Making Movies

[Enjo]

Now I'm an extreme example for sure, but most people need some amount of fantasy to stay sane.

If you're saying that lack of fantasy would make apparently sane persons go postal and do more kills than those who are already influenced by it, then I'm starting to get the point :lol:

Yes. That's why you don't let the input get one-sided. Being well familiar with the concept of fiction is a great protection against falling victim to propaganda.
(...)
If we can't get out of reality and make stuff up every once in a while, we start to go crazy.

This is something different than what Thorsten states - he is absolutely sure that there's no correlation between exposure to input and output. Where's the doubt here by the way?

Generally people who want to make others think a certain way tend to sacrifice the science based on the notion that the ends justifies the means - like I argue Dawkins does in his book, and like you do here by trying to use anecdotal evidence to make a point which can't be made with real evidence.

I'm sorry, but a claim that magic depicted in fiction widely encourages belief in magic in reality is bollocks and not backed up by any science - and you know it. It's actually much more akin to voodoo - you do a depiction of something, and it somehow affects reality equally well.

So if you're absolutely sure that that there's no correlation, it would be 100% safe to perform the following experiment: I'd lock you in a room without windows for exactly the same number of years as you've lived and I'd feed you with fiction 24/7 and afterwards we'd check how you behave outside. If you want to increase statistical significance we could prepare such rooms for your family and friends. You know best how to convince them that the experiment is safe.

Whether it is particularly useful or constructive to bring your general dislike of fiction into any thread dealing with fiction is another matter... After all, people who do not like Orbiter for instance can just stay away from this forum - they don't have to register here to let everyone know they don't like it :lol:

It's exactly as useful as you crippling my and Keith's Orbiter projects, so let's make it clear: you're not welcome in my threads either.
[EDIT] and at least our project had to do something with Orbiter.

 

[jedidia]

If you're saying that lack of fantasy would make apparently sane persons go postal and do more kills than those who are already influenced by it, then I'm starting to get the point

That is in fact exactly what I'm saying. "Going postal" is of course the far end, most people would just generally get more depressed. I myself came close to a nervous breakdown after the birth of our twins, because nothing snaps the shackles of reality on you more solidly than two little buggers that need constant watching. Without copious amounts of stress at work, this would probably have taken on a form of temporary depression, but with the additional pressure I basically felt imprisoned with no way out. Playing games, watching movies and coding ye olde IMS provided a window to a free world and the occasional reprieve from constantly feeling responsibility, panic and frustration.

This is something different than what Thorsten states - he is absolutely sure that there's no correlation between exposure to input and output.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Of course what we consumes influences us. The core business of entertainment and art is to produce emotions, and producing emotions is a form of manipulation. The thing with fiction is that it's straight-up telling us that it's going to do that, so we can properly contextualise that influence, or even avoid it if we don't want it. That's why "genres" are a thing. At the bottom level, they just describe which kind of emotions a particular piece of fiction will be trying to evoke, so we can more easily choose what emotions we want to expose ourselves to at the moment.

I think what Thorsten is saying is that there is no correlation between consuming certain types of media and direct action taken as a result of that, a statement with which I agree.

It's exactly as useful as you crippling my and Keith's Orbiter projects, so let's make it clear: you're not welcome in my threads either.

Ohhhh-key, so there's some history involved here that I don't know about... Maybe talking about that would be more productive than attacking a probably unrelated concept as a proxy. Also, a forum probably isn't the right place for such a talk.

 

[Thorsten]

So if you're absolutely sure that that there's no correlation

Red herring alert - I didn't say that.

Asking people to prove the non-existence of a phenomenon is something that's pretty much impossible (which is why it's a favourite technique of conspiracy theorists to ask for such proof).

I've said that there's no tangible evidence for such a correlation, and hence there no reason to believe in your claim. That assessment might change once there is evidence found.

(The fallacy is that it doesn't suddenly become reasonable to believe something because it can't be ruled out 100% - generally we rule out things by confidence level, i.e. a high probability for the non-existence usually does the job).

It's exactly as useful as you crippling my and Keith's Orbiter projects, so let's make it clear: you're not welcome in my threads either.

For the record - I can't recall crippling anyone's projects (why on Earth would I want that?) - it seems like another baseless claim.

