Mtv VMA Film Look at DVinfo.net

Humby Valdes · August 28th, 2003, 06:41 PM

Does anyone know how MTV is making the VMA look like film?

The event is live so...?

Alex Knappenberger · August 28th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Film? It's just like the other ones. 24P HD. Looks like choppy video to me, makes me want to barf.

Humby Valdes · August 28th, 2003, 08:01 PM

Is it? It looks good to me... so good that it resembles the musical concert specials they have every now and then on PBS.

Heath McKnight · August 28th, 2003, 08:47 PM

They did the same thing two or three years ago; I thought it was some effect. I was actually going to ask about it. Going from 24p to our TVs (60i, right?) makes it look like sh!t.

heath

ps-I've always hated awards shows, esp. this one. Everyone at my TV station is watching it like religion right now. Ugh.

pss-Sign up for my DVD contest, wink wink!

Gary Chavez · August 29th, 2003, 08:44 AM

i have to agree with the others that dont like the effect.
it is distracting, which is still a bad thing right?

Humby Valdes · August 29th, 2003, 09:43 AM

Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm not talking about past VMA ('01 '02) or that Mtv2 look.

If ya didn't see it maybe you can catch a rerun and see what I mean, the 2003 one looked good! So good that it was 90% of the reason I watched it.

Joe Gioielli · August 29th, 2003, 08:28 PM

I saw it too and had the same question. I do know what you mean that some of it looked good. There were moments that the colors looked nice and rich, but those moments, for me, were fleeting. On the whole, it looked choppy.

I asked some friends, who are not in the biz and know nothing about video, thought it looked funky.

There was something good in there, though.

T. Patrick Murray · August 29th, 2003, 09:26 PM

I asked this question on another thread-

I THINK IT LOOKED INCREDIBLE.

I want to know what CAMERAS were used.

PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME!

Varicam?

I disagree that it looked bad or choppy. That's the future, and it looks
like 16mm film.

T. Patrick Murray

Matt Stahley · August 29th, 2003, 10:32 PM

I still cant decide if I liked the look or not. I 'm leaning towards not. IMO it was a horroribly produced show with some really bad performances and way to many commercial breaks but i guess they gotta pay those bills.

Charles Papert · August 29th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Last year they used Sony Cinealtas here's the thread from last year, and downcoverted live. I imagine they did the same this year. I think a lot of the look came through processing that was done to the overall feed, after the camera switching.

August 28th, 2003, 06:41 PM	#1
Humby Valdes New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 23	Mtv VMA Film Look Does anyone know how MTV is making the VMA look like film? The event is live so...?

August 28th, 2003, 08:47 PM	#4
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	They did the same thing two or three years ago; I thought it was some effect. I was actually going to ask about it. Going from 24p to our TVs (60i, right?) makes it look like sh!t. heath ps-I've always hated awards shows, esp. this one. Everyone at my TV station is watching it like religion right now. Ugh. pss-Sign up for my DVD contest, wink wink! __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 29th, 2003, 08:28 PM	#7
Joe Gioielli Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New Port Richey, Fl Posts: 142	VMA Look I saw it too and had the same question. I do know what you mean that some of it looked good. There were moments that the colors looked nice and rich, but those moments, for me, were fleeting. On the whole, it looked choppy. I asked some friends, who are not in the biz and know nothing about video, thought it looked funky. There was something good in there, though. __________________ Why ask me? I thought you were in charge!

August 29th, 2003, 09:26 PM	#8
T. Patrick Murray Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 33	I asked this question on another thread- I THINK IT LOOKED INCREDIBLE. I want to know what CAMERAS were used. PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME! Varicam? I disagree that it looked bad or choppy. That's the future, and it looks like 16mm film. T. Patrick Murray __________________ www.TheLastGame.com "The HOOP DREAMS of football..." USA TODAY (Mike Clark) FOUR STARS

August 29th, 2003, 10:44 PM	#10
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Last year they used Sony Cinealtas here's the thread from last year, and downcoverted live. I imagine they did the same this year. I think a lot of the look came through processing that was done to the overall feed, after the camera switching. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 28th, 2003, 07:28 PM	#2
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	Film? It's just like the other ones. 24P HD. Looks like choppy video to me, makes me want to barf.

August 28th, 2003, 08:01 PM	#3
Humby Valdes New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 23	Is it? It looks good to me... so good that it resembles the musical concert specials they have every now and then on PBS.

August 29th, 2003, 08:44 AM	#5
Gary Chavez Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Antonio Posts: 355	i have to agree with the others that dont like the effect. it is distracting, which is still a bad thing right?

August 29th, 2003, 09:43 AM	#6
Humby Valdes New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 23	Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about past VMA ('01 '02) or that Mtv2 look. If ya didn't see it maybe you can catch a rerun and see what I mean, the 2003 one looked good! So good that it was 90% of the reason I watched it.

August 29th, 2003, 10:32 PM	#9
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	I still cant decide if I liked the look or not. I 'm leaning towards not. IMO it was a horroribly produced show with some really bad performances and way to many commercial breaks but i guess they gotta pay those bills.