And the first one from hypemeisters "AintitCoolNews":

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=12835

I noticed that this month's issue of Res magazine has a special feature on Full Frontal. In it he says that he loves the XL1s and still uses it today for "various" tasks.

Keith: Thanks for the review link. It's the first description of the film's story line I've seeen so far. I just saw the trailer on broadcast tv for the first time tonight. It looks like a rather off-beat film. I rarely go to theaters but I may make an exception in this case, if only to see how XL1s footage comes out when projected onto the big screen.

The storyline doesn't interest me that much, actually, so I may go on a cheap night or matinee to see it for the technical aspects.

It is interesting when you are watching the movie. You get used to the video, then it suddenly switches to film again. It really makes you realize how nice film is. Seeing it switch to film-sourced footage is like suddenly taking off some chipped, dirty glasses and finally seeing the world clearly. Maybe Sodaburger's point was to show that film should not be abandoned for video.

If that's his point (and I don't think it is) then he is missing it. DV is different than film. It is another tool to tell a story and can tell a story differently than with film and film's baggage.

The DV-originated material in Full Frontal was heavily processed in post. It doesn't look anything like what you expect from DV. It's been heavily altered with regard to adding noise and grain, and the color was also changed a great deal. Keep that in mind when you see it.

Just saw an ad for Full Frontal and it opens Friday the 1st. The clips in the ad look heavily processed, very grainy.

Jeff

Re: Sodaburger
LOL!!!!

Heh heh, good one Joe!

I'd just like to remind everyone that is going to see it before me, to post SPOILER warnings before you start talking about plot related stuff.

Thanks.

Yeah I heard about a clip they were going to show on the news the other night which started with a line like:

"Most independent directors have to use video and hire their friends to be in there movies and that's what Steven Soderbergh has done"

So I waited for the shots and they were not what I expected. Yeah it's been majorly processed - that or he bashed his xl1s' around for a few hours with a hammer cause the footage was awful. It might suit the movie, I'm not arguing that cause I haven't seen it, it's just that I was hoping for something to make people go, "oooo video don't look too bad does it?" :) hehehe

Here's the New Yorker review (in the 8/5 issue by David Denby) of Full Frontal:

". . . 'Full Frontal,' which was put together by Steven Soderbergh . . . is perhaps the most naively awful movie I've seen from the hand of a major director . . . . 'Full Frontal' is the kind of arbitary mess that gives experimentation a bad name. The news that the movie was shot digital video and film in eighteen days, and that the actors drove themselves to the set and applied their own makeup, would have made a nice Sunday Times story if the movie were any good. But it isn't, so the low budget austerities come off as the newest form of ostentation . . ."

I guess there's still time make the first DV hit.

Well I didn't watch the entire movie, but I caught about 10 minutes of it on my way home from work tonight. I can't tell you if it is a good movie or not (probably not). The XL1 scenes are definitely watered down, post processed and then post processed some more. It seems like all movies shot on video look the same. All are handheld, all have very little "editing" and all just look kinda "bleh". In Full Frontal you'll hear two characters having a conversation with eachother. But the camera only shows ONE of the participants with no editing at all. Why? Simple. You can't do wide shots with video when you blow it up to 35mm. If you do, the poor resolution will look so bad that there might be extra vomit on the seats after the show ends. :) But obviously wide shots on video lack the necessary detail for the big screen. But still, I don't like that "style" of filmmaking. The zooming is rushed and looks like the guy holding the camera (Sodaburger) was incredibly inexperienced. If you are going to use video why not at least TRY to make it look like someone who knows what they are doing is behind the camera? It does look nice when it switches to film, and you see true professional quality imaging.

The audio is pretty damn good, though. From most of what I heard it didn't sound like typical "camcorder audio". You get minimal ambient sounds and most of the attention is on the dialog, which sounds great.

The plot seemed boring so I left and went home.

I had a sneaky feeling the end result would be something along these lines, but I was waiting for Joe to confirm it. This is virtually the same report I've heard from everyone who has seen advance screenings (bad picture and boring plot). Just as the typical moviegoer thinks that DLP is better than film "because it is digital, so it HAS to be better" (when it is NOT), now many people will go to see this movie knowing it was shot with a consumer videocamera and say "gee, the XL1 and the DV format isn't all as great as I thought it was. This looks like crap!" At least commercial DLP has enough resolution to look acceptable. DV can look quite good, but taking XL1 footage and running it through the washing machine 100 times, he mine as well have shot it with VHS.

