super 16 short diary

[mattias]

Thanks for the kind words :oops:

don't worry, i was just pulling your leg. your results look great so far and i've never heard you claim better results than a "real" datacine either.

/matt

[mattias]

oh, and since i've nothing better to do: santo, do you honestly think i use this avatar to look cool? telling me i look like a dork in it is not picking a fight, it's a compliment.

/matt

[sunrise]

Lighting....That is what makes cinematography an Art. So, it is up to each of us to like it or not. Therefore--No Comment.

But is it not therefore it is interesting to discuss?

I found the lighting a bit artificial in this shot, meaning a bit to "nice". And that's really what I liked about it (but I've also read the script, and it comes very close to how I imagined it).

michael

[MovieStuff]

besides we all know it looks great, so it wouldn't have worked even if it had been more clever. only truth hurts.

Okay: the film looks far from "great". While it doesn't look bad, it is actually pretty average for independent film making working with basic instrumentation and skill. Whoever was pulling focus should have been more on the ball as I can detect the subject drifting out of the sweet spot and the sample has dirt so obvious that it can be seen in a tiny web clip. Just imagine how big those specs must be on a full size monitor in high rez. But, hey, if you tell us it looks "great", then all my observations don't mean a thing and anyone that disagrees with you must, again, be wrong.

the purpose of arguing online is to have fun

Having fun, now?

Roger

[Santo]

I think your observations are correct, Roger. It's pretty mediocre, and no doubt Mattias is simply flush with the joy of using some expensive equipment and film stock and having a crew of some kind to make a film with, so he can't see it. I'd be pretty dissappointed with this, considering the equipment and crew and money obviously spent. It looks ho-hum throwaway and uninteresting. At least in the case of his super 8 short, there was charm there, using a format to advantage. Here, it's just another "so what" look-alike indie short.

Dirt all over. Bad focus pulling. Mediocre uninventive lighting. But then again, Roger, what can we tell from a tiny little compressed clip like this?

That he feels compelled to post his own "super 16" diary on a board like this, tells us a lot about how insecure he is and it's a pathetic attempt to show off. "Hey look at me! You guys can't touch this!" Nobody else would bother doing something like that. So far only Nigel has been silly enough to post his super16 images from his commercial shoots on here -- as if he can't hang with the "big boys" somewhere else.

Hey, this being a Mattias-style asshole is kind of fun!

[nasq]

Looked good :?

Looked a little bit too much lit, I assumed it was a night ext? Or evening at least...

[nasq]

By the way, I've always found the "big boys" to be really too boring to hang out with. Not that I had the change ;)

And usually they don't have any time to hang out with anybody

[MovieStuff]

Looked good

I'm sorry, nasq, but do you have pre-authorization to give this opinion? You do realize it has to be approved, first. Please go get a "positive opinion" requisition and fill it out in triplicate, then submit it to the front office for consideration. Don't forget to fill in the "tiny web clip" liability clause to protect yourself in case your opinion is later challenged. ;)

Roger

[S8 Booster]

Unfair to judge from a small clip I guess but as usual stuff looks much better on MACs. Looks great on mine.

Now, I´d put 10 böx on this:

Lightning?
Exactly how it should be to emphasize the situation if I am correct - having read the script.

Focus:
Exactly how it should be too but I guess Mattias left out the initial part of this sequence which probably has a dramatic focus change which leads to this one and subsequently is misunderstood.

Dirt? In digital format even the simplest Clone Tool = no see.
FCP has it? Yes?

R

[mattias]

Okay: the film looks far from "great". While it doesn't look bad, it is actually pretty average for independent film making working with basic instrumentation and skill.

i thought we were talking about technical quality, referring to the comparisons made between super 8 and 16mm and super 16 and super 35, in this thread and elsewhere. aesthetics is another thing, as is what you can accomplish with the budget you have. but of course, you can't judge from such a small frame anyway. :-)

Having fun, now?

well, i'm not arguing. the question is whether you're having fun.

/matt

[mattias]

no doubt Mattias is simply flush with the joy of using some expensive equipment and film stock and having a crew of some kind to make a film with, so he can't see it

i'm "flush with the joy" of making a film, yes, but i've spent too much time around expensive equipment and crews to get much from that.

It looks ho-hum throwaway and uninteresting. At least in the case of his super 8 short, there was charm there, using a format to advantage. Here, it's just another "so what" look-alike indie short.

ha, a compliment. you managed to tell me both that you like my previous film, and confirm that i've gotten exactly the look i wanted for this scene (which is supposed to look like "a movie"). thanks santo.

