November 2008: Crossroads

[mhh]

This is my first attempt at using a 35mm adaptor. Most of the footage was shot in the first few hours after I received it and was essentially me playing around with it. However, I turned the unplanned footage into a narrative about life. It is easily my most personal project. I hope you like it.

[Jerry Hill]

I've got mixed feelings about DOF adaptors, so let me start by saying this example I'd put amongst the better ones I've seen, so well done on that.

But, they all seem to give the same 'look', a kind of veiled appearance. The ones I've made have not been as good as this, but when able I'll get back to it and see if it can be sorted for me. It just seems like the images from them need to be 'lifted' somehow, difficult to describe really.

Anyway, other points. You're getting the classic vignetting thing sometimes, seems that nothing can be done about that, apart from one trick I have in theory stage which no one seems to have cottoned on to yet . In a number of those shots a DOF adaptor is not giving any benefit, so perhaps choosing the time to use one is important.

When you're foussing your Nikkor it's shaking the image a bit, perhaps a lever would help, don't bother with fancy photo accessories, just get a fishing reel tie for about £2 and put that on the lens, and maybe your tripod/mount needs to be a bit more ridgid. When I trialled HV20's I found the tripod socket is not very substantial, allowing the camera to move with little pressure, so maybe some additional support is needed with the weight of the DOF Adaptor being there, depends on what type you have.

So, which one is it? Commercial or home made?

Either way, some good stuff to work with .

[clay_9]

I picked up on the camera shake in a few of the shots, it felt like it either needed to be dead still or fully handheld.

Nice video short.

[Mark W]

Dude - wow - got a tear in my eye - yeah I am the emo type but that was a totally brave film to make and a really hard one to pull off and you really did it !

You have a great vo voice and the script was wonderful and it was really well recorded - and your acting worked too. Loved the s8 effect.

Any criticism is purely technical as that is the most moving thing i have seen submitted in ages.

Right - hard arse critcism as you are clearly no numpty.

1. Why so wide? Made many shots feel cramped. ( as in aspect ratio - looks like 2.2 to 1 at least )
2. Pulling focus - yea I realise it was a new toy, but that pull thing is almost a cliche - I try to only use it when there seems to be a denoument to the effect - forground and b ground ' connect ' in a narrative way sort of.
3. Ditto the shake - decent tripod next purchase maybe.
4. Leaves popping in and out of top of frame - didnt like that.
5. I hade fades as a rule but perhaps short fades rather than cuts???
6. The tweety bits were a bit naff - too loud - guessing added in post???
7. Saw flare in one shot I think - green tinge to corner - may have to be more careful of such with the adaptor. A well placed hand can do wonders.

Gets a nom and stars from me when this months nominations open - great to see something so 'real ' .

[Jerry Hill]

Hmm, the film, yes, my bad, I concentrated on the gear rather than the content. I'll turn the sound on this time!

IMHO.... yes it's just my view.. blady blady blaaaah.....

So, yes, agree the focus pull has to be relevent, the first shot is a good example, the fence has no actual relevence (I think).

Easy to be picky, but that's my way. In a few places the narration could link to the visual better I feel. Like the line 'that simple look as you walked away', I feel that if the footage had been slowed, and the young lady's look timed so that her head turned from the words '..that simple...' it would have impacted on me more.

The bit where the clouds stopped moving behind the sign. You cut away from it, then returned to it, lost flow there for me, I understand how it sat in the film, but the cut back to the same image struck me as back pedalling in feel, perhaps a different view of the same sign? or fading rather than hard cuts?

What seemd to be intended as perhaps memory shots of the girl at the end? Not sure, but the section with the flashing contrast etc, didn't like that, I think it would have been possible to give it a memory feel without the annoying flashing, maybe desaturating it?

Whatever, it's an excellent film, of course it is, and these points are at a deep level. Well done!

Edit: One final thing, every now and then there's a faint 'pop' from the mic. A pop filter would be good, or just place the mic it off axis to stay out of the airstream.

[TimStannard]

I can only agree with what's already been said - especially Mark's first two lines. There's a tear in my eye as well.
The technical details that have been mentioned are all there for all to see, but the only significant one (one that was a distraction for me anyway) was the camera shake when focusing.
Great piece.

[mhh]

Thank you for taking the time to watch and make such constructive comments. I can’t disagree with most of the technical issues highlighted. My inexperience with the adaptor is clearly evident. It is nigh on impossible to frame and focus an inverted, mirror image using a 2.5” LCD screen, let alone when the wind is blowing an almighty gale at times. Hence the occasional shake, together with the fact that I had no rod support or equivalent for the lens, making the gear a touch unstable, especially to change focus.

The only comment I would dispute is the notion of vignetting. I have viewed the footage on a 50” screen and seen nothing. In fact I would have thought that cropping the image from 16:9 to 2.35:1 would have eliminated any vignetting anyway if it were present. By the way, this cropping accounts for the leaves coming in and out of the top of the frame. In the original footage, the leaves and twigs were constantly in frame, in the foreground, to add depth to the shot.

[Jerry Hill]

The only comment I would dispute is the notion of vignetting

I remarked that my comments were fine points, but it's there. It's mostly in the bottm left side in the outside shots, watch from 02:52 to 02:56, you'll see the foreground darkening as it passes to the left, you appear to have used auto exposure, but I don't think it's that. Most other shots are static so not so apparent.

It may also be a false impression from the last sequence, the brightness/contrast effect is either exaggerating the issue, or it's just circumstantial. Were you using the adaptor here? As whether this is vignetting through that or other means, it's vignetting in consequence.

But I emphasise this is nit-picking, but seeing as you said...

[Glen Maw]

I really like the effect you used at the end, seen in the previous post. THe uneven flickering, and strobing made me think of the slow frame rate of past film technologies, as well as those family super 8 projection and slide show sessions. I think it suited your theme well, connoting the past, memory, and reminiscence.

Could I ask you how you achieved this effect? If anyone has other ideas about how to achieve similar effects It would be great to hear about them. I am a Vegas user, but sometimes use Adobe Prem and Avid MC

Glen

[Formless]

Beautifully shot, great job!

Would you recommend the Canon HV20? Your shots seem clearer and appear to have more depth then the shots I have taken with a Canon xl2. Is this down to the 35mm adapter?

Again, great work


Formless.