List of Feature Films shot with dvx100? at DVinfo.net

Kaifoong Kok · November 25th, 2003, 03:18 PM

I am interested to know the list of feature films shot with DVX100? Does anyone know? Please give me the links or tailers?

Thanks!

Bryan Mitchell · December 21st, 2003, 10:55 AM

I have an IMDB PRO subscription, and when I did a search for movies (this doesn't necessarily mean big budget ones, just ones IMDB has alowed to be in their database) these showed up:

I looked each up for their budget. For the ones that listed it, I have added the $ to the right.

Rock Bottom: From Hell to Redemption (2004) - $350k
Spank (2003)
Open House (2004)
Tales From Beyond (2004)
Alone and Restless (2003)
The Littlest Cowboy (2003) - $10k
The Passage (2003) - $10k
The Mystic Motel (2003)
The Movie Pitch (2003) - $5k
Baggage (2003)

Only a few of those had well known people.

Rock Bottom - Jason Mewes
Tales from beyond - Adam West

Not that you asked, but since I and others here own one:
XL1 & XL1s have 123 results, with the most well know being:

28 days later (though it used $10,000 lenses setups, and 8 of the cameras - great movie, own it on dvd)
Party Monster (Macaulay Culkin, Seth Green - which by the trailers, I doubt I'll be seing.)
and
Full Frontal (never saw, but well known)

It would take me forever to link you, but if you would like you can view some information about them at www.imdb.com

For $12/mo you can go to pro.imdb.com and view alot more information about the movies. Agent/Contacts, Budget, Box Office per week, shot locations, timeline of production, in production info, awards, summaries, reviews. For the film lover, its well worth its price. Tons of information on the free version, and even more on the pro.

Kaifoong Kok · December 21st, 2003, 02:41 PM

Thanks Bryan for the info! I'll check them out in imdb.com. I don't have a pro account btw. How do you search? keyword=dvx100?

I did own DVD of 28 days and full frontal.

In 28 days, some scenes have a really nice "film look" I must say! But when the first scene of video-look appeared (the lacking of resolution is the major problem; in fact, not quite the color or lighting, i mean, they did a fantastic job in post to make it film-look!) , then I just can't stop myself keep looking for them! Anyway, it's a good film!

On full frontal, it's a mix of video and 35mm film; and the video was used to express 'video taping' instead of substitude film--so, they just purposely make it "even more video look than video look!". So, in fact, they can use just any camera, don't have to be a more 'film-look' camera. That's a weird film. I get bored in my first watch, but like it more after going through the director commentary. I'd watched it 3 times including the director's commentary.

changable lens is definitely a 'big deal' for professionals with 'at least SOME budget' since they can afford good lens. I'm waiting for reviews on the new DVX100A as PD170 has not much to offer than PD150. Wondering when will the next generation of XL1s born!

Bryan Mitchell · December 21st, 2003, 02:51 PM

The search camera feature is a Pro only feature, so you will have to upgrade. IMDB offeres a 2 week free trial, and if you cancel before that then they don't charge you. I thought I would cancel but I loved it so much I never did.

28 days later used the mini35 system on all 8 cameras I believe, so that's actually about $15k*8 with cams, so It's pretty high budget. It does look extremely good though.

Charles Papert · December 21st, 2003, 06:05 PM

"28 Days" used broadcast zooms with the B4 lens mounts adaptors, not film lenses nor the Mini35. The result was better resolution and a more flexible focal length range, but the depth of field characteristic was unchanged from a standard DV lens. Something to consider in light of the current fascination with shallow depth of field representing the Holy Grail of film look.

Bryan Mitchell · December 21st, 2003, 11:40 PM

I guess I was wrong. I thought I had read that they used mini35. Oh well.

Charles Papert · December 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM

Actually, I only got part of it right--fuzzy memory. It was the B4 adaptors but they used Canon HD primes, not broadcast zooms. This thread should contain all the info, I think.

Don Berube · December 22nd, 2003, 02:31 AM

I heard that due to the shape and size of the back of the Canon HD primes used, the lenses had to be mounted upside down. Obviously, it worked, however I think that the rental house who supplied the lenses and cameras made a statement something to the effect of "We wouldn't recommend that you try this at home, nor do we plan on doing this again anytime soon"

- don

Chris Sorensen · December 22nd, 2003, 11:28 AM

Here's a trick to search free IMDB for camera info. On any film you can click on Technical Specs to see what it was shot on. Then, in that screen, just click on the camera listed and it will show all the films shot with that camera. (For example, look at Pieces of April. Click on Tech Specs. It shows the camera it was shot on was a PD150. Click on PD150 and it lists all the films that used a PD150.)

