Thread: What do you think of my short film about my local boxing club???

its not bad...the camera was a bit shakey though... nice quotes and opening..

oh I fixed your link too

Originally Posted by Chapman Photography

its not bad...the camera was a bit shakey though... nice quotes and opening..

oh I fixed your link too

Thanks for the feedback.

I did try and use a tripod at first but found it a bit restrictive and the movements a bit robotic.

I guess its all down to practice,practice and more practice.

hand held is good if you can keep it steady.. I prefer hand held.. it just takes practice

You've clearly spent ages going through footage to put this together.

You've got the documentary style absolutely right in my book:
You're using the interview approach so the people who are involved are telling the story (much better than the dryness of a third party reporter)
You start off each section with a shot of the person who's talking so we can put a face to the name
You have clear titles stating who is talking and what their involvement is.
You don't dwell on the head shots too long, but show a good variety of shots, held long enough that we're not distracted from what's being said, but not so long as to become boring.
You mix the voices whioch also adds variety.

On the down side - yes it's a bit shakey, but worse for me was there was a bit of "hosing" (camera pointing left then right then back again, searching for something to film) and tromboning (zooming in and out) of of which are distracting and the sign of an amateur.

Lighting was poor - but I guess you had to work with what you'd got. Perhaps you could have increased the exposure so talent was correctly exposed at the expense of overexposing the (unimportant) background.

The shots of John Radmore was poorly framed. Hosizontally it was OK but there was too much headroom - aim to get the eyes one third of the way up.

Music was perfect - if cliché (and never forget clichés become such because they work well, and the background sound was just about right (I rather liked the way it changed to quiet when we returned to the head shots - this added some aural variation)

On the whole a well put together feature with its main weakness being the camerawork. That doesn't bother me, it can be easily learned or you can get someone else to do it. What's important is you clearly have in mind what a film such as this should contain and how it needs to be presented.

Top marks from me.

Originally Posted by TimStannard

You've clearly spent ages going through footage to put this together.

You've got the documentary style absolutely right in my book:
You're using the interview approach so the people who are involved are telling the story (much better than the dryness of a third party reporter)
You start off each section with a shot of the person who's talking so we can put a face to the name
You have clear titles stating who is talking and what their involvement is.
You don't dwell on the head shots too long, but show a good variety of shots, held long enough that we're not distracted from what's being said, but not so long as to become boring.
You mix the voices whioch also adds variety.

On the down side - yes it's a bit shakey, but worse for me was there was a bit of "hosing" (camera pointing left then right then back again, searching for something to film) and tromboning (zooming in and out) of of which are distracting and the sign of an amateur.

Lighting was poor - but I guess you had to work with what you'd got. Perhaps you could have increased the exposure so talent was correctly exposed at the expense of overexposing the (unimportant) background.

The shots of John Radmore was poorly framed. Hosizontally it was OK but there was too much headroom - aim to get the eyes one third of the way up.

Music was perfect - if cliché (and never forget clichés become such because they work well, and the background sound was just about right (I rather liked the way it changed to quiet when we returned to the head shots - this added some aural variation)

On the whole a well put together feature with its main weakness being the camerawork. That doesn't bother me, it can be easily learned or you can get someone else to do it. What's important is you clearly have in mind what a film such as this should contain and how it needs to be presented.

Top marks from me.

Thanks for the comments and advice.

I got the feeling that the shots of John were not quiet right but was not 100% sure what was wrong.

The gym is well lit(as far as boxing gyms go) but I think the cheap camera I was using did not do me any favours in that respect.

Once again thank for the feedback and advice.Hopfully I will improve on my next effort

At it's heart that is a very good film - superbly put togehter and genuinely intersting and a joy to watch.

Give up the boxing and become a film maker.

I think your cam is letting you down - it looks to me like a cheap SD card camera by the quality and zooms.

A very intelligent edit and mix of shots.

Only probs are really as a result of kit limittions.

5 stars and please hang around the forum !

Originally Posted by Mark W

At it's heart that is a very good film - superbly put togehter and genuinely intersting and a joy to watch.

Give up the boxing and become a film maker.

I think your cam is letting you down - it looks to me like a cheap SD card camera by the quality and zooms.

A very intelligent edit and mix of shots.

Only probs are really as a result of kit limittions.

5 stars and please hang around the forum !

I am thinking about getting a Sony Z1e but the thought of parting with £2300 puts me off.But I think I will have to bite the bullet and get it.


By the way is £2300 a good price for a used Sony Z1E with 6 month warrenty.

Thanks for the feedback.

That cam is probalby overkill - unless you have all the rest.

A basic doc set up would be a camera, a decent tripod, decent rifle mic, reporters mic, radio mics, poss camera light, ideally a portable light set up ( 3 lights ).

Sound is MORE important then video - it is the sound that tells the stroy and communicztes the people.

If you have £2300 and spent it all on a flash camra your films will be worse then if you spread it and get as much of the above as you can.

Dont believe me? I just recently watched a film shot on cheap looking SD DV, Pavee Lockeen - the film ruled and has picked up a few awards.

28 days later - much shot on canon Xl1s - again SD DV.

Get obsessed with your scripts, not your camera

Originally Posted by Mark W

That cam is probalby overkill - unless you have all the rest.

A basic doc set up would be a camera, a decent tripod, decent rifle mic, reporters mic, radio mics, poss camera light, ideally a portable light set up ( 3 lights ).

Sound is MORE important then video - it is the sound that tells the stroy and communicztes the people.

If you have £2300 and spent it all on a flash camra your films will be worse then if you spread it and get as much of the above as you can.

Dont believe me? I just recently watched a film shot on cheap looking SD DV, Pavee Lockeen - the film ruled and has picked up a few awards.

28 days later - much shot on canon Xl1s - again SD DV.

Get obsessed with your scripts, not your camera

But is that value for money in your opinion?