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...

http://www.modernartpictures.com/214trailerteaser.html

Marc

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.

www.projectgreenlight.com

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.

Regards

Akos

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

Marc,

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.
Russell

Rob Lohman May 7th, 2003 10:49 AM

Bob,

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.

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 04:17 PM

Yes, he's in that list, Joe Otting.

I absolutely do not have an axe to grind with a camera I've never used. Personally, I've seenthe XL1S have much better results, from someone on this board I believe, somewhere....

I'd admit I'm leaning toward a GL2, but it depends. Will a really higher end camera really make a difference?

Like Varicam? Maybe that's a bit high, but what about the higher end $4000 JVC DV cams? They don't look consumer friendly is all.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 06:55 PM

Bob, I asume that you want to make film, since I'm about to invest in a camera myself I've been reading boards, reviews and compared footage like crazy the last week. I was actually set on the XL1s from the beginning, but in the end, I've decided that I will go with the Panasonic DVX100 as soon as I get the money.

Just as you pointed out, you can get really good looking footage with the XL1s, but you have to have very good lighting in order to get that. And if you look at the outdoor scene with the bridge, in the footage you saw, it still looks a little video-ish and the guy actually use lighting in that scene if I'm not mistaken. If you look at the DVX100 in comparison it will look more like film even without lighting in the day scenes, of course one have to light the darker/night scenes no matter what.

To your question about bigger chips, I was an assistant director on a low budget feature and we shoot with a Sony DSR500, it has a 2/3 chip, if you release your movie in the theaters, you'll probably notice that it is sharper, but since it wasn't very well lit, becuase of time constraints, it still looked video-ish. I'll bet the DVX100 would have done a better job, but this was 2 years ago.

So from my point of view, I will be able to achieve more of a film look more easily, with the DVX100 than with an XL1s or GL2.

Of course you have pros and cons with both, like what about DOF vs little DOF, resolution, Frame Mode vs true progressive scan, 24fps etc. And the XL2 launch is still more than a year away and I can't wait that long.

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 07:08 PM

Well, I was saving for the GL2 and I think that with a steadicam/glidecam, lights, and good movement, editing it would be just as effective as the Panasonic after all said and done.

Let's say you take both cameras.....

Record both at max fps, might be 60 right???

Then after you are done editing it, compress it to 24fps Progressive using Vegas 4.

I think the Canon might have the edge on overall picture quality, no?

Glenn Gipson May 7th, 2003 07:38 PM

Anytime you take a non-progressive image (GL2, XL1s) and make it progressive in post (Magic Bullet, Twixtor, etc.) you are loosing resolution. Keep that in mind....

Glen Elliott May 7th, 2003 08:07 PM

<<<--

Let's say you take both cameras.....

Record both at max fps, might be 60 right???

Then after you are done editing it, compress it to 24fps Progressive using Vegas 4.

I think the Canon might have the edge on overall picture quality, no? -->>>

Canon having edge over image quality? Since when? And what Canon are you comparing it to? I own a GL-1 and DVX100, and despite the fact the GL-1 makes beautiful video it cant compare against the DVX100 even in 60i mode. 1/4" ccds vs 1/3" ccds.
You wont be dissapointed if you go with the GL-2 though don't expect to have a "better" picture quality than the DVX100....just ain't gonna happen. lol

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 08:17 PM

Bob, no DV camera is 60fps, unless you talk about 29.97 fps with 1/60s of shutter speed. If your goal is to project it on the "silver screen" you will see the degradation of Frame Mode real fast, plus I've read that the image looks a little out of focus because of that, no matter how well it was shot. Check out the feature film 28 days that is going to be released in the theaters, (sorry don't know the link) it was shot on an XL1s PAL version, remember that it gives a 20% higher resolution compared to the NTSC one. The DVX100 just seems to hold on to the resolution better.

And just as Glenn Gipson says, you will loose resolution that way, the goal is to do as little extra work as possible in post in order to maintain image quality. Of course as long as you only watch it on a 29" TV you probably won't notice a big difference.

