succesfull projects shot in FULL dv

[mekhael trepanier]

i hope my title was clear enough

 

but im wondering if anyone can start up a list of movies/ films that were made relaesed and are now being sold that were shot in 100% DV whatever camera just DV... preferably without a mini 35 if you happen to know or not...

 

just wanting to get some ideas by watching as to what the final outcomes can be

 

thanks ahead of time

 

and also if there are links for purchase would be cool too

[David Mullen ASC]

Off the top of my head...

 

There are all the Indigent movies: Pieces of April, Tadpole, Personal Velocity, November

 

Also: 28 Days Later (with a little film at the end), The Chateau, The Idiots, The Celebration, Chelsea Walls, Full Frontal, Dancer in the Dark, Chuck and Buck, The Puffy Chair (in some theaters right now)

 

Most of these predate 24P DV cameras though except for November.

[Dan Goulder]

Two of the most successful (profitable, wide release) dramatic features shot in DV would be Open Water and 28 Days later. Open Water in particular was notable for the fact that everthing was shot by a 2-man crew, one of which was also the director and editor, with Sony mini-dv cameras. I believe a third person was brought in to do the scoring. It ended up on 2,700 screens, doing 52 million worldwide. The theatrical film out looked pretty decent, too. So, it's not impossible...

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

My friend and longtime AC shot a feature coming out in theaters called PUSH. It was shot on a DVX100 with a Mini35 adaptor. Check it out on IMDb.

[Luke Prendergast]

I rather liked 'The Anniversary Party' on DVD, didn't see it projected. The look was not at all obtrusive or innapropriate.

[David Mullen ASC]

I rather liked 'The Anniversary Party' on DVD, didn't see it projected. The look was not at all obtrusive or innapropriate.

 

That was shot with the PAL 16x9 DSR-500 DVCAM I believe. I think most of "24 Hour Party People" was shot with a similar camera. Those are DV movies... but with pro cameras with larger CCD's and interchangeable lenses. There have been some nice-looking PAL Digital Betacam movies too, like "Italian for Beginners" and "Buena Vista Social Club".

 

And of course the DVC-PRO movies like Paul Reiser's "The Thing About My Folks" and James Franco's "The Ape" using the Panasonic 24P/480 SDX900 ("The Ape" used some DVX100 footage too.) But the SDX900 is on a much higher plane, quality-wise, than the DVX100.

[Rod Otaviano]

"The Lonesome Jim" (2005) and "Sorry, Haters" (2005) are coming to DVD in August. Both shot on a DVX100.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385056/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425600/

[Guest]

Man these guys amaze me, both movies may be DV but they both have name talent in them.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385056/

 

This one has Liv Tyler.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425600/

 

This one has Sandra Oh.

 

I wonder how they pulled that off? They got their scripts to these actors and they decided to do it based on the artistic merits? Or they used DV and put all the money into paying actors rather than spending it on 35mm and the huge costs associated with it?

 

Either way, good for them.

 

R,

[mekhael trepanier]

Two of the most successful (profitable, wide release) dramatic features shot in DV would be Open Water and 28 Days later. Open Water in particular was notable for the fact that everthing was shot by a 2-man crew, one of which was also the director and editor, with Sony mini-dv cameras. I believe a third person was brought in to do the scoring. It ended up on 2,700 screens, doing 52 million worldwide. The theatrical film out looked pretty decent, too. So, it's not impossible...

 

 

 

if im understanding this correctly...

 

both those films are shot created with DV cameras and then when all is said and done they take the final product and convert it into 35mm flm so it can shown on the big screen ??

 

is this as simple as taking a master mini DV tape in and paying im assuming alot of money to get it transfered to film... or am i way off...

[Guest]

DV to film transfers are quite expensive, $30,000.00-$50,000.00 depending on length and who does it via what process, etc etc.

 

The thing I don't get about a film like Open Water is that they put the 35mm transfer onto the DVDs. This meant the picture was actually soft and had that DV to film look.

 

For the DVDs why didn't they put the DV version straight to the DVD? It would have looked sharper and cleaner on a TV than the film version.

 

One other point for you....why shoot Mini DV? Why not shoot HDV? The HDV cameras are so cheap now, and will give you double the lines of resolution over standard DV. The B&H Photo site sells used ones dirt cheap, as does ebay. You record onto standard Mini DV tape.

 

This web site has helpful hints for getting DV and HDV onto Film.

 

www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm

 

R,

[Rod Otaviano]

The thing I don't get about a film like Open Water is that they put the 35mm transfer onto the DVDs.

 

Is this a common practice for digital movies ? (what about super 16mm movies? ... I know they did that on "Primer" ... ). I know it's probably a stupid question, but what's the idea behind that ?

 

I saw "November" on DVD and kind of liked that slight grainy texture. Does anybody know if the they put the dv version straight to the DVD or used the 35mm transfer ?

Edited July 12, 2006 by Rodrigo Otaviano

[Guest]

Well Primer was 16mm as you point out. So the film would need to be transfered to tape first, then the tape transfer would go to DVD. Standard practice for movies shot on film.

