Forward Unto Dawn Forums

Forward Unto Dawn Forums => Lobby => Topic started by: Tar Alacrin on January 17, 2012, 03:31:40 PM

Title: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 17, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
It Just released!!!
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?feature=mhee&v=O51Uu_F-T8Q



Op:
Quote
Has anyone else seen the trailor for halo: helljumper?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mN6XnSTO2Y

 Its a live action fan miniseries based off of tobias buckel's short story, dDrt. Its supposed to come out this month sometime, they said that once the trailor hits 510,000 views they will announce the release schedule. Unlike Halo: Faith and Halo: Operation Chastity, this one actually looks like its gonna come out.
Im really excited.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 17, 2012, 03:54:14 PM
Actually, it's based off Buckell's short story "Dirt" from Halo Evolutions. Helljumper the comic was written by Peter David.

I dunno how I feel about it... the problem with all the stuff I've seen from these fan films is they all look the same--and not at all like Halo. High shutter speed, low color, high camera shake, gratuitous lens flares.

If they get it down, however, I will have to be impressed. "Dirt" is a big story, and it's far more ambitious then the rather pathetic script that was Faith.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 17, 2012, 07:32:36 PM
Actually, it's based off Buckell's short story "Dirt" from Halo Evolutions. Helljumper the comic was written by Peter David.

I dunno how I feel about it... the problem with all the stuff I've seen from these fan films is they all look the same--and not at all like Halo. High shutter speed, low color, high camera shake, gratuitous lens flares.

If they get it down, however, I will have to be impressed. "Dirt" is a big story, and it's far more ambitious then the rather pathetic script that was Faith.

Isnt that how the live action stuff bungie did looked like, right? At least, fairly similar.

Yeah, Faith wasnt that good storywise, but i still would have liked to see it get made.

And, whats the problem with high "shutter speed" (im not that smart, so im gonna assume that means frame rate) but, high Frame rate just looks more real, so i like that they did that, because it will, obviously, make the situation seem more realistic. and low color is a result of high frame rate, so that is unavoidable. and high camera shake is a way of making up for low budget effects, so you cant blame them for that. And I, personally, have no problem with lens flares (me and JJ), but a lot of people i know complain about them, so i understand, while at the same time, i just watch the movie, i dont get hung up on effects.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 17, 2012, 08:59:33 PM
Shutter speed is the length of time the shutter is open and exposed to light. To get an exposure you modulate shutter speed and aperture. Cranking up the shutter speed reduces motion blur as you point out, but it shouldn't have any effect on your color saturation--you're compensating for the shutter anyhow, and even if that were the case you could fix it in post. Shutter speed isn't synonymous with frame rate, however--most films you see the frame rate remains at 24 fps, but with the shutter speed set very high the motion blur disappears, resulting in clear but choppy motion. Motion blur is reduced by shooting at 30, 48, 60 fps, but there's actually more frames there so the motion is smooth and clear. I'm assuming that these guys are shooting or downconverting to 24p because that gives things a more filmic look, and you want that--the reason we like Hollywood movies more than soap operas has to do in part with what frame rate they are shot at. There's been some movement to push up Hollywood frame rates in the past--Trumbull's 65mm, 60fps Showscan in the late 70s was one of the first, and Peter Jackson and James Cameron have been talking about going to at least 48 fps for The Hobbit and Avatar 2--whether we'll actually see the Hobbit that way would require your local theatre to invest in 48fps projectors, which is iffy.

Yes, 60fps looks more "lifelike", but as this link (http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html) points out, film is not about aping reality. Your mileage may vary, but I want to tear my eyes out whenever I see films at Walmart with the motion blur removed by the active scan tech on new TVs--"Attack of the Clones" went from a pretty maudlin soap to just a maudlin soap. If you saw your favorite movies done at higher frame rates you might agree with me, you might not.

Back to the colors: The washed-out look is very deliberately chosen--and in these fan films, with minimal set dressing, that sort of look is being done with a quick three-wheel in a NLE or maybe with a dedicated color grading application.

