First narrative film shot in moonlight Sony A7s

[fuzzynormal]

Of stop, you've read too many screenwriting books. The voice over has a long history in cinema... Some of the best movies of all time have voice over. But to each their own. I do agree about the hiking trail though. 

Actually, ​I haven't read a single screenwriting book.  I'm just not a fan of voice over.  It's usually done poorly and I also don't like heavy handed exposition.  However, I just watched Shawshank yesterday and I feel that's an exception.

[Cinegain]

I'm not a person, I'm just a ghost.

​Then somebody better send the Ghost Cops!

 

I'm sorry. It's late over here.

[j.f.r.]

Looks like someone has finally put the extreme low light ability of the A7s to full use. They shot the whole film I'm moonlight at iso 51,200.

To the person that asked "how does a new camera affect your creativity"... Well this is a good example.

 

​

Should have shot in Full Frame mode to avoid the noise/loss of quality when shooting at such high iso in APS-C mode. Full Frame mode would have looked much much better.........

 

On to the narrative I did not like it all, had nothing to do with the camera

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Bahahaha! Everyone raves about how the A7S opens up new creative possibilities, than slams the first real short to make use of its capabilities, even though some of you apparently paid so little attention that you didn't even know where the film takes place! I love it. Do you have any idea how hard Kubrick--hell, ANY filmmakers from before digital--would've creamed themselves over this? 

As a writer, a filmmaker, and a published critic, my opinion is that the short is good. The acting is good not great, the story is clear, concise, and kept me interested, it has a unique, ethereal look, and it the title left me with something to ponder. My friend, a very passionate physics major, insists that space is the next frontier, we'll die out eventually if we don't get out there, it could hold the answers to so many global problems, blah blah blah. But what if what's out there isn't our refuge at all? What if it's a trap, and we're the refuge for it?

That's not a lot of meat on its bones, but it's better than shaky street scenes, travel videos shot from the tour bus/boat, and endless boring landscape montages. 

It's important we give credit to the craft. After all, isn't that why we're all here?

[j.f.r.]

Bahahaha! Everyone raves about how the A7S opens up new creative possibilities, than slams the first real short to make use of its capabilities, even though some of you apparently paid so little attention that you didn't even know where the film takes place! I love it. Do you have any idea how hard Kubrick--hell, ANY filmmakers from before digital--would've creamed themselves over this? 

As a writer, a filmmaker, and a published critic, my opinion is that the short is good. The acting is good not great, the story is clear, concise, and kept me interested, it has a unique, ethereal look, and it the title left me with something to ponder. My friend, a very passionate physics major, insists that space is the next frontier, we'll die out eventually if we don't get out there, it could hold the answers to so many global problems, blah blah blah. But what if what's out there isn't our refuge at all? What if it's a trap, and we're the refuge for it?

That's not a lot of meat on its bones, but it's better than shaky street scenes, travel videos shot from the tour bus/boat, and endless boring landscape montages. 

It's important we give credit to the craft. After all, isn't that why we're all here?

​

Instead of speaking on something you apparently have no idea, read my post again..... When using the Sony A7s in Aps-C mode the noise is much more pronunce, especially at such high iso, if this would have been shot in Full Frame it would have looked much better.......

 

Finally I don't care if the A7s can shoot at a million iso, you don't force the camera just "because". Some simple LED Lights off axis would have given much needed "fill" and it would have looked much better "technically". 

 

Done

[TheRenaissanceMan]

​

Instead of speaking on something you apparently have no idea, read my post again..... When using the Sony A7s in Aps-C mode the noise is much more pronunce, especially at such high iso, if this would have been shot in Full Frame it would have looked much better.......

 

Finally I don't care if the A7s can shoot at a million iso, you don't force the camera just "because". Some simple LED Lights off axis would have given much needed "fill" and it would have looked much better "technically". 

 

Done

​I didn't quote you, and hence was not responding specifically to you. The dismissive tone also isn't necessary. But since you brought it up...

As to shooting in APS-C mode, I completely get it. They could shoot on better glass at higher t-stops with more manageable DOF that way, and the film still looks completely passable. 

I believe their intention was to make the film look otherworldly, but true to the naturalism of their imaginary setting (if that makes sense). Adding some LEDs would have added to the technical image quality, but detracted from my verisimilitude by looking artificially lit. I'm not sure if they utilized bounce from the moon, but if not, that definitely would have helped. I kind of enjoy that it looks a little "rough around the edges." It amplifies the paranoia of the piece by making me feel like the characters are being watched. Technical perfection isn't everything.

[agolex]

Let everyone do what they wanna do, I'm just constantly under the impression that nowadays where everyone can do anything thanks to the affordable (to us First-Worlders anyhow) tech, things are going down the drain pretty quickly in the art department. I mean, just look at my aforementioned clip, it's atrocious!

Nowadays, people collaborate until every last bit of originality has been spent on compromise, political correctness and the ambition to appeal to certain audiences. "We need more women, we need a black guy, we need a gay guy, we need an alien, we need more flares, we need more fucks, we need more production value, oh and marketing said we need to put in assloads of Apple products, candy bars and organic food. And the Vice of the production company wants his dog in the film."

Gone are the days where someone had an outrageous and personal idea and fought for it to the bitter end. Now we have social media where you can get uncanny amounts of feedback to help amalgamate your ideas into insignificant clichés with maximum production value and the eternal (a few weeks by today's standards) gratitude of your Facebook peers.

Art is dead, all hail the many-faced void of extroversion!

[DBounce]

Let everyone do what they wanna do, I'm just constantly under the impression that nowadays where everyone can do anything thanks to the affordable (to us First-Worlders anyhow) tech, things are going down the drain pretty quickly in the art department. I mean, just look at my aforementioned clip, it's atrocious!

