DVX-100P Feature

Leon Rodriguez · May 21, 2004

This summer I'll shoot a very low budget DV feature with a pair of DVX-100P's. I'm a celluloid dinosaur. I usually shoot in film so I've never used this camera before and have only begun to research it. Consequently, I'm getting a bit nervous. Great Script, Cool director, I sense good performances. Anyway, I'm asking myself, "After this little picture is edited and posted, is the result even able to be blown up and scanned to a 35mm print?" Any input? Is this comparable to digi-beta or DVC Pro 50? Or is this more like an XL-1s? Has anyone ever blown-up to a 35mm print capturing on this set of 1/3" CCD camera? If so how was the grain? How did it look? Any input as to what I'm likely to encounter? What lenses and support are available? (rentable?) What tests would you recomend to get a feel for the limits of this camera? Gray Towel, test? Principle photography kicks off July 10th so I've got a bit of homework time. All input welcomed and appreciated. Thanx in advance.

Phil Connolly · May 21, 2004

Hi,

I would say the quality off the DVX-100P is closer to the XL-1s than a Digi-Beta or DVC-Pro 50 camera, but DVX-100P will out perform the XL-1s on a 35mm transfer because of the progressive scan option.

'28 Days Later' - is a good example of what an XL-1 looks like transfered to 35mm.

I would try an get hold of the PAL version of the camera, this give you a 20% increase resolution over the NTSC version, which will make a big difference on the 35 mm blow up - also the 16:9 Anamorphic lens adaptor would be well worth using.

Tenolian Bell · May 21, 2004

Also the quality of a blow up is in proportion to how much money the production can spend in post. I've spoken to Ellen Kuras about her DV blow ups and she said they cost just as much as the actual production, $150,000 to $200,000.

I'm about to shoot a feature in the same situation. I'm shooting test footage in the same lighting conditions the feature will be shot. In my lighting I've already decided to avoid clipping the highlights or the shadows so that post has as much legal picture to deal with as I can deliver. Well I take that back some highlights will be clipped in certain circumstances its unavoidable.

I'm going into the camera's menu to flatten out the gamma curve, and give myself a little more latitude. I'm also testing low contrast filters, and how much edge detail should I take out. It's been recommended that yout take out all edge detail, but I think on wide shots I'll put a little bit back in.

I'm going to shoot all of these combinations and then do a test blow up at an LA lab.

With the DVX-100 you are recording the same information as the XL-1, but Panasonic has made some advanced electronics to deliver a progressive picture and allows you to control color and gama, which is better than other camera's in this class. But I would say it is certainly inferior to DVCPro -50. I've been trying to push my production to at least shoot on the SDX-900. But the producer is in love with the DVX-100, marketing and whatnot.

What I'm trying to tell him is you end up paying one way or the other. Shooting on DV 25 I'll have to spend a little more time and effort controling the light. In DV-50 I would have more control within the camera itself and would need to expend less energy controling the envoirnment around us.

Then in post with DV 50 I would spend less time trying to lock in our look. So far my expeirience with DV-25 in post you spend just as much time trying to get around the inherent limitation of the format than you spend being creative with the material.

I shot two music video's around the same time, one on Super 16 and one with the DVX-100. It took us one day in telecine to lock the look of the 16mm video, and took us two weeks of After Effects and rendering to lock the video shot on the DVX.

I've shot lots of DV so I'm very familiar with it and what it does. The best advice is to go out and shoot it and become familiar with its characteristics, just like a new film stock. DV tape is cheap.

And do a test blow up to see what it looks like on film.

The difference though once I become intimately familiar with a film stock I only need to see foot candles and contrast in the lighting and I know what the film will look like. I've never been able to have that type of familiarity with any video format. To be anal and sure I need monitors and scopes.