Thanks. Only the Canon 24-70mm f2.8

Very promising to see such good images off of that lens. Great work!

Nice work!

Great color grade!

That would be another cool title for the short

I did actually replace the title right now. Thanks

Thanks. Van Trier is a great director, some of his work has definitely been an influence.

Hättet ihr sie berlinern lassen, hätte es eher 'nen Dresen-Vibe ;) Super Film. Toll, dass ihr echte (und sehr gute!) Schauspieler für den Reallife-Test genommen habt!

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 :-)

Thanks Kiel!
The mic the soundguy used was a $2200 Schoeps cmit5u.
bhpho.to/A9Jbr9

see above

This. It was distasteful to watch and a 'test' doesn't excuse the lazy angles and framing.

The Scarlet looked good, but is not worth the money in my opinion. I would feel cheated paying that much for something that is just the bits and pieces of an Epic-M. I'll stick to my 5D2 until the Canon C comes out.

Frank, I think it's a more actor-driven, than director-driven kind of filmmaking. Look at the moment when he takes her hands just before he tell's her the truth. If the director would have changed angles or something he would have put to much emphasis on himself and his direction. By just following the actors instead, the moment gets very authentic.

And intense! Really good actor :D

Yeah, well maybe, just not my cup of tea. There is a reason why New Cinema, Nouvelle Vague, Dogma or whatever they call it the next time always failed badly in acceptance at the majority of the audience - but hey, rules are there to be broken and to each his own.

Are you saying that dogma films 'fail' because they don't entertain the majority of the audience? What on earth is that supposed to mean? I see you do wedding videos. And you've done a commercial for a local hairdresser. How would you rate your efforts in those genres? Are you entertaining the 'majority of the audience'? What are you aiming at exactly? Many awful, predictable films entertain the 'majority of the audience' - doesn't say much about the level of innovation or quality. I don't see much innovation in your work. Possibly aiming at a broad spectrum of the audience - but the risk is that you'll never be remembered for anything.

In any case, the point of this short was to take a look at the Scarlet. Well done Sebastian for getting some footage out so we can all have a look at it and make our own assessments on the quality of the footage via the web.

Are you saying that dogma films 'fail' because they don't entertain the majority of the audience?"

That´s exactly what I´m saying.

Normal film making is all about entertaining the audience. Period. Entertainment is a service you provide as filmmaker.

What´s the point of making a film if only a few artsy people want to see it? This is a business, so you serve what they asking for. If you are really good at it, you can give them what they did not even know they wanted it.

Everything else is an art with very little audience. If that floats your boat, why not.

But most Dogma films IMHO lack craftsmanship (to say the least), story structure and are depressing or flat out boring to death.
Even Amblin is almost unwatchable.

For the record: I did exactly ONE wedding video in my life and that was for my brother in law.

I wouldn't say, Dogma or Avant-garde films lack anything. They should just be regarded as art whereas lots of Hollywood stuff is pure entertainement. No big problem, we just should not confound those 2 things. I have friends who say, they go to cinema "to relax" or "to see this sweet looking actor", well, that's not was cinema means to me.

Frank, I don't quite understand what 'normal' filmmaking is supposed to refer to - any more than 'normal' cooking, or 'normal' paintings. There are different audiences and films serve them in many different ways. Such as the Mcdonalds business model you put forward for producing films for mass consumption, and many other forms that invariably influence mass media once the impact of the art has been understood. in any case, many 'normal' i.e. commercial films fail to entertain - because the stories are safe, flat, rehashed and unimaginative. What's the point of making a film if only a few people want to see it? Because...if the film is original in some way, it may exert some influence over the way those people see their lives. Nothing wrong with that. High art has filtered into mass media for many years. There may be aspects of craft and art that escape you (or me). It would be very sad if artists stopped experimenting with film and only served up mass entertainment.

Another thing: business often stifles filmmaking - because, producers prioritise return on investment over originality. It's a game of numbers, as you point out - but the audience often gets served up the same bland mass produced Mcdonalds-style entertainment.

The Dardenne Brothers, Lars Von Trier, the late John Cassavetes and Terrence Malick could all learn a thing or two from Frank.

A director should never say the piece is "actor driven" and then not expect the happy accidents to be reproduced in another take. Pointing out what works is what the director is there to do. If you are experimenting with actors as a director and let them improv blocking and use the space you are clearly saying you trust your actors to be strong and professional, meaning they can do a second take and recreate for your additional angle.