Nowadays, people collaborate until every last bit of originality has been spent on compromise, political correctness and the ambition to appeal to certain audiences. "We need more women, we need a black guy, we need a gay guy, we need an alien, we need more flares, we need more fucks, we need more production value, oh and marketing said we need to put in assloads of Apple products, candy bars and organic food. And the Vice of the production company wants his dog in the film."

Gone are the days where someone had an outrageous and personal idea and fought for it to the bitter end. Now we have social media where you can get uncanny amounts of feedback to help amalgamate your ideas into insignificant clichés with maximum production value and the eternal (a few weeks by today's standards) gratitude of your Facebook peers.

Art is dead, all hail the many-faced void of extroversion!

Hey, I've checked out your website, and from what I can see the makers of this production are several orders of magnitude above your current artistic skill level. Apparently, instead of complaining you should take notes? 

Glass houses and such...

[mercer]

Why is it bad to criticize someone's work? Are we, or you, not allowed to have an opinion? This whole turn of this post is silly. There are some good parts of it, and some not so good parts... FOR ME. 

I really like the low light, high ISO look of the film... To the point where it distracted from the story. I really liked the first shot.

From my phone, I really couldn't see the subtitles that explained the setting was some alien planet. I thought it was dying earth. I actually like my assumption better.

But, other than the out of context use of costumes and not being a fan of the title, I liked the short.

It came out of the gate in the middle of conflict, without dumbing itself down.

For the most part, the dialogue was well written and the characters had their own voice. The acting was decent. The blurry gun was off putting, I spent that entire portion of the short waiting for a rack focus that never occurred. Not sure why? I thought the "alien" prop was handled well and since I didn't, at first, realize they were on an alien planet, I didn't get the title. I get it now. Thanks. 

[Sekhar]

Hey, I've checked out your website, and from what I can see the makers of this production are several orders of magnitude above your current artistic skill level. Apparently, instead of complaining you should take notes? 

Glass houses and such...

​That is an odd thing to say in a discussion forum, where we should be sharing views/opinions without fear of derision/ridicule. Remember, it is also just your opinion that "the makers of this production are several orders of magnitude above (his) current artistic skill level," not a consensus. Even if it were, if we're to critique someone/something only if everybody agrees we're better (and therefore qualified to critique), then nothing constructive would ever happen.

[DBounce]

 

​Is this not exactly what  is being done with the creators of this work? If you live in a glass house don't throw stones. And if you choose to do so, you must understand that your work may also come under scrutiny. All the advice that has been thrown about is all well and good, but clearly the poster that made these comments ignored said advice on their own projects. Let those that are so quick to post smack at minimum show some examples of their own work, to prove they have earned the right to pass judgement. 

[agolex]

​That is an odd thing to say in a discussion forum, where we should be sharing views/opinions without fear of derision/ridicule. 

​It's alright, he seems to have found a particular liking to bashing my stuff. I'm just a ghost, after all, no feelings to be hurt.

[agolex]

​Is this not exactly what  is being done with the creators of this work? 

​This is an unrelated discussion forum. I wouldn't have stated my opinion on their Vimeo page or anything like that. Every now and then, though, I just like to let off some steam by writing up my thoughts. After all, I lack peers – being a ghost and everything.

Apart from that, nothing to me on here (or anywhere else) is exact(ly), clear(ly) and I don't have projects, I'm just a lone geek running around with a camera once in a while. I'll wait with my first "project" until I have an idea I deem worth realizing. Finally, I'm not into advice that has not been asked for.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Why is it bad to criticize someone's work? Are we, or you, not allowed to have an opinion? This whole turn of this post is silly. There are some good parts of it, and some not so good parts... FOR ME. 

Wholeheartedly agree. ​I object to people who slam this short for being gimmicky or all about the tech, but anyone who gives the film a close watch and thinks about it critically has the right to their opinion, regardless of whether or not they can "do better." The whole point of art is that everyone has a different experience with it.

I really like the low light, high ISO look of the film... To the point where it distracted from the story. I really liked the first shot.

​I sort of get that. It might just be that we're so used to watching "test videos" intended to be analyzed for image quality that we've started treating EVERY piece of video that way. I know I've fallen into that trap lately.

From my phone, I really couldn't see the subtitles that explained the setting was some alien planet. I thought it was dying earth. I actually like my assumption better.

​That could be interesting, but I think it changes the meaning of the short from what the makers intended. Maybe that would be a good angle for you to use in a project! 

But, other than the out of context use of costumes and not being a fan of the title, I liked the short.

It came out of the gate in the middle of conflict, without dumbing itself down.

For the most part, the dialogue was well written and the characters had their own voice. The acting was decent.

​The anachronistic costumes lent it some charm for me, but I can see how they'd turn you off. I agree the title could be better, but it works well enough. Completely agree on its strengths, though. No labored setup, just starting in medias res and getting on with the action. Good point about the characters having distinct voices. It's an often overlooked concept that ends believability and depth to your scenes. 

The blurry gun was off putting, I spent that entire portion of the short waiting for a rack focus that never occurred. Not sure why? 

​The focus pulling in general was distracting, now that you mention it. Maybe they were having trouble seeing with the noise and dark conditions, but it seemed downright random in places. Like in the beginning, they racked focus between the tree and the stars back to the tree back to the stars, all in the same shot. I don't get it.

 I thought the "alien" prop was handled well and since I didn't, at first, realize they were on an alien planet, I didn't get the title. I get it now. Thanks. 

​Yeah, you bet. It helps that me and my friends are total sci-fi nerds. 


I appreciate the people in this topic wanting to argue the film's merits, but there's a fine line between defending the film and attacking its critics. Let's stay on the right side of it.