Sodaburger is just hurting the DV community with this sort of mess. I don't see why everyone is so excited over this.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Miller :
Sodaburger is just hurting the DV community with this sort of mess. I don't see why everyone is so excited over this. -->>>

Media hype due to an Academy Award winner. I agree with your comments. It is a shame that it is not a better story/movie. The DV world could have used the help.

This movie is bombing BAD! We have two prints (lucky us) and we haven't even sold ANY tickets for our second print yet. And our main print has sold maybe ten tickets at most, and four people have left mid-show because it was boring and looked BAD. There are only 4 screens with this movie in the entire Denver-metro area. Big Fat Greek Wedding continues to rake the people in even 10,000 weeks after release. Our theater is LOSING money with Full Frontal, as it costs more just to turn the breakers on for the auditorium than we make on this flick.

Nobody I talked to has appreciated the look of the DV footage. As if blowing DV up to film wasn't bad enough, he watered it down even more in post-processing to make it look even worse! I feel like ridiculing Sodaburger for this piece of crap "movie". Did I mention that we are losing money by simply showing this movie? Hard to respect a filmmaker for that. It is boring as all hell and I hope people refer to this in the future.... "Hey man, don't use that video camera... don't pull a Sodaburger!"

Thanks for the heads up on this movie, now I can save my $15 and not see it at the theaters if this movie ever makes it over here. Too bad we can't make him give his XL-1s back, seems he doesn't deserve to shoot with it if he makes a movie like this. Hey, Sodaburger, give your camera to Chris Hurd! It better off in his hands than in yours!

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : This movie is bombing BAD! We have two prints (lucky us) and we haven't even sold ANY tickets for our second print yet. And our main print has sold maybe ten tickets at most, and four people have left mid-show because it was boring and looked BAD. There are only 4 screens with this movie in the entire Denver-metro area. Big Fat Greek Wedding continues to rake the people in even 10,000 weeks after release. Our theater is LOSING money with Full Frontal, as it costs more just to turn the breakers on for the auditorium than we make on this flick.
-->>>

My wife drug me to see Big Fat Greek wedding. What a shock I was in for, I actually enjoyed it. Not that it is going to win any awards (maybe it did...no idea). Funny story that held my interest.

Worth renting when it hits video.

I'm really sorry to hear that FF is so (apparently) bad. The NYT panned it today (to the extent that they pan any film). Canon has so widely publicized that SS shot it with the XL1s that using this camera could become a bit of a stigma for folks who use the camera well. Like the many really fine auditors at (the former) Arthur Andersen whose reputations were unjustly besmirched by the firm's rotten politics and practices. People will think that the grit and grain of the DV footage are produced by the camera. (BTW, the September issue of DV Magazine lists much of the stuff used on the DV footage...why not just shoot film?)
I'll probably go to see it next week, if only to be informed.

People, please. Repeat after me: Soderburgh (or at least fairly close. . .definitely not Sodaburger. . .unless you're all just making fun of him, and in that case have at it. No I haven't seen it yet.)

Dreadful, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The XL1s footage looks like vhs blown up. What a waste!

if I was a paranoid guy I would think it's some conspiracy by Sony, who in fact "sponsored" SodaBurger, yes, we are making fun of him;-) into making a crappy movie with our beloved XL-1s. If he turns around and makes a great film with a Sony camera then we know the fix is in.

From the Chicago Sun Times (his home paper):

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-full02f.html

Looks like a real stinker.

That bad eh? Both our city's paper's (technically one's not a newspaper but oh well) gave it pretty decent reviews.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : That bad eh? Both our city's paper's (technically one's not a newspaper but oh well) gave it pretty decent reviews. -->>>

Josh,

Who was the second paper...Houston Press?

Yessir. Exactly.

Maureen Dowd's column in the Sunday Times mentions Full Frontal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/opinion/04DOWD.html

Regadless of what you guys thought of the movie, it being bad or really bad, you are entitled to you opinion, but be honest, I can bet most of you were excited and encouraged when you heard Steven Soderbergh is going to make a DV movie. I definitely was encouraged and motivated.

to go as far as saying he does not deserve the XL1s is a bit extreme.

