Independent Film edited in Vegas...

xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 8:16 AM
Shot this through 2009 with my church and old high school. (my mom's the principal).

I wrote, DP'd, directed, produced, edited...and pretty much everything else. All the actors were volunteer and none had ever acted before. We had a budget of...oh yeah...we didn't. :o)

Was shot on my RED. Edited R3D files natively on the timeline. Worked pretty flawlessly. My computer is a 5 year or so old BOXX with dual 3.2 Xeons...2 GB RAM. I was only able to view it in real time in preview mode, which was a SD resolution. Overall I was happy with the RED+VEGAS experience. There's obviously some tweaking to be done, but even so it allowed me to get my job done. Thanks Vegas! (now lets work on some redrocket support!)

Check out the trailer. (Although, its not really a trailer in the normal since but its close enough. ....Also, also, its a faith based film, so if you have problems with Jesus watch at your own risk.)




PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 8:53 AM
While I don't want disparage anyone or their films, nor do I seek to offend anyone, but I am curious...

When did Faith-Based become a euphemism for Chrstian. Why not just call the film what it is. A Christian film. Rather than taking an underhanded swipe at people who choose a different belief system by implying that those who are not Christians have no faith or their faith is somehow less important.
Editguy43 wrote on 2/8/2010, 8:59 AM
Looks very intense, from what was shown I think it is a well shot piece. How is it going to be released? also when.
OH also that camera is WAY cool would love to be able to see one in person some day.

Just curious you say it was edited in Vegas but you have "made with a mac" on your webpage. Like I said just curious.
xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:06 AM
I don't consider the label "faith based" to be attached only to Christianity (although that's what it has become). It just happens that Christianity is a "faith". Technically I guess we could call all films "faith based" as all films carry and support some worldview. But I see what you're getting at. If you want to get detailed about it..."Christian film" doesn't even cover it either since there are many different denominations within Christianity, or there are groups which call themselves Christians but do not follow Christ's example. I just put that warning up there because last time I put a video up that contained a Jesus reference I offended some people.

Either way, I hope you guys enjoy the trailer.
xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:06 AM
the website was made with mac

We're looking at several different options for release. Ironically, sony is interested in distribution.

jrazz wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:11 AM

I fail to see how what he wrote is "an underhanded swipe" or that it would imply that "those who are not Christians have no faith or their faith is somehow less important".

I think he just chose to use a term to define the category/genre of his film. If he would have used religious would that have been better? Most video hosting sites don't have a category for "christian film" but they do have "religious".

I could be wrong, but I think you are reading into it. Now, if he was quoting the Bible, then I would say you have a fair question as it would definitely view other religions as false.

j razz
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:23 AM

“Faith-based” is referencing faith in Jesus Christ. Christians believe there is neither forgiveness nor salvation in worshiping false gods or following false systems of religion. Regardless of how much faith a person may have in an idol or an animal or some false god or system, none of them have power to forgive, or to resurrect, or to save.

Some people find that offensive, as Brit Hume recently discovered.

PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:24 AM
I am not saying that what xjerx wrote was an underhanded swipe. It's the term itself that I have an issue with... Well that's not right either. It's the term as it's been usurped by a certain group that I have an issue with.

If a film delves into issues of or relating to Christianity, then it should be labeled as a Christian film. This isn't a swipe at Christians or their faith. I would ask the same of a film espousing the principles of Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other "Faith-Based" film.

What I take offense to (and not necessarily in this case) is that the term "faith-based" is NOT being use to apply to films regarding faith. But to films regarding Christianity. Only.

And yes, I am particularly sensitive to this issue at the moment, and for that I apologize to xjerx and the larger audience in general. I understand his disclaimer, and do appreciate it in the tone and context it was offered.
PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:28 AM
Jay, I am aware of the meaning and find it disingenuous.
xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:29 AM
preach on Jay!

No offense taken. I'm understanding to what other people believe (even though I believe they are wrong and that Jesus is the only way ;o)

all that aside...I just want to know what you guys think of the video! :o)

Editguy43 wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:29 AM
That what I thought after I posted the reply :-)
I just want to add that the more projects I see that are made in vegas and are of good quality can only go to show that Vegas is a very capable Editor.
I wish that more of the "mainstream" could see that. So keep up the good work in both your messages and high end editing using Vegas.
Someday I want to make a bigger movie but not really sure how to start a project like that. If you ever have time and would like to I would like to contact you about your process.

Paul B
PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:32 AM
By the way, the trailer looks excellent...
PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:35 AM
What makes you think that the "mainstream" doesn't see it? I've known two filmmakers to produce feature lengths on Vegas. And both of them have had such headaches doing it, I doubt they'd do it that way again.