You're definitely right that it's similar to the looks that the live action ads have done, but I think that speaks more to the cynicism of ad agencies and marketing executives--Bungie for better or worse had little control over Halo's marketing (aside from Iris; ILB was another thing farmed out to an ARG company.) But if you compare those trailers to any of the Halo trilogy, it's clear that the latter is far more composed and cinematic in presentation. Reach steps away from that, to its detriment, I think. I'm glad Blomkamp did "District 9" instead of a Halo movie, because I would have gotten really annoyed if we'd seen "camera-on-the-gun" angles like we saw in the former, or just more of the "Landfall" shorts.

Sorry for the windbag answer. :P I think it's good "Faith" bit the dust because I got the sense the creators were fame-seekers, not really dedicated fans who were trying to do Halo justice.

Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 17, 2012, 10:01:34 PM
Geez. Wow.

     Well, to be honest, i did already know about all about the differences between high and low framerat (like how tv is shot at a higher one, 30 fps, i believe), and yeah, most movies wouldnt look as good in a higher framerate, i just didnt know that much about shutter speed.

     Well, im pretty sure that shooting it for a higher framerate/with a higher shutter speed does dull colors, cause the shutter isnt open for as long a time. and im pretty sure that is something that you cant actually fix in post, because, going back to the hobbit, in the production vids they gave us, they show them painting the forest with crazy trippy colors, and WETA digital is probably the biggest special fx company in the world right now, so if they cant do it, a low budget independent film definately cant.
Although, i do think that the low color is definately on purpose.

     As for hollywood shooting in 48 fps, the hobbit is definately being shot in 48 fps (as of the aformentioned video), and if it does require theatre's to invest in higher frame rate projectors (as opposed to just spinning the reel twice as fast, i dont know if that would work) i definately think that if Peter jackson just said "this is how i am releaseing my movie, deal with it", every theatre would immediatly buy one so that they can show the movie, they wouldnt complain that much.

   Yeah, it looks more lifelike, and movies shot for 24 fps would look bad in 48 fps, because they werent meant to be seen at such a high resolution, and movies/shows/soap operas that werent made well would also look bad in high resolution, but a well made movie could look sweet if it was done in 48 fps.

   Is avatar shot? Its like all digital, i never even thought of that.

   And, finally, what is your beef with live action halo stuff? Your just whinging all about all of the live action stuff (whinging! Haha, hey dani, look at that) dont get me wrong, i dont want a halo movie and i agree with your points about halo: faith, but now your going after Landfall and the live action ads! Thats crazy, those were awesome.

There you go, a long winded response to a long winded response :P
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 17, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
I'm not sure what the issue with the projectors is. I imagine that nearly all are digital now, which makes me confused as to what is the limitation to mixed/atypical framerates--hardware, software? The way Jackson was talking about it, it made it seem like it was a big deal.

I'm confused about the shutter speed comment though. You can get odd colors depending on what lights you're using, certainly--fluorescents aren't a steady beam of light and so you can get odd results and a frame that looks different depending on the light cycle (I had to shoot a strobe light once and didn't realize how hard it would be to sync without frame tearing on an interlaced picture... that was fun to fix after the fact.) You will get desaturation (and saturation, vice versa) only by not adjusting the aperture to compensate for the shutter speed.

I have an issue with the cinematography of the live action Halo (which is why I'm whinging in the first place :P), not necessarily the content--my overall point is that no live action Halo has actually meshed with the feel of what we're playing.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 18, 2012, 04:35:48 AM
I'm not sure what the issue with the projectors is. I imagine that nearly all are digital now, which makes me confused as to what is the limitation to mixed/atypical framerates--hardware, software? The way Jackson was talking about it, it made it seem like it was a big deal.

    I'm confused about the shutter speed comment though. You can get odd colors depending on what lights you're using, certainly--fluorescents aren't a steady beam of light and so you can get odd results and a frame that looks different depending on the light cycle (I had to shoot a strobe light once and didn't realize how hard it would be to sync without frame tearing on an interlaced picture... that was fun to fix after the fact.) You will get desaturation (and saturation, vice versa) only by not adjusting the aperture to compensate for the shutter speed.

    I have an issue with the cinematography of the live action Halo (which is why I'm whinging in the first place :P), not necessarily the content--my overall point is that no live action Halo has actually meshed with the feel of what we're playing.

    First off, projectors - Nope, every theatre will have both digital and film in it, film is still at least as popular as digital, if not more so. (its like vinyl vs mp3, no matter how good digital gets, film/vinyl will always be the best quality possible).