I do recall suggesting a certain approach (numerical fitting of trajectories) to an orbital targeting problem, then politely retracting myself from the thread as you turned out not to be interested and later demonstrating that my approach is absolutely feasible and in fact very powerful with my LEO targeting software package.

I'm sorry if you felt so offended by me presenting that idea that you feel still upset after more than a year.

And, in case this needs to be spelled out: It's not my thread, it's just a thread I started, I don't own it and I don't judge whether what's said is appropriate - that's a moderator job - but for what it's worth, if you have anything constructive to contribute, be it critique or encouragement - you're welcome any time as far as I am concerned.

and at least our project had to do something with Orbiter.

Yeah - it's Brighton lounge - says its for 'General off-topic discussions' - stuff which have something to do with Orbiter goes elsewhere.



Edit:

Since I just happen to come across it, here's a fitting statement from science:

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

Taken together, the findings of the present study show that an extensive game intervention over the course of 2 months did not reveal any specific changes in aggression, empathy, interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs, depressivity, anxiety or executive control functions; neither in comparison to an active control group that played a non-violent video game nor to a passive control group.

People seem to get that GTA is a fictional video game...

 

[Enjo]

That is in fact exactly what I'm saying. "Going postal" is of course the far end, most people would just generally get more depressed. I myself came close to a nervous breakdown after the birth of our twins, because nothing snaps the shackles of reality on you more solidly than two little buggers that need constant watching. Without copious amounts of stress at work, this would probably have taken on a form of temporary depression, but with the additional pressure I basically felt imprisoned with no way out. Playing games, watching movies and coding ye olde IMS provided a window to a free world and the occasional reprieve from constantly feeling responsibility, panic and frustration.

I'm sorry to hear this sad story. I've had two breakdowns, so I know what you're talking about.

I think what Thorsten is saying is that there is no correlation between consuming certain types of media and direct action taken as a result of that, a statement with which I agree.

People seem to get that GTA is a fictional video game...

Even though, I still disagree. I remember as a child when I was overdosing Heroes of Might and Magic, I started imagining my schoolmates with unit count bars, after which I erased the game. There could be a direct action taken if I didn't erase it. No research is going to disapprove my experience. At least for me.

Ohhhh-key, so there's some history involved here that I don't know about... Maybe talking about that would be more productive than attacking a probably unrelated concept as a proxy. Also, a forum probably isn't the right place for such a talk.

If there was no history behind it, I would just keep my mouth shut, because I don't find this activity worthwhile, especially since I have big money to make for my customers every day.

For the record - I can't recall crippling anyone's projects (why on Earth would I want that?) - it seems like another baseless claim.

Baseless for you. You'd want to do that to prove that you're smarter than the rest and you've done this by bragging how smart theoretical physicist you are, how many influential codes you wrote, implying that I'm inferior and I should bow down to you. This was anything but polite.
And that PhD title bragging I find especially annoying, as the main reason I didn't graduate my PhD was that I had to feed my family, together with a disabled child I adopted (read: HUGE costs). I've had everything setup and was really encouraged by my supervisor but the reality didn't allow for it.

So if you've had something to contribute to my and Keith's project, some working code would work better than bragging and showing superiority. Since you've proven that your concept works and you GPLed it, hat off, but it shows that you're not a good team player - a feature which is strongly desired in the IT sector.


So next time, please be polite - we all have feelings. Some have thicker skins, some don't. Some wouldn't take it personally if you pissed on their face, and some will remember for a lifetime.

Have fun with your movie, even though I don't like the genre.

 

[Thorsten]

No research is going to disapprove my experience. At least for me.

That is an entriely fine attitude and I can live with that (in fact, it's an attitude I take myself at times arguing that there are limits to science) - but you do realize that Dawkins would group you with the enemies of reason then? Because that's precisely what the proponents of, say, homeopathy are also arguing.

You'd want to do that to prove that you're smarter than the rest and you've done this by bragging how smart theoretical physicist you are, how many influential codes you wrote, implying that I'm inferior and I should bow down to you.

