Open Water film shot on...?

Dylan Couper · September 1st, 2004, 07:43 PM

Thanks Jesse, you just saved me $10!

Rick Bravo · September 1st, 2004, 08:11 PM

They never found the bodies.

Jeez DiMauro, see what you started?!

RB

Jesse Bekas · September 1st, 2004, 09:07 PM

Exactly. The whole thing is speculation...to say based on a true story is a bit of a stretch. At least in "The Perfect Storm", only the last night of those fishermen's lives and 20-30 minutes of the movie were speculation...Glad I could be of service Dylan.

Hugh DiMauro · September 9th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Okay, yes, you see stairstepping in high contrast shots. Yes the ocean sequences might be blown out in places but hell, tell me we wouldn't just LOVE having our DV movie marketed, blown up and shown in theatres. What interested me the most was the behind the scenes article written in FILMMAKER Magazing about how Chris Kentis bought all of his equipment not knowing how to use it, painstakingly teaching himself how to use FCP and dedicating himself to editing his entire movie on a Mac G4 in a walk in closet during the wee hours while still punching in to his day job.

That's dedication. How many of us have that kind of moxie?

Also, I thought he handled the writing well. I mean, I worried that, for ten bucks, a movie about two people floating in the ocean might be boring. But if you look close and pay attention, Kentis and Lau give us frightening shots interspersed with the dialog that just moves everything along.

Jesse Bekas · September 9th, 2004, 11:12 AM

I'm sorry, Hugh, but I really have to disagree with you here. Although I would love to see my DV "films" on a big screen, they would be terrible transfers, and so was "Open Water". The blowouts were nearly constant, extreme, and distracting. It really looked like crap to me the majority of the time. Now that's not to say that they didn't have a few great shots (overhead shots with polarizers/luck) because they did, but there was little consistency of good shots. I'd rather see something that was shot in a consistent good quality, than watch a couple great and a lot of bad shots mixed together. Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. I had trouble paying attention, and I like a lot of slowly paced films. I think it would have made an interseting half-feature, but, as it was, it was a real drag. If the auteur really didn't know how to use the equipment, I'll give him props on it for effort, but that doesn't make this a good film or a good transfer.

Hugh DiMauro · September 9th, 2004, 12:03 PM

I agree that given the choice, HD or film is superior. And anybody watching this picture with no technical knowledge has to be half blind to not notice that "something" is different with the image.

Also, in your post you said:

<<Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before.>>

Kentis stated in his interview that he went out of his way to avoid being accused of the kind of dialogue you described. I guess it all comes down to point of view.

I will say this: If given my choice to blow up or not blow up, why waste time and good money to blow up any Mini DV image to 35 millimeter? The mini DV images projected digitally on a white screen look phenominal. And, why worry about 24p? Deinterlace 60i and 30p projected digitally looks good. The motion judder resembles 24p. That's my opinion.

Jesse Bekas · September 9th, 2004, 11:47 PM

I totally agree on your comments about whether or not to blow up DV to 35mm, and I think I may prefer 30p to both 24p and 60i. It's a nice balance.

Hugh DiMauro · September 10th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Finally! Somebody else not hopped up on 24p! It just makes sense to stay 30p if you're staying digital. Besides, I scratch my head when people mention that 24p has a "filmic" look because of the frame rate. I thought filmic look was more of a contrast and good lighting kinda thing. 24p? 30p? I beg you to show me visible differences during a screening when both frame rates are used and compared side by side with the same good lighting and composition techniques.

Also, we can stop banging our heads against the wall when making equipment buying decisions. Here was my personal hell:

"Oh, woe is me! I want the superb image capture of a Sony DSR PD 170 but the progressive frame rate of a Panasonic DVX 100a! Oh what to do what to do!"

What to do?

Hell! Buy the damned Sony and de-interlace to 30p during render! You get the best of both worlds (provided you subscribe to the anti-35mm blowup decision). The vice if off of my head. No more headaches.

John Hudson · September 10th, 2004, 10:54 AM

You okay there Hugh? Jeez, just when you think the debate is over.

You say this as if it is a bad idea to be 'hopped up' on 24p? 24p is one of the best things to happen to us DV filmmakers. I agree somewhat with your case for lighting but great lighting shot on video looks like, well, greatly lit video.

Why go through a de-interlace process when it can be done in camera and save some time. It's okay if people like 24p; it doesnt have to make you have a migraine.

Hugh DiMauro · September 10th, 2004, 12:38 PM

I tend to aggravate myself more than I need to. I've been afflicted with a "type A" personality.

I would love 24p more than rye bread itself except that I've read that the 24p process, when rendered out to video for exhibition on your good old living room TV set, has a stuttery picture. I've heard that it doesn't look as good as, say, when a network airs a movie on TV. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to love 24p.

John Hudson · September 10th, 2004, 01:06 PM

I have seen this phenomenon you refer to (The motion stutter) but confess I personally havent had this problem. I do know the PAL versions drive alot of people crazy but also have seen some PAL footage that looks amazing.