     Second, shutterspeed - ?? im confused by your response. I wasnt talking about using lights to get funky colors, im talking about how they paint all the trees really really weird and saturated colors because alot o colors is lost when you shoot at such a high speed.(thats what they say in the video, and thats what i know from experience)

    Third, YOUR Problems - your whinging is giving halo fans a bad namel. stop being so picky. its not a halo game, Its a different medium. Its fan made production, and its non canon. so STOP WHINGING AND ENJOY YOURSELF!!  :P

Also, they just set the release date, first episode's gonna premiere january 26th
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 19, 2012, 02:59:33 AM

    Third, YOUR Problems - your whinging is giving halo fans a bad namel. stop being so picky. its not a halo game, Its a different medium. Its fan made production, and its non canon. so STOP WHINGING AND ENJOY YOURSELF!!  :P

Also, they just set the release date, first episode's gonna premiere january 26th

Ok, you got me started :P

Just because it's a fan production doesn't mean you can't be critical. I'm not going to complain if they don't have the most whiz-bang special effects or whatnot, because that takes lots and lots of cash and equipment, and I don't think you get to be mean about it--if you blew $10 on seeing Transformers 3, you get more dispensation to fly off the handle than a free video. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be critical. Getting pats on the back instead of constructive criticism is doing the people who make these videos a disservice. All I've seen so far is a trailer, so I'm withholding full judgement until the thing's actually out, but they should appreciate that I actually care enough to form a reasoned opinion about it. If it's good, then it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. The shaky-cam and color grading are small portions of that overall grade--I liked District 9 overall :)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 19, 2012, 02:37:01 PM
Ok, you got me started :P

Just because it's a fan production doesn't mean you can't be critical. I'm not going to complain if they don't have the most whiz-bang special effects or whatnot, because that takes lots and lots of cash and equipment, and I don't think you get to be mean about it--if you blew $10 on seeing Transformers 3, you get more dispensation to fly off the handle than a free video. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be critical. Getting pats on the back instead of constructive criticism is doing the people who make these videos a disservice. All I've seen so far is a trailer, so I'm withholding full judgement until the thing's actually out, but they should appreciate that I actually care enough to form a reasoned opinion about it. If it's good, then it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. The shaky-cam and color grading are small portions of that overall grade--I liked District 9 overall :)

I Got your drift (hahaha, another great phrase).

And hey, i loved district 9 too. And i spent my 10 bucks nand saw tranformers 3 and enjoyed it as well.*

* before you start hateing on me, the only reason i liked Transformers 3 was because i didnt spend my money expecting to see a good story or something, i spent my money to see giant robots fighting each other in awesomeness, and it definately delivered.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 19, 2012, 02:43:34 PM
True... Transformers was probably worth the $10 for spectacle, although it was definitely a really odd movie (the wrap the movie up in three minutes of "robots stav each other, guy gets girl, roll credits dammit".

I found it especially hilarious because of how much of the film was supposed to take place in DC yet looked nothing like it :)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Sixftunder on January 19, 2012, 02:50:39 PM
True... Transformers was probably worth the $10 for spectacle, although it was definitely a really odd movie (the wrap the movie up in three minutes of "robots stav each other, guy gets girl, roll credits dammit".

I found it especially hilarious because of how much of the film was supposed to take place in DC yet looked nothing like it :)

As I work in D.C. I had a chance to see the filming of the part that was in DC, but decided not to go (and I haven't seen the movie).

But I heard that the stunt driver in the yellow Camaro that was supposed to be Bumble Bee crashed into a D.C. cop car during filming (the crash was not part of the script/scene). I always found that amusing. :)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 19, 2012, 03:43:30 PM
Well, according to the film DC has skyscrapers (there's one outside Shia's apartment or whatever, and the most egregious thing is they tilt the camera up to catch it--you spent millions on compositors, you couldn't cut out the Detroit or Cleveland building that clearly doesn't belong?)

DC also has a parkway in SE that runs through what looks like a shipping container graveyard (no tall buildings or landmarks to be seen here.) Once again, compositors couldn't be bothered to change the Route signage to something local (I think it's I-39 or something.)

DC is a twenty or thirty minute helicopter ride from Chicago.

The actual DC footage encompasses maybe four minutes and two different locations--the Mall, and then a random street shot, either Constitution or Independence Ave.

