Well, we know 28 Days Later was shot on an XL1 and Pieces Of April on a PD150, but were any feature films shot on a VX2100?

frankly, they both looked as if they'd been shot with prosumer cameras.

what is this obsession with trying to make dv look like film? if you want the film look, shoot film. if you can't afford it, then shoot video, but trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear is pretty obvious not only to the initiated, but those who don't know the technicalities still sense there's something 'wrong' with the 'look'.

oi vey, head down,

leslie

Personally I think the whole "film look" thing is way over done also. However, Aviv has asked a rather simple and direct question, so please try to stay on topic instead of editorializing. Thanks.

Aviv, it doesn't make any difference whether or not a feature film has been shot with a VX2100. What really matters is that the right person could definitely succeed in making a feature film with this camera, but the wrong person would fail miserably.

It's not the camera. It's the person and the concept behind it.

For instance let's say no, nobody has used a VX2100 to make a feature film. This shouldn't stop the right individual from becoming the first person to do so. Now let's say yes, somebody has used a VX2100 to make a feature film. That doesn't mean that the next person who comes along will be able to repeat that success... certainly not because someone else did.

The choice of camera has *nothing* to do with it. What's important is that the DV format, which the VX2100 uses, has in fact made it to the big screen in a successful way. That's all you need to know, and that's all that really matters.

Aviv:

The PD150, while it certainly has more professional features than the is consumer sister the VX2000, the lens and basic configuration is pretty much the same. So I think the answer is that if it was shot with the 150, it was shot with the VX2100 which is the next version with a few basic improvements.

Open water was shot on one of the high end Sony Cams. and that movie hit it big in the box office?

Do you know what kind of Cameras MTV uses when they are outside of the studio. or anywhere. Film look is good but i have seen stuff shot on the XL2 and you could not even tell the difference. its all about who's doing the Editing and how much can that person get out of his or her Camera. when i was in school i had this lighting class and the teacher bought in his 10 thousand dollar camera and hooked it up well lit the room and showed up on the monitor what it looked like. Then he took a Canon ZR60 and hooked it up on the same Monitor and adjusted the lighting and im telling you you could not even tell the difference between the two. so i go back and say if the person knows how to untillize the camera then you can make miricals happen.

I know I have asked a similar question in the past about the XL1s when I still had it. I have come to one conclusion aside from what has already been said. It is not just the camera and the person, also the lenses. How many, if any, of these productions were done on a stock lens using just a UV or ND filter? I would venture to say not many IF any.... anyone thinking the same?

Well, it's more of a confidence thing for me...Knowing that I have the same camera that was used to shoot successful films just gets me thinking that I can do that too.

Search here for your answer:
http://imdb.com/search
Use the Word Search function (e.g., enter "VX2000") and choose "Technical" from the drop-down box

You'll find:
only one film shot with a VX2100
19 shot with a GL2 (search on GL-2)
38 shot with a VX2000
40 shot with a GL1 (GL-1)
104 shot with a PD150
hundreds and hundreds shot with XL1

Why? I have my ideas, but I'll refrain from editorializing.

Open water was shot on one of the high end Sony Cams. and that movie hit it big in the box office?

Do you know what kind of Cameras MTV uses when they are outside of the studio. or anywhere. Film look is good but i have seen stuff shot on the XL2 and you could not even tell the difference. its all about who's doing the Editing and how much can that person get out of his or her Camera. when i was in school i had this lighting class and the teacher bought in his 10 thousand dollar camera and hooked it up well lit the room and showed up on the monitor what it looked like. Then he took a Canon ZR60 and hooked it up on the same Monitor and adjusted the lighting and im telling you you could not even tell the difference between the two. so i go back and say if the person knows how to untillize the camera then you can make miricals happen.

1. A bunch of features have b-roll from "High-end Sony cams," usually from it's CineAlta series, the F900, seems to be pretty popular. These cams shoot 24p, and a good colorist will be able to match it to 35mm stock.

2. MTV (the last time I chatted with an editor there) is using Sony HDV cams. (FX1, Z1).

3. I cant tell the difference between something shot with something like...an XL2 and Sony D600 BetaSP cam. The XL series lenses, although sharp, tend to feather around strongly lit edges. The XL2, because it's DV, will crush whites and blacks (no racial slur intended, meaning of lighting) much easier than SP or even DVCPro. It has alot to do with the size of the chip and the glass.

4. A monitor loop, is always fresh from the chip. The Optura has a smaller chip. I think a difference would be noticeable if you ran something to tape and compared. Unless it was a $10k VHS camera.... yeah right.

Hear Hear Chris!! I know a bunch of indie stuff was done on a VX, but even a 150 feature film is...rare. Well not rare, but usually not sucsessful. Ok, maybe I should bite my tounge on that... but ok. If you had the quality of something, that would be accepted by a major company for feature output, you would need decent audio and appearance or one hell of a good manuscript. If you had the will to do something for feature, I'm betting most people would go for a 150' or 170.