That he feels compelled to post his own "super 16" diary on a board like this, tells us a lot about how insecure he is and it's a pathetic attempt to show off

that may very well be true, that i'm a bit insecure and post this stuff to be seen/show off, but people asked for reports when i was talking about this short during preproduction, even you iirc, and i don't see what's wrong with me getting to write off some steam and at the same time giving you guys some potentially interesting info.

Hey, this being a Mattias-style asshole is kind of fun!

you're gonna have to do better. like i said only the truth hurts, and i very seldom go over the top like you do. it's a matter of keeping it simple and pure, aim where it hurst, and add a dash of arrogance and sarcasm.

/matt

[mattias]

Dirt? In digital format even the simplest Clone Tool = no see.
FCP has it? Yes?

for sure. it won't be a problem. and it's only this shot and one more of the ones that will be in the film that has any dust so it won't even take long or cost much money.

/matt

[Santo]

no doubt Mattias is simply flush with the joy of using some expensive equipment and film stock and having a crew of some kind to make a film with, so he can't see it

i'm "flush with the joy" of making a film, yes, but i've spent too much time around expensive equipment and crews to get much from that.

Bullshit. Anybody can read your intitial posts on this show-off diary and see you're completely over the top giddy.

It looks ho-hum throwaway and uninteresting. At least in the case of his super 8 short, there was charm there, using a format to advantage. Here, it's just another "so what" look-alike indie short.

ha, a compliment. you managed to tell me both that you like my previous film, and confirm that i've gotten exactly the look i wanted for this scene (which is supposed to look like "a movie"). thanks santo.

Really? Well you accomplished that then. I had no idea, I'm only commenting on what's there without script context. I suppose the dirt all over it and incompetant focus-pulling is part of it, too?

That he feels compelled to post his own "super 16" diary on a board like this, tells us a lot about how insecure he is and it's a pathetic attempt to show off

that may very well be true, that i'm a bit insecure and post this stuff to be seen/show off, but people asked for reports when i was talking about this short during preproduction, even you iirc, and i don't see what's wrong with me getting to write off some steam and at the same time giving you guys some potentially interesting info.

There's no excuse for having this "super 16 diary" on this board. It's pathetic and you'd be ridiculed a lot more elsewhere.

Hey, this being a Mattias-style asshole is kind of fun!

you're gonna have to do better. like i said only the truth hurts, and i very seldom go over the top like you do. it's a matter of keeping it simple and pure, aim where it hurst, and add a dash of arrogance and sarcasm.

/matt

Over the top? Compared to you who's being called things like a "cantankerous grandma"? :lol: A very accurate comment.

Look, you're just some dork/failure working in a video store, likely because you got shit-canned from your previous jobs as an advertising flunky because of your piss-poor know it-all-attitude and big mouth. That's obvious. There's some truth for you.

I don't know if that "hurst" enough or not, but I know it's right on target, and hopefully there's a strong enough dash of arrogance and sarcasm in there.

Boy, this Mattais-style asshole-ism sure is great! I could really get into this, as I don't have to work at some video store fishing coins out of John Q. Public's piss-buckets or whatever for a living. However, I have no interest in matching Mattias's very telling (and pathetic) 3000 posts on some webboard like this! Most of them just so he can be an asshole to sincere people and try and show off some tech knowledge anybody could just go out and research themselves. I've got better things to do, which I won't be showing off with on here, because that makes me look like a loser.

How does it feel? Having fun yet? How's this show off "super 16 diary" on the small gauge enthusiast board working out for you?

[sunrise]

Dirt? In digital format even the simplest Clone Tool = no see.
FCP has it? Yes?

for sure. it won't be a problem. and it's only this shot and one more of the ones that will be in the film that has any dust so it won't even take long or cost much money.

Compared with how much already goes into post production of digital movies (mattias being in an almost digital country), this dirt is nothing. I've often been surprised at how much effort goes into removing boom mics and stuff in DV-documentaries, not to think of colour grading.

I also heard of a film with a 30 sec steadicam intro, where they had to remove a very prominent hair in the bottom of the image by rotoscoping.

These things happen and can be dealt with...

michael

[christoph]

i'm kinda surprised about all the fuss with the "dirt"... this is clearly the labs fault (at least in germany, the lab cleans the neg before transfer and not the post house). on really bad cases you can just blame them for not doing their job properly and have them pay for the re-transfer (after cleaning it of course ;) all the color settings are saved anyway, so it's not a big deal.

++ christoph ++