Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/8/2005, 10:11 AM

Great article! Thanks for sharing that.

Getting all those licenses nailed down could cost a small fortune. I sincerely hope that's not the case, though. It would be a shame for this piece to get shut down due to exorbitant licensing fees.


Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2005, 10:17 AM
I kinda don't think it will...Dreamworks apparently holds the rights, and Spielberg is at least a third of Dreamworks, and he's very much into this project.
Laurence wrote on 11/8/2005, 2:50 PM
What is that cool looking light panel shown during the Richard Dryfuss interview?

Also, I thought the comment "We'll probably go 24p so as to be able to fit it all on the DVD" was kind of interesting.
winrockpost wrote on 11/8/2005, 3:06 PM
"We'll probably go 24p so as to be able to fit it all on the DVD"




Yuck !
RalphM wrote on 11/8/2005, 3:07 PM
The article talks about the impact of JAWS. My personal memory of that impact was that after the movie came out, I was snorkeling in about four feet of water at a beach in Hawaii.

Suddenly I felt a very substantial yank on one of my swim fins. I suspect I rose several feet out of the water as I spun around to see what had grabbed me.

There stood a local kid about chest deep in the water. He pointed to the beach and said "Hey Mistah - you wife want you!".

Good thing I didn't pollute the ocean - my wife couldn't understand how I could be so grouchy on such a lovely day at the beach...
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2005, 3:19 PM
I believe the soft box you see there is just a Photoflex 1K/large box. Sure looks like it, and we've got a gruntload of them.

Winrock, have you converted any 60i to 24p in Vegas 6? Very respectable. And given that you gain another 20-25% on the DVD, it's a great way to go.
winrockpost wrote on 11/8/2005, 3:27 PM
No, not with V6, but many with 5, and have shot or been given at least 50 ,24 p tapes. 49 of which sucked.

I think its just a preference thing,, I just dont like it, i always think it jumps /jitters. but of course that may just be me. : )
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2005, 3:37 PM
For most acquisition, I'm not a fan of 24p either. Delivery is a whole different story. Additionally, V6 converts 60i to 24p very, very nicely.
But I'm in agreement with you, lots of 24p acquired stuff looks bad, not because of the format but because of how people shoot with it.
Laurence wrote on 11/9/2005, 6:49 PM
For 24p delivery, do I need to convert all the clips individually, or can I just render to 24p from a 60i project?
DavidMcKnight wrote on 11/9/2005, 8:28 PM
GET OUT!!!!!

I am a HUGE fan of Jaws - it was one of my rites of passage when it came out. This is embarrasingly exciting!
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/9/2005, 9:22 PM
Just render to 24p from a 60i project. That's it. You'll be surprised, I suspect. Particularly if you have some motion to look at. manually step thru frames, it's sweet.
PeterWright wrote on 11/9/2005, 10:27 PM
Great article Spot.

An interesting aspect was that they used the Z1's in-camera downconvert to DV at capture time.

Since they're talking about film out, wouldn't they have got better results with a final product in HDV, or another HD format?
Cheno wrote on 11/10/2005, 7:02 AM
This is going to be a great doc on the making of JAWS. My first experience with the Z1 in fact was facilitaing one of the interviews on this DVD. My good friend growing up (who I got into filmmaking with) directed a short film loosely based on the haps with the broken shark called "Courage and Stupidity", actually the first short film to be available on Netflix for rental - shameless plug.

I have yet to see the interview snippets we shot on the site but nonetheless, was a pleasure being involved in this production.

Great article, Spot and so nice to see what will be a great doc done with Vegas.

cheno
Paul_Holmes wrote on 11/10/2005, 1:03 PM
(Thread within thread) :)

Having done a lot of 24p in v4 and now in v6 I second what Douglas says: 24p in Vegas 6 is a huge, huge improvement over the past. Very smooth, not jittery. Whatever processing they apply to it in 6 makes it totally watchable and subtle. Now it's more the film "feeling" rather than that kind of Super 8 18 fps jerky look that I used to get..
Laurence wrote on 11/13/2005, 9:17 PM
I'm seeing a lot of double and triple images when I render 24p this way. Is that the way it is supposed to be?
Edward wrote on 11/14/2005, 8:42 PM
Great article Spot.
Hope to see you at NAB.
My wife n I are takin' our vacation then.

first time gamblers too... hmm, maybe we'll get lucky... (in gambling... we got lucky the other way three kids ago...)