I love body stabilized (shoulder mount & steadicam), but it should be fluid and further immerse you in the action. Give us something from the performer's eyeline if following dialogue or grab inserts or interesting angles.

And for everyone marveling at the performance of the Canon glass and wondering if it will support 4k/5k, just remember the megapixel race Canon supports which far exceeds anything we'll be doing with motion cameras for the foreseeable future.

Jeez Frank. Do you buy art from Starbucks too?

I hate to rain on your parade Frank but I don't think all European films are poor and I think your comments are a little rude and frankly (no pun intended) unhelpful. Please don´t take that personally, I don´t mean to insult you, it´s just my opinion.

Its a good test for how the camera works in an overcast environment, especially winter. It's a cool test, turned short film, which makes it not just about charts and numbers. Not to mention there was a good color program involved. I'd actually like to see how this footage looks projected, which would let the full image quality come through.
As for a short film-
I think there were moments of performance we missed, we stayed profile and didn't look into her eyes when we hear the news. There's a great pain and good emotions to capture and we stay so third person, so I never feel I'm with a character I just see a couple coming apart. There are moments when we do see into the face and it's great, but there are few. (2:55, 3:00, 3:23 ) I'm not anti the handheld but it does make me wonder how it would feel if parts were not hand held...that's just a thought. I think there are moments it does call attention to itself. What I assume is her story, but we stay with him in the end, so we have a point of view shift. And the last frame, if intended, the car break lights go on, and he turns and is looking. The assumption of this visual language is that I'm now thinking she's stopped and after the cut returns to pick him up....which would be shocking after she heard such terrible news. unless its just an image holding for a little too long....But I think what mostly I was unhappy about was most of the shots we are not seeing their faces when such truthful performances being provided to photograph.(example- the snow is falling on her face and we hold on a profile as she starts to break down 1:13) I think their are some shots in here that allow for great images (his hands trying to reach hers) and besides the 180deg breaks(some of them I'm fine with, the one at the car I'm not.) , it's an ok shot short, and I think the performances carry well enough, but my crticism of angle of choice is to just help the performances be more powerful visually.
I don't think it has to be positive to entertain. I sat through it all and I was concerned for her. I'd disagree movies are not just entertainment value alone...good strong story (which this has) is incredibly important. And I'd say it is entertainment. It doesn't have to end positive, but I as an audience member, should feel resolution. Her driving away leaving him was perfect. (the tail lights are what i question as a choice.)
But it's a test turned short film, so it's a good start. Good stuff for three hours time. And I agree with Richard, above, glad you went out to shoot something, because that is the proper way to get it right. Bravo. Oh and I love the color pallette and location. Again good job.

Frank, you should just stfu instead of saying such ignorant crap. I don't mean to insult you, it's just my opinion.

Oh, impressing post Tran.
Do you also have something to say, or is that all to convince me?

I read your first comment Frank, and I admire your honesty. To many people shy away and don't give valuable feedback or just say something is "shit". How can a film maker get better at his craft if he isn't told his short comings?

Having said that I'd have to disagree with your criticisms. I really liked the jump cuts and the really long shots. I loved the way the camera followed the couple like you're being lead by the hand and forced to view this uncomfortable scene. It made it more real for me. I'd disagree that a locked off shot with a long lens would look better, only give you a different experience.

I personally hate tripods. I'm not saying that I hate films if they're NOT hand held. I just think that the movement hand held gives you breathes life into a shot that I find aesthetically pleasing.

But as you also said above; each to their own.

On the flip side of this, look at movies like Skyline. Made just to appeal to the masses on massive budgets with huge technical production values and often horribly... shit... films. Then Look at The Office which (although a series not a film) is handheld overkill and one of the most successful comedies of all time.

Ps. Scarlet-Shmarlet! I effing love this short regardless of it being a test and what camera it was shot with. It moved me. Well done dude!

Also! How amazing that it starts hailing just as he is telling her that he is seeing someone else. DARK! Was that just luck or did you have a mate throw some gravel at them? ;)

Nice to see different opinions Frank, but I couldn't disagree with you more. The choice (and yes I am sure it was a conscious choice) brings the viewer into this exchange in a way that a locked off camera never could. In what insane world do you live in that not using a tripod makes a film-maker a lazy/non-professional? A world where artificial production value makes a film interesting to watch?