If for nothing else, at least respect Soderbergh as a director for being innovative and being an encouragement for DV filmmakers world wide.

Daniel

I understand your point, Daniel. Soderbergh's use of the camera, and Canon's publicity surrounding it, has used his notoriety to shine a light onto the use possible use of prosumer-class equipment such as the XL1s. But when you actually see how grainy and poorly-lit the DV footage was you realize that the notoriety will likely be of a strongly negative nature. Indeed, several of the critics have already flatly criticized the use of DV for the film, subtley indicting the technology rather that Soderbergh for some of the film's poor quality.

So, should we -really- praise Soderbergh for using the XL1s on this film when, in fact, it has made an already steep hill of professional acceptance for DV gear even steeper?

Someone should explain to those critics that the footage was processed in post to make it look more assy.


Does anyone happen to know what Spike Lee shot "Bamboozled" on (camera type, that is?)

The reason Spike used DV for this film is because no studio wanted to fund this movie for obvious reasons.

They used about 6 Sony VX-1000 to shoot everything except the stage show footage. They used 16mm film to do that. That explain the detail of glare coming off the actor's painted faces.

I got the DVD cos I thought there would be a lot for me to learn about DV filmmaking but after watching the hour long docu and listening to the commentary, he did not say much about the shooting of the film.

The following link goes to an article on the DP of the film, she talks about using DV and how they did it

http://www.sonyusadvcam.com/article/mainv/0,7220,30464,00.html

Daniel

See people? Right there. A good looking (or relatively, anyway, I don't remember how it looked) movie can be made, and blown up for a theater sized screen.

Maybe we should put some quotations marks and a smiley face emicon :-) on our posts so people will know when we are poking fun of things. Of course we can't make Soadburger give his Xl-1s back, I'm not that extreme.

Like Ken said, he has made it harder for people to accept DV on a professional level, most people who don't know about DV will see it as proof that quality work can't be made on DV. What could have been a great boost for DV now became a huge step backwards. Just like gossip, people love talking about what's bad/wrong with something.

I once lost a video job because the guy in charge didn't like the fact that I shot on DV, he instead got a betacam crew to shoot a dance performance and the final output was to VHS so DV would have been more than okay but there was no way to get through to him. Now guys like this will see this movie as proof for their beliefs. Luckily there are not that many people like him nowadays but to those of us trying to make a living, especially those who just starting out, that one job loss can be painfull. Although we can't blame Sodaburger for all of this, he certainly is not helping matters now.

The only good that can come out of all of this is at least now DV will be a hot topic and will be discussed more, so we can all have our say to the naysayers when the time comes.

still haven't seen Bamboozled, got to check it out when I find a copy.

Watched the NET trailer of bamboozled and it looked pretty good (As good as streaming media can). Can't wait to check it out myself. I need to try and get hold of some DV movies, as I haven't seen a single one.

Before we accept the notion that "Full Frontal" will discredit DV as an acceptable film medium, let's not forget other DV features like "Tadpole." True, it wasn't shot with an XL1S but it was shot on DV and looks pretty good on a full-sized theater screen.

Soderbergh likes to play with image and color manipulation (just look at what he did with "Traffic"). I watched "Full Frontal" more from a technical point of view and ignored the story. It was a more interesting film that way.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Someone should explain to those critics that the footage was processed in post to make it look more assy. -->>>

Good idea. You do that.

No thanks. They're all asses. They have no idea what they're talking about, especially the Houston' Chronicle's.

To Chorizosmells: I've heard BetaSP gets 700 lines of vertical resolution, but what does it matter unless you're displaying on an HDTV or something? Why don't people accept digital?

Josh,
A lot of people here (producers) here have this betacam fixation, they think that's the only way to get good results. The won't even consider dv crews, especially independents like me, they would rather go out and get a full crew with betacams and spend twice as much money than go with a DV crew. I don't even waste my time trying to convince them. Some japanese companies seem to think super expensive video prices and betacam is the way to go.

