[ame="http://www.vimeo.com/6177202"]explosion test on Vimeo[/ame]
well she didn't sell the fall very well, but quick test scene playing with Action Essentials.
HV20, stabilizer, jag35sp
Yeah, it looked like she tripped on a tree root. lol, but then again, when you have a hot girl like that, who's looking at explosions.haha
I don't know what she's selling...but I'M BUYING..
BTW, that pose where the gun is held up to the side of head is a pure cinematic invention (see shot @ 00:17). You can get in close to the talent's face and have the gun in shot too. Very 60s.
Of course, that's the worst way to ready a weapon in the real world.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Why the POO did her feet just explode? Magic bullets?
Certainly not bad, I like the color correction
the shots are a little too short to my opinion, and the gunshots are mostly off sync
Blazing hot. www.xgbeatz.com
In the first scene where she's walking you can see the "I'm on camera" tension in her mouth. It went away by the tree, but crept back in again.
Regardless, it looked artificial.
Took 3 goes at watching this before I could give you feedback on the explosion! The Actor is very easy on the Eyes and so she sells the shot even with the bad fall ! Most of my focus was naturally on her.
I like the color correction and most of the shots look fine and the explosion looked ok but I would have had more black smoke in front of the flame too not just behind. Also as others mentioned there was no damage to the tree.
All in all you've done a very good job.
Thanks. In a real film I would hope there would be a reason for the explosion and would have debris falling and camera shake etc. Didn't want to spend too much time on this just wanted to know if I could integrate it in a fairly believable way. I guess the real lesson here is the cuter the girl the less realistic the effects have to be. I'll have to remember that.
In all honesty, I think it was a combination of Nice Girl Nice CC and Nice shots. So at this stage you have something that is pleasing to the eye, that's what makes it work. Based on what you've done I have no doubt you could pull off a very believable shot if required.
Just remember to cast her in the next blockbuster
didn't exactly like it. It looked blurry at parts. The shots where mostly way too long for what they depicted. And she aint exactly an actress of any kind in this test-clip (but sure looks good of course) so her movements didn't sell much of anything. Most of it was too slow without any energy.
Also I wonder what shutter-speed was used? felt like the dreaded 1/24 shutter but I could be wrong.
But it was just a test and probably a nice way of spending time with that girlfriend of yours so I can't criticize too much
And a tip for the sound-editing. I too have a computer that barely does HD edit. So I usually export a 320x240 proxy from my NLE so I can edit sound in the sound-edit-programs without worrying about not being able to preview at full fps. 99.999 out of 100 times you don't need full resolution while editing sound (or editing video in NLE's too but adobe still doesn't know this). But you almost always need full fps to get the feel right.
- The official DoF-adapter negativist -
Thanks, concerned about this shutter problem though. I shot in default cinemode, am I supposed to change some setting there? I need to resolve where the trouble is before I start burning through someone elses money. I'm new at this so maybe someone can tell me how to fix this shutter problem and how to notice I have one because I'm not sure what I'm looking for.
FYI, I then removed the pulldown in TMPGEnc 4.0 following the sticky exactly and then editing in Vegas following Eugina's instructions to the T for exporting to Vimeo.
Also I'm hoping to get a new comp soon so I won't have so many editing woes
Just a thing I thought I saw in it, not sure though
- The official DoF-adapter negativist -
Sorry for my ignorance but I thought when shooting at 24p, a shutter speed of 1/48 was fine, perhaps I'm mistaken?
"Use a "180 degree" shutter speed: For example, if recording at 24fps, set the shutter to approx. 1/48th-sec. to slightly blur moving details in the scene"
I'm asking because the footage I shot here was pretty incidental and I'm more concerned about my camera settings and would like to know if I'm indeed setting it wrong as some have implied.
To expand on HueyNRolf's comment, gun held close to face is bad technique. Both the "high ready" (what she is close to) and the "low ready" position with gun held down at about 45 degree angle have basically been discredited although some big name schools are still teaching the latter.
Thunder Ranch now teaches low ready as gun held straight out and down just an inch or two at most below eyelevel to give somewhat clear field of vision not blocked by the gun. For situations where gun cannot be held straight out, "compressed low ready" with gun held at chest level just below chin with muzzle pointed straight ahead is used.
Moving with finger on trigger, not good. Finger alongside frame looks more "professional" and is much safer. During the "fall" finger on trigger could cause a disastrous unintended discharge, and under tension any sudden stimulus can cause an involuntary muscle contraction over the whole body with an unintended shot fired.
Fingers on left hand are "splayed out" way too much, they need to be together with forefinger tight against bottom of trigger guard (much better control when firing from a two handed grip).
Effects are not bad, muzzle flash during daylight never happens with "duty" ammo (gunpowder is blended for low or no flash "signature") but generally all films show it because it "looks cool". You'll work on the explosion and the actresses actions, some of those look OK (the roll into position and firing looked pretty good to me).
Fast paced editing helps tremendously, you can take a sequence where the actors not used to the real motions come across as stiff and awkward, and with very short clips and fast cuts make the action look real and stunning.
I teach Defensive Handgun here whenever a small class needs it and good handgun technique can also look very powerful if filmed right. For instance showing your model advancing to the tree with the gun held out straight in front of her at full extension but just barely below eyelevel, filmed very close up and tight (head, shoulders, bust, and arms and gun) with the camera moving (retreating as she advances) at the same speed she is, and the shot held only for a second or second and a half at most, cut away to something else (the threat maybe) and then back to a similar shot with more tension in her expression (shot even shorter) will build tension very fast.
Just some ideas.
Either make the explosion bigger, and the speed will then make it seem even bigger, or speed it up to match the live action plate, or slow down your live action plate.
Hope that makes sense. lol
When in normal, well lit, even lighting conditions this is works just fine. But it still is an semi-auto mode. So if the lighting becomes too strong (so that it can't compensate with the f8 aperture) it will close down the shutter down to 1/1000 if needed. The same goes for low-light. If it gets too dark for the f1.8, the camera will open up the shutter in small increments towards 1/24 (or 1/25 for PAL).
If you're not sure what shutter you're at while setting up your shot. Then you can always do the half-press-photo-button-trick to make sure. And if you know that your shot contains radically different lighting-conditions (moving into or out of the shadow or bright spots going in and out of frame) and you don't want the camera to frantically change aperture and shutter (giving the tell-tale auto-exposure part of video-look). Then point the camera towards where YOU want to be well exposed. And lock the exposure there. Then the aperture and shutter will stay locked.
Some parts may get over and underexposed while filming, yes. But a stable exposure will "feel" more filmic than one that frantically changes just because there happens to be a bright-spot in the middle of the frame resulting in you fine-looking actress to get underexposed. And you wouldn't want that, now would you?
But again. I don't even know if this is an issue for this short or your planned working habits at all. It could have been the blurry look in general that led me to believe that a slower-than-normal shutter was used. So my comments on the matter could very well be moot, because overly-compensating autoexposure wasn't one of the things I saw in it. I just might be reading too much into this.
- The official DoF-adapter negativist -