The ultimate film look I've seen?

Let me rephrase what I'm trying to say - without reference to known standards projected on the same screen - what you are seeing is simply too subjective - I have seen Super 8 projected on huge screens that looked stunning but I know it would not compare in reality to 35mm! No amount of experience, with respect, can overcome the subjective when we view these things in isolation - do you honestly believe that a cropped NTSC 1/3" chip blow-up, even if it is 24p is going to look as good as Sony Cine Alta? Because that is what your competing against at the end of the day.

For example Danny Boyle has just made a 'DV' feature and as far as I know tried to get the most out of the format unlike the pretentious Soderbergh who merely degraded it - and even general commentators who know very little about filmaking have commented on the poor image quality.

I suggest you return to DuArts and asked them to screen a true 35mm print alongside the DV print.

Regards.

p.s. can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving those anoying e-mails yet still participate in these forums?

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving those anoying e-mails yet still participate in these forums? >>

When you reply to a post, simply un-check the "email notification" box in the options area just below the reply field. Hope this helps,

[Jaime Valles]

Well, I made an appointment with DuArt to go see their demo reel next Friday, Jan. 31 @ 5pm. I'll let you know how it all looks.

Also, of course MiniDV will pale in comparison to 35mm film if you put them side by side. No one is even questioning that. What Tom Taddeo is saying is that it is possible to get results that are acceptable for feature films. The audience in the movie theater will not be watching your DV transfer next to a 35mm movie, they'll just be watching the DV. So, your point about it being subjective is right on, especially when you sit down to watch a DV movie for 90 minutes. After the first 5 minutes, most of the audience will accept that "film" looks like that (if the video is shot professionally) since they're not comparing it to real film at the same time. That is what is so wonderful about the new prosumer cameras like the DVX100 with 24p. With some good production values, you can potentially fool a LOT of people into thinking you shot your low budget flick on film.

I am really excited about going to see the demo reel next week!

Jaime

"With some good production values, you can potentially fool a LOT of people into thinking you shot your low budget flick on film."

What's the old expression ... "you can fool some of the people..." etc. Fooling the moron masses as Hitchcock called them is easy - I doubt most would notice or care ( they WILL notice the lack of big budget production values though). But your peers will certainly dissect it to bits!

My point essentially is that if people can and do accept DV from prosummer cameras blown up to 35mm - and don't get me wrong I'm all for that - then I think the results between a PD150, XL1s and the new DVX100 will be pretty indistinguishable - some labs say they prefer interlaced, others progressive; some the PD150 others the DVX100 or XL1s etc. there are too many subjective variables - forget the hype.

What I am getting at is that I am sure the DVX100 is a fine camera - I know it is - but I wouldn't get hung up on it being the 'panacea' for all independents - I imagine for that matter the 25p Pal version is a lot better - no uneccessary headaches with the tortuous 24p and pulldown issues either.

Look 0.001% of DV features will end up on celluloid - the manufacturers and labs know that - they also know that people are obsessed with this film look thing, as if the mere look is going to help them break into Hollywood - and so in my view they are cynically pandering to that.

What truly depresses me I'm afaid is this 'playing' at Hollywood - like I mean when you visit these endless websites, where for a moment you could be forgiven for thinking you'd stumbled upon Miramax. For example, and I really don't want to be unkind, but... I visited one via a link from here, called "Expired" - nicely shot, poorly acted, unoriginal idea with a credit sequence almost as long as the film itself. Then there was all the stuff about how the graphics were created by another company that was a division of the parent company etc... when you know that the same bedroom was used for editing and graphics - nothing wrong with this, but it does not impress the real studios - ideas and something to say will impress, and quite honestly you could use an old VHS camcorder for all they care! If you don't believe me try and find out exactly how many independently (I mean the guy in his bedroom not Soderburgh) made DV features were picked up by major studios recently.

Anyway sorry for the rant but this film look thing is just getting too much.

Regards.

[Imran Zaidi]

I guess what it boils down to is, when you see the result of something you created yourself that, in your eyes, resembles what once inspired you to take up this direction in your life in the first place, well, you can't pay for the kind of inspiration that would bring to you. I think that's the way many feel about making their DV projects look like film. And you know what? Good for them.

One artist likes one canvas because the results satisfy him or her, and another artist likes a totally different canvas. We're all different. What else is new? It doesn't have to always be about selling your project to Hollywood or whatever. I think at least some of us are in this for the sheer enjoyment of it.

[Rene Legaspi]

I DO agree with both of you but I DISAGREE with the notion that if it isn't HD then don't bother trying because SD sucks in comparison. Sure, give me 100K and I'll go HD any day and wear sony cinealta underwear.

[Jaime Valles]

Well, I went to DuArt's weekly demo of Video footage transfered to 35mm film. I saw a bunch of footage of many different sources: XL1, XL1s, PD-150, DSR 500, a lot of HD footage (not sure which camera models, but pretty high end stuff), some 16mm film, and some Panasonic DVX100 24p footage. All of which was projected onto a 20 foot screen (diagonally) I believe.

They didn't show any footage originating in 35mm film, so I can't make a completely objective comparison between something shot on 35mm and something on video. HOWEVER, a lot of the footage that I saw was VERY, VERY GOOD QUALITY. Certainly, the HD stuff looked great. So did the DSR 500. Only in the very long shots (of busy city streets and such) would it show slight detail loss. Closeups and medium shots looked, dare I say it, just like film.

