Shooting and Editing Widescreen.

When shooting with 16:9 in SD DV there are different ways to do it.Some cameras have proper 16:9 sensors and record proper anamorphic DV, using all 720x576 (720x480) pixels. Other cameras have 4:3 sensors and you lose a number of the vertical lines recording widescreen, even if you record anamorphic the resolution i is no better than recording 4:3 and cropping off the top and bottom. These cameras are the ones I shall be refering to in this essay thing. There are therefore a few ways of recording widescreen, hereafter known as the right way and the wrong way. Unfortunatly I have a differing opinion to many people on which way is which.

One of these lovely instituions is the SIT, an instituion I have long been aware of but never had anything formerly to do with. They have grated on me before and they grate on me still. They recommend the practice of filming 4:3 and cropping down to 16:9 in post so you can reframe if necessary. A fine idea that seems great in theory but works horribly in practice. This is largly because it requires more steps that people never seem to follow properly. It also severly screws up the workflow. Every time someone insists on working like this I wince because I know that something screwed up is going to come out of all this, and most likely I'll have to help fix it up.

The first problem comes during shooting. If you want to shoot 4:3 and later crop to 16:9 you have to know what it's going to look like in 16:9 so you can frame it properly. When I did this (once) I just stuck some tape over the the top and bottom of the LCD screen. Most people don't do this, they just frame for 4:3, shoot 4:3 and then in post crop the damn thing down. Then ends up an unmitigated disaster, framing is all screwed, tops of heads are missing, stuff down the bottom is missing. You've heard about how much directors hate Pan and Scan because it mutilates their vision, this is like doing the same thing to your own work before it's even finished.

Then we have the editing, they stick it into their editor of choice, throw a widescreen filter over it, then edit away. This creates numerous problems, often to do with, due to the fact that they are working in a 4:3 edit space, to put it simply, stuff coming over the black space. This includes special effects, (like muzzle flash), credits, and stuff like fade to white, where even the black bars get white. Then after all of that it's still not going to play properly on a 16:9 screen and you are going to have to do something with that anyway. All this is ef fort is hardly worth the ability to reframe given that you probably aren't going to reframe anyway, especially given the way to crop the images.

Could it be shot 4:3 and cropped later if done properly, absolutly. Probably if done within an anamorphic window and zoomed in, rather than in a 4:3 window and cropped, but that also takes work. In the end I've only ever worked on one project where someone has done this properly, and that's because we planned it all from the start, and as I had little to do with the post process I have no idea how much extra effort it was. Do I recommend it, hell no. Chances are you are going to screw it up really badly, hell a lot of people seem to have trouble just editing the damn thing properly in anamorphic without attempting to do stuff you barely understand why.

In conclusion, screw the SIT and there stupid ideas, they give out a piece of advice and yet don't follow it up with the whys and how to do it properly so we get a big mess. They don't explain properly why they are doing it and students just do it without understanding the purpose and make a big mess. At least the coming HD revolution should get rid of this mess even if it causes numerous other problems, and at least there are some SD cameras that record 16:9.

To finish up with, if you ever recommend that anyone I have the slightest possiblity of working with, or even anyone who's film I might see, shoot in 4:3 and then crop to widescreen I will personally stab you*

*I will not stab you.

The 48Hours

For those not in the know, and as far as I know the few people who read this thing are in the know, the 48Hours is an event in which you make a film in 48Hours. It started out as an international event passing through New Zealand but the New Zealand bit has now branched off from the others. Basically the rules are simple, you are given just prior to starting, a randomly picked genre, a line, a character, and a prop to have in your movie, and then have exactly 48Hours to complete your movie. Not getting it in on time gets you disqualified, though you can still show your short in the heats, and not having some or all of the elements will also get you disqualified. You'll also get disqualified if your short is too short or too long. Our film last year was too long by 30Seconds so we got disqualified. Such is life.

This year we were determined to get our act together, or something, and by we I mean our director, and by get our act together I mean make us some soup. It was good soup, but I digress. Last year we had a couple problems, one of which was the two directors, the other was that I was actually the most organised person on the team and the only one that new how to hand it in. When I am the most organised person things are in a very very bad state. This year we had one director. Other things that turned out better than last year included

We finished with plenty time to spare to add the music so the music composer didn't hate us at the end.
Our plot actually makes sense to people that haven't had it explained to them beforehand.
Our lighting is a hell of a lot better.
We got a lot more sleep than last year.

On the downside we almost burned down the director's house but that's a small problem all round. We didn't get into the finals, but oh well. I had nothing to do with the writing this year, for better or worse, so don't blame me if you hate the plot, also don't praise me if you love it. (Though I don't really mind the latter)

For the crap quality Youtube version go here

Updating the Update Process

Having left this blog abandoned for too long I figured it was time for an update. Regular updates will hopefully follow. I'll try and do one a day.

Disgusting Looking Foods of The World : Episode One

First off there is a very good chance there will never be an Episode 2. It's just I came across this and it seemed just horrible enough to get it's own post.