Wayne Orr · September 15th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Damn it, Hugh, I wish I had read your comments. I just blew fourteen bucks. (Have to have a popcorn and soda)

My congratulations go out to the makers of this piece of piffel because anyone who goes through the process deserves our admiration, but what a turkey.

Right from the opening picture you know you are in trouble. A wide shot of the sea is so soft that you wish you brought your sea sickness pills. And from there it's all downhill. Or under water. I cannot think of one positive comment to make, and I really am pretty easy. Awful script, photography, acting, music, etc.

Want to see a real film made with the PD150? Then check out "Personal Velocity." And please don't tell me "Open Water" made more money than "PV." McDonald's also makes tons of money. That doesn't mean its a restaurant.

Wayne

Jeff Patnaude · September 16th, 2004, 08:07 AM

Hey guys,
one of "us" made a movie. That deserves credit. Maybe another one of "us" will make one in the near future as well. Sure, it might have problems, might not look as good as the low budget 3 million dollar independents. But they got it done.

As a diver I've been in that situation. I DID find the boat after floating for a while on he ocean. It's happened more than once- including a surface swim in a squall so bad the snorkel kept filling up. No sharks though, but I remember looking down a lot. (did video for the crusie lines in the carib' for a couple of years.)

Mainly, I just wanted to encourage us as a group to celebrate when a comrad gets a film out there.

Cheers!

Jeff P.

"Get Er Done"
Larry the cable guy.

Cliff Hepburn · September 16th, 2004, 09:20 AM

Wayne, I agree.
Forgetting about the fact that it didn't transfer to film very well. I thought all the technical aspects of the film were poor. The sound and lighting were bad. The acting was just OK. Like most of you, I was thinking of all the things I would have done different filming it. Maybe pan the actors in the water to show that they truely in the middle of nowhere.

I really can't figure out how they spent $130,000 on it.
First Class Tix to and accomodations in the Caribbean (probably a few trips).
Shark Experts to chum the water.
Boat and captain rental.

I would have thought that LGF would put up the money to have Chris Kentis reshoot it on film.

With all that said, if I were to make this film, I would have been proud of it.

Anyone know how much Chris Kentis sold the film to LGF for? I need some motivation to finish my script and get the tape rolling.

John Hudson · September 16th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Here here on the acknowledgement of their success. It was shot with PD150's; what did you expect it to look like on a filmout :P

Forget about the asthetics and props to the filmmakers.

September 1st, 2004, 07:43 PM	#61
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Thanks Jesse, you just saved me $10! __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

September 1st, 2004, 08:11 PM	#62
Rick Bravo Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 574	All Speculation. They never found the bodies. Jeez DiMauro, see what you started?! RB __________________ "The future ain't what it used to be." Yogi Berra. www.rbravo.com

September 9th, 2004, 08:54 AM	#64
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,205	Still... Okay, yes, you see stairstepping in high contrast shots. Yes the ocean sequences might be blown out in places but hell, tell me we wouldn't just LOVE having our DV movie marketed, blown up and shown in theatres. What interested me the most was the behind the scenes article written in FILMMAKER Magazing about how Chris Kentis bought all of his equipment not knowing how to use it, painstakingly teaching himself how to use FCP and dedicating himself to editing his entire movie on a Mac G4 in a walk in closet during the wee hours while still punching in to his day job. That's dedication. How many of us have that kind of moxie? Also, I thought he handled the writing well. I mean, I worried that, for ten bucks, a movie about two people floating in the ocean might be boring. But if you look close and pay attention, Kentis and Lau give us frightening shots interspersed with the dialog that just moves everything along. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 9th, 2004, 12:03 PM	#66
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,205	I agree that given the choice, HD or film is superior. And anybody watching this picture with no technical knowledge has to be half blind to not notice that "something" is different with the image. Also, in your post you said: <<Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before.>> Kentis stated in his interview that he went out of his way to avoid being accused of the kind of dialogue you described. I guess it all comes down to point of view. I will say this: If given my choice to blow up or not blow up, why waste time and good money to blow up any Mini DV image to 35 millimeter? The mini DV images projected digitally on a white screen look phenominal. And, why worry about 24p? Deinterlace 60i and 30p projected digitally looks good. The motion judder resembles 24p. That's my opinion. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 10th, 2004, 08:00 AM	#68
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,205	Finally! Somebody else not hopped up on 24p! It just makes sense to stay 30p if you're staying digital. Besides, I scratch my head when people mention that 24p has a "filmic" look because of the frame rate. I thought filmic look was more of a contrast and good lighting kinda thing. 24p? 30p? I beg you to show me visible differences during a screening when both frame rates are used and compared side by side with the same good lighting and composition techniques. Also, we can stop banging our heads against the wall when making equipment buying decisions. Here was my personal hell: "Oh, woe is me! I want the superb image capture of a Sony DSR PD 170 but the progressive frame rate of a Panasonic DVX 100a! Oh what to do what to do!" What to do? Hell! Buy the damned Sony and de-interlace to 30p during render! You get the best of both worlds (provided you subscribe to the anti-35mm blowup decision). The vice if off of my head. No more headaches. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 1st, 2004, 09:07 PM	#63
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	Exactly. The whole thing is speculation...to say based on a true story is a bit of a stretch. At least in "The Perfect Storm", only the last night of those fishermen's lives and 20-30 minutes of the movie were speculation...Glad I could be of service Dylan.