I know they screw with cities all the time, but DC is so comparatively distinctive you'd think they would put a little more effort into location and world building.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Sixftunder on January 19, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
Well, according to the film DC has skyscrapers (there's one outside Shia's apartment or whatever, and the most egregious thing is they tilt the camera up to catch it--you spent millions on compositors, you couldn't cut out the Detroit or Cleveland building that clearly doesn't belong?)

DC also has a parkway in SE that runs through what looks like a shipping container graveyard (no tall buildings or landmarks to be seen here.) Once again, compositors couldn't be bothered to change the Route signage to something local (I think it's I-39 or something.)

DC is a twenty or thirty minute helicopter ride from Chicago.

The actual DC footage encompasses maybe four minutes and two different locations--the Mall, and then a random street shot, either Constitution or Independence Ave.

I know they screw with cities all the time, but DC is so comparatively distinctive you'd think they would put a little more effort into location and world building.

Haha, skyscrapers in DC, thats funny. I believe all buildings must be no taller than 8 stories, or something like that, so that the Washington Monument ( I call it the Clinton Monument ;) ) can be seen from any point in DC. Maybe they were trying to encompass Alexandria across the Potomac or something.

I might have to watch this movie just to see the screw ups of DC.

Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 19, 2012, 04:40:23 PM
I've heard that there's actually no flat height limit to any building (or isn't any more), rather it's a function of how big the road you're on is (I think it's something like road width + 20 feet).
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 23, 2012, 04:01:05 AM
     Well, For everyone's edification, By the way, For your information, On another note; the first episode' is gonna premiere on the 26th (im pretty sure?)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 23, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
Yep, looks like. We'll see what's what :P
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 27, 2012, 01:43:57 AM
IT JUST RELEASED, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?feature=mhee&v=O51Uu_F-T8Q

Opening was sick, rest was ok, still really excited for more, overall id give it a thumbs up  :D

DangerousDave, i believe you will probably want to use this thread to whinge now  ;D
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 27, 2012, 04:44:02 AM
Well, it didn't really change my mind. The acting was an obvious issue, and to a degree so was the pacing--they needed more time to let things breath and establish timeskips.

You already know what I think about the visual style :P

Despite its faults, they certainly put a lot of effort into it.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 27, 2012, 05:03:52 AM
Well, it didn't really change my mind. The acting was an obvious issue, and to a degree so was the pacing--they needed more time to let things breath and establish timeskips.

You already know what I think about the visual style :P

Despite its faults, they certainly put a lot of effort into it.
Yeah... Obvious points. Tell us something we dont know

Youre expecting too much, youre like doing the fan-film equivalent of trolling forums for grammer mistakes. Just enjoy the freaking show, laugh at the mistakes, and have a good time.

And I still think the low color communicates the reality of the war better than if it was all bright and colorful

Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on January 28, 2012, 11:57:37 PM
Then we shall forever be in disagreement, locked in pitched and epic battle!

(https://4fur.ru/data/86/57/8657b1bca86ccbd17710968889ca321f.jpg)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on January 29, 2012, 09:50:04 PM
 :o Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! :D :D

Best post in any forum ever!!!
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Slightly Live on February 05, 2012, 12:22:03 PM
As a fan product, it was fantastic. Really enjoyed the first episode.

Critically, it was laughable. Horrible actors, bad dialogue and ropey everything else. Still a million times better than that scam Halo Faith was ever going to be.

But yeah, just enjoy it was a work of fan love and for a fan product, it's bloody great.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Postmortem on February 05, 2012, 02:51:23 PM
As a fan product, it was fantastic. Really enjoyed the first episode.

Critically, it was laughable. Horrible actors, bad dialogue and ropey everything else. Still a million times better than that scam Halo Faith was ever going to be.

But yeah, just enjoy it was a work of fan love and for a fan product, it's bloody great.

This.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on February 05, 2012, 02:58:18 PM
Maybe I should change my avatar :)

(http://greenheritagenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/George_c_scott_as_scrooge.jpg)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on February 17, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
Second ep out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMez_uh5d18

Well... First third sucked... Second third = ok... Last third: not bad :)
 Overall, pretty good I thought. Nice to see more convenient species...

Stop fricking taking off your helmets!!
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Postmortem on February 17, 2012, 04:23:15 PM
Those Jackals were freakin sweet.

