DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/)
-   -   Room 214 trailer.... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/9371-room-214-trailer.html)

Marc Higa May 7th, 2003 12:12 AM

Room 214 trailer....
Just finished my Teaser trailer for my new movie shot with the DVX100 tell me what you think...



Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 12:54 AM

It has a porno kinda quality to it. I'm kinda glad I have not bought a camera yet.

I'm going to be straight with you here. It looks horrible. I've seen others post stuff on here before and maybe they fix some stuff in post, but it just looks like old school home videotape to me. The credits looked better.

If that's the 24p everyone is talking about, wow.... I'll stay clear of that.

Some dude posted a little commercial/experiment from a XL1 that looked so much better. It also had a few effects from After Effects but that's not why I liked it. The slow panning he did and the overall image looked more like film than this, hard to explain why.
His colors were better and it wasn't as amaturish looking for some reason.

I'm not saying you are a bad director, but either that camera sucks, or the lighting was done completely wrong and washed everything out. If I was to shoot something with a GL2 or Vx1000 that looked like that, I just might give up on being a filmmaker because ther's no way I myself would be satisfied by that footage.
That's me personally. I'm not trying to bring you down, I just have a certain eye for quality, and I don't see it here.

I'm not sure what they used, but if you want to see a good quality film check out the final contestants in project greenlight.


Check out the film by Joe Otting - Chicago, IL

I'm saying that I'd be happy to make a movie look like that quality wise.

It didn't win the contest but had the best looking one in the bunch.

The winners used a worse quality film but had good special effects with humor.

Ken Tanaka May 7th, 2003 01:02 AM

It looks pretty good to me, Marc. Quite professional. The footage looks smooth and "filmic", at least at that resolution. Good music teaser, too. It made me want to see the whole thing.

If I had to make any suggestions (and these are really picayune) not having seen the whole film (of course) and not knowing what footage you have, it would be as follows.

1. I might have chosen a different shot of the father(?), perhaps catching a moment when he moved his gaze up from his drink on the bar to someone across from him. Just a shot that gives us a glimpse of tired pain in his eyes, if that's consistent with the story.

2. The final shot of the mother(?) with that slight, pained smile might have been more powerful as a 2-shot showing the son(?) slightly out of the focus field with his head down a bit against his clasped hands holding the cigarette.

But these are just my off-the-cuff impressions knowing nothing about the actual film.

What I think I gleaned from the trailer was that this is a story about a disfunctional family at risk of liver and lung disease <g>. Am I close? When will the whole film be finished and where can we see it?

Josh Bass May 7th, 2003 04:14 AM

I'll second Ken on the quality. Looks real nice to me. . .maybe Bob saw a different trailer?

John Locke May 7th, 2003 04:50 AM

Nice job, Marc. I especially like the lighting in the bar.

The trailer's a success in that I want to see the rest of the film...

Glenn Gipson May 7th, 2003 05:09 AM

>>If I was to shoot something with a GL2 or Vx1000 that looked like that, I just might give up on being a filmmaker<<

Looks good to me...I guess I need to give up filmmaking now...

Rob Lohman May 7th, 2003 06:14 AM

Looked very nice here too! Very interested to see the rest indeed.

Very nice work!

I don't know as well were Bob is coming from. Perhaps is player
was screwing up or something?

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 08:03 AM

Look, go compare it to some other things and I guess you'll see my reasonings for not liking the quality. I think it's mainly the dark layer over the film.

If you don't compare it to projectgreenlight, then you can't have an idea of what I am comparing it to.

Glen Elliott May 7th, 2003 08:04 AM

Bobs running a 486 with a 2 meg intergraded videocard. Heck, even the icons on his desktop look terrible. I'm mainly suprised he waited the time it took to load the clip on his 9600 baud modem.

LoL, on a serious note Bob, you were a bit harsh- granted I haven't seen the trailer yet, as I'm viewing these forums at work and their media player is from the dark-ages. I saw some of Marc's other work and it looked pretty good to me. Now it's not professional quality, but who is expecting that. They guy is trying to get started with this whole filmaking thing. Maybe you can add some more "constructive" critism rather than tear him down. And honestly it's a bit rough to compare him against freikin' finalists at Project Greenlight- those guys were weeded out of thousands. The best of the best of the BEST.

Marc, I'll check it out as soon as I get home and provide some insite.

I'm actually excited to see a young filmaker working with the same camera I own- kinda gives me inspiration.
Now I'm even more reluctant to post any of my work on the board- I might get flamed!

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 08:11 AM

Well, I have to agree with Bob to a degree, but I don't think it's the camera. The thing I reacted to was that the framing is off, and that the images are to close. Then, the lighting is flat and removes all the "3D" feel. The bar room was alright, but the lighting is still a little flat and the framing is off.

And last, the trailer itself didn't make me interested in this movie at all, maybe if you had more shots and a little more conflict it would be more interesting.

I don't mean to bash you, the movie still might be really good, but it just doesn't come across as it is right now.

Remember, this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.



Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 08:34 AM

You see I'm not the only one who thinks it's flat. I was writing another post, then my modem went out for some reason.

I was trying to explain that the scenes were a bit dark to me. The best scene was the bar scene as far as looks go. I didn't see alot of movement on the shots, if any.

If you want a trailer to draw us in, put a little action in there somewhere. I'd like to see the untouched footage to compare.

Glenn Gipson May 7th, 2003 09:01 AM

>>If that's the 24p everyone is talking about, wow.... I'll stay clear of that.<<

Then I guess youíll be staying clear of film to, since thatís essentially 24p. Seems to me like somebody has an axe to grind against the DVX100, more so then the trailer at hand. No one ever claimed that 24p makes you into a film master.

Russell Pond May 7th, 2003 09:19 AM


Can you enlighten us to the settings you used? 24P Advanced, standard, Cinegamma settings, 16x9 crop or anamorphic lens, etc.

Thanks for sharing with us.

Rob Lohman May 7th, 2003 10:49 AM


Is it the movie in this list?

Glen Elliott May 7th, 2003 04:10 PM

Ok, finally got a chance to check it out. Talk about teaser- there were only like 4 quick shots of footage. Not really much to base a good opinion on it visually in my opinion. I do agree though that the black pedistol might have been lowered to much. The darks almost engulf the screen. The quick shot of the father looked best lighted. I'd have to see more to really guage the quality.
So far so good though, I wish Marc the best of luck with everything.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:37 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network