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

If I'm correct you lose virtually as much vertical resolution shooting in squeeze mode as you do if you shoot 4:3 and add 16:9 letterbox in post. Maybe someone with more technical expertise can verify or refute this.

I choose to shoot in 4:3 protecting for 16:9. This gives me the opportunity to reframe vertically in post. Something I do more times than I'd care to admit.
 
Last edited:
Everybody, including me, started out with the best intentions and kindness... it gets frustrating when people then ask the same question over and over until they get the answer they want to hear... so why not have fun with it.

If you read this thread you'll see that much of it is the same exact advice phrased differently... but after the third or fourth person basically says "16:9 doesn't mean sh*t unless your film is good" and the OP actually says "well why even bother trying if it won't make the big screen?"

Statements like that shake the premise that a person has the experience to be ready for the big screen anyway. Then each time a person humbly tries to explain that persuing experience would be wise... it counts as 'flaming'?
 
Leo7 said:
I have a DVX100 and want to make a feature film with it to submit to film festivals and lately have been concerned about the lack of widescreen and how this could cause problems for getting theatre releases or getting shown at film festivals.
Click to expand...
No one really cares dude. Make your film and call it a day. It's your first film, it will suck, make another. Another thing, do you have a DVX100a or b? Because if you have a normal DVX100 (the original like I have) there is no squeeze mode. These festivals are NOT looking for 16:9, they'll be looking for good stories and saleable product. Will you film sale is the question.

Next thing, stop thinking about theatrical distribution. Think toward DVD. If someone likes it they'll put the money into it and put it in a theater, but it's a better chance it will go to DVD. By the way Blair Witch didn't even have DV. It was shot on Hi8 and Super VHS I believe, but I know it wasn't DV.
Leo7 said:
I know there is a lens to convert it to widescreen but assuming I don't have $600 to buy that lens and decide to make it with what I have, I'm starting to think I will just be wasting my time because I won't get any theatre releases even if I happen to make a good feature film. Anyone ever wonder about that? :huh:
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time thinking someone's going to see your film and it's going to be the next big thing. My first film was distributed on DVD through a small distributor in Sherman Oaks. It was shot for about $700. I made absolutely nothing for it, but it did reach as far as North Africa.

I'm currently selling my film "Wages of Sin" (as you all know) on DVD. I'm doing my own distribution and taking matters into my own hands. This was shot on the DVX and is currently considered to be the first indy film formatted with Apple TV in mind. Guess what, we didn't have an adapter (we did have a shotgun mic, they're $150 and you should get one as they're more important than 16:9) and we had good but no pro lighting. We couldn't even use the lights all the time as we were on a tight schedule which left no room for lighting set ups so we had use a very light blue tint to change the orange flores. lighting in the room to look more filmic. You should read "How to Make an Action Movie for $99" as it has practical knowledge on how to make a low budget film and the book itself is cheap. I recommend it to all low budget filmmakers along with "Rebel Without a Cew" which is really cheap now. Both of these will help you. "What They Don't Teach You At Film School: 161 Strategies to Making Your Own Movie No Matter What " is good too. I hear "Digital Filmmaking 101: An Essential Guide to Producing Low Budget Movies" is a good one too but I can't vouch for it. I have the others.

You're worried about money, 16:9 and all that but what you need to be focused o is a good story and how you plan to shoot and edit it. Hey I saw where someone uploaded their whole flick to youtube the other day. It was simply about an older guy meeting a younger girl on the net. It was very low budget but it told an interesting enough story. Movies like "Swingers" are made on good stories and great acting. (Vince Vaughn was great in it and so was Jon Favreau). And trust me Swingers was not a big budget movie.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Isaac_Brody said:
Guys, noobie mcnoobsky got his question answered. How about we let this thread die...
Click to expand...
Ops. Sorry. I didn't know you guys were trying to kill the thread. I guess I wrote all this for nothing.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Hunter007 said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks, you said basically what I wanted to say! Yes I am talking about 4:3 vs. 16:9 (widescreen) and yes there is a lot of bashing in this thread which is unfortunate. But I'm just a silly noob who has dreams of one day having a feature play in theatres. I figure If I aim high and fall short, at least I can fall short above the rest who are too afraid to aim just as high. But honestly who cares what I think...I probably won't make it. But I will try.

I asked this question on another message boards ...

I thought I would share the other thread here for comparison..

MySpace
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?...n=6D9AB753-F577-4306-969F32CC3665881D51812587

I found the responses from MySpace to be more informative than DVXuser who did more bashing versus replying to the actual question. :badputer:

They said some interesting stuff on MySpace as I mentioned earlier..
.............................
"No. You cannot get a wide theatrical release with a 1.33:1 film. Most cineplex facilities are not equip to deal with 1.33:1.

Spellbound WAS released theatrically - but it only played on 117 screens (wide release is generally defined as 500-750+ screens). These were, most likely, "art house" screens (although I cannot verify that). Lost in La Mancha hit a grand total of 24 screens. By comparison Blades of Glory is currently on 3, 467 screens, Distubia opened on 2, 925 screens

You CAN shoot your film 1.33:1, "protect" for 1.85:1, and utilize BOTH. But a major theatrical release will be 1.85:1. Even if you have a 1.33:1 film - it will be shown as 1.85:1 the vast majority of the time."

.............................

The idea is that I would ultimately like my movie to play in theatres on a big screen. If you spend $5,000 on it or $100,000 on it, I think this brings up an interesting question regarding shooting in 4:3 vs. 16:9 (widescreen). If Spellbound only played on 117 screens, and you know it's due in part..to it not being shot in widescreen, you have to ask the question -- what if it was?
I know it's a trivial point and really won't matter if your film is stinks. But as the old saying goes, nobody sets out to make a bad film.

