GTA 5 movie "Sicarius". I guarantee this movie will amaze you.

[gavlar]

You read the title If not, i will personally buy a hat and eat it.

Joking aside, this took a LOT of work to create, and i just want to thank everyone who showed their support and made this happen!

 

Sicarius is a continuation of the Forza 5 chase movies, and is set in GTA V, three years after the previous films, bringing hollywood style CGI and editing into the gaming community. The film continues the story of our hero, who is being hunted by a mysterious yet powerful organisation. He has since moved on, yet he cannot escape his past life.

 

 

 

Ok, here's my $0.02:

This took a LOT of work to create, I wanted this to be the best damn action movie set in a game that you watch today, which took many man hours to create. So thanks for all the support from everyone who supported me and showed interest! From friends to subscribers and forum members, you guys made this happen! so again, a huge thank you to everyone!

Edited June 3, 2015 by gavlar

[SiN-13x]

http://gtaforums.com/topic/782614-the-editor-showcase/

[undeadpolice]

You should have use ultra settings on the graphics,

Don't worry about the FPS as Most youtube users still watch it on 30 FPS.

[gavlar]

You should have use ultra settings on the graphics,

Don't worry about the FPS as Most youtube users still watch it on 30 FPS.

Thanks for the reply! I May do for future vids, tbh I was just playing with the settings it came standard with. I know my pc can go much further. In rockstar editor it renders them anyways so no matter what happens, the output file will have the same fps (whereas recording is real-time), plus it does bump the settings up (apart from textures obvs) when you render. you can have it at 60fps or 30fps, but for a film i felt 60fps was unneccesary as it isn't gameplay. 60fps looked strange for a movie, it was overly smooth in the fast scenes and looked slightly non film like. 30fps is a lot more punchy. Plus, movies are at 23.97fps anyways, so 60fps would have looked strange. it would (and when tested, it did) dilute the intensity of the scenes. they looked more like bad cutscenes than movie clips. Another reason is that YT has a 2gb limit for uploads, and i wouldn't have been able to squeeze it down that far with double the frames. Video compression is a frigging art, and I'm not YIFY haha. Plus the editor compresses to mp4 which sometimes leaves artifiacts anyways, so having to lower bitrate again would definately impact quality.

Edited June 3, 2015 by gavlar

[Sveittjpong]

you can have it at 60fps or 30fps, but for a film i felt 60fps was unneccesary as it isn't gameplay. 60fps looked strange for a movie, it was overly smooth in the fast scenes and looked slightly non film like. 30fps is a lot more punchy. Plus, movies are at 23.97fps anyways, so 60fps would have looked strange.

 

"Too smooth"

 

[gavlar]

 

you can have it at 60fps or 30fps, but for a film i felt 60fps was unneccesary as it isn't gameplay. 60fps looked strange for a movie, it was overly smooth in the fast scenes and looked slightly non film like. 30fps is a lot more punchy. Plus, movies are at 23.97fps anyways, so 60fps would have looked strange.

 

"Too smooth"

 

 

hahaha. To see what i mean, watch a film then watch a game custcene from like saints row or something. Noticed how somehow the cutscene just doesn't have that same intensity? for example, the hits just don't have the same impact, and you get the impression that they've tried to create that sense of panic, but it doesn't quite have the same effect?

 

Removing frames is sometimes a deliberate technique in film-making. It really can add intensity,

[Sveittjpong]

I understand what you mean, and for movies like The Hobbit where there's a huge mix of rendered and real-life footage, i can see 24fps being better. It kind of hides the digital trickery they have done and makes everything appear a little less fake.

But for 100% rendered footage, 60fps will always look the best if you ask me, 30fps just becomes blurry. I watched your movie and i think it would look a lot better in 60fps.

Also, for driving scenes, put it to 5% slow motion after the vehicle has passed and let it go for another second/half a second, that way you get less intense camera switching, unless of course that's what you were going for, but it looked a bit weird to me.

And i think its obvious, but the entire internet is offended by everything these days, so yeah;
Not hating, constructively criticizing!

[gavlar]

I understand what you mean, and for movies like The Hobbit where there's a huge mix of rendered and real-life footage, i can see 24fps being better. It kind of hides the digital trickery they have done and makes everything appear a little less fake.

 

But for 100% rendered footage, 60fps will always look the best if you ask me, 30fps just becomes blurry. I watched your movie and i think it would look a lot better in 60fps.

 

Also, for driving scenes, put it to 5% slow motion after the vehicle has passed and let it go for another second/half a second, that way you get less intense camera switching, unless of course that's what you were going for, but it looked a bit weird to me.

 

And i think its obvious, but the entire internet is offended by everything these days, so yeah;

Not hating, constructively criticizing!

The 5% idea sounds great. I'll try it. and i know right haha. This one guy wrote me an essay in the comments about his feelings for my pc. I keep forgetting that everyone on the internet is 100% correct, has a PC from NASA and a doctorate in life experience. I am so naive

[gavlar]

I understand what you mean, and for movies like The Hobbit where there's a huge mix of rendered and real-life footage, i can see 24fps being better. It kind of hides the digital trickery they have done and makes everything appear a little less fake.

 

But for 100% rendered footage, 60fps will always look the best if you ask me, 30fps just becomes blurry. I watched your movie and i think it would look a lot better in 60fps.

 

Also, for driving scenes, put it to 5% slow motion after the vehicle has passed and let it go for another second/half a second, that way you get less intense camera switching, unless of course that's what you were going for, but it looked a bit weird to me.

 

And i think its obvious, but the entire internet is offended by everything these days, so yeah;

Not hating, constructively criticizing!

Also, to see what i mean, watch saving private ryan. they have a 45/90 degree shutter which gives this "staccato effect" - it adds incredible drama to the film. The problem is, gamers who tend to be sharp when it comes to recognising low fps, may see this as lag etc. In war films it is used quite effectively. Some action films do go for smoothness, to add to the slickness, however sometimes this can make things look either not as believable or not as intense. Usually this is films that aren't 100% serious or that have comedy, like This is war or a comedy spy movie.

 

Anyways i really appreciate you sharing your 2 cents man!