Went to a lowrider car show this past sunday and went in to talk to the guy in charge if they had a video crew making a video for them, I saw no one shooting video at the show. The guy's expression when I asked him if he needed a video made was like how dare you even ask and I had my XL-1 with me also. He quickly told me had hired a video production company to make the video for him. I gave him my card and said thanks anyway and left. Even the photographers he had working with him all stared at me and gave me the evil eye. They seemed like they had never seen an XL-1 and I was crazy for trying to make a professional video. Anyway, at least I went in and asked, I'm sure they talked about that crazy foreigner with the weird looking camera as soon as I left.

Scratch off the MiniDV logo on the camera and put a BetacamSP logo on it. Prominently display that to potential clients. They will be so uninformed about video in general that they won't know the difference anyway. When they see the end results they will love it.

Did you remember to bow when before you began to ask the guy about making that video? The Japanese are real sticklers about manners and tradition. They won't like it if you come in and burp while scratching your ass before you ask to make their video. :)

yeah, there's a fine line as to what's acceptable and what's not. If I had met the guy outside somewhere, it would have been totally cool if I excused myself and then quickly took a piss on a tree or on the side of a building, then came back to talk to him, of course, by then he probably would have joined me and took a piss also.

now that I think of if, that would make a funny video, I've stopped counting how many times I'm taking a walk and there is some guy pissing out in the open, day or night. 9 times out of 10 it will be a taxi driver.

But those guys are not fun to work with, they end up demanding more work that what they pay for. For now I'll by pass the DV ignorants and just stick to the enlightened ones.

Betacam has a resolution of 320 lines for the UVW series, 360 lines for the PVW series and about 380 for broadcast BVW series. It's simple math once you know the formula, 80 lines of resolution for every 1 MHz of bandwidth. The PVW series has 4.5 MKz of luma bandwidth. Why does Betcam SP look better than S-VHS? Two reason, much higher signal to noise ratio and betacam records the chroma (Cr and Cb) to 2 seperate tacks. S-VHS uses color under modulation.

The world is full of equipment snobs in every field. It's almost always a losing battle trying to convince them of DV's worthiness. A closed mind is a very difficult thing to change.

Jeff

The trick is to sell the ENDS, not the MEANS.

While I've never meet you, Ken, I think you and I probably have a distinct advantage (age) that a lot of the people here don't have. I can walk into a potential client and say I've got 20 years experience and this is how we do this. The client figures I must know what I'm doing. Even if I didn't have the experience, it's assumed because of the age. It an air of confidence and authority. I show my reel and the work stands on its own. I've had a few clients and art directors question by choice of equipment over the years. I point out that betacam sp is an option but your budget will increase 20% or maybe a little more. This is based on the much costlier tape stock and increased rate for beta acquisition and digitizing an ANALOG source. I stress how old beta is and that modern digital offers many advantages. This works about 80% of the time. There are always those who resist change (fear?) or are just more comfortable with what they know and understand.

Jeff

Yes, Jeff, we're probably similar in age and we may both have enough salt over the ears (or exposed skin on the roof) to lend an initial impression of authority. <g>

Although I've never worked in the film, video or broadcast industries 25 yrs in the visciously competitive institutional investment industry taught me one early lesson which I believe applies universally; you are what you seem to be, at least until your actions indicate otherwise. Young people I've interviewed and met over the years generally "seem" to be either over-confident or insecure and fearful.

As your remarks reflect, if you act like a victim you'll be treated like a victim. To get the job, whatever it may be, you must exude confidence in your capabilities without being an insufferable, arrogant ass. One of the best ways to do that is to keep your mouth shut and your eyes and ears wide open as much as possible. Hide your fears and insecurities by concentrating instead on listening to what the client is telling you verbally and non-verbally. Sit on his side of the figurative table during that initial meeting. Convey to him "Yes, I understand your needs and can help you achieve them" not "I've got cool stuff that you should pay me to use for you." Being a good listener and using your mouth mainly to ask good questions initially are keys to avoiding an immediate "No". In the case of videography, prematurely exposing your DV "means" merely gives someone an excuse to reject you. But chances are high that your gear was often not really the issue for rejection.

People, young or old, who cannot sublimate insecurities will project "victim" in any field. Certainly in the end you have to produce the goods. But you often have to trust that you'll find a way to accomplish the unfamiliar. The ultimate tyranny of the required can be the most powerful creative force to propel you to new levels of achievement, resourcefulness and creativity.