I personally think it's a shame that Spellbound only got 100+ theatres. I wish more theatres did support formats outside of widescreen. But I think something so critical should at least be taken into consideration before starting a feature film project.

I know I personally would be thrilled if my film was played in 100 screen/theatres. But it's interesting to know that there is a potential cap there based on the number of theatres that can or are willing to support the format. Assuming 100 screens is the near top...I may fall in after my attempts at around 20 screens. I think it puts it into perspective.

Just something to think about I guess..thanks again Hunter.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Guys, noobie mcnoobsky got his question answered. How about we let this thread die...
Click to expand...

That's ok, there are better boards on the internet that are more helpful and more welcoming to "noobs" and that don't have mods bashing "noobs".

Especially after I quoted data that proved most of you wrong and all you could do is bash me instead of commenting on the info I provided. So..:nads:
 
dvx footage can be transferred to 35mm film for a theatrical release. if you're shooting 4:3, it just means some of the lines will be cut off.
 
Not sure who you "proved wrong". You asked for opinions and you got them.

And theatres CAN play 4:3. I just watched Casablanca on the biggest screen in Colorado a few weeks ago. Believe me, if somebody thinks your film is worth something, they will find a way to distribute it even if you shot it on a Viewmaster.
 
Leo7 said:
That's ok, there are better boards on the internet that are more helpful and more welcoming to "noobs" and that don't have mods bashing "noobs".

Especially after I quoted data that proved most of you wrong and all you could do is bash me instead of commenting on the info I provided. So..:nads:
Click to expand...

Just so you know, "November" was shot 4:3 with a bare DVX100 (no A or B) and won Best Cinematography at Sundance.

Also, just so you know, 35mm film is 4:3, and often matted in projection to make it widescreen.

The DVX is perfectly capable of shooting a marketable feature film.
 
hes taking advice from his myspace page. Did anyone see Spellbound?? It didnt make it to wide release because it was poorly shot and had bad sound. Lack of 16:9 didnt have anything to do with its limited release... What about Murderball?? That was an awesome movie with a limited release in theaters and was delivered at 1.85:1 - I'm thinking aspect ratio has zero correlation to theater release. Jim Brennan's got it right in his signature. If you could make movies as well as you made excuses... Doh I just realized this thread is dying too... Oh well. Now it can die :)
 
Leo7 said:
That's ok, there are better boards on the internet that are more helpful and more welcoming to "noobs" and that don't have mods bashing "noobs".

Especially after I quoted data that proved most of you wrong and all you could do is bash me instead of commenting on the info I provided. So..:nads:
Click to expand...
Ya know, I have to wonder if the 850 currently active users agree that this forum is so crappy. I bet if they all find out that they could be asking their questions on MySpace, they would all flood their boards.

(I wish there were a 'sarcastic smilie'.)

Perhaps you would have gotten a better responce to this thread had you read the forum FAQ and posted your question in the very clearly marked "DVX100 Technical Section" as opposed to the Cafe.

You have to understand that this is a HUGE filmmaking community and we are constantly innundated with people who have a question or two- pop in and post the questions wherever they desire. They EXPECT an immediate and thorough response before disappearing from out radar. When they come back, it's generally to start another thread of their own and add absolutely nothing to anybody elses.
 
David Jimerson said:
Just so you know, "November" was shot 4:3 with a bare DVX100 (no A or B) and won Best Cinematography at Sundance.

Also, just so you know, 35mm film is 4:3, and often matted in projection to make it widescreen.

The DVX is perfectly capable of shooting a marketable feature film.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Good stuff. And just so you know, since I've been here (briefly), I've always found you to be the most helpful/knowledgable mod here.

But regarding the film November..

It cost $1.5 million to produce. It's widest theatre release was 27 theatres. Total lifetime gross was $192,000.

source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=november.htm

I haven't seen it but would assume it was a fairly good film if it won an award.

So I would wonder how 4:3 effected it's theatre release to around 27. If you win an award and only get 27 theatres, that's a pretty bleak outlook.

I'm just saying..I know that's the pessimistic way to look at it. But still, it lost money and again I'm left wondering what if they shot it in widescreen.

It seems to support what I was asking about originally. Then again who knows, DVD sales could have been phenomenal.
 
As much as I hate to bring things back to The Blair Witch Project, that was 4:3 and shown theatrically in its 4:3 glory. I seem to remember that playing on one or two screens around the country.
 
Leo7 said:
So I would wonder how 4:3 effected it's theatre release to around 27. If you win an award and only get 27 theatres, that's a pretty bleak outlook.

I'm just saying..I know that's the pessimistic way to look at it. But still, it lost money and again I'm left wondering what if they shot it in widescreen.

It seems to support what I was asking about originally. Then again who knows, DVD sales could have been phenomenal.
Click to expand...

It wasn't because it was 4:3.

"Open Water" was an inferior film which looked like crap, but it got a wide theatrical release even though it was shot with PD-150s and VX1000s in 4:3.

"28 Days Later" got a WIIIIDE release and did very well financially, even though it was mostly shot with an XL1s, in 4:3.

Most recently, "In a Scanner, Darkly" was sourced entirely on a DVX.
 
David Jimerson said:
It wasn't because it was 4:3.

"Open Water" was an inferior film which looked like crap, but it got a wide theatrical release even though it was shot with PD-150s and VX1000s in 4:3.

"28 Days Later" got a WIIIIDE release and did very well financially, even though it was mostly shot with an XL1s, in 4:3.

Most recently, "In a Scanner, Darkly" was sourced entirely on a DVX.
Click to expand...



Did not know that, good to know. And it makes me feel better about shooting in 4:3 again. If someone just said something like this on page 1...:2vrolijk_08:

:Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG): :Drogar-Happy(DBG):
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top