 

My point was that of you shoot on DV, then put the DV version to DVD, it will look better than the DV to 35mm and back to tape version.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on your definition of "better" -- sharper and cleaner, yes, but some filmmakers use the telecine of the film transfer instead of the original SD interlaced-photography as a very expensive "film look" filtering... Not necessary if they had shot in 24P SD or HD in the first place; most of those movies use the original video master for DVD, not a telecine. But for 60i/50i photography, some people feel it looks too "raw" in the original.

[Rod Otaviano]

Well Primer was 16mm as you point out. So the film would need to be transfered to tape first, then the tape transfer would go to DVD. Standard practice for movies shot on film.

 

Yeah I know but I think I've seen somewhere that in Primer, the DVD version originated from the 35mm transfer (maybe I'm mistaken here ...). So I didn't understand why they would do that if they could "simply" transfer from the tape straight to DVD.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know how "Primer" was posted, but assuming an optical printer blow-up to 35mm, odds are high that the original 16mm negative was spliced either in A-B "checkerboard" rolls or single-strand with frame handles on each side of the cut. Either would be difficult and dangerous to retransfer to video at that point.

 

At that point, you'd make a color-timed 16mm IP from the negative and then an optical printer blow-up to a 35mm IN. Or go directly from the original negative to a 35mm IP.

 

So they may have used either a 16mm IP, 35mm IP, or 35mm IN for the telecine transfer. The 35mm versions would have been made in an optical printer, whereas the 16mm IP would have been made in a contact printer.

 

The original video transfer off of the negative for dailies and NLE cutting were probably too cheap and low-rez for making a good final video master for DVD. Usually dailies transfers are done on older Ranks onto some tape format like Beta-SP. Final video transfers for home video are now usually done to HD-D5 or something, the downconversions to Digital Betacam for NTSC and PAL.

[Guest]

"Yeah I know but I think I've seen somewhere that in Primer, the DVD version originated from the 35mm transfer"

 

OK I see what you're saying, about the 35mm part of the equation. In that case I'm like David I don't know what they did?

 

If it where me and I shot on 16mm, I would use the 16mm to D-Beta or HD transfer for the DVD.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

I did a Super-16 feature where the negative was zero-cut to allow a blow-up directly to a 35mm IP, then an IN to print. So we did the final transfer using this 35mm IP, which was color-timed, had no splices, etc. But since it had been made in an optical printer, some dust had been photographed into the image.

 

But I never got a straight answer from the colorists if they would have preferred to work with a contact-printed Super-16 IP instead of the optically-printed 35mm IP. Using the original negative was out at this point since it was spliced with frame handles.

[Abel Klainbaum]

You also have to check out Barbet Schroeder's Our Lady of the Assassins...

[David Mullen ASC]

You also have to check out Barbet Schroeder's Our Lady of the Assassins...

 

That was shot in 60i/1080 HD though.

[Sean Azze]

Man these guys amaze me, both movies may be DV but they both have name talent in them.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385056/

 

This one has Liv Tyler.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425600/

 

This one has Sandra Oh.

 

I wonder how they pulled that off? They got their scripts to these actors and they decided to do it based on the artistic merits? Or they used DV and put all the money into paying actors rather than spending it on 35mm and the huge costs associated with it?

 

Either way, good for them.

 

R,

 

I don't know enough about Jeff Stanzler to determine if he's got any pull in the industry, but Lonesome Jim was directed by Steve Buscemi. That dude's got enough name recognition and credibility to get some well known people in his films. At the very least Liv Tyler knows him from their work on Armageddon.

[Tim J Durham]

i hope my title was clear enough

 

but im wondering if anyone can start up a list of movies/ films that were made relaesed and are now being sold that were shot in 100% DV whatever camera just DV... preferably without a mini 35 if you happen to know or not...

 

just wanting to get some ideas by watching as to what the final outcomes can be

 

thanks ahead of time

 

and also if there are links for purchase would be cool too

 

Here's a list of films shot with the DVX-100:

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AG-DVX100

 

Canon XL-2:

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:canon%20XL-2

 

XL-1s:

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:canon%20XL-1s

 

XL-1:

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:canon%20XL-1

 

and so on...

[Andy_Alderslade]

Strangely the 'off-beat' look of DV has never made really made it into television drama.

 

I can only think of one exception (and I may have been mis-informed) the very wierd and strange BBC series 'Funland'. The hard, unflatering DV look worked wonderfully well with the garish and sickly design.

 

 

 

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Plenty of DV makes it way into TV reality shows though, just not dramas. Then there was the hybrid reality-drama show "K Street" that Soderberg produced that I think used some DV cameras.

[Josh Bass]

I felt special when I found Wassup Rockers was shot with an XL2. I have an XL2, with the manual lens, so that's nice. I thought the movie looked incredibly sharp for being blown up to a full size screen (at one of the major theaters here in Houston). The colors were sort of flat, but that may have been by design. It looked pretty decent, though. Especially when you think back to Tadpole, 28 Days Later, etc.

[David Mullen ASC]

The colors were sort of flat, but that may have been by design.

 

Well, only in the sense that 4:1:1 DV transferred to film does tend to look rather bland, color-wise, and the compression doesn't handle pushing the chroma very hard in post, so it's best to just live with the color reproduction of DV and make it part of the visual scheme rather than fight it.