Hi, could you clear this up for me. What is the message that is beeing presented in this film? What are you trying to say? I'm just curious is all. Thanks

What? $1000!! That's crazy talk!!

"A lonely girl learns about life and death" is the logline we have. Basically, the girl learns that life and death aren't as romantic as they're presented in art, like in "Hamlet." She tries to be like Ophelia and tries to kill herself poetically, but fails.

I tried to present it artsy and surrealistic because that's how the girl sees the world. There's some images in the short that are symbolic to the story, but I can't give too much away! 😉

Oh, and the scene was taken from my friend's/producer's novel-in-progress with the same title.

Well I understand the film allot better now. The first time I looked at it I didn't understand what she was doing in the water because it wasn't too clear that she was trying to kill herself. The only thing that I didn't like so much was the end when she tears up the book. I think it would have looked better if there wasn't a house near by and a garden hose on the lawn. Those elements took away from the surrealistic look you were aiming for. Anyways, this was a decent effort. Oh the titles were a little bit on the tacky side as well but that's an easy fix. Good luck on your next film.

What? $1000!! That's crazy talk!!

Oh, but the garden was supposed to be in her backyard though.

And yes, the titles don't really fit with the look of the movie.

Hey,

Just viewed your short (the new one with music). There is some cool shots but I must say not really my cup-o-tea. The fact that it was all handheld was pretty distracting too. The flickering was also distracting. I also think you can or can't do "fancy titles"...when you can't, just use white text on a black background. Just my opinion, not a knock on your short.

Check out media cleaner for your compression...it was shot on film, there shouldn't be interlacing artifacts. It's progressive.

As for the whole DV vs. Super8 thing going on. Both have their advantages, and nowadays it is making more and more sense to shoot on DV because of the technology available.

Let's look at a few main points...

1. RESOLUTION.
It's true that Super8 film has theoretically about twice the resolution of DV (maybe a bit more. I think it is around 1300 lines), but in real life situations it's not that great of a difference. Optics also plays a huge role and affects real-world resolution.

Most high-end DV cameras have good optics (part of the reason they cost so much) and high end CCD's which can capture images at much higher resolution than 345k pixels (DV standard), but they are recorded at that standard resolution anyway. Why does this matter? Look at DVD for example...it is the same resolution, but when it is encoded properly it can look amazing blown up. Real world resolution is a lot more important than just saying the numbers. What's important is how it looks. 😉

2. Color definition and contrast.
Film has the best "out of the box" color/contrast no question! But many 3 CCD digital cameras have amazing color definition, saturation and contrast. Also the amount of improvement you can make digitally is astounding as long as your original footage is high quality. I think if any "film purist" got a copy of Magic Bullet Suite for After Effects they'd toss away their film......just my opinion of course. 😉

3. Price.
Needs no argument. The camera for digital video costs more, but in the long run you save so much money. And don't give me that baloney about having to put more thought into shooting with film. It might be more stressful but there's nothing wrong with shooting til you get it right. That's the whole point. It's not about seeing who can do the best job on their first take. it's about who has the best film in the end.

4. Editing
No film processing or scanning to worry about. Just plug it in!

With low budget stuff, I would always stick with DV.
Mid budget, I'd splurge for the HD camera as opposed to blowing a wad on film costs.
High budget, 35mm film all the way!

I'm sorry your thread is turning into a film vs. video debate but I had to throw in my 2 cents. I hate film elitists. I'm sorry, but you're not better because you shoot on real film. You can keep saying that while DV film makers make better and more elaborate films at half the cost and go off to to bigger and better things like shooting on 35mm.

I also agree with you that it doesn't matter what you shoot on, as long as you get it done. MY point is that its easier to "get it done" on DV. The fact that it is "easy" or "hard" also means nothing. THE FINAL PRODUCT matters.

Now that you probably hate me, good luck with your future endeavours.

It's okay; I don't hate you. I appreciate your comments and am also sorry this was turned into a film vs. dv debate. I said the things I did because Mandor said "it's a pity it was shot on 8mm."

And hey, it was only handheld for half the shots!! 😉

As for the artifacts, it shouldn't matter that it was shot on film or not, should it? I mean since it was transfered to dv and then captured in Premiere, there still could be artifacts when compressed. I used EZ Cleaner and de-interlaced the footage as well.

And you see, you're calling me a film elitist and I'm really not. I own a digital camcorder and use it. I edit digitally and love it. If it's what you got, then use it. I've got a super8 as well and I LOVE the look. Resolution and color saturation aside, I love the feel of super8. I enjoy shooting on it quite a bit and the processes that go with it. Does that make me a snob? Does it make me a snob that I love the film look and would personally rather shoot on it?