Working Man's Nightmare at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Show Your Work

Show Your Work
Let's see what you're doing!


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 6th, 2003, 08:00 PM   #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
Working Man's Nightmare

Here is a short that a friend of mine and I did recently just for fun. It was shot on two separate days and edited in two additional days (music and sound included).

This is a skit that attempts film damaged look. It was shot on the original XL1 and edited in Final Cut Pro 2 and After Effects (Windows). The DVD version of this is in Dolby Digital EX with the projector noise directly behind you, but the stereo version (this one here) has the projector noise matrixed into the surrounds via Dolby Pro Logic. I wish I did not have the "In 1916" title on it, though. It doesn't necessarily take place in 1916. But it is supposed to look like it does. Oh well we did it just for fun.

Be warned, the download of this file is HUGE. 753.1 MB huge. It is in Quicktime DV format and is meant to be imported into a non-linear program or onto DV tape and watched on a real TV. And no, I will not offer a smaller version. It is on a quick server so it *should* come down as fast as your broadband line can handle. Sometimes (very rarely) the server line goes down, so if you can't connect, try again.

Download removed.

Have fun if you are willing to download. If you are not willing, then I certainly understand.
Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 6th, 2003, 09:57 PM   #2
Air China Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 2,389
You are doing yourself a disservice by only offering the massive download. You don't have to convert it to a .wmv. You can offer it as a compressed .mov.
__________________
--
Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com | stuff about living in Vancouver | My Flickr photo gallery
Keith Loh is offline  
Old July 6th, 2003, 10:29 PM   #3
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
I am not doing anyone a disservice. I am not trying to show this to EVERYBODY. If you like high quality downloads then this is for you. I don't want to make a compromised compressed version of it. If you don't like the fact that it's so big, please don't download it. It is that simple. Complaining won't help. This is my choice. One of the reasons it is so big is actually to DISCOURAGE too many people from possessing this. I made smaller version of one of my other things once and now it is literally floating around all over the internet with a small viewing size, slow frame rate, and washed out sound... not exactly how I want it to be presented. Some guy I didn't even know sent it to one of my friends one day. Crazy how stuff gets around.

Like I said, you can download if you want, or not. If you do download it, please don't complain about the file size. If someone did download it and then complained, I would have to ask: Why did you even begin the download knowing how big it was? Anyway, please either enjoy the high qualty or ignore this thread. Thanks. :)
Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 7th, 2003, 06:17 AM   #4
Capt. Quirk
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
I thought it was pretty funny. I would get rid of the 1916 though, as that is obviously not the case. The distressed filmlook was also pretty good. Nice job.
K. Forman is offline  
Old July 7th, 2003, 04:51 PM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 436
well I just watched your short. It was a cute effect you used to make it look like a silent era film. The only complaint I had was during the cliff scene. The whole short had good pace until this point, there was too much looking vista shots. Maybe cut out some of those shots and tighten up a few that you keep and this would up the pace a good bit. Also, why were you making such a huge fuss about having such great quality. When I heard all this I was expecting some amazing outdoor shots etc where quality was a big issue but what I got was a purposely degraded movie that could easily be compressed to 20 megs or so with zero loss in effect. Anyways, nice work....
Bryan Roberts is offline  
Old July 7th, 2003, 06:05 PM   #6
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
I absolutely KNEW someone would say that. Check out my most recent post above this one and you'll see one of the reasons, which I believe you even responded to.

Actually a lot of the dirt and negative dirt can not be seen when the screen is shrunk and compressed. I did compress a short clip at very high quality for a post on another thread in another forum.

And no, this is not the end-all/be-all home video. :)

If I make something that A) has the credits included and B) I wouldn't mind having all over the internet and maybe even favorably so then I will compress it to a sane size.
Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 02:16 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 436
Curtis- I think you got the wrong impression about this forum. There is a real wealth of information and knowledgable friendly people around here. However, when you do something that makes people question the reasoning, you will hear about it (ie. stating that you will not compromise the quality of a short that has intentional degrading and only minimal sfx and zero dialogue requiring a 700 some meg download).

Also, if you notice in the other shorts posted by users in the DV for the Masses forum, they all receive input back, that's what it's setup for - sharing and input. Did you only want people who loved your short to reply with positive feedback? My earlier post was not a slam but only constructive criticism which is what you will receive from most people here (98% or so). When you then revert to an incomparable example such as your George Lucas statement (which I might ad, George Lucas wasn't sending his movies over the internet for downloading), then you lose some credit.
Bryan Roberts is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 05:05 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,189
Curtis

I had attempted to download your film yesterday, but couldn't afford to lose several hours of machine time. I was going to try it again, while we are cleaning the studio, alas to realize that you have pulled the film based on the comments you have received.

It's too bad that you got offended by suggestions that other members made regarding your film and the file size of your offering. All of us here understand your desire/need to have your film viewed unadulterated by the demon compression...after all, we are all filmmakers and we've had to make the same deal with the devil ourselves from time to time.

However, you must understand that 700+ mb files are simply inappropriate for web delivery. Such files are typically delivered via DVD or tape or direct fiber optic connection. Additionally, you may be surprised at how good some compression software is these days. I have seen amazingly detailed files come out of cleaner, with file sizes that leave me scratching my head. Check out this 16 mb doozie from Minority Report.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/minority_report/trail3_lg.html

If you had put up a 100mb file, compressed correctly, I doubt that you would have had the complaints about the download...or complaints from anyone regarding the quality of the compression. In addition you could have put up a few seconds of DV quality footage to show off the full glory of the effects you developed. If you want "anybody" to view your stuff, you would be well advised to listen to what people are saying. And you are right...you aren't george lucas, ...or steven spielberg for that matter...yet they have both chosen to preview their work on the web at something far less than 700mb. I hope you'll re-post the flic at a more manageable size, so that more of us can see, and appreciate it.

Barry
Barry Goyette is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 05:26 PM   #9
Air China Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 2,389
I will add that I work off of an OC3 connection at work, so I could easily download even the 700+ mb file. However, because of the nature of my work, I am always restarting my computer! So even if my bandwidth was appropriate, I usually don't have the uninterruptible time to download it.

I should point out that there are ways to allow download of such a massive file and allow interrupting. People can use a program called GetRight http://www.getright.com(which allows continuing downloads) or the provider could put up their file as a BitTorrent link which not only allows continuing downloads, it also shares the downloading among every 'peer' who is attempting to download the same file.

http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent

By the way, everyone does pay for the download, whether the cost is passed on in higher fees for your connection or, in some countries, in the metred cost.
__________________
--
Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com | stuff about living in Vancouver | My Flickr photo gallery
Keith Loh is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 07:34 PM   #10
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
No, I was not expecting only positive comments, but I felt that they were suggesting I go back and change things. There are some things I wish I had done differently like what was suggested, but the thing is done and I am not going to re-edit it. It is not worth it. But overall it is entertaining to watch.

The response I seemed to be getting was that I expected people to download it or that they felt that they HAD to and were annoyed by the large file size. Like I have said over and over, if the file size bothers you, ignore it. Your life won't be any worse for it. It was a "download it if you want it" thing. I stated in the original post that I understood if people weren't willing to download it. I am just confused as to why people complain when they are not forced to download it.

And how does everyone pay for it? Do your monthly rate for your ISP service go up? I know mine stays the same no matter how huge of a file I am constantly offering. This makes no sense.

Oh well. This is not worth worrying about anymore.
Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 08:25 PM   #11
Air China Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 2,389
I don't know for certain but I wager people are wondering why you're getting so worked up by the responses. I can bet that no one here is outraged and their responses were suggestions. This is a public forum so all advice is for the reading of everyone, not just the original poster. So when we post our opinions it's also to share with everyone so they know why things may be done a certain way and whether there are alternatives.

Since you asked, bandwidth is a commodity. When there is high usage it costs someone something. The costs are borne by somebody who then passes it on. Yes, my DSL fees have gone up (and they've gone down). The host of the file pays for bandwidth, that's why file sizes and traffic are carefully monitored commercially. If you don't see it in your own pocketbook, then by all means take advantage of it.
__________________
--
Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com | stuff about living in Vancouver | My Flickr photo gallery
Keith Loh is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 08:39 PM   #12
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
The reason I get miffed is because I orginally state that the file is big and that I understand if people don't want to download it.

To be honest I don't care if someone downloaded it and said the thing sucked, was unfunny and was just a waste of time. People have varying opinions. I was thankful for the criticisms, I just wanted to state that's not why I posted the file since it was 100% complete and won't be re-edited... I was not condemning it. I will keep stuff like that in mind on my next project. If I was posting a file to get opinions on what I should do with the editing, it would definitely be a smaller size so I could get as much objective feedback as possible. And since it wasn't finished, there would be no need to worry about super high presentation standards.

Quote:
"The host of the file pays for bandwidth"
Then I don't see the problem since the host is me.
Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 8th, 2003, 10:44 PM   #13
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,308
Curtis, you will be happy to know that I read your statment and understood it perfectly. I have a short attention span and don't download anything that takes longer than 20 minutes generally (which I probably don't even have space for on my HD, come to think of it). Anyway, I just want you to know, despite 3 or 4 responses, there are thousands of other DVinfo members that also heeded your warning.

__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC?
Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com
Dylan Couper is offline  
Old July 9th, 2003, 02:21 AM   #14
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Colorado USA
Posts: 150
If people want to host large files, fine. If you don't like it, don't download them. If people want to host small files on servers that cough out 800 bits per second and take just as long to download as the bigger file on a fast server, that's fine too. It took me a few hours to download "Hit and Run". It was small in size but the download speed was slow. That's OK though.

Curtis T. Stoeber is offline  
Old July 9th, 2003, 10:04 AM   #15
Air China Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 2,389
Thanks for the feedback on the "Hit and Run" download. I will enquire with the artist about his server (not under my control).

I believe this thread is finished. Despite what you think, there was useful information in it.
__________________
--
Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com | stuff about living in Vancouver | My Flickr photo gallery
Keith Loh is offline  
Closed Thread

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Show Your Work

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network