Take, if you will, a boiled egg. You like boiled eggs right? I like Boiled Eggs. Boiled eggs as you no doubt are aware are taken by placing a raw egg, generally a hens egg but sometimes a duck or other bird's egg, into boiling water and leaving it there until they float. (Or 20 minutes or whatever)

What if you decided to change things slightly, instead of taking an unfertilised egg, you took an egg that had a partly grown embryo in it and boiled that instead, what a treat that would be. Thoroughly sickened. You haven't seen the pictures yet.

Here's the peeling off of the shell.

And here's the product in a bowl. Do not view this if you are eating, just ate, or plan to eat in the near future.

According to wikipedia it's usually Duck's eggs but sometimes chicken's eggs. Apparantly it's quite the delicacy in The Philippines, Cambodia, and Vietnam. If you ever get the urge to try this apatising foodstuff, let me know what it tastes like. I'm not overeager to learn what it tastes like firsthand.

Click here to learn more.

New Banner

Thanks to Daniel for the new banner. Not that I had an old one, just words, and not that I would have made one for a while, and not that it would have been as good anyway, so we're all happy. It's much better than what was there.

I'm not even a maniac, it just sounded cool at the time.

R.I.P. Heath Ledger

Yeah, you've probably been inundated with information about Heath Ledger, but I'm adding my little post on the matter and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you stop me.

I don't actually have much to say about him that hasn't been said, except that he was actually a really talented guy, who, like a couple other actors I could name, seemed just to be another 'Teen Hearthrob' (got a hate that phrase) but with roles in things Brokeback Mountain showed how awesome he really was. Allegedly, I never actually saw Brokeback Mountain. I know, I suck. I'll see it eventually. Anyway, though I'd liked numerous roles the guy was in what really impressed me was the trailer for 'The Dark Knight' where he played The Joker. Yeah I'd had second thoughts on whether he should play it, preferring someone like Crispin Glover or Mark Hamil, but watch the trailer and you'll realise just how good he really is.

So yeah, if you haven't, go watch the trailer for 'The Dark Knight' which Heath Ledger fortunatly finished filming, and look forward to what will sadly be his last movie. Unless the one he was part way through filming when he died comes out, which you won't be surprised to learn was being directed by Terry Gilliam. That guy just never gets a break does he.

Anyway go here to get the Dark Knight Trailer.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight/trailer2/

The sad state of the horror genre.

I'm a horror movie fan. A fan of the horror movie genre. The sad thing is, this is a fact that I actually argue with myself about, as I sometimes don't want to be a fan of the horror genre. Why, because lets face it, most horror movies suck.

Lots of other genres have their fair share of crap, comedies have a consistently high supply of total crap, and look at all terrible action movies that come out each year. We have the awful romantic comedies, the mind-bogglingly awful dramas, and sci-fi movies that make you consistantly bang your head on the wall. (Though these are nearly as prolific as in the 50s for instance)

But horror movies have overcome the odds and manage to out suck all of these genres, possibly all of them put together. It's flooded with uber-shitty Halloween rip-offs, mostly crap torture movies (like Hostel) and those movies that try to mimic the supposedly great Japanese horror (not really sure since I haven't seen much Japanese horror) but fail at being good. Example, The Grudge. Don't even get me started on The Grudge. Also can't forget the crappy remakes to the good films, and even the crappy remakes of crap films. There are also a number of other horror movies that don't fall into any category I can think of at this time but they are usually pretty crap and star 'Famous Celebrity of the moment'. You know what I'm talking about.

Why is horror in such a crappy state, why has it sunk so low? (Not that it, arguably, was very high to begin with.) The answer is, I believe, that people are, for some reason, willing to accept complete and utter crap in this genre more than any other. The eighties was especially bad with fifty thousand shitty Friday the 13th rip-offs. (Not forgetting the movie was a rip-off itself), complete with no name actors who couldn't act, or maybe they could and it was so hard to tell and the dialogue was so appalling that no-one cared. Who cares if the dialog is good? Who cares if the actors can act? Who cares if the plot makes any sense whatsoever and isn't a rehash that completely contradicts the first movie altogether, the dumbass public will still lap this shit up and we'll rake in the proceeds.

We also get stuff like Hellraiser, which was a really original idea, and a good, if heavily flawed, especially in the special effects department, movie. The studios missed the point and with the exception of Part 2, almost all the sequels sucked. Trust the studios to not get it.

I'll say a small amount on the torture movies. I think the first Saw (Haven't actually seen the sequels) was pretty decent as the scenario was pretty well set up and it had a nice atmosphere throughout. I've seen better but I've seen far far worse. Hostel on the other hand was a complete piece of crap. Eli Roth seemingly wanted to copy the brilliance of Takashi Miike's 'Audition' (There's a movie you should check out). He however completly failed in this task by making the protagonists so annoying that you honestly couldn't care less if they died in the most painful of ways. The movie lacks in so many ways that I won't go into right now because that would take another post. Maybe in the future.

Maybe what horror really needs is the independents. People willing to take a risk. Give us something with some imagination. Don't go over the same old shit time and time again. Maybe what it really needs is for the public to stop accepting the total shit the horror genre is giving us. I wouldn't wait for that to happen anytime soon.

The best horror is actually happening in movies that aren't primarily labled as horror. Maybe those are the movies we should be turning our attention to, maybe they can save us from this dreck.