But I'm sorry, this kind of had me upset for the rest of the episode:

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/6872/picture2xes.png)

Anyone who's ever held a real rifle knows that there is just something so wrong with this image.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on February 17, 2012, 04:30:58 PM
Going to watch when I've got the time...

EDIT: The Jackals were nice and the sleeping Grunts were good too, but they've got these really stiff and fake looking frontal shots of the Grunts more often--I dunno if that's just bad CG or they tried to use practical mixed with CG and it just didn't work. Maybe it's just a matter of rigging--that stuff's a royal pain to get right, especially for more complicated movement.

I think they made a huge mistake of not using two helmets, one with a clear visor to show their faces. It is annoying that they constantly take off their helmets (also, that you can see their bare necks.)

Urgh, why do you need to put a RED logo at the end of your credits? It's a piss-poor camera overall, stop advertising the tech and just make a good picture.

Done with my complaining for this ep. :)
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on February 17, 2012, 09:06:02 PM
Going to watch when I've got the time...

EDIT: The Jackals were nice and the sleeping Grunts were good too, but they've got these really stiff and fake looking frontal shots of the Grunts more often--I dunno if that's just bad CG or they tried to use practical mixed with CG and it just didn't work. Maybe it's just a matter of rigging--that stuff's a royal pain to get right, especially for more complicated movement.

I think they made a huge mistake of not using two helmets, one with a clear visor to show their faces. It is annoying that they constantly take off their helmets (also, that you can see their bare necks.)

Urgh, why do you need to put a RED logo at the end of your credits? It's a piss-poor camera overall, stop advertising the tech and just make a good picture.

Done with my complaining for this ep. :)


   Hahaha! Yeah, the neck thing was weird, like, even if they just put on a black turtle neck or something so you didn't see skin...
   Stiff grunts.. I dont think you can avoid them without a bigger budget. Although, Landfall's brutes looked awesome, and not stiff at all...
   I'll accept bad acting and low budget CG... But some of the other stuff, like holding the rifle like a retard, taking off the helmets every single shot...

   What do you have against RED cameras?... They aren't that bad of cameras... I mean... I didn't fact check, but I'm pretty sure they are used in real movies often... Right?
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on February 17, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
The Landfall Brutes were WETA. if they couldn't pull off awesome effects, no one would use them. :P

The RED has serious flaws, both in its performance and its workflow. I get annoyed because clueless ad agencies and indie filmmakers have been suckered into thinking RED is something magical and different. It's a camera, not a religion. At least it's better than shooting with DSLRs, but if you threw the amount of cash you spent on either buying or renting a RED rig into effects you could certainly afford less stiff grunts :) (Last time we rented a package it cost $1,500 for a day. The body itself with no lenses, attachments, etc. will set you back at least $30,000.) You can get an arguably better camera for hundreds cheaper and with better workflows (you don't need proprietary storage or to encode everything with RED's own crappy tools.)

TLDR-- The RED is a decent camera, but there are far better ones to use in general, and far better ones to use for an independent/low-budget fan film.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on February 18, 2012, 05:06:25 AM
Oh, I thought landfall was an indie thing, haha
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: DangerousDave on February 18, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Just my rant about cameras. Instead of focusing on actual quality people get sidetracked by names and some sort of "prestige".

I could go into my rant about nonlinear editing programs and how Avid is a piece of crap for crusty Hollywood editors who are too stupid to bother learning anything better, but that's entirely irrelevant at this point. :)

What I do find interesting for Helljumper and other effects-driven shorts like this is that their chosen style makes effects-related things a lot harder to accomplish--you have to motion track all the mattes since the camera is shaking around, etc. If you go for a more cinematic approach the visuals are much easier to accomplish.
Title: Re: Helljumper
Post by: Tar Alacrin on February 18, 2012, 10:07:42 PM
What I do find interesting for Helljumper and other effects-driven shorts like this is that their chosen style makes effects-related things a lot harder to accomplish--you have to motion track all the mattes since the camera is shaking around, etc. If you go for a more cinematic approach the visuals are much easier to accomplish.

Well, most of the shots that they had "bad effects" (ie: the shots with the covenant in them)  were actually pretty steady and not shaky... But having a shaky camera means that what is in the shot doesn't have to look very realistic..