Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hacking Up a Storm
#1
Here's the short hacker film I've been talking about, the one the group has nicknamed "Cyber Heist." Not sure if I like that as an actual title, but we'll any suggestions, feel free to post. Smile

Anyway, here it is.


Attached Files
.txt   Short Hacker Film.txt (Size: 3.76 KB / Downloads: 8)
"Our films don't get finished, they just get released."
John Lasseter
Reply
#2
Hello Cliff,

...looks doable enough. I will do a quick screen test when I get a moment to see what you think, and if you are game, I can work something out.

One script comment...the sequence:

'Hacker 2 (cont.) - Well...eh...as secure as I can possibly make it...
Hacker 1 - Wish isn't 100%.'

...seems it needs a 'wish' in Hacker 2's line...or some other adjustment to Hacker 1.


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure design studio - www.artandstructure.com
Reply
#3
"Wish" was supposed to say "which"
"Our films don't get finished, they just get released."
John Lasseter
Reply
#4
Screen capture from a test shot attached. Lighting only by computer screen is no problem for the D600. Manual white balance set cool, and looking a bit haggard as it is 1:45 in the morning. For the technorati out there this is a 720p still from 1080p/24, ISO 800, 50mm f/2.8, 1/30s, 2940k.

My focus could be a bit sharper/more accurate, but it is tough to focus perfectly when I am not in front of and behind the camera at the same time...though this is a 720p still, while the full video is 1080p.

Cliff, I need you to set some parameters....24f/sec or 30? 24 is more filmlike, but it needs to match whatever you and Jason shoot. Also, 16:9 or 2.4:1? The still is 16:9. I've set the white balance for the cool blue on this but can set it for a natural tone you can adjust yourself. Which do you want?


Jesse Widener


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Art and Structure design studio - www.artandstructure.com
Reply
#5
I believe 16:9 is the standard, right? I would say 24 frames, but you'll need to ask Jason first, since he's the other one currently filming.

The shot looks great, exactly the angle I was hoping for. Love the lighting. The "2 AM" look helps with the hacker feel as well. Smile
"Our films don't get finished, they just get released."
John Lasseter
Reply
#6
I always use 16:9 with my camera and I always use 60 fps. Yes, I know it is not the industry standard, but I feel it looks better than 24 fps and it is easier to slow it down. I will work on editing today.

When I filmed, I had to use a light source other than my lappy for the camera to even see me, but the footage, from my glimpses, look good. I will get you the footage today, Cliff, once I get it all edited, which should not take long given it is a combined 15 minutes or so. I also shot two different angles for Hackers 1 and 2, but only one angle for Hacker 3, but I will export them as different files so you can edit easier.
Ban reason: Continued bashing of others only hinders you. Please just make films! (Permanent)
Reply
#7
16:9 is the default HD standard, but it didn't exist before HD video. The closest actual film standard is 1.85:1 (in equivalent figures, 16:9 is about 1.78:1). Even then, film has been in many aspect ratios even before widescreen was introduced. 1:1 (square) and 4:3 were prevalent early on, with 4:3 becoming the standard until widescreen formats came along. There are probably at least half a dozen notable widescreen ratios, but 1.85:1 and ~2.35:1 have generally become the most used...in addition to 4:3 which is still used for its retro and/or "video" look. The closest to 2.35:1 in HD is 2.4:1, which is the "wide" standard.

I don't know what the breakdown of number of films using one or the other is, but here are the aspects for my top 10 films, which span a wide variety of periods and genres:

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey 2.20:1
2. Fritz Lang's Metropolis 4:3
3. Once Upon a Time in the West 2.35:1
4. Mulholland Drive 1.85:1
5. Hero 2.35:1
6. Spirited Away 1.85:1
7. West Side Story 2.20:1
8. Edward Scissorhands 1.85:1
9. The Shawshank Redemption 1.85:1
10. The Fog of War 1.85:1

Coming from a very visual background, I personally feel ~2.40:1 makes for more dramatic compositions, but it depends on the use. My TP doc will be 16:9 while my Glacier doc will be 2.40:1. For this film I do think 16:9 would make for easier compositions. I would have to rethink the shot I posted above to frame it within 2.40:1.

Regarding frame rate, 24fps looks fantastic coming from a native 24p device, and maintains the cadence of film. A device which does not shoot 24 frames natively, but wraps it within a container with a different rate does not have the same look. Since theaters tend to project at 24 frames, anything else would not project at its native rate, thus defeating a chunk of the purpose to shoot at a different rate. The Hobbit was shot at 48 frames, and a few theaters were fitted to accommodate it (and only because of the versatility of a 48 frame system to still properly project 24 frames for everything else) but most people will never see it as Peter Jackson intended...not even at home because neither BluRay, DVDs nor televisions support 48 frames natively.

60 frames is indeed useful for slowing down to slow-motion sequences, but unless the sequence is intended to be in slow motion, choosing that rate is making more trouble for oneself than necessary. It's 2+ times the data to store and process, bogging down the editing process, and even BluRay doesn't support 1080p at 60p frames...only 720p, so one way or another shooting "extra" gets thrown away anyway in either frame rate, resolution, or both.

Plus, at 60 frames you cut the low-light performance of the camera in half or more, because each frame has half or less than half the time to gather light compared to 24fps or 30fps.

I can go either way for this project. I realize no one else can match the look of 24p from my camera, so unless Cliff wants to go for a varied look between characters, it isn't practical. However, I can shoot 30 frames to look comparable to 60...especially since it likely won't be projected at 60 anyway.


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure design studio - www.artandstructure.com
Reply
#8
Ah I see. Yeah, I need to reshoot Hackers 2 and 3 because I cannot see myself worth a darn. I can change the frame rate for them, but if we do 24 fps, I think my first Hacker footage would be scrapped because it would look differently. I can change it for my reshoots this evening.
Ban reason: Continued bashing of others only hinders you. Please just make films! (Permanent)
Reply
#9
So do we want to go 30fps then? I'll get on the same page with that if that's what you want to shoot.


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure design studio - www.artandstructure.com
Reply
#10
Yeah, 30 fps would be fine. I have no problem with doing 24, as well, but that would probably mean scrapping my first hacker footage, but that is not a big deal given I can only play one.
Ban reason: Continued bashing of others only hinders you. Please just make films! (Permanent)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)