Joe90 said you were seeking feedback from the judges in this thread. Most don't know it, but the original version of this film had to be edited at the eleventh hour to bring it into complicance with a competition rule that each film have mostly IL-2 video. My comments below are about the version submitted for the competition, although I think the longer original should be the one people watch now that the competition is over. The original has additional tank video.
First off, I enjoyed the technical achievements of this film a lot. But as with the critiques I've written for the other films, I'm mostly focusing on ideas for how you might have done some things differently. Whether you agree or not with the comments, this is merely food for thought, and I hope you view it as that and nothing more. Diving right in...
At 00:53, you used a dissolve to compress time a little, however, in this case I am wondering if a straight cut to a different shot (maybe a cockpit POV shot looking off to the side) and then back to either the 00:54 point or the next shot at 00:59 would have looked better.
Clearly there are a number of challenges to combining live-action actors with a virtual world. Understanding that, at 00:59, your actor (I know it's really just you) directing traffic on the runway was standing in front of the Tempest's wing, then at 01:02 he is suddenly off to the side of the runway. This results in a jump cut (a cut that calls unwanted attention to itself). This could be avoided by showing the actor taking a step to his right in the outgoing shot and then stepping from the left into his new position in the incoming shot. A rule of thumb to keep in mind is to cut from one shot to the next on a moment of action, meaning make your cuts at a point in the video where someone or something on the screen is moving or something is happening (an explosion, for instance).
You have a great variety of camera angles at the start when showing us the Tempest prepping for take off. However, when we transition to the tank, the camera suddenly seems nailed down in one spot. The first four shots of the tank commander are all from essentially the exact same angle, albeit with varying levels of zoom. There's a general guideline that says not to put two shots back to back when their angle on the subject changes by less than about 30 degrees. I've seen exceptions to that guideline in Hollywood films, and I think you could make such an exception with your first two shots of the Tiger commander. Going from a closeup of him with the binoculars to a longer shot showing him on the tank--both from the same angle--works just fine. It's when you then take us back in closer--and at the same angle--on the third shot that the camera starts to feel nailed down. The feeling grows with the fourth shot from that angle. A different angle for the third shot, maybe about 60 degrees to the side, would have broken that up better.
Of course, changing angles with a real camera requires a new camera setup (although with a greenscreen, basically you're just changing the actor's position relative to the camera), and"”as you've discovered"”creating a new setup with a real camera requires more time and effort than it does using the in-game camera. I'm sure that was the reason we got so many shots from the same angle. Unfortuantely, if you're going to go with live action, you're going to have to pay more of a price than just the cost of equipment and costumes. Welcome to the world of live-action filmmaking.
The shots of the tank at 02:58, 03:01 and 03:06 are all from the same angle, too. The cut at 03:06 is a jump cut--the tank in the same position but the turret is not, which really calls attention to the cut. Note that a similar editing technique was used in "Special Delivery" when Lazarus introduces the aircraft carrier by having it come right at the viewer with a string of jump cuts. However, it was used intentionally in that case and worked to good effect, so it can be done when you have a particular goal in mind like that, but, normally, you want to avoid jump cuts.
I didn't think the slowmo shot of the tank firing at 03:15 achieved the desired effect. If there were a lot of suspense leading up to a big kill shot at that point, then a slowmo shot would have worked well there. But in the context of this scene, it looks a little out of place and unnecessary.
The shot at 03:22 looks nice with the camera push-in, but what exactly are we looking at there? The commander is inside the tank, and all we really see is part of the turret. I went back and paused that part and then noticed there are two little holes in the turret. Is the commander supposed to be looking out those holes? You've already established the tank's 'inside' view as the horizontal slot, so the holes didn't register as possible peep holes until I went back and paused it. The following shot shows a 'single' scope POV, so that didn't clue me in immediately either. Anyway, I would have pushed in on the horizontal slit instead, or established better that those holes were there and what they were for. Maybe zooming in closer on them would do the trick.
The fade to black at 03:42 worked well to transition us to a different scene with the Tempest. You might have tried a dissolve at 04:03 instead of another fade to black since the camera was still staying with the plane.
Having the final shot of the film be of the burning Tiger sort of puts the film's emphasis on the tank (and the original version of the film did focus more on the tank in terms of screen time). If the emphasis was intended to be on the Tempest, then I think the final shot should have been on the Tempest flying off after destroying the tank. Perhaps the best final shot would have been to show a smoldering tank in the foreground with the Tempest passing overhead and flying off into the background of the shot. That way both subjects share the final frame.
A question we all had was whether you created the CGI model of the Tiger tank or not. It's certainly impressive if you did, so great job with your modeling.
I just read through Joe90's and Doolittle's comments as well as your own. Obviously, there are differing views on whether live action enhances or detracts from IL-2 films, and there may be more discussion about that down the road. You clearly understand the challenges of using human actors, too. Actors aren't just lined up at your door at all hours to work for you for free like CGI models, and to get acceptable results requires an investment in decent video/sound equipment and costumes. While the results you achived here aren't perfect, they're quite good under the circumstances. There are still challenges you haven't tackled yet (recording live actors speaking dialogue, for one), but I would like to see more of your work as you continue to perfect your techniques. Best of luck on the next one.
I'd suggest that you start a new thread in this MM Forum for your movie, even if you consider it only a "test" platform...A discussion of it would be interesting and perhaps helpful or educational for us all. Keeping the "Tempest Tank Attack" movie and your "White 11" movie separate will avoid confusion.Originally posted by wolfbics:
....I've been trying the concept of using other game animated characters and scenes to tell the story with mixed results.
