<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A thick wedge of apple's money may be the chief reason for that.it is the most popular encoding format in the industry. Every official site for a major release has trailers in Quicktime, very rarely do they offer alternatives
I was mainly responding to this...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">... but couldn't be arsed quoting [img]tongue.gif[/img]Originally posted by jb.:
(a <u>lot</u> of people who put their movies up on here should note that it's one of the least used formats)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">... but couldn't be arsed quoting [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To be fair, I know a lot of video is streamed as .mov. But, in my experience, most people just use WMP with AVI files as that is what is pre-installed in Windows. It doesn't handle MOV files that well (I wonder why? [img]wink.gif[/img] ).Originally posted by Untamed Aggression:
I was mainly responding to this...
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jb.:
(a <u>lot</u> of people who put their movies up on here should note that it's one of the least used formats)
Well, whatever you use is cool, but there's been a few shorts and teasers posted on here that I wanted to watch (Generic Skinheads was one I can remember right now -- the picture was all screwed in my QT viewer at work) that I couldn't, which is annoying. Maybe we should offer 2 versions if we post anything?
--------------------------
Not everyone has everything.
I liked it [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
I agree with the fact that they are intruders in his house isn't really set up well. Perhaps it needed a shot of a smashed window or a broken lock as Valo was coming in to cement that idea.
The lighting also wasn't the best, but you did the best you could with what you got, and it's certainly passable. The exteriors do indeed look very nice, using available light, I'm assuming.
I liked the lens flare. I'm dabbling in still photography and sometimes use that effect.
The ending was the most random thing I've ever seen, but in a good way [img]cool.gif[/img]
As a sidenote, I re-watched it whilst listening to the main titles from Carrie... gave the murders a kind of wistful melancholy [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Ta. The exteriors were only lit with those annoying orange streetlights, and the moon. Most of the budget went on moving the moon into the right place [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
interesting you should mention the music, we tried various different music tracks (moonlight sonata, phat planet, etc), and we knew it would change the tone, but it was surprising just how much difference it did make.
Incidentally, I just made a divx version, and it looks awful. I mustn't be doing it right...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just read that article and can honestly say that it's a load of crap. My installation of "Real 10" did none of the things he claimed. Unlike QT it doesn't sit in my sys tray like QTPlayer does.Read here for a summary of why real is shit, and also the 2 links at the bottom which are statements from people who work/worked for real.
Also since I'm a competent user of my computer, I could stop it doing that if it did.
All in all, more conspiracy-theory-lying-crap from some nut on the internet.
-------------------------
The defence rests.
The original post is regarding Real One Player, read the other 2 articles mate (responses from current/previous real networks employees): Real Player 10 is the new less-instrusive version they are talking about. It's more the attitudes of the company that are concerning.
Hey .
Thx to Paul for posting the film on the web. And thx to everyone for your comments.
I really enjoyed making the film it was amazing.
And for me it was my first film.
Miss G
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, since you asked, it does seem student-like and staged.Tasty, I was just curious what you thought of mine and Miss G's offering, from a "student film cinematography" point of view...
The part when the shit hits the fan - when the guy who his looking for a drink is slammed up against the wall - everything intensifies - the action - the music - the conflict. This is where I think a frantic handheld camera is needed. But you continue to shoot the same way -cutting to simple static shots.
Instead of cutting to the girl entering the room, wouldn't a whip pan be more effective, and then, without cutting, following the guy chase her into the other room, all handheld.
It seems as though some people think that if you're not cutting to a new shot, then you're not directing. Like that's what directing is all about: cutting from one angle to another. There are some great films out there where an entire lengthy scene takes place in one shot, sometimes its static, sometimes its moving.
I think the value and importance of the cut is misunderstood. Maybe this topic deserves its own thread.
Also, at the end, when the guy is sitting in the chair and the phone rings, you briefly cut to a different angle, then back to the other one. Why? What was the point of that cut? It is a more dynamic angle considering the perspective of the furniture and phone in relation to the actor - but what does that cut offer substance-wise? I think it would have been better to just shoot that entire scene from that angle - not the straight on shot of him in the chair.
And yes, like everyone else, I didn't get it.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 13, 2005 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>
Thanks Tasty [img]smile.gif[/img]
The static shots in the kitchen are mainly because the handheld was so ropey, and because there wasn't room to get behind the camera, never mind turn it. a moving shot at that point was just impossible.
The original plan for the end was the cut to emphasise the phone in frame, with a reaction shot so we know it's not a good development, followed by a closeup for the (too obscure) payoff. However the acting precluded a lot of it, so we were stuck with the wider angle payoff at the end.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks