Is it a bad idea to make feature films with the DVX100? (no widescreen)

blair witch was shot on video...4:3 I believe.

It's not like the question has no merit. You are just putting the cart before the horse. I would be more worried about script, cast and crew. If you make the best movie ever on a DVX, people will buy it, adapter or no.
 
Leo7 said:
You guys are acting like it's a dumb question.
Click to expand...
It's not that it's a dumb question- but it is rather dumb to be asking it.

By asking that question it becomes perfectly clear that you don't have the technical or practical knowledge to make a marketable feature film. If you can't swing $600 for a lens, then I'm going to go ahead and guarantee that you will not be making a nationally distributed feature film.

You could take your knowledge and budget and make 10 avante-garde features that might play in art houses, but other than that you're best bet is to really try to learn about the technique and art of filmmaking before trying to make a feature that's going to play in festivals and get a distribution deal.
 
Don't believe all this nonsense dude... if you get that anamorphic adapter then distributors and festival judges will be beating a path to your door.

But what I really want to know is... if I don't get a shotgun mic... will my movie sound okay in theaters?
 
MattinSTL said:
But what I really want to know... is if I don't buy a shotgun mic... will my movie sound okay in theaters?
Click to expand...

Duuuuuude, Blair Witch project shot without a microphone.
 
So when all the critics are watching my film from NY to LA you say they might not notice if I don't use a shotgun?

That's good news... I guess I'm going to start making feature films now then. One thing that's really concerning me is that I'm allergic to wet cement... should I wear gloves or just excuse myself to quickly wash my hands? Do they have a bathroom in Mann's theater?
 
LOL... ok... here's the bottom line, don't worry about all that... go shoot a few shorts, and get some experience, then shoot a feature (SD, on the DVX) destined for the home video DVD market... that's what I would do.
 
TC said:
It's not that it's a dumb question- but it is rather dumb to be asking it.

By asking that question it becomes perfectly clear that you don't have the technical or practical knowledge to make a marketable feature film. If you can't swing $600 for a lens, then I'm going to go ahead and guarantee that you will not be making a nationally distributed feature film.
You could take your knowledge and budget and make 10 avante-garde features that might play in art houses, but other than that you're best bet is to really try to learn about the technique and art of filmmaking before trying to make a feature that's going to play in festivals and get a distribution deal.
Click to expand...

Easily the best response in this thread.
 
I didn't really bother reading most of this thread, but I'll just add my 2 cents.

- You can do just fine without $600, or even $100. You don't need a budget to make a feature film if you are talented. I see plenty of people with plenty of budget produce things that look far from professional.

- You do need a lot of talent, and a lot of committed people to work for absolutely free and maybe even put their own money into it. If you are talented, smart, technically savvie, and surrounded by the right people, you can make it work.

A wide angle lens is different than shooting in 16:9 aspect ratio. You can shoot 16:9 in the DVX using the squeeze mode; you will lose some pixel data that would be there if you had native 16:9 CCDs like the HVX200, but whatever. It's fine. Wide angle lens is different than 16:9 aspect ratio.

Shoot in squeeze mode with the stock lens. Borrow a shotgun and/or hyper-cardiod mic if you can. If you can't, make sure to have very controlled conditions for any dialogue and keep the camera physically close to the speakers for all dialogue. You can make it work in editing if you are good with software and creative. You can also dial out some noise, etc.

One of the biggest problems people have is they can't edit well. I don't just mean edit, many people can edit fine... but not well. If you can edit well your productions will stand out.

If you can't edit, and have never shot anything before, don't worry.... more money won't help you. And you won't be winning any awards just yet. Make a short film a week, and start by not worrying about techie stuff or lighting. Just learn the camera and editing, then add lighting, then add sound. Practice, practice, practice. Make connections with people who are passionate about it like you are so you don't have to pay them. In fact, show them your work and make them pay you to be in the movie.

And don't ever make an award or distribution the goal. Your goal is nothing more than you love film-making and you are passionate. The rest will follow, if you have the natural ability.
 
Haha, it seems like most of these responses (minus the one above me) is sugar-coated flaming. For the most part, you are telling him to go out and shoot some shorts and then a feature. You have assumed because he asked if his movie should be shot in 16:9 to better distribution, that he has never made a movie, has no technical skills and doesn't know what he's doing at all. I personally find it offensive and not helpful at all for everyone to be bashing the hell out of this guy.

Tell me exactly where he states that he have never made a movie before. I just re-read all his posts and saw nothing of the kind. You can't ASSUME anything about him based on one simple question. It wasn't even a dumb question. You're all talking about theatrical releases as if he HAS to be picked up to have it viewed in a theater. I can rent out a theater of a university or something and have it screened there. What if those were his thoughts as well? He's asking how it'll look on the big screen if he uses 4:3 or 16:9. I'm pretty sure if it were titled "4:3 vs 16:9 for my feature film" he would get a lot more helpful responses.

Now, I'm not saying I'm the be all and end all of making movies, but nobody seems to be listening to his queries or reading his question in context. I'm trying to help him get a straight answer, without all this ridiculous "make some shorts, then work on a feature" bullcrap.

Take it as you'd like,

-Kegan
 
Hunter007 said:
Haha, it seems like most of these responses (minus the one above me) is sugar-coated flaming.
Click to expand...
But if we didn't sugar coat it, it would just be mean.:grin:

It's time to stop playing around here kiddies. I see a whole lot of this stuff every day- from forums to talking to film school kids and aspiring filmmakers. Everybody is the next big thing, nobody needs to put in the time and effort to learn this craft, distribution deals fall out of the sky for low budget films- right?

Wrong. And if you think differently, then put your money where your mouth is.

I don't care if you have $100 or $100,000- because both masterpieces and complete trash have been made for both. You don't just 'get lucky' and make an amazing film- this isn't gambling here, it's time to wake up.

I'm starting to get a really big chip on my shoulder about this- and nobody here needs to get defensive about it. I am not accusing anyone of anything. If you find yourself getting angry with my statements, ask yourself if it's because I'm a jackass or if it's because maybe I'm at least a little bit right.

Rant finished- back to the question at hand:

You ask if it's a waste of time to make a feature film without an anamorphic lens. No, it's not- and to be honest, filmmaking should never be a waste of time. If if is, then you're working on the wrong project.

As it has been stated, if your film rocks- and I mean it's totally amazing and you only spent $100 then that is awesome. Good for you, honestly. If it needs to be cropped for exhibition in theatres than it can be done in post. So go for it, shoot the feature and keep us updated. Because I will gladly eat my words at the sight of your success
 
Last edited:
TC,

For the record it is my opinion that you are right.

And I would add to Kegan that it is not an extraordinary assumption to think someone who seems to think that an anamorphic adapter would be the thing that makes a difference in whether his movie gets theatrical distribution, lacks a degree of experience.

Ignorance is not the enemy. Ignorance of your ignorance is. There is no shame in not knowing something. We all started somewhere. But if you come to get an education, be prepared to listen.
 
Last edited:
No, I completely agree with that - everyone thinks that they're the next big thing. Maybe he was a little presumptious in saying that it will get a distribution deal for theatrical release. Maybe it's some confidence instead of false hope.

Mean? Well, if he couldn't take a little bit of people being "mean", then he'd be in the wrong industry. I don't want to tell people how to post their statements, but if you're going to post something, be upfront about it. I just thought it was amusing how everyone tried to be "nice" about it.

This forum is a wealth of information as stated about a billion times before - but its only like that because some people just talk the talk and don't walk the walk. If everyone on this forum were out making movies on a constant basis, we wouldn't have as many members posting regularly, now would we? There are even a couple of senior members here that all they do is talk on the forums and it's great they're giving advice - but they don't FOLLOW their own advice and make movies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you TC...I think that people expect too much out of this industry, without having any dedication to put something into it. I try my best with the film work I do and get myself exposed, but I don't see myself as the next Spielberg. If I have a budget of $100, I'll make do with what I've got and improvise. Lots of people whine about not having the funds to do things - it's just lack of resourcefulness (sp) that's the problem.

-Kegan

EDIT TO RESPOND TO JIM: Despite the fact that he wrote anamorphic adapter, I still think he was referring to 16:9 vs 4:3. Maybe Leo can clear it up for us. Maybe I've completely misinterpreted this whole thread.
 
Fair enough, Kegan.

And the statement I made about sugar coating it was actually meant to be more jovial than it came off. I'm going to go back right now and add a smilie to the end of it.

And if the 'not following their own advice' was a crack at me well than you are the one who can eat your words- because I've been making money hand over fist as a director in the adult entertainment industry.

(Again, that's to be taken as a joke as well. :laugh:)
 
I just wanted to say that TC and Jim really got it dead on. TC is right in saying that you need to really work to do it, you don't just wake up and have a great film. Jim Brennan had a great quote, "If you come to get an education, prepare to listen". I think that would be the unofficial motto of DVXuser (if there was one), because we're all giving advice and criticism... sometimes at the same time.

Hunter007 said:
There are even a couple of senior members here that all they do is talk on the forums and it's great they're giving advice - but they don't FOLLOW their own advice and make movies.
Click to expand...
Little old me? You're too kind.
 
"Hand over fist"? Really TC? I should have washed my hands after seeing you at NAB. :)

I will agree with Keegan about the time some of us spend on the boards. Anyone who pays attention to my presence (and I KNOW you all do), will notice that I am missing for weeks or months at a time. That's when I am shooting/writing/editing, etc.
 
:grin: The crack was at no one in specific and I guess a lot can be miscommunicated over a message board. Just trying for us all to get a better idea of how to seperate the advice and the criticism.

-Kegan
 
I was just reading something you said in the forum about using squeeze mode rather than getting the anamorphic lens. Is it possible to shoot in squeeze and then stretch it out in the edit - using something like Adobe Premiere?

I spent most of my budget on the camera with the intention of just using letter box format (this is the 100B) but if there's an option of getting something nearer native 16X9 I'd rather do that.

Any ideas/advice?

Jack
 
Yes. THe issue you run into is framing if you do not have a 16x9 monitor. The image will look squeezed to you. This doesn't bother everyone, but it annoys the crap out of me. I just shoot 16x9, but that does sacrifice some res.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top