.....I've ended up with something that's half IL-2 and half ArmA, not exactly what we're talking about here but a test for story telling purposes, kind of works....maybe
http://bics.blip.tv/file/1150448/
I look forward to making some comments on your movie, as will others I am sure.
Doolittle,
I've removed my post so that the totally inept dont get "confused".
What you haven't included in your quote is the first part of the message where I'm talking directly to Biltongbru about animated figures etc, not to you or anyone else, he has seen some of the movie already.
The example posted is in keeping with previous posts on animated figures, it was posted in this thread because I specifically dont want a discussion or critique on it as a movie but on use of game characters, and it wont be posted in a seperate thread.
This is not Hijacking a thread but an discussion about enhancing IL-2 movies by other means, I honestly dont need this crap from someone who hijacked every thread to talk about the Il-2 movie competition.
and take the rest of that quote down so there's no link to it
I didn't mention the word hijacking at all, nor even imply it. In fact, I see nothing in my post critical of you or your post or your movie in any way. I simply suggested that a separate thread would allow more focussed comments on your test movie.Originally posted by wolfbics:
Doolittle,
I've removed my post so that the totally inept dont get "confused"...
....This is not Hijacking a thread but an discussion about enhancing IL-2 movies by other means, I honestly don't need this crap from someone who hijacked every thread to talk about the Il-2 movie competition.
...
There are separate threads for several of the movies entered into the Flight Sim competition...threads begun by those who are open to hopefully helpful suggestions and objective critiques. It was deemed that such a series of threads would help keep the critiques organized and focused. Biltongbru asked that critiques of his movie be put here in this thread which already existed, rather than a new one....and the first of several expected critiques has already been posted.
You obviously don't want any comments, at all, on your test movie, so forget my suggestion that you establish a separate thread. It was offered with the best of intentions. Since you had posted a link to your movie here in the public thread, rather than in a PM to Biltongbru, I certainly didn't realize that you meant your post to be read only by Biltongbru...and in that regard, I would not consider myself "inept".
Meanwhile, with regard to the Movie Competition I didn't hijack threads...I started several new threads as time went on to keep interested people updated. Many appreciated it...and it kept the Competition visible on the front page of Forums (UBI and others) to encourage new people to enter the Competition over time....and later to actively encourage viewing and voting by the Community. You chose neither to compete nor to vote...so be it.
What you had, and still seem to have, against the Competition is unknown to me...you were even sent special invitations, encouraging you to participate, based on your demonstrated movie-making skills.
Doolittle,
OK, it's a misunderstanding but sometimes your manner can come over as quite dismissive and what I read was "you may want to post this elsewhere, which may or may not be educational" also not addressing the poster by their user name seems odd to me, I've been here a year. I'll admit the whole new thread "critique my movie" thing I've seen recently puzzled me but now you have explained it's part of the movie competition, which I dont actually have anything against other than some slight overkill. I did'nt vote because I only got around to watching this movie and haven't seen anything else either in the competition or out. I dont exactly visit here on a daily basis, and never entered because if I live to a million and one I'll never enter any competition on anything, it's a personal thing. Other than that I was already making two movies.
On reflection I maybe should'nt have posted a link to a movie featuring game characters in this thread but it was meant as an illustration as there were comments in previous posts as to what x+y might look like, I did make my own critique comments of biltong's movie early in the thread, although movie threads have deviated into CGI discussions and the like in the past, now I understand this competition critique thing so I'll shut up.
Wolf, I saw that clip before you took it down. Some of us here might be able to learn from that example - it was very well done.
What you have done with ArmA, what Biltonbru has done with real humans, what Blackace has done with Moviestorm - all these are good examples that many of us can take a lead from, as well as biltongbru.
I am certainly interested in the distant future in playing with these techniques, and I'll be picking your brains on ArmA.
Would you mind putting the clip up again for those reasons? Not to comment on your movie per se, but to discuss the options. It would be better in a fresh thread so as not to get too off topic on Biltongbru's critique.
No worries if you don't want to, it's your movie after all. There will be other opportunities to throw some examples together. I am really interested in everyone's thoughts on what will or will not work.
Hi GL2
Your knowledge in film making is phenomenal!Thanks for your time and valued feedback, even getting to the smallest of detail! I do appreciate this. As for your tips I buy in at all of them and will see to improve on that with my next movie (not in the near future!)
I am pleased that you did not realize that the tank was a scale model filmed and blue screened onto the COD scenery....so it means to me that the blending (angles, sizing, color, etc) was good enough for you to think it could be CGI.A question we all had was whether you created the CGI model of the Tiger tank or not. It's certainly impressive if you did, so great job with your modeling.
The 2 holes in the turret where the zoom is happening are the gunner's sight where at the inside the gunner only has the circular view. So technically it is correct but it is clear that my intension of introducing the gunner's cross-hair view with this outside zoom did not work. I think the value of an independent person who does a review on the finished movie is demonstrated in this case.The shot at 03:22 looks nice with the camera push-in, but what exactly are we looking at there? The commander is inside the tank, and all we really see is part of the turret. I went back and paused that part and then noticed there are two little holes in the turret. Is the commander supposed to be looking out those holes? You've already established the tank's 'inside' view as the horizontal slot, so the holes didn't register as possible peep holes until I went back and paused it. The following shot shows a 'single' scope POV, so that didn't clue me in immediately either. Anyway, I would have pushed in on the horizontal slit instead, or established better that those holes were there and what they were for. Maybe zooming in closer on them would do the trick.
Again thanks!!
(Are you involved in the film industry?)