Alex Mercer Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 How many big time movies have been shot with XL1's? If so do they turn out good on screen? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff DiMambro Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 FULL FRONTAL was done on an xl1 if i remember correctly. A Soderberg film. I wouldn't call it a big time film though. 28 days later was done with a pal xl1. It looked okay but low end digital always looks horrible and nowhere near film quality when printed in my opinion. Unless that's the look your going for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 15, 2005 Author Share Posted March 15, 2005 Well I just saw a feature that was shot on an XL1 and it looked terrible. It was a good movie but looked and sounded terrible. I know that sound has nothing to do with the XL1 but I wanted to buy a XL1 but not if they are going to look like that. Was 28 day later really shot on a XL1? How did they get it to look good? Thanks, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 Was 28 day later really shot on a XL1? How did they get it to look good? They spend a lot of money in post. So much money in fact that they could have easily shot the film in 35mm. And get a better-looking movie in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JONATHANEDWARDS Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 in the july 2003 American Cinematographer there was a article on 28 days later explaining why video was used over 35mm http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/ if you go to imdb.com and search under technical for XL-1 XL-1s you will find some the larger movies shot with the xl1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Frank Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 They spend a lot of money in post. So much money in fact that they could have easily shot the film in 35mm. And get a better-looking movie in the end. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this fact or just speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 Is this fact or just speculation? It is an open secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 It's been a much discussed topic and the price was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for post work on the vidjo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 15, 2005 Author Share Posted March 15, 2005 What I saw was a small independent feature. Any reason why it would look terrible. I thought the XL series was supposed to look good. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 It's good for TV But when you go to the big screen you need more resolution. Alot more resolution than a $5000 1/3 chip camera can provide. Ultimately this is just another case of you get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 If you are shooting on an XL1 for the big screen, you should only use the PAL version. PAL has 20% more resolution than NTSC, and the frame rate is closer to film's 24 fps in the US. Both Full Frontal and 28 Days Later were shot in PAL on an XL1. In my opinion, the PAL XL1 / XL1s / XL2 is superior to all prosumer cameras. And I don't care what anyone here says, the PAL video format is superior to NTSC in almost every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 Whats the difference between the two? Isnt the Pal version for over seas? I have no idea. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Whats the difference between the two? Isnt the Pal version for over seas? I have no idea. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PAL is a newer and much more popular video format around the world. As you stated, it isn't used in the United States but is much more used around the world than NTSC. It's 625 lines as opposed to 525, and runs at a perfect 25.0000 fps (as opposed to 29.97, 23.976). It is a 50i, field-based format. The things I love about PAL are the consistent color reproduction (there's no such thing as a "hue" or "color" adjustment on a PAL television), rock-solid non-drop timecode, 100 extra lines of picture, and 50i / 25p frame rate. There is no such thing as "3:2 pulldown" for PAL. When films are shot overseas at 25fps, they are perfectly transferred to video at 1:1. When shot at 24fps (like here in the U.S.), they are still transferred 1:1, but slowed down by 4%. The audio must be pitch corrected to match, but the speed change is not noticeable. In fact, all PAL DVDs of US movies are transferred this way. So, if you're in the U.K. watching a U.S. film, you're watching it 4% faster than it was originally shot. That's why PAL running times for U.S. movies are always a few minutes shorter than the NTSC version, even though both movies are exactly the same. The only argument NTSC fans have is the 10 extra frames of footage (at 60i), which will give you better slow motion when playing back at 24p or 30p. But I can live with 50i for that purpose. Check out this article I wrote. It may answer more of your questions: http://rarevision.com/articles/pal_vs_ntsc.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 So if projected in a theater the PAL version would be the way to go? Would it look like 28 days later did and not all grainy like a NTSC version? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 So if projected in a theater the PAL version would be the way to go? Would it look like 28 days later did and not all grainy like a NTSC version? Alex <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 28 Days Later had alot of postproduction work done to it Like most people mentioned before... So yes if you shoot in PAL It can look like 28 Days Later if it has the same renderings & effects done to it in post And no PAL won't look that great projected on the big screen If you just do it clean with no special work done to it in post It'll only look slightly better than NTSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 And no PAL won't look that great projected on the big screen That is a pretty general statement. Sure, it won't look that great when compared to 35mm. but it certainly has the potential to look decent based on budget and content matter. I saw 28 Days Later in the theatre and was not at all distracted by the fact that it was shot on DV. Photographic skill was clearly displayed and the dark mood of the film matched the acquisition format, in my opinion. It'll only look slightly better than NTSC. Keep in mind that not only does PAL have 100 more lines of resolution than NTSC, but shooting with a PAL XL1 allows you to shoot in the higher quality frame movie mode at 25 progressive frames per second. You can't shoot movie mode with an NTSC XL1, since that would give you 30p which is incompatible with either 24 or 25fps and therefore cannot be transferred to film properly. This leaves you shooting 60i, interlaced, which when transferred to film only gives you 1/2 the resoultion of NTSC in scenes with lots of motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 Thanks man you have been a big help. Where can I find a good 35mm camera? Im a beginner and this little chat has kind of drawn me away from using XL1s. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 16, 2005 Thanks man you have been a big help. Where can I find a good 35mm camera? Im a beginner and this little chat has kind of drawn me away from using XL1s. Alex <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you are a "beginner" consider using Super-16. Lots of good work done in Super-16 has made it to television broadcast or the big screen: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2016 http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Im pretty new as far as cameras go. But where can I get a good super-16 camcorder? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2005 You can rent them, buy them new, or buy them used. Start out with the links on the Kodak site: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/cam...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en And although they are fine cameras, and they do record onto film, they are NOT called "camcorders". :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks. How did Jackass the movie look so good? It was shot with an XL1. It says it was printed on to 35mm. How did that turn out looking so good? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks. How did Jackass the movie look so good? It was shot with an XL1. It says it was printed on to 35mm. How did that turn out looking so good? Alex <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wasn't "Jackass" a mix of origination formats, both film and video? Do you really think it looked "good" compared to well shot 35mm origination? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Meachin Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) As far as 28 Days later is concerned I think it's important to mention the Mini35, and the lenses used! Does the dawn of the XL2 mean more features will be shot on this format? Why won't the Americans give in to PAL? It is far superior and NTSC is one of the main reasons most American TV looks so awful! Maybe all the eqipment an tv's would have to be replaced - not likely! Edited March 17, 2005 by Meach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Mercer Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Well I thought it looked pretty good. Or at least good enough for a small indie feature to be shot on. So as long as you get it transfered to 35mm it will look ok? Cause Im starting to think the feature I just saw wasnt on film and they just played the DVD on the big screen and thats why it was all grainy. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 17, 2005 Shoot a test. If you are planning on shooting a movie in video and transferring it to 35mm, FIRST contact a video-to-film transfer facility and start talking to them. They can screen tests for you and usually you can make a deal to get one minute of your own footage transferred. Quality is a subjective thing so only you can decide what's "good enough" regarding DV-to-film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now