Shadowlord (27th Feb 2008 22:18)

I agree with you completely. Right after I rendered it I though that that was stupid of me. I don't even know why I did it in the first place

DavidLittlefield (27th Feb 2008 21:50)

I'd just like to add a quick note to expand on SketchWork's post: Unless it is absolutely necessary for your shot (or for your personal style), avoid zooming in enough for the audience to realize the camera is zooming in. By this I mean, sometimes if you zoom in your camera slightly and quite slow, the audience may believe the camera itself is simply moving forward instead of getting zoomed. Have a shot zoom in randomly, as yours did, automatically gives of a stench of amateurism. I didn't mean this really as an attack, just a helpful hint. Others may not agree with my opinion, but I've read this in a few film-guide-books, and as far as I can tell, this is the case. Overall however, this film does seem to have more potential than others I've seen. There is more of a variety in shots than I'm used to seeing in these types of early movies. Try harder next time... you'll be amazed at the results!

SketchWork (27th Feb 2008 14:24)

This isn't really as bad as some may have mentioned. It isn't a masterpiece, but it is a good attempt. Some points from me:

• Some strange zooming near the end.
• Titling was pretty bad and went over the letterbox (black portion at the top and bottom).
• Sound sync was slightly off.
• My biggest complaint is that you didn't use a tripod and this resulted in some very shakey footage.