There are just so many roadblocks Vegas tosses in the way on a large scale project, it's likely just not worth it for many people. Even if they do like the program. I cut in Vegas every week and knowing what I know, there is no CHANCE I'd ever start a feature using it if I had a choice. Doesn't mean it's bad software, or that I am "unaware" of what it can do.

Vegas is the right tool for a number of jobs. But simply the wrong tool for others.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:40 AM

Perrone, I apologize.

That was not directed at you specifically (although I can see how you thought it was). It wasn't my intention to imply that you didn't know the meaning. I was just trying to explain it to anyone who may not fully understand the "why" of it.

jrazz wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:41 AM
It could just be the monitor I am viewing it on at this moment but it looked a little dull color-wise on the indoor shots (when the father was getting alcohol, the gym at the beginning, etc. Of course I realize most of the scenes in the trailer were night shots but the indoor scenes just didn't have the contrast I expected them to have. The outdoor scene in the trailer looked good in that regard.

Overall, it seems like it would be a good story line and the acting was definitely good all things considered (no budget and no professional talent). A lot better than any of the local commercials around here- but that's not saying much :)

Are you still working on CC or is this the finished product?

j razz
xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:52 AM
thanks perrone :o)

CC is still in progress. Although I found that the wmv I made looks fine on some monitors and not good on others. It looks great on my PC...but the minute I transfer it over to my mac (which is my internet computer) it looks dull and darker just like you said. Don't know what thats all about...stupid shifting standards...

Editguy43 wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:55 AM
I understand that Vegas has many limitations for feature films and that it is best suited to the "one man shop", but what I was trying to say is I get tired of people who use FCP, AVID, or even Adobe saying "OH it can't be done in your Vegas.
It is like they are saying it is only a toy to make Home movies with.

As shown here and in other videos it is very capable of High End productions and I would just like it given its justice for being a good if not great Editor.
PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 9:59 AM
It's all about gamma. And it's why looking at video on a PC (or Mac) screen is about the worst method you can use to determine final color.
xjerx wrote on 2/8/2010, 10:08 AM
I didn't find any problems working on a feature through Vegas that made me never want to use it again. Sure there are features that I would love to have built in, but I'm not the boss.

...the video is being graded on pro panasonics...the dullness has more to do with the wmv and less to do with the monitor I think...because the wmv looks wrong on the panasonics as well as the computer monitors...can't figure it out. Do I need to apply a filter on the video to make it compatible with computer color/gamma space before I make the wmv?

PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 10:13 AM
"I didn't find any problems working on a feature through Vegas that made me never want to use it again. Sure there are features that I would love to have built in, but I'm not the boss."

Who did you need to collaborate with? Who did sound mix? Who did color? Who did titling? The answers to those questions will point out why you didn't have problems.

"Do I need to apply a filter on the video to make it compatible with computer color/gamma space before I make the wmv?"

Yes, you do. And it's why I suggest people make a broadcast based master and THEN create deliverables. If you have set scopes and are working to broadcast standards, then you need to apply a studio to computer RGB filter before cutting your online version. Makes all the difference in the world.
PerroneFord wrote on 2/8/2010, 10:15 AM
Ah, I see. Yes, it's a good editor.

That said, yea, I can do stuff in Avid I can't dream of on Vegas. But that doesn't make Vegas bad. There's a reason it costs 4 times as much. There's a reason Avatar was cut on Avid and not Vegas.
busterkeaton wrote on 2/8/2010, 11:10 AM
Actually, I think it was cuz Brit was implying Christians never cheat on their wives.

Interesting to hear that "faith-based" refers to Christian faith only, seeing as how the US government recently started "faith based initiatives" and it's illegal to promote a single faith over another.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/8/2010, 11:17 AM

"Actually, I think it was cuz Brit was implying Christians never cheat on their wives.

No, actually that was not the case and had absolutely nothing to do with "Christians cheating on their wives."

"The extent to which [Tiger] can recover seems to me depends on his faith," Hume said. "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Watch the video and listen.

Regarding church/State:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (U.S. Constitution)

The Government did not "start" any faith-based initiatives, it simply stated that the Government may, in certain circumstances, provide funding to some faith-based initiatives.

busterkeaton wrote on 2/8/2010, 11:39 AM
With regard to Brit, I just don't remember him ever making this appeal to any other figure caught in a scandal. He's never said, "return to your Christian faith" to any one that I know of. It implied that Tiger's religion was at the root of the problem

Regarding Church and State, I agree with what you wrote. However, if 'faith-based' meant solely Christian, then government funding of 'faith based' groups would be illegal. I first heard the term 'faith-based' in regards to government funding. I don't think the term was in common use before that.
ForumAdmin wrote on 2/8/2010, 11:50 AM
Folks, please keep religious opinions and/or judgments out of the discussion, or we will be forced to remove this thread. Thank you for your cooperation.