A Sign
 

A recent and happy XH A1 owner. Here's my first short film: ever :). The server might be slow but hopefully it can be downloaded. Thanks.


http://www.peterjertl.ca/film_asignd.html

P.

? I'm speechless...

So that was 15 minutes of you walking around an office?

Hmmm... what a waste of time, sorry.

Peter, exactly what was the point of this? It looked like mostly a bunch of badly lit test footage. Are you really seriously calling this a "short"?

I have to say I'm a little irritated that you posted over half a gig file for reasons unknown to me.

If you want some constructive criticism, learn how to use your camera and then learn how to make a film that has some kind of coherence. Also, before members of this and other forums download your footage, please give them more details about what it is they are downloading.

I really feel like you are wasting people's time.

Sorry to be so harsh but I just don't get it.

EDIT: Another thing you could consider is finding a tool that will seriously compress your footage to a more manageable size.

I don't mind harshness. . . . It's a first short. And I'm very pleased with the result! The narrative is subtle but can be gleaned from the film. The character is trying to exit the building. No metaphors here. An exception is after 'The End' credits, after its completion. The B&W footage are memories that he represents into his environment: as seen by the beginning walk and the interlaced shadows (his own experience perceived). The colour clips are his thoughts. If you enjoy such directors as Tarkovsky and Bergman, download; and scoff also if need be--as I have. If you enjoy Hollywood or genre or TV then I highly recommend not to do so. The file size isn't very large for a 16min HD file. And I tried many, many renders. The actual SD MPEG file is 700MB. Badly lit? Sometimes. . . . And also shaky and out of focus too. A waste of time: why watch the whole piece then? Now you can make a choice knowing a few facts. To me though I'm tired of the same cliches over and over again. Hence the result . . . negative or positive.

www.peterjertl.ca

P.

Peter, I appreciate your reply. I understand where you are trying to go with this and I am familiar with the style you are going for.

I don't think you pulled it off very well but that's just my opinion. I think you could have gotten the idea across in at least a 1/3 of the time.

I don't want to enter a discussion here but stating that the only option to this is watching Hollywood movies or TV is ridiculous.

I've watched Ingmar Bergman and movies with a slow pace but this doesn't compare. It's like me doing a film filled with car chases and explosions but if you didnt like it it's because you don't like Hollywood movies - maybe my explosion-charged flick just sucks.

Also, this short wouldn't suffer much from a lower resolution that could take the file size down easily to 150Mb or similar. Sorenson and H264 are pretty good for that.

End of discussion. . . . But thanks for the comments anyways.

Peace.

P.

The shots of the birds in the water looked nice. But the office and stairway parts were difficult to watch. Too shakey and I could see your shadow/reflection at times. It looked like you'd just switched the camera on and walked around with it shooting randomly for a bit too long. The music probably could have been a bit better aswell.

Keep at it though, make some more films. As they say, practice makes perfect. Although it might be an idea to post smaller versions on YouTube or somewhere for people to check first so they can decide whether or not it's worth downloading a 500mb HD version.