You can't search directly on the camera, but if you know one film shot with it, you can find the others.

Kaifoong Kok · December 22nd, 2003, 03:14 PM

Thanks Chris! This search trick works just fine!

If I remember correctly, the commentary (or special features) on the DVD of 28 days did mention about their budget...15 million or something. And yes, all their cameras and lens were rent not bought. Also, they did a lot of work in post to make it film look (even create different lighting of some scenes).

Kaifoong Kok · December 22nd, 2003, 03:32 PM

I was wondering why is there so few digital feature films made by this DVX100 (i just did a search in IMDB, 10 listed out and more than half of them are short films) as almost all reviews around the world saying it's the camera that produce the best film-look images so far. I can imagine XL1s for a big reason (changable lens) but PD150 vs. DVX100...why? What's wrong with this DVX100 actually? Don't get me wrong, I think PD150 produce fantastic pictures, but comparing it with DVX100, resolution is less and cine-gamma curve + progressive...

Chris Sorensen · December 22nd, 2003, 04:57 PM

Timing. From pre-production to filming to distribution can take a while. The camera just came out a year ago. We should soon see a wave of DVX films.

Bryan Mitchell · December 22nd, 2003, 07:28 PM

Thats how I do the search for the camera too lol. I didn't realize it was in free IMDB, so thanks for mentioning it. It seems this entire subject is full of me providing wrong information aside from the list of movies in my first post. (But who could mess up a copy paste?) I think I need to get some more sleep :-) .

Kaifoong Kok · December 23rd, 2003, 02:28 AM

Probably, timing. I know that Pana's HD version of DVX100 (AJ-HDC27FE) have done some fancy feature films in singapore (police action film) and korea (a dragon film with lots of effects). I think Pana sponser their camera to those projects to promote the camera. Waiting for these films to come. I saw the trailer in that promotion conference, and they are very well done!

IMDB is a fantastic website. Just wondering how to subscribe film titles to them?

November 25th, 2003, 03:18 PM	#1
Kaifoong Kok Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Malaysia Posts: 57	List of Feature Films shot with dvx100? I am interested to know the list of feature films shot with DVX100? Does anyone know? Please give me the links or tailers? Thanks! __________________ KaiF

December 21st, 2003, 02:41 PM	#3
Kaifoong Kok Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Malaysia Posts: 57	Thanks Bryan for the info! I'll check them out in imdb.com. I don't have a pro account btw. How do you search? keyword=dvx100? I did own DVD of 28 days and full frontal. In 28 days, some scenes have a really nice "film look" I must say! But when the first scene of video-look appeared (the lacking of resolution is the major problem; in fact, not quite the color or lighting, i mean, they did a fantastic job in post to make it film-look!) , then I just can't stop myself keep looking for them! Anyway, it's a good film! On full frontal, it's a mix of video and 35mm film; and the video was used to express 'video taping' instead of substitude film--so, they just purposely make it "even more video look than video look!". So, in fact, they can use just any camera, don't have to be a more 'film-look' camera. That's a weird film. I get bored in my first watch, but like it more after going through the director commentary. I'd watched it 3 times including the director's commentary. changable lens is definitely a 'big deal' for professionals with 'at least SOME budget' since they can afford good lens. I'm waiting for reviews on the new DVX100A as PD170 has not much to offer than PD150. Wondering when will the next generation of XL1s born! __________________ KaiF

December 21st, 2003, 06:05 PM	#5
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	"28 Days" used broadcast zooms with the B4 lens mounts adaptors, not film lenses nor the Mini35. The result was better resolution and a more flexible focal length range, but the depth of field characteristic was unchanged from a standard DV lens. Something to consider in light of the current fascination with shallow depth of field representing the Holy Grail of film look. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM	#7
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Actually, I only got part of it right--fuzzy memory. It was the B4 adaptors but they used Canon HD primes, not broadcast zooms. This thread should contain all the info, I think. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 22nd, 2003, 02:31 AM	#8
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	I heard that due to the shape and size of the back of the Canon HD primes used, the lenses had to be mounted upside down. Obviously, it worked, however I think that the rental house who supplied the lenses and cameras made a statement something to the effect of "We wouldn't recommend that you try this at home, nor do we plan on doing this again anytime soon" - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