I can't really keep you from assuming whatever you like about my motivation - even when I say I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way, you might assume that I don't really mean that I am sorry but just pretend to be - but you know, my real motivation might just have been that I happened to have a good solution to your problem in mind because I have a training in theoretical physics and perhaps see the shape of math things easier because of that and that I generally think sharing ideas is what this forum is about.

If you go through my posts here, you'll find that a fair share is about answering questions or suggesting ideas for people to try, so there was nothing exceptional in your case going on.

And I actually actively dislike people bowing to me - I've always encouraged my postdocs to disagree with me and not take what I say for gospel.

So if you've had something to contribute to my and Keith's project, some working code would work better than bragging and showing superiority.

I don't really disagree with code being better than just an idea, unfortunately my time at that point was somewhat limited, so I couldn't code anything.

Since you've proven that your concept works and you GPLed it, hat off, but it shows that you're not a good team player - a feature which is strongly desired in the IT sector.

*shrugs*

I'm one of the developers of Flightgear - that's a software project with a dozen core contributors and many more content developers. All volunteers, so you can't simply order people to do something - all needs to be discussed and people need to be convinced, or nothing happens.

Generally it's often rough going because we spend far more time discussing what we do not like than what we like... But, well, it does say something about my team ability...

So next time, please be polite - we all have feelings.

As I said - I'm sorry you took my suggestion in the wrong light and felt offended - my real intention was to offer an idea, and as soon as it became apparent that this was not wanted, I removed myself from the thread.

That's all there is to it.

Edit:

And that PhD title bragging I find especially annoying

I fear you grossly misunderstood that one...

It's just presenting credentials - and I think it's somewhat important these days. There's no shortage in the internet of people claiming to know this or that - unfortunately not all of them do. So looking at their background is one way (though not the only one) of assessing what they say.

If, say, I make a statement about the Space Shuttle you can't immediately check and that sounds wrong to you - would it make a difference to you if you knew I had my knowledge from working in the Shuttle program, or from reading through the NASA documents, or from playing a Shuttle sim?

If I tell you something about linguistics - would you want to know that I'm not a trained linguist, but that it's just my hobby?

Actually, I would like to know these things. I would really like to verify each and everything that's claimed individually, but the day is only so long, so we have to take a lot of information on faith, and I at least usually give much more weight to the aerospace engineers than to the simulator pilots.

So that's the reason for this - I'm not Spaceboy2001 who claims all sorts of interesting but unverifiable things - I'm here with my real name, you can google what I do in public, you can read up what I publish, you can access my code repositories if you want to make up your mind whether to trust what I say or not.

 

[Xyon]

OF Staff Note: Though this is the Brighton lounge, please make every effort to keep threads on-topic (and to have civil discussions). Where possible, please settle disputes and differences in private.

 

[Enjo]

Not to make it any longer, let's say that I overreacted and learned something new.

 

[Thorsten]

Back to the topic...

Something I woefully underestimated before getting into the details - the soundscape:

This is how a 2:30 minutes (relatively simple) scene is finally composed - that's over 50 different files contributing. The first row contains all the different cuts of the video stream with the sound recorded on the set, the second row the ambience sounds, the third row is the foley layer containing enhanced sound effects to augment what's been recorded on site and the final layer is the spoken voice clips recorded separately, post-processed and moved to the correct stereo position (replacing the voices on set).

It took me a while to figure out how to get precise enough sync between lip movement and the later sound recordings, but now it's okay within less than 0.1 s - and the advantage of the technique is that if we want to run in a different language, all we need to do is record the last row again with native speakers of a different language and render the project again.

 

[boogabooga]

What language will the movie be in?

I mean, what language was it shot in?

 

[Thorsten]

It's shot in German and there'll be English, French and Finnish subtitle sets - so far the volunteers are in place. If we manage to draft enough locals, we can produce a Finnish spoken version as well.

It'd be cool to have an English spoken version, but it relies on finding volunteers for the task... Maybe some day...

 

[Thorsten]

Just finished 'movie making week' - 9 scenes in four days is hard work, tons of details to consider. But at least the weather played along, we had fine weather throughout.

Here's a little behind the scenes impression - Siofra in front of her hut, chiding Treasa, Rathnait and Una for being in the way while everyone is working - while assistant takes a picture of camera and director watching the scene.

