Hey guys a new face here. And this is my first post. My question if anyone knows, what type of camera was used on the movie "Sessions 9" ? I looked at the IMDB and it just says it was shot with Sony's new 24p. I bought this move the day it came out. Being a bit of a gadget and tech freak, I had read it was one of the first movies to be shot digitally. So I wanted to see what Dv footage would look like. And since I am starting to delve into the digital filmwork as a hobby. I was amazed (again) by how beatiful the movie looks. There are some scenes that look less like film and more like Dv footage.

I plan on getting a DVX100a in the future. And I was wondering if the footage would look similar. I know you might be able to use Magic Bullet to achieve the same effect.

Thanks.

Hey Daniel, it was shot on a CineAlta.
Check this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=33069&highlight=session

As always, we like to say that having access to the right equipment is the first step but getting one's footage to look just like a given film is, from that point on, purely a matter of the user's skill, resources and choices.

The DVX100a is a great camera. However the primary thing it has in common with the Cinealta used on "Session 9" is the 24p mode, which was brand new when "Session 9" was shot. Otherwise, two different mediums (HD vs DV), different chipsets and processing.

It was one of the first films shot with the CineAlta (Star Wars Ep. 2 camera).

heath

The Steadicam work in it was OK. While some of it was iffy, the operator showed potential, and may get more work in the future.







(can't keep from laughing while I type that)

Only one shot, near the beginning from a car looking out, had a look of "video," but otherwise, it looked like film. I think the DVD was made from the original Hd source, not film. If you watch Blair Witch on DVD, it's totally video and didn't sit well with me--I wish they would've transferred from the film print vs. video...

heath

Cute, Dylan. Re-a-a-al cute.

Cute, Dylan. Re-a-a-al cute.

Sorry man, you know I'm just jealous cause you got to work on Buffy. :)

As ive said in one of my earlier posts about 2 years ago.

I felt that Canon was deceiving its buyers (the less knowledgable ones) when they spoke about that Steven Soderbergh film "Full Frontal" saying that it was shot with an xl1.

Basically saying that if you had an xl1 you could get that look. But, they failed to mention that the xl1 footage was really transferred to 35mm film giving it a true progressive feel and film grain,(even though the picture looked lousy, i am much more concercerned with the feel ie.filmlook- bad film all be it.)

It makes a huge difference, if you dont belive me, go and look at Blair witch on DVD as Heath is suggesting.

Session 9 was a very good horror/suspense movie. Though I knew it was shot on a cinealta (I read the article in MovieMaker, or FilmMaker, one of those), as all good films, you forget and don't care what it was shot with. I do remember in the article the issues they had with lenses.

I've seen stuff from the XL-1 blown up to film that looks good, but I have to say, Full Frontal's XL-1s footage was B-A-D.

heath

I've seen stuff from the XL-1 blown up to film that looks good, but I have to say, Full Frontal's XL-1s footage was B-A-D.

heath

I know this has been discussed a 1000 times, but I found 28 days later to look really stunning, especially in the second part. I still remember seeing it in theatres, and my technical knowledge wasn't great (I wasn't a member here, didn't know a lot about dv, exept that the movie was shot on dvcams) but I know people didn't really care for it, or noticed it. Okay, sometimes you notice it, but it really looks good.

But as I said, I'd better shut up, this has already been discussed to death in the threads about 28 days later.
I haven't seen Full Frontal, only heard bad things about it.

Yes, I definitely agree. And yes, we've talked about this a lot, but it's still fun.

heath