December 21st, 2003, 10:55 AM	#2
Bryan Mitchell Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 316	I have an IMDB PRO subscription, and when I did a search for movies (this doesn't necessarily mean big budget ones, just ones IMDB has alowed to be in their database) these showed up: I looked each up for their budget. For the ones that listed it, I have added the $ to the right. Rock Bottom: From Hell to Redemption (2004) - $350k Spank (2003) Open House (2004) Tales From Beyond (2004) Alone and Restless (2003) The Littlest Cowboy (2003) - $10k The Passage (2003) - $10k The Mystic Motel (2003) The Movie Pitch (2003) - $5k Baggage (2003) Only a few of those had well known people. Rock Bottom - Jason Mewes Tales from beyond - Adam West Not that you asked, but since I and others here own one: XL1 & XL1s have 123 results, with the most well know being: 28 days later (though it used $10,000 lenses setups, and 8 of the cameras - great movie, own it on dvd) Party Monster (Macaulay Culkin, Seth Green - which by the trailers, I doubt I'll be seing.) and Full Frontal (never saw, but well known) It would take me forever to link you, but if you would like you can view some information about them at www.imdb.com For $12/mo you can go to pro.imdb.com and view alot more information about the movies. Agent/Contacts, Budget, Box Office per week, shot locations, timeline of production, in production info, awards, summaries, reviews. For the film lover, its well worth its price. Tons of information on the free version, and even more on the pro.

December 21st, 2003, 02:51 PM	#4
Bryan Mitchell Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 316	The search camera feature is a Pro only feature, so you will have to upgrade. IMDB offeres a 2 week free trial, and if you cancel before that then they don't charge you. I thought I would cancel but I loved it so much I never did. 28 days later used the mini35 system on all 8 cameras I believe, so that's actually about $15k*8 with cams, so It's pretty high budget. It does look extremely good though.

December 21st, 2003, 11:40 PM	#6
Bryan Mitchell Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 316	I guess I was wrong. I thought I had read that they used mini35. Oh well.

December 22nd, 2003, 11:28 AM	#9
Chris Sorensen Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 61	Here's a trick to search free IMDB for camera info. On any film you can click on Technical Specs to see what it was shot on. Then, in that screen, just click on the camera listed and it will show all the films shot with that camera. (For example, look at Pieces of April. Click on Tech Specs. It shows the camera it was shot on was a PD150. Click on PD150 and it lists all the films that used a PD150.) You can't search directly on the camera, but if you know one film shot with it, you can find the others.

December 22nd, 2003, 03:14 PM	#10
Kaifoong Kok Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Malaysia Posts: 57	Thanks Chris! This search trick works just fine! If I remember correctly, the commentary (or special features) on the DVD of 28 days did mention about their budget...15 million or something. And yes, all their cameras and lens were rent not bought. Also, they did a lot of work in post to make it film look (even create different lighting of some scenes). __________________ KaiF

December 22nd, 2003, 03:32 PM	#11
Kaifoong Kok Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Malaysia Posts: 57	I was wondering why is there so few digital feature films made by this DVX100 (i just did a search in IMDB, 10 listed out and more than half of them are short films) as almost all reviews around the world saying it's the camera that produce the best film-look images so far. I can imagine XL1s for a big reason (changable lens) but PD150 vs. DVX100...why? What's wrong with this DVX100 actually? Don't get me wrong, I think PD150 produce fantastic pictures, but comparing it with DVX100, resolution is less and cine-gamma curve + progressive... __________________ KaiF

December 22nd, 2003, 04:57 PM	#12
Chris Sorensen Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 61	Timing. From pre-production to filming to distribution can take a while. The camera just came out a year ago. We should soon see a wave of DVX films.

December 22nd, 2003, 07:28 PM	#13
Bryan Mitchell Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 316	Thats how I do the search for the camera too lol. I didn't realize it was in free IMDB, so thanks for mentioning it. It seems this entire subject is full of me providing wrong information aside from the list of movies in my first post. (But who could mess up a copy paste?) I think I need to get some more sleep :-) .

December 23rd, 2003, 02:28 AM	#14
Kaifoong Kok Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Malaysia Posts: 57	Probably, timing. I know that Pana's HD version of DVX100 (AJ-HDC27FE) have done some fancy feature films in singapore (police action film) and korea (a dragon film with lots of effects). I think Pana sponser their camera to those projects to promote the camera. Waiting for these films to come. I saw the trailer in that promotion conference, and they are very well done! IMDB is a fantastic website. Just wondering how to subscribe film titles to them? __________________ KaiF