks like this project is progressing nicely.

Make sure that you disable the auto-exposure on your camera.

I think you've already brought this up, but the sound mix needs a lot of work. The dialogue should be brought out more, and the music toned down. Sound effects are lacking as well. But I don't mean foley or background noise; just sound effects.

For example: one of the scenes you posted shows a guy sitting at a table, waiting with his cell phone. Phone rings, and the camera does a quick zoom onto it. If you just put a "whoosh" sound in there, right on the zoom, it would add immensly to the scene because people would feel it rather than just see it. You'll notice a lot of SFX for camera movement in the Bourne series and other action flicks.

Check out this link for some sound design stuff: http://www.hollywoodedge.com/Sound-Design-P188C25.aspx

You say you'll fix this all in post. Just remember that by posting these scenes, you are giving people their first impression of your film...and you want it to be a good one. If your potential audience sees something amateur, they won't forget it, no matter how good the finished film is.

Try posting only one scene, complete with sound design, color correction, tight editing, the works...and use it as a promo for the rest of the film. Something that'll really get peoples attention. wink
Posted: Wed, 4th Jun 2008, 11:20am

Post 48 of 49

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

chchaisson wrote:



Try posting only one scene, complete with sound design, color correction, tight editing, the works...and use it as a promo for the rest of the film. Something that'll really get peoples attention. wink
Well I'm not trying to convince people that my movie is/ is going to be amazing by posting scenes. I'm trying to find out what people think, and what needs to be fixed.

And yes all of the scenes are pretty ruff, but there really only on youtube so my friends can see them, once we do the final edit it will be much better I promise.

Thanks for commenting
Posted: Wed, 4th Jun 2008, 3:59pm

Post 49 of 49

chchaisson

Force: 60 | Joined: 1st Nov 2006 | Posts: 45

Member

Oh, yeah, I know. I'm just saying be careful who you show them to. Right now, anyone can see them, not just friends/other filmmakers.

-Clarence