Just my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : I understand your point, Daniel. Soderbergh's use of the camera, and Canon's publicity surrounding it, has used his notoriety to shine a light onto the use possible use of prosumer-class equipment such as the XL1s. But when you actually see how grainy and poorly-lit the DV footage was you realize that the notoriety will likely be of a strongly negative nature. Indeed, several of the critics have already flatly criticized the use of DV for the film, subtley indicting the technology rather that Soderbergh for some of the film's poor quality.

So, should we -really- praise Soderbergh for using the XL1s on this film when, in fact, it has made an already steep hill of professional acceptance for DV gear even steeper? -->>>
--------------------------
Here's a classic example of my point. A quote from CNN's review of Full Frontal:

"Soderbergh shot most of "Full Frontal" on a cheap digital-video camera...."

So how much benefit did Soderbergh really deliver to aspiring filmmakers who use XL1s', PD150's or any other such camera?

------------
The full review is at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/05/ca.s02.full.frontal.ap/index.html

The Houston Press mentioned that he used specifically the XL1s, although I believe they actually called it the XL1 in the article.

Go Ken, GO!!! I'm behind you, with some one like sodaburger who has a lot of exposure/influence in the media, he has brought on some bad press on DV.

His quote at the end, "If it ends up being a film that's more influential than successful, that's fine with me, too." was the kicker, the influence is turning outto be the kind he was not looking to give.

Another thing, if it cost less than 2 million to make and he shot it mostly on video, where did all the money go? Is there a breakdown on the costs of the film that anyone knows about?

The way the lemmings in "hollywood" work DV will be poison. The opposite of the effect of remaking endlessly the same movie once a prototype makes money, money being the key thing. Anything that hints of risk will be shunned as a disruption to cash flow.

I noticed the other day a promotion, I think it was on MSN.com, that asked people to predict what new movies' first week gross take would be -- as if the gross was something people ought all know about and keep track of and use as a movie guide.

Sometimes I wonder about the culture.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : A quote from CNN's review of Full Frontal:

"Soderbergh shot most of "Full Frontal" on a cheap digital-video camera...."

-->>>

The irony here is that I've seen CNN crews using the XL1S and even a GL1. Guess "cheap" is good when it comes to the news operation bottom line (probably helps them pay for movie reviewers).

I doubt, however, that "Full Frontal" will poison Hollywood on DV. The trend is there and one bad film won't stop it. Kodak is certainly worried. I get mailings from big Yellow all the time reminding me that I should be using film, not video.

Rik Sanchez asked, "is the a breakdown of the budget?"

I saw Full Frontal at a special advance screeining in Austin on July 29 at the Paramount. Nick Katt was there to host (he plays the actor doing the Hitler bit). During the Q&A that followed, he was talking about the shooting schedule and all, and said, "where's the two million?" And I'm thinking, he's right, how did this thing cost even that much. Although I was originally told that DV was used for 80% of the production, it's onscreen for maybe 60%, meaning there's more 35mm on screen than what I had anticipated. I guess that's where the two million is.

P.S. -- I've moved this thread to "DV for the Masses," just seems more appropriate. Thanks,

where's the 2 million ..

crews don't work for FREE just because steven is shooting dv.

SAG min .. approx 500 day plus OT plus H&W benefits ..plus $$ insurance on the STARS -julia might be working for scale but you have to insure her for what her future income ( 20 mil a film) is worth in case she gets hurt ...

grips 400 day +OT +H&W benifits
sound mixer 500 day +OT +H&W PLUS equipment rental (approx 400-800 per day)
camera ass't ( yes even with Xl he had ass't) 500 day +OT+H&W
Drivers 250 day +OT+H&W
1st AD 500 day +OT+H&W
production manager 600 day +OT +H&W
producers 800 day ..
editor 5000week +B+H&W
ass't editors 300-400 day
sound work and mix ? 300K-400K
production office rental, van rental, locations rentals, PRODUCTION INSURANCE, FOOD ....

if they worked 6 day week then the 6th day is at 1 1/2 X rate penalties for going over X hrs ( into 7th day)

this was a 18 day shoot ... probably at least 8 weeks of pre -production

it all adds up QUICK ....

To Peter Wiley: Sadly, apparently the culture does care about the gross. Also, sadly, I am paid to watch, among other awful shows, Access Hollywood. They have entire segments devoted to how much a movie brought in on the weekend, and in total, etc.