Mike Donis

Meaning no disrespect, I believe Mr. Kane is incorrect. Check out DVXuser.com to find many people having successfully burned 24P native DVDs.

Tagging a question on though... Would it not highten quality to drop the chroma channels, and only keep the luma? That way, it's essentially an "uncompressed" image file, no channels have compression - when dealing with 4:1:1 video. It would (effectively) make it all 4:4:4, if only in a theoretical sense, no? You'd have no colour, so technically there would be no "1:1" of the ratio, but what you would be left with would be uncompressed, black and white video. ?

I've heard several people say switching brands gave them no problems - but I've also heard the exact opposite. I'd strongly suggest against it - if it *did* clog your camera, you'd be screwed. Not worth the risk IMHO.

I've not heard anyone with particularly bad experiences when sticking to one type of tape - the problems come from mixing and matching wet and dry lubes together. I use the Panasonic MQs now, and used to use Fuji tapes in my DVX, and I haven't had any tape problems.

Right on, good to know :)

? Is it not that much help?

Trying to remember (having seen it once, in it's first run) it very well could have been relatively grainy. At least I don't remember it looking specifically clean :unsure: I havent seen it in a few years now - but I remember it not looking like a glossy film...

I've never used one, but I'm planning to gain access to one (by renting or purchasing) for a low budget feature this summer.

I say that if you are currently attending a formal education institution, you're a student. If you were DoP on a film before, and are pursuing that as your career, you're a DoP. If you're a student who intends to pursue cinematography as his career, you're a student who intends to pursue cinematography as his career.

True enough - but what I was meaning was that while the PAL DVX would be technically even higher quality than the NTSC, is it worth all the hassles (if you're in NTSC territory) when that version will get you results as good as - if not better than - other regular PAL transfers?

I remember them being PD150s as well.

:D I guess I got ahead of myself there...

I'm going with (and in no particular order) The Aviator Kill Bill Volume 2 Merchant of Venice House of Flying Daggers Collateral

I'd say in 24P Advanced, in Thin mode (I'd not worry about "real" vs "apparent" resolution, if it looks good then it'd do the job IMHO), in 24PA you'd end with higher, or at least very similar apparent resolution, than regular 50i video with 576 pixels as the vertical resolution. It's been said that Thin mode gets you an approximate 30% increase in vertical rez. And being 24 frames progressive in nature makes it cleaner in film printing, on top of all that - so specifically if you're in NTSC land already, the NTSC version should be fine. Jan can probably clear up where I've been wrong or misunderstood...

:rolleyes: I won't worry about it if you won't :D B)

You can get DVD players that'll remove the pulldown from telecined material, but most Hollywood DVDs are in fact stored as 23.98fps MPEG2 files on the disc itself. It most definitely is possible for this to be done - even consumer programs such as Vegas or Premiere support 24P native rendering, and DVD programs can indeed burn 24P DVDs, that being the source file having a 23.98fpsMPEG, rather than a telecined master encoded in 60i. I'm sorry that I can't find any "official" documents about it, I haven't the time right now, but check out www.DVXuser.com and find lots of information on how to make 24P DVDs yourself. It is possible for consumers to take control of this higher-quality technology, and I can only give a personal guarantee that Hollywood does the same.

In the price range, I'd definitely go for a DVX. And because you're in NTSC land, I'd go for the NTSC model. The thing is, when shooting in the Thin detail mode, in 24P, you're effectively getting higher resolution than a regular PAL interlaced camera. The PAL DVX is technically proportionately higher in resolution (with the same settings), but you'll be losing all the extra resolution when converting to NTSC. Because odds are you'll be ending up on DVD anyways, I'd save any format conversion hassles and just go with the NTSC version. Not only do you get 24P recording, but you also get 30P and 60i, whereas with a PAL version, you only get 25P and 50i. In NTSC territory, the NTSC version is the easiest, and highest quality way to go. You'd only notice the DVX's PAL/NTSC difference if blowing up to film, and even that difference would be very slight. And the NTSC/DVX/Thin footage would be higher resolution than regular PAL footage anyways. So, for convenience's sake, I'd go NTSC, and not worry about the hassle. Your footage will look great :)

I just saw this film today - I have to agree with David mostly. The cinematography was definitely top notch, though the print I saw didn't seem to suffer from any major digital problems. I simply may have overlooked them. The two/three strip effect was used effectively, but not with too much blatancy that it was distracting. As far as the movie itself goes, I thought that it was engaging, and all the actors gave great performances. One of the top films of the year IMHO.

I didn't like it. I saw it at the TIFF this year, at its Midnight Madness screening - and that definitely helped me "get into" the movie. I felt like I was suffering from insomnia myself! But when it was over, it felt a little... lacking. Nothing specific that I can remember, I'd need a second viewing - but it didn't do it for me as a whole. The cinematography fit the style of the film, and Bale was great (well, as a matter of fact, the whole cast was great). Something just didn't sit right...