Zac Stein May 7th, 2003 09:21 PM

ok ok, i have now watched it, so everyone can calm down. *grinz*

First of all anybody who says they can judge the quality of the camera but looking at a compressed video downloaded over the internet is well just speaking crap. Sorry, but that is truth.

Yes a couple of shots had some lighting decisions i wouldn't have made, and again this is an artform, hence no correct or incorrect decisions, just different ones from what others would make.

The black level was fine, it is a fact i have seen with many files, you compress them down they seem to get all the shadow detail sucked from them, and it may have been gamma corrected for a tv display not a monitor, so what.

Akos, you state you can get good looking footage from an xl1s with really good lighting, while the dvx100 can look more film like under worse lighting conditions. I can get a very film like look from my super 8mm camera using the cheapest reversal stock i can find, dosn't mean it will look good. Do a search on the forums for threads comparing professional look and film look, i think you are looking for that. Again just because my car is fast dosn't make it an f1, but hey if i drive it very well, i may look like a professional driver.

ANY camera can look good (within reason) when handled correctly and professionally.

Anyways, back to topic, i enjoyed the teaser, i thought it looked fine, if not good, if i was to suggest some of the decisions i would make, i would say when modelling the faces for some of the shots, like the younger girl, i would either bounce a bit more light onto her darker side, or use a more diffuse light for the scene.

Zac

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 09:57 PM

Can I assume that getting the Pal version is a better idea since editing is going to happen regardless???

I mean, getting the NTSC version is only benefitial if you're going to watch it straight out of the camera. TRUE???

Is it safe to say film looks better not because of 24 fps, but because it's a true picture at 35mm. Heck, even film can look bad though. Some B-movies shot in 35mm or even 16mm don't really have that high end look.

You can only do so much I suppose unless you got high end panavision stuff.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:09 PM

Zac, of course you can get film look with super 8mm, and yes it can still look like crap depending on what kind of framing, f-stop setting, time of day etc. you shoot. I didn't really mean to compare real professional look compared to DV, just the image quality between DV cameras.

If you look at some shots filmed during the day with an XL1s, it will look more video-ish compared to the DVX100. Since I cannot afford a couple of 18k HMI's to over power the sun I have to shoot without lighting, possibly use a flexfill and a sail. Based on what I've seen so far, the DVX100 is closer to a film-ish look from the get go, compared to the XL1s and others. From that point of view, the DVX100 has a slight advantage compared to other DV cameras right now.

Ken Tanaka May 7th, 2003 10:13 PM

You're Wandering
 
Please stay on track with constructive remarks concerning Marc's trailer. Film -vs- video and camera -vs- camera discussions are off-topic.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:23 PM

Bob, yeah getting the PAL version is definitely better, but also remember that all of your editing equipment have to be able to handle PAL, and before you can watch it on a regular NTSC TV, you have to convert it. I read someplace that you can convert it in FCP, but quality is pretty bad, so in order to get good quality you have to go to a professional conversion house.

This one of the reasons I'm going with the DVX100 NTSC version, it has higher resolution so it will still maintains a decent image quality when blown up, plus I don't have to worry about these kind of things.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:25 PM

Oh, ok, sorry, didn't know it was this strict.

Regards

Akos

Robert Poulton May 7th, 2003 10:26 PM

LoL I don't see at as being bad. It just looks like he didn't set his fade in to 100% and it quit halfway through. The other shots do look nice but still nothing of interest happening within the frame. Add someone doing something. Maybe you need some quicker edits showing the cast off in their characters. But then you would have to change that slow music.

The shots look good other than the dark ones. Trailer needs more work. Just keep it up and give us some updates if you decide to adjust the trailer.


Rob:D

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 10:39 PM

Yea, but can't Vegas 4.0 convert NTSC to Pal and vice versa?

Zac Stein May 7th, 2003 10:44 PM

Ken, we are a wandering people, i went on 'walkabout' before. :)

I believe the topic of the camera, and film look does fit in to the dicussion, being an organic dicussion of human nature and not a direct relation to topic at hand in the strictest sense.

But pal + ntsc stuff is off topic.

