Hans Kellner

(sorry, a little late answering for your timeframe) I filmed our short Headshot using the DVX100A and cropped in post for 2:35. You may watch it here: http://www.vizpictures.com/headshot/ I played around with the anamorphic adapter but it was too much of pain to use. We opted instead to shoot 4:3 and use guides on the lcd and monitor for the 2:35 limits.

You might try using one of the newer HID or Halogen bike lights. They are extremely bright and portable. The batteries will last 1.5 or more hours per charge. You could mod a cheap plastic flashlight by stripping out its internals and inserting the bike light. That would give it the look of a normal flashlight. The chord would run up the actor's arm/sleeve to the battery. The batteries are small, easy to carry, and conceal. Here's two companies that make them: http://www.bikelights.com/Products/Products.htm http://www.niterider.com/bike.shtml If you have some cycling friends there's a good chance they have one of these lights. That would give you a chance to test one out and optionally borrow it.

I would highly recommend you read the details of the extended warranty. You would be amazed at what really isn't covered. And many time the coverage is for things that normally have a high life span. Here's some good information about extended warranties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_warranty But, do note the comment in Wikipedia article: "Consumers Union says only two products deserve extended warranty consideration: projection TV's and digital camcorders. Both are expensive to repair and need repairs frequently." I would also check to see if you can get the same or better extended warranty from a 3rd party.

I have a DVX100A and have found it to be a great camera. I've used it for several shorts and it has always come through for me. I have also used the Redrock M2 with it for more of a "film look". But I'm starting to realize that the amount of additional effort/cost that these Mini35 devices add doesn't really benefit the final result. Sure you may get a nice looking image. That is important. But, I've come to believe that the story and acting are the primary concerns. If those are nailed then spending additional for a "cinematic look" is nice. But no matter how nice your image is, if the audience isn't engaged in your story, what will the look matter?

Display your clip in the timeline. Select the single frame you want to export. Then from the menu: File > Export... > Using QuickTime Conversion Select the Still Image format setting. Click the Options button and select the format of the exported image (e.g. jpeg). Click Ok. Then export the image. When you mention getting rid of the "video stuff" do you mean the interlace artifacts?

I use Autodesk Combustion. Powerful but takes a bit of learning to use it. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index...&id=5562397

I have mounted and used my DVX, M2, Zoom Lens, monitor, and battery on my Glidecam 4000 and Smooth Shooter without a problem. Oh, because of the inverted image I had to also use an Israeli Arm and clamp to mount the monitor. This added a bit more weight. Once all was adjusted and balanced it worked rather well. I almost feel it works better with more weight than less.

That reminds me of these 30 second parodies of famous movies: http://www.angryalien.com/ Good examples of telling a complex story in a very short amount of time. But, I don't know how much of that works because of my prior knowledge of the movie(s).

As mentioned above, Discreet Cleaner is available and very nice. I have generated great results with it.

I have shot cycling events with a DVX100a. Shooting interlaced allowed for better capture of objects in motion. It also provided me with the option to produce cleaner slo-motion shots. To mesh the interlaced footage with progressive, I setup the scene file so that many of the settings are the same or similar. It takes some experimenting but you can get to a point where the two types flow together well without obvious changes.

I wonder if your capture problem is as simple as dirty heads? Did you clean the heads of the DSRs before capturing? Sorry to pose such an obvious question. As for using your 102A for capturing, it shouldn't be a problem. It will just add wear and tear to the camera (more hours on the heads). You might also need to clean the heads during the process.

I wouldn't discard the 'crop-it-in-post' option. I have used it several times now with footage from a DVX100a and had fine success. It wasn't a pain at all in post. The shoots were all composed/framed for 16:9 in camera. I taped/marked off the LCD and the external monitor for the correct ratio. Only a few edits adjusted the cropping in post. And it was nice having that option. I have one and the adapter is tricky to use. But many complaints I have read about appear to be just basic usage problems. For example, not knowing how to mount/unmount the lens or not understanding focusing issues. It will require a little more setup time. If you want to use filters you will need a mattebox. Focusing requires finding the margins for horizontal and vertical and adjusting between accordingly. But an anamorphic adapter will provide the best 16:9 resolution on the DVX.

Your friend might be referring to the Redrock M2: http://www.redrockmicro.com/

Not true! Check out this performance review of the 13" macbook and running FCP 5.1: "Contrary to the bizarre rumor, the MacBook can indeed run Final Cut Pro, and it can run it quite well, if these tests are any indication." http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717

Yes, I agree to not attempt to remove saturation in camera. My settings recommendations above are to adjust the image so that the blacks will not appear milky and the image, when desaturated in post, will look good. These settings are based on my experience with the camera and creating B&W in post. But, I may have goofed and been able to create better results :( Will experiment again at some point in time.