I wasn't interested in the HD footage, though. I wanted to look at MiniDV blown up to 35mm, since that is all my budget will allow. The XL1/s footage they showed was from the movie "Piñero", with Benjamin Bratt. It was so-so. You could tell it was a blow-up of video right off the bat. Very poor detail in the long shots. Very jagged edges, and it almost looked out of focus. Closeups were ok.

The PD-150 was better. They showed footage from "Tadpole", and frankly, it didn't look too good. Full of noise, since a lot of it was very poorly lit. However, there were some shots that were promising, and looked like it originated in 16mm. They also had footage from the movie "13 Moons", with Steve Buscemi. It looked REALLY good. They showed the intro sequence, which had a closeup of a clown juggling balls, and it was beautiful. Everyone was very impressed. The folks at DuArt complemented the makers of that film for understanding the limitations of DV and working around them. The average viewer would probably sit through that movie not knowing it was originally video.

Then they showed the footage from the DVX100. I'm serious when I say that nobody in the room (there were about 20 people there), NOBODY could believe that the footage was MiniDV. There were these shots of this 8 year old kid playing with a remote control car, and this turtle walking about, staring at the kid. People asked which HiDef camera had shot that footage. When they said "It's not HD, it's the DVX100", there was an audible gasp from the audience. The footage looked spectacular! Very rich colors, and very high detail. The very fast motion shots looked like 16mm at worst, and the locked closeups were like something out of a high-budget Hollywood movie. I'm not kidding. I should also add that the DVX100 footage of the turtle and the toy car was shot by somebody's son, with no lighting setup (it was outdoors in a backyard) and no planning of anything. He just grabbed the camera, turned it on, and started recording in 24p. I can't imagine what this camera can do if properly set up and used under professional conditions!

So, basically, the DVX100 has produced the most filmic, detailed picture of any of the MiniDV cameras out there that they showed, and it even rivaled some of the HiDef footage taken by cameras that cost 4X as much. If you live in New York, go see DuArt's demo reel.

For independent filmmakers, this is the best MiniDV camera you can get, period.

[James David Walley]

<<<-- Originally posted by Skip Hunt :
Anyway, my recent testing has involved comparing footage (wide and closeup) shot on "THIN" with the detail set at "0" and cinegamma, then cropping to 16:9 and stretching for widescreen displays.... then I compare the source image that hasn't been interpolated and view large. There really isn't much image degradation at all. If you're looking very close, you can tell the "THIN" footage before interpolation looks slightly sharper, but that footage would have to be vertically blurred before NTSC output anyway. The interpolated 16:9 footage shot on "THIN" has basically already been slightly vertically blurred in the process of interpolation so there's really no loss. I scaled some DVX footage up to HD resolution as well. Although the DVX held up much better than I expected, you do start to see some degradation going up that far. However, I was only using AE5.5 so I'm betting hardware designed specifically for this kind of uprezzing could yet very acceptable results.
>>>

Skip --

Could you please post (or e-mail) step-by-step directions on how to perform that stretch in AE5.5? I have tried to do it several times, with quite poor results. Thanks.

[Juan Trujillo]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jaime Valles : ...
People asked which HiDef camera had shot that footage. When they said "It's not HD, it's the DVX100", there was an audible gasp from the audience. [..] I should also add that the DVX100 footage of the turtle and the toy car was shot by somebody's son, with no lighting setup (it was outdoors in a backyard) and no planning of anything. He just grabbed the camera, turned it on, and started recording in 24p. I can't imagine what this camera can do if properly set up and used under professional conditions!
-->>>

I assume this was shot (and screened) at 1,33:1. Then, how could anyone ask which HiDef camera had shot that?

[Skip Hunt]

<<<--

Skip --

Could you please post (or e-mail) step-by-step directions on how to perform that stretch in AE5.5? I have tried to do it several times, with quite poor results. Thanks. -->>>

Basically make sure you shoot with the "THIN" vert res setting. I use the letterbox as guides and just pay close attention to framing when I shoot. Then created a 16:9 composite in AE5.5. Drag your footage into the new 16:9 comp and then scale up until you don't see the letterbox anymore (approx 133%). Make sure you render at High quality. That's it.

Skip

[Philippe Orlando]

In those screenings, all the PD 150 were PAL, I got that. But the DVX100, was it the NTSC version or the PAL version? I'm thinking about buying it, and I was thinking about the PAL version, but it the NTSC looks that good, since i'm in NTSC land, I won't bother again with PAL
Thanks
Philippe

[Jaime Valles]

Yes, the DVX100 footage they showed was NTSC, and it looked better than the PD-150 PAL that they showed (particularly "Chelsea Walls" and "Tadpole")

[Philippe Orlando]

wow,
do you attribute the quality of the DVX 100 NTSC to the camera itself or to the fact that tadpole and Chelsea walls were poorly shot? Or both?
I don't doubt that the DVX is an amazing cam though, but it must be even better than what I thought to transfer better than PAL mini DV
Philippe

[Jaime Valles]

Probably both. The folks at DuArt said they had to do LOTS of work on the final look of "Tadpole", because it was shot with such poor lighting. "Chelsea Walls" was a bit better, but showed a lot of detail loss in the wide shots of building exteriors, and edges looked quite jagged.

The DVX100, although not perfect, showed much better color and detail, and fewer jagged edges in the fine detail. Though I think that the PD-150 was not used to its full potential in most cases (except for "13 Moons", which looked great), some of the DVX100 footage was shot without any consideration of exposure settings, lighting, or composition, and it STILL looked better than the PD-150 (more detail and better color with less noise).

To me, at least, the DVX100 consistently produced better looking (more film-like) images than the PD-150 when transfered to film by DuArt labs.