In relation to the camera and it's attributes, people are welcome to feel any way they want towards it, but don't feel like it is the holy grail substitute for film, if you want the film look, shoot on film, if you believe in your project enough, then others will too, and the money can be found (sponsors, funding, working).

But in the mean time enjoy using what you have to its fullest.

Zac

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:52 PM

Bob, I have no idea about Vegas 4, maybe you should start up a new topic though, since they don't like us to go off topic. lol

Rob Lohman May 8th, 2003 05:09 AM

Did the people who are talking about the blacks thought it was
too dark? My LCD screen here tends to show blacks a lot better
then most CRT's I have seen (computer monitors, not broadcast
monitors)

Glen Elliott May 8th, 2003 08:09 AM

Bob if you go with an PAL camera living in the NTSC-usa you'll encounter nothing but problems. For one the voltage/plug is different so out of the box you wont even be able to charge the thing. Then the issue of compatability in format making dvds etc.

Sorry for contributing to the stray....

Bob Benkosky May 8th, 2003 10:50 AM

Ok, got it. Done with that topic.

Emery Wells May 8th, 2003 01:39 PM

Hey bob, this trialer is certainly not a good representation of the DVX. And to all of you out there who think this trailer has a very filmic quality... you are insane. I agree with bob's first comment, it looks like a porno. Im not flaming the guy who made it, but to tell him it is good is just wrong.

The DVX is just a tool, if you use it wrong it wont look good. And to the guy that said you cant judge quality from a compressed video... what the f**K are u talking about? You absolutely can tell if something is high quality. Go look at a real movie trailer and tell me you cant make out a quality difference.

Bob, the DVX will certainly outperform the GL1... please go out and look for some other DVX footage. And its image quality will be superior to the XL1's. Ive worked with both and prefer the DVX.

To the guy who made the trailer... its great that u made it! Maybe its not good right now but youll never get better unless you keep making them.

-Emery

Bob Benkosky May 8th, 2003 01:43 PM

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one giving my true honest opinion.

Josh Bass May 8th, 2003 01:52 PM

Geez guys. . .Marc, what are you working with? I'd say next to no budget, like me (this is not based on the quality of your trailer, but just because a lot of us on here are working with next to no budget), and probably not the most sophisticated of lighting gear. The trailer looks fine! Does not look like porn! The only thing porny about it is that despite the fact that you used the DVX, it still appears to be 60i footage, and not 24p.

I've viewed a lot of people's DV movies when they post "Hey, look at my trailer," or "Hey check out my short." Marc's trailer looks no better or worse than any of the rest, and when the movie I'm working on now is done, in ten million years, it'll be joining their ranks.

When you're doin' it yourself, and you're not surrounded by crews with 20 years experience and HMI this and gobo that, you're not gonna get results that look like a really well-done Hollywood production. His scenes aren't flatly lit, and the shots are fairly interesting.

Power to the little guy Marc! I'm behind you. Peace out brother.

Bob Benkosky May 8th, 2003 01:55 PM

How can one person think it looks bad, and someone else think it looks good???

Isn't bad, bad, and good , good?

This isn't supposed to be opinion. It's more of a fact.

I'l have to show some footage of my old camera and do some 24 fps HD conversion to it and see how it looks.

Keith Loh May 8th, 2003 02:23 PM

It was fair. Aside from the sharpness of the video I didn't see anything particularly wrong with it except that there wasn't enough to really make anyone form an opinion. As a teaser, it needed more information. Not sure what the movie is about based just on the footage provided. Nor could I really form an opinion on the direction.

I seriously wonder at people who get such extreme opinions sometimes. Like hate hate or love love. Hardly any movie I see makes me storm out in a rage or swell up with the loving. It takes a particularly bad or good movie to give me a reaction like that.

Ken Tanaka May 8th, 2003 03:03 PM

Well, now that Mr. Wells has established that I am "insane" and Mr. Benkosky has asserted that anyone differing with his opinion is a liar...

Does anyone else have any intelligent, constructive suggestions to offer Marc other than "it sucks, dude"?

Emery, you appear to have the same camera. Stand and deliver some specifics.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 AM.

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