September 9th, 2004, 11:12 AM	#65
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I'm sorry, Hugh, but I really have to disagree with you here. Although I would love to see my DV "films" on a big screen, they would be terrible transfers, and so was "Open Water". The blowouts were nearly constant, extreme, and distracting. It really looked like crap to me the majority of the time. Now that's not to say that they didn't have a few great shots (overhead shots with polarizers/luck) because they did, but there was little consistency of good shots. I'd rather see something that was shot in a consistent good quality, than watch a couple great and a lot of bad shots mixed together. Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. I had trouble paying attention, and I like a lot of slowly paced films. I think it would have made an interseting half-feature, but, as it was, it was a real drag. If the auteur really didn't know how to use the equipment, I'll give him props on it for effort, but that doesn't make this a good film or a good transfer.

September 9th, 2004, 11:47 PM	#67
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I totally agree on your comments about whether or not to blow up DV to 35mm, and I think I may prefer 30p to both 24p and 60i. It's a nice balance.

September 10th, 2004, 10:54 AM	#69
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	You okay there Hugh? Jeez, just when you think the debate is over. You say this as if it is a bad idea to be 'hopped up' on 24p? 24p is one of the best things to happen to us DV filmmakers. I agree somewhat with your case for lighting but great lighting shot on video looks like, well, greatly lit video. Why go through a de-interlace process when it can be done in camera and save some time. It's okay if people like 24p; it doesnt have to make you have a migraine.

September 10th, 2004, 12:38 PM	#70
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,205	I tend to aggravate myself more than I need to. I've been afflicted with a "type A" personality. I would love 24p more than rye bread itself except that I've read that the 24p process, when rendered out to video for exhibition on your good old living room TV set, has a stuttery picture. I've heard that it doesn't look as good as, say, when a network airs a movie on TV. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to love 24p. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

September 10th, 2004, 01:06 PM	#71
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I have seen this phenomenon you refer to (The motion stutter) but confess I personally havent had this problem. I do know the PAL versions drive alot of people crazy but also have seen some PAL footage that looks amazing.

September 15th, 2004, 08:25 PM	#72
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	Damn it, Hugh, I wish I had read your comments. I just blew fourteen bucks. (Have to have a popcorn and soda) My congratulations go out to the makers of this piece of piffel because anyone who goes through the process deserves our admiration, but what a turkey. Right from the opening picture you know you are in trouble. A wide shot of the sea is so soft that you wish you brought your sea sickness pills. And from there it's all downhill. Or under water. I cannot think of one positive comment to make, and I really am pretty easy. Awful script, photography, acting, music, etc. Want to see a real film made with the PD150? Then check out "Personal Velocity." And please don't tell me "Open Water" made more money than "PV." McDonald's also makes tons of money. That doesn't mean its a restaurant. Wayne

September 16th, 2004, 08:07 AM	#73
Jeff Patnaude Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Duluth, Georgia Posts: 248	Hey guys, one of "us" made a movie. That deserves credit. Maybe another one of "us" will make one in the near future as well. Sure, it might have problems, might not look as good as the low budget 3 million dollar independents. But they got it done. As a diver I've been in that situation. I DID find the boat after floating for a while on he ocean. It's happened more than once- including a surface swim in a squall so bad the snorkel kept filling up. No sharks though, but I remember looking down a lot. (did video for the crusie lines in the carib' for a couple of years.) Mainly, I just wanted to encourage us as a group to celebrate when a comrad gets a film out there. Cheers! Jeff P. "Get Er Done" Larry the cable guy.

September 16th, 2004, 09:20 AM	#74
Cliff Hepburn Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Boston Posts: 75	Wayne, I agree. Forgetting about the fact that it didn't transfer to film very well. I thought all the technical aspects of the film were poor. The sound and lighting were bad. The acting was just OK. Like most of you, I was thinking of all the things I would have done different filming it. Maybe pan the actors in the water to show that they truely in the middle of nowhere. I really can't figure out how they spent $130,000 on it. First Class Tix to and accomodations in the Caribbean (probably a few trips). Shark Experts to chum the water. Boat and captain rental. I would have thought that LGF would put up the money to have Chris Kentis reshoot it on film. With all that said, if I were to make this film, I would have been proud of it. Anyone know how much Chris Kentis sold the film to LGF for? I need some motivation to finish my script and get the tape rolling.

September 16th, 2004, 11:17 AM	#75
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Here here on the acknowledgement of their success. It was shot with PD150's; what did you expect it to look like on a filmout :P Forget about the asthetics and props to the filmmakers.