You really should take a step back and look at the big picture if these types of things are your concern.

could not agree more!!!

Carol Reed directed The Third Man!

LOL, I´m German. So I guess, I know a thing or two about European culture.

Every audience, no mater if European or American, wants to be entertained. If you go to the theater, you want forget the world and your problems. You want an uplift, thrill or a good laugh, but not to come out of the cinema and slit your wrists.

Your first duty as a filmmaker IMHO is, to give the audience what they want, not what you want, or what you think they have to like. You shall be a servant to the people not a self important artist, that does his films to overcome his bad childhood.

Look at the European film landscape. You have WWII flicks and lousy comedies, that barley make enough money and than you have some artsy films, that run in special theaters, but only a hand full of people cares to see them. Look at the box office numbers and you know what I mean. And this is not about money in the first place. It is about to serve the audience.

So why is that?

It´s a bit like DJs. A lot of them think thei are elite, cause they only play very rare stuff. They don´t care if nobody is on the dace floor, they just do "their thing". That´s arrogant and self important. Their job is to keep people dancing and happy, instead of play songs that are rare cause nobody ever liked them. They are servants.

There is nothing wrong with going new ways, braking rules or doing your thing. But if nobody wants to see your thing, maybe it´s because it is actually not that great as you think.

Let´s talk some Lars von Trier and Antichrist for example.
Costs 11 Millions to make and made a whooping $791,867 worldwide at the box office.

Looks like he was not willing or able to serve the people, but did "his thing" instead.

It´s a bit like DJs. A lot of them think thei are elite, cause they only play very rare stuff.

Frank - To be a Dj is to move the crowd and if you are good you can move them with rare grooves. Dj, should break new songs at the same time make them happy as you say. Stand out as someone that introduce new music and styles. Otherwice you can put a Jukebox at the Dj booth. Same goes with the film industry.

In regards to Franks post I just have to say i completely disagree about making films to serve the audience or to appease the masses. You might not see film as an art form but I do, I think film should be used to explore the human condition, evoke emotion and spark new ideas or change preexisting ones. If I can convey that to one person than I am happy rather than have a million people watching my film and coming out unchanged. art has never been about serving the masses/ entertainment
But to each his own.

Well, to each his own Ariel.

Of course there are plenty of poor American films; you probably don't get to see them. Many experimental artsy films, plenty of poor comedies, plenty of narcissistic egocentric directors in the US so I don't think one can polarize the debate in such simplistic terms (European filmscape vs. the American filmscape).

I think you're overestimating the altruism of US film producers - they're generally trying to serve their own bank balances - not their audiences. Doesn't always work out. Films can be particularly bland when the ingredients are all calculated very precisely to cater for the audience.

I think it's a mistake to think of "entertainment" as solely a trait of comedies and thrillers. And I don't think movies are all about escapism either. As Emeric Pressberger wrote: “No artist believes in escapism. And we secretly believe that no audience does. We have proved, at any rate, that they will pay to see the truth, for no other reason than her nakedness.”

Great comments James and vivante. The best producers find the ballence between art and commerce. there wouldn't be anything new or different if we all did the same thing.

Thanks Diane,
You can see a rough before /after in the article: cinema5d.com/news/?p=9431
There was not much grading involved, but much correction. Details in shadows and highlights and a blue/green/brown look with accurate skin color was my goal. The red lights of the car at the end were tracked and colorized.

Seems that RED causes much stress on people ;-)

Because they don't have the money to pay great actors or their friends did not study acting :)

I'd say non-actors provide better performances than trained ones personally... And I have Alonso, Rossellini, Kiarostami, Bresson, Serra, Pasolini and others on my side ;)

I've seen great performances by non-actors, but I disagree with this statement, and I have about 10,000 shorts films as evidence on my side ;)

Something that is compelling to you may not be compelling to the next person...

That's what I was thinking! What's the quote the kid uses in Super 8? Production Value!

I know not everybody believes it, but since you've put it this way I must note that I was praying a lot for his help on this short. The bible changed my life and not only this film.

The rain coming in at that time was perfect Sebastian! Very cool that "fate" was on your side that day.

The mic the soundguy used was a $2200 Schoeps cmit5u.
bhpho.to/A9Jbr9

Big :O)

Amen!