(This wasn't uncomfortably cold, but for some good cam angles one has to lie down into the snow, hence the overalls are simply practical...)

 

[Thorsten]

Here's our second teaser, composed of lots of stuff we took during movie-making week - picturing among other things) how we imagine life in the village to be like:


[ame="https://youtu.be/5DsNNoX-tLE"]Cliodhna - the witch of Gleann an Phéine teaser[/ame]

This contains plenty of material which will appear in the second episode (planned to appear late summer).

 

[Thorsten]

I've started to collect a Behind the scenes feature for people who are curious about how the movie is made and enjoy hear a few side stories.

 

[Thorsten]

We are pretty much done with the first episode - it's almost 30 minutes long, and the official release date will be May 11th (at which point the YouTube version will be accessible as well)

Currently I'm preparing the DVD edition - here's some previews on the menu artwork:

As part of that, we're assembling the subtitle sets. Currently we have English, French and Finnish - so at this point a call for volunteers: if anyone wants to see his native language added we'd very much welcome the contribution!

It'd be about 1-2 hours of translation work (we have the annotated English master file which explains context and intended style of the dialogs and this needs to be rendered line by line into a different language. We then take care of the actual timing information for the subtitles.

If you feel that'd be interesting, please get in touch - we plan to throw in a free DVD for contributors as a 'thank you'.

(We also have the option to produce the audio tracks in different languages - but this needs a team of native speakers being able to record mp3s halfway in sync with lip movements which is not quite as easy - but if anyone is interested in doing that, we'll be happy to handle the technicalities from the point where we have voice recordings...)

 

[Thorsten]

And, after a lot of work, the first episode 'Blood in the Snow' is now public (the YouTube edition is German spoken with English subtitles).

Take half an hour and enjoy!

[ame=https://youtu.be/lVKKp6cuc34]Cliodhna Episode 1[/ame]

 

[Thorsten]

For those of you who are into this, Katharina has started a Facebook page where you can follow our work. Or, if you prefer something more old-fashioned, there's always our newsletter.

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

And some impressions from the shooting of Cliodhna III - Storm Reach - Cliodhna and Rordan climbing towards the summit of the Storm Reach mountain

Yes, we more or less actually did this - I have some experience rock climbing, so we went right into things with a makeshift rope harness and the camera and had a rather adventurous (and somewhat exhausting) movie-making session.

 

[4throck]

This is a positive and I hope respectful criticism of Ep I

Some sequences seem to take too long and are not focused on what you are trying to tell.

For example, going through the woods at 2:19, it cuts to a similar take to what was seen...
Then we see the wolf's vision but it's a bit distant and nothing happens.
The guy is moving away. Then the wolf goes for him...
It's confusing because you show that the guy was closer to the wolf, moved away, and then was chased.

Around 10:20 if goes between two points of view and it's a bit of confusion.
We seem to see the footprints before she does.



For dialog / acting, you should also edit around the weakest visual parts. Avoid having the same person in camera for too long.


I find some of the zooming a bit distracting. I'd very much prefer some wide angle establishing shots. With your natural scenario, those will work great. You have some on the opening.


In general, try to make all images beautiful and unique.
This is very hard to do, but it's the key to keep the audience interested.
For example, the shots around 21:31 are nice, the light is really good.
But that forest seems a bit like any other, the interior of the cabin needs something more.
Perhaps more interesting lighting or something.


All this is (I hope) respectful and positive and just my opinion towards technical aspects.
By all means keep doing it as it is and have fun with it!

 

[Thorsten]

This is a positive and I hope respectful criticism of Ep I

That it is.

Some sequences seem to take too long and are not focused on what you are trying to tell.

The aesthetics has changed quite a bit over the years - certainly mainstream Hollywood productions are cut in a very fast way and long walking through the forest would be completely unthinkable.

Yet, looking at older movies (even black and white age), such sequences are much more common. So what we're trying to tell is sometimes just 'look at that enchanted nature!' - one of our goals is to create a slow, almost meditative feel (especially to magic).

For dialog / acting, you should also edit around the weakest visual parts. Avoid having the same person in camera for too long.

Geez, this is usually cut in < 10 second intervals - Katharina tends to step on my toes whenever someone is shown for more than that and requires that I cut to a different stream.

