cheesy public television vs. great looking feature

Alvin Pingol · December 22, 2004

I think you're right here. You could probably have a fairly awful lens and it wouldn't matter. It only has to give a 720 x 480 pixel image, which as thing go is pretty poor quality.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AFAIK, 28 Days Later used PAL XL-1's, meaning a slightly better color system and bumped resolution from 480 to 576. Still, though... it's an XL-1. ;)

Sean Morris · December 22, 2004

It is the size of CCD's in pro-sumer cameras that is the main drawback.

I mean honestly how can someone expect an awesome

looking image from a 1/3 3CCD Camera.

All this hype I read in magazines etc..on how a

DVX100A, XL1, PD150 etc.. can "look" like 35mm footage,

is a total load of crap.

Sorry guys but thats my 2cents worth. ;)

Cheers

Sean Morris

Chris Keth · December 22, 2004

AFAIK, 28 Days Later used PAL XL-1's, meaning a slightly better color system and bumped resolution from 480 to 576. Still, though... it's an XL-1. ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MMk, PAL would help that out a little bit.

Of course DV Cam isn't going to look like 35mm. That's not everyone's claim. It can look pretty good, though. The arguments, I think, are usually based in budget comparisons and whether 35mm is "worth it" to low budget filmmakers. They tend to argue that the image quality is more than worth it for what you pay to buy or rent a DV Camera compared to paying for the services of a 35mm camera (and the extra crew that shooting film entails)

I don't think anyone really believes that DV can equal 35mm. I think people argue that it's a 'more bang for your buck' format for indy filmmakers.

Mark Allen · December 22, 2004

I think sometimes there is an obsession over capture format especially for newer producers. It's tied to the fantasy "if I could just shoot a movie like I shoot my home movies... it would be so easy!" But then it looks like a home movie.

Now... Sometimes it's fine and appropriate to shoot DV and I am not going to argue that no movies should have been shot this way - but if you're spending 600k on a movie... it seems a little crazy not to ad the extra 50k and go HD if your movie is a little bit grander and might be served well by the greater look. I guess you could argue why not add another 50k 70k and go with 35mm and a limited shooting ratio... but HD at least puts you into the realm of the feature feel (I know not all projects need this, but most are trying for that).

I've known two filmmakers now who did "cheap DV" movies that ended up with budgets over 200k because they had worked on enough sets to know how movies are made - and to do it how hollywood does it, it costs a lot of money. I mean you still have to have a full crew there if you plan on shooting with any speed at all. You still need great sound.

If someone is shooting DV, I really would hope their entire budget would be under 50k. Not a lot of movies that didn't have a star or star director that was shot on DV that actually got out there on a national level. "Charlotte Sometimes" did, but never really made a profit... it's tough.

Just my 2 cents on that. Summary: People should think about their entire budget before trying to take all the savings on the capture format.

Oh - and just as a point of interest on those 2 DV movies I mentioned - one will actually sell at a small profit - the other one will never sell and has been permanently shelved.

Oh - something else... damn it if I'm not just as guilty as anyone else for thinking that it'd be great if I could shoot a movie as easy as I could shoot a home movie. Damn my hipocricy! :)

David Mullen ASC · December 22, 2004

I had a wannabee producer tell me "I don't know what all of you cinematographers are going to do for work once we have digital movie cameras because then you won't be needed." But she had called me in for a meeting to tell her how to make her DV movies look better!

Annie Wengenroth · December 22, 2004

"Won't be needed"?!?

Blasphemy!

They're just jealous. :P

December 23, 2004

I had a wannabee producer tell me "I don't know what all of you cinematographers are going to do for work once we have digital movie cameras because then you won't be needed." But she had called me in for a meeting to tell her how to make her DV movies look better!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THAT IS HIRALIOUS! :D

December 23, 2004

THAT IS HIRALIOUS! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EVEN MORE FUNNY IS MY SPELLING

David Cox · December 23, 2004

I had a wannabee producer tell me "I don't know what all of you cinematographers are going to do for work once we have digital movie cameras because then you won't be needed." But she had called me in for a meeting to tell her how to make her DV movies look better!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, from a post producer's point of view this is very much like the "I can afford Final Cut Pro therefore I can post" argument. I dare to suggest that there is a little human skill involved in all of this - at least until someone writes the "make it look expensive" plug in!!

Merry Christmas all

Phil Rhodes · December 23, 2004

Hi,

While I largely agree with you, there are certain cases where off the shelf technique can produce good results. One of the best things I've ever shot came off this way - just an R&B-based music video, ring-lit the hell out of it, crushed the blacks and deinterlaced it in post, and it went on to play MTV. No real skill involved in it. What becomes difficult is when you have some huge feature film to do and you can't reach for the standard fast cutting and high saturation...

Phil

Alvin Pingol · December 23, 2004

No real skill involved in it.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it may have seemed that way, but I'd think since you're quite familiar with editing it felt easy for you. Not everyone can cut properly, even if it is something "easy" like a music video. For editors, cutting this type of material could feel like just another quick job. Yet, to those who don't edit, I'm sure they'll say that those who cut videos are really skilled in that field. Similarly, when I play the guitar or piano it comes as second nature, and I don't feel as if I'm putting any "real" skill into it (unless I'm doing something complicated). But to those who don't play an instrument, I appear as skilled when playing even the simplest of chords.

Jonathan Spear · February 15, 2005

(with a grain of salt...)

"Similarly, when I play the guitar or piano it comes as second nature, and I don't feel as if I'm putting any "real" skill into it (unless I'm doing something complicated). But to those who don't play an instrument, I appear as skilled when playing even the simplest of chords."

:huh:

i've been playing guitar for about 12 years now, piano for 5. I have about 8 years of jazz, music theory + improv under my belt, have been in about 5 different bands and played over 50 gigs -- and not a single note goes through my amplifier without me putting 110% "real" skill into it. or a roll of film through my SLR for that matter.

it's that simple.

if you don't feel like you're putting any real skill into your technique (be it filmmaking, music, painting, etc.) there probably isn't any "real" skill there to begin with.

nothing personal by the way, and i know i sound like an arrogent $#@%, but i truly believe that an artist should accept the fact that his/her talent is more than just "second nature". i KNOW i worked my A$$ off practicing guitar at least 5 hours a day...sometimes at the expense of getting a good night's sleep, hanging with my friends, etc.

also, i've spent almost 2 years painfully editing and rewriting a screenplay which may end up as someone's paperweight, and almost 3 years teaching myself photography and cinematography -- while holding two jobs to be able to pay rent and buy/rent gear.

why?

(i don't know)

second nature?

hardly.

besides, who the hell ever said being an artist is a 'good' thing?

i know i'm not the only one here who's been 'blinded' by artistic drive before.

life is not easy for people who constantly need to express themselves...

most professional musicians and amateur filmmakers i've had the pleasure of either working with, learning from or talking to - are ALL kind of nuts on some level (obviously myself included)

to say that the very element that opens your eyes to the REAL world is "second nature", is like admitting the fact that you're nothing more than a hairless monkey that can walk on two legs.

...with a camera.