Anyone seen DVX100 footage on Widescreen TV?

Mark Nauth · January 13th, 2004, 08:23 PM

ok, thank you for all the feedback... I am still wondering... Peter or Jarred or anyone else out there... Do any of you guys happen to have anything on DVD that I could take a look at to view on my widescreen TV?

John Hudson · January 13th, 2004, 08:57 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Marco Leavitt : "To John and Marco:
28 Days Later in comparison to a normal movie it looks like trash. With digital blockiness and edge enhancement abound it looks like something shot on VHS! Anybody who says that 28 Days Later looks acceptable in comparision to film (say even 16mm film) is in denial! The movie looked ghetto!"

Hey, I didn't say it looked good compared to film. It did look good enough to be accepted by mass audiences, and I guess I'm pumped about that because it's more evidence that I'm not wasting my time with minidv. But yeah, it could be kind of ugly and grainy, just nowhere near as ugly and grainy as I had feared. I still say it looked great considering the cost of the camcorder. To compare it against 35mm film is pointless and unfair. -->>>

Well, yeah. That's like comparing a porsche to a pinto. I didn't know we were comparing it to 35mm film (I wasn't). NOT wasting your time with DV? It must be nice to have the arriflex 535 and unlimited film stock and processing options. Good for you! ;)

John Hudson · January 13th, 2004, 09:17 PM

You see, I had to come back to this and clarify something. When you say "and I guess I'm pumped about that because it's more evidence that I'm not wasting my time with minidv".

That just makes me think "What? Is this guy for real?". I am assuming the majority of folks in here are "wasting their time with minidv".

How can you say that? For me, minidv is the ONLY affordable format I can do. I don't have the means to use the arri 535. Hell, I own a BolexS16 but still can't afford film and processing.

Wasting time? This format and affordability is godsend. I am learning lighting, composition, framing, blocking, filtering effects and then i get to learn how to edit it into a finished product. Over and over and over again. Try that with the film. I guess, if I can afford it?

Wasting time? I don't know how to use a half million dollar Panavision set-up, but I bet in time, I will learn how to direct a film and have the DP skills needed to at least communicate my vision with someone who does.

Man, you're killing me.

Mark Nauth · January 13th, 2004, 09:24 PM

Well said John! :-)

January 13th, 2004, 08:23 PM	#16
Mark Nauth New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 15	ok, thank you for all the feedback... I am still wondering... Peter or Jarred or anyone else out there... Do any of you guys happen to have anything on DVD that I could take a look at to view on my widescreen TV?

January 13th, 2004, 08:57 PM	#17
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	<<<-- Originally posted by Marco Leavitt : "To John and Marco: 28 Days Later in comparison to a normal movie it looks like trash. With digital blockiness and edge enhancement abound it looks like something shot on VHS! Anybody who says that 28 Days Later looks acceptable in comparision to film (say even 16mm film) is in denial! The movie looked ghetto!" Hey, I didn't say it looked good compared to film. It did look good enough to be accepted by mass audiences, and I guess I'm pumped about that because it's more evidence that I'm not wasting my time with minidv. But yeah, it could be kind of ugly and grainy, just nowhere near as ugly and grainy as I had feared. I still say it looked great considering the cost of the camcorder. To compare it against 35mm film is pointless and unfair. -->>> Well, yeah. That's like comparing a porsche to a pinto. I didn't know we were comparing it to 35mm film (I wasn't). NOT wasting your time with DV? It must be nice to have the arriflex 535 and unlimited film stock and processing options. Good for you! ;)

January 13th, 2004, 09:17 PM	#18
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	You see, I had to come back to this and clarify something. When you say "and I guess I'm pumped about that because it's more evidence that I'm not wasting my time with minidv". That just makes me think "What? Is this guy for real?". I am assuming the majority of folks in here are "wasting their time with minidv". How can you say that? For me, minidv is the ONLY affordable format I can do. I don't have the means to use the arri 535. Hell, I own a BolexS16 but still can't afford film and processing. Wasting time? This format and affordability is godsend. I am learning lighting, composition, framing, blocking, filtering effects and then i get to learn how to edit it into a finished product. Over and over and over again. Try that with the film. I guess, if I can afford it? Wasting time? I don't know how to use a half million dollar Panavision set-up, but I bet in time, I will learn how to direct a film and have the DP skills needed to at least communicate my vision with someone who does. Man, you're killing me.

January 13th, 2004, 09:24 PM	#19
Mark Nauth New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 15	Well said John! :-)