At times I feel this is too hectic - yet you'd still cut faster?

It's confusing because you show that the guy was closer to the wolf, moved away, and then was chased.

Interesting you'd perceive it that way. The wolf gave chase because the man turned and ran - that's not outrageously unusual for a predator to do.

I find some of the zooming a bit distracting. I'd very much prefer some wide angle establishing shots. With your natural scenario, those will work great.

I agree, but they're among the most expensive ones to do (adding the mountain background isn't that easy unfortunately - especially if there's people in the scene). We are actually trying to do a bit more of that now for the next episodes.

Still learning the tools...

But that forest seems a bit like any other, the interior of the cabin needs something more.

Simply put, that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. We'd much like to show e.g. better interior shots, for which we'd need more stuff to equip the interior with in the first place. Same with additional lighting equipment which costs money - for which we need to sell a few DVDs.

Sadly, movie-making isn't like 3d rendering where ingenuity and persistence gets you nearly anywhere - here things cost actual real money and we keep running into things we know we could do better with a larger budget.

 

[4throck]

You did what you thought was best with the resources you had!
No need to justify!


Regarding dialogue, here's a good example of editing from a fanedit:

Editing make a big difference. They remove the worse parts of the performance, buy you lose nothing.
This is what I mean by cutting to reactions, alternate takes, and keeping to the point of the scene

 

[Thorsten]

I wonder if I may presume upon your patience somewhat more (it's a rare opportunity to get to view something through someone else's eyes in meaningful detail).

Even after the Star Wars clip and sleeping it over, I'm still unsure about what you're trying to tell me with regard to editing.

Here's what we do: Each scene is recorded about a dozen times (good takes that is, i.e. not counting obvious outtakes) - typically in full length from five different camera angles, the rest are detail shots and closeups for specific parts of the scene.

When cutting the scene, I sort out unsuitable material (sometimes there's equipment visible which shouldn't be there, sometimes there's continuity issues) which gives me 2-3 'good' streams for every part of the scene (sometimes less - which is annoying if we can't easily re-do the take due to availability of actors, weather or season).

I then sit with Katharina and we discuss what stream/closeup is to be used for every bit and for how long. For example, when Cliodhna talks to the cat, we might have a wide-angle shot showing her and the cat, a shot of the cat or a shot of her face talking, and we discuss what fits best.

What you see is the result of this procedure, so I'm not quite sure what extra editing you may have in mind (and, well, none of us are professional actors, so even the best take we may have doesn't come close to what Jodie Foster can do on a bad day...)

***

In the Star Wars edit, I see something differently being done - this seems to me to be about how a story is told.

I've been a story-teller for practically all my life (and I'd rate that to define me before anything else...), and I've learned that there's at least four different ways to organize this.

1) You just tell the story, with every element supporting the plot

(in Fantasy, I guess the Narnia novels are close to that - 'Watchtower' from the Tornor chronicles is probably the purest example, but I gather not that well known).

2) You embroider the story by adding details which are irrelevant to it, but give a glimpse of the world around

(Lord of the Rings would be a prime example)

3) You have multiple plots intertwined, such that it is hard to tell what *the* plot actually is

('Game of Thrones' or 'Wheel of Time' exemplify this nicely)

4) You don't really have so much of a plot, rather the story paints a sequence of impressions which are the main thing

('Ghormenghast' is probably the clearest example I can come up with)

Different readers like different things - personally I grow warmest with 2), but I can appreciate 4) if it is really well-done, though generally 4) isn't overly popular.

Due to limited time, most movies naturally gravitate to 1), there's few (like LOTR) which manage to drift into 2) at the expense of being 8+ hours long. Serials sometimes manage to do 3) over the course of many seasons, 4) isn't really popular with audiences, but e.g. '2001 Space Odyssey' might fall a bit into this class.

What I see in the Star Wars edit is that the fan pushed the scene away from 2) closer to 1) - he removed details irrelevant to the plot. Since I personally prefer 2ish stories, I like the original work actually better than the edit (I'd probably still have added to the scene if I'd have all material available).

Point being, I see different concepts of story-telling at work here, but one isn't necessarily better or worse than the other.