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

"If someone just said something like this on page 1... "

MattinSTL said:
Blair Witch...

You don't need special gear to get into a film festival... only an idea well executed... with a compelling story.

Set the cam in letterbox and go with it. If you shoot a feature for festivals and don't get in... it won't be because of the cam.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty close to me, right from page 1
 
Leo7

If you are worried about the DVX not being sufficient for your needs, then you can always sell it and purchase one these alternatives:

Panasonic HVX-200

Pros - Can shoot HD, SD, DV. DVCPRO in 16x9, also has Variable Frame Shooting. Also, the P2 Card prices have just dropped. DVCPROHD is a more robust format than HDV.

Cons - Expensive, and less recording times in HD if you don't have more than a couple P2 cards.

Canon XH-A1

Pros - Shoots on inexpensive miniDV tapes in HD (HDV format). Stock lens is a 20x zoom giving you greater ability to control depth-of-field. Has a lot of controls for in-camera image tweaking. You can shoot in HD, then downconvert to DV upon capturing.

Cons - Smaller LCD than the DVX. More complex than a DVX (requires more manual tweaking). HDV format is a comrpessed format, meaning that scenes with lots of motion could have problems due to the codec not being able to keep up. (Although this hasn't been much of a problem with the XH-A1s.)

As with all HD or HDV cameras, your editing computer will need faster processors, more ram, and more hard drive space to process and store all that HD footage. You may also need to upgrade your editing software to the newest version so that HD editing will be possible.

Also, with HD and DVD, most HD users say that when they shoot and edit in HD, then downconvert in post, they get better SD DVD results than a DVX. HD will obviously also give you better resolution for theatrical projection and HD-DVD or Blu-ray.

Canon XL-2

Pros - Shoots 24p on miniDV. Longer 20x lens. Lens is interchangable. Has native 16x9 CCD's. Price has recently come down again. Is only a little more than the DVX100. You could buy it without the lens, then add a LetusXL 35mm adapter and buy some Nikon or Canon SLR lenses and get closer to the film look with 16x9 as well.

Cons - Larger and heavier. No/small LCD. Might also require some more tweaking like the XH-A1 does in comparison to the DVX. SD only, so less resolution than HD.

I will say that I think the DVX is a great camera for a feature. I just wanted to offer some alternatives. These may or may not be affordable options for you now, but if I were making a feature right now I would shoot HD. Mostly for personal reasons than for fear of the DVX not being good enough.

Hopefully this was helpful. Now I gotta go edit and make some money so that I can shoot my feature some day too.
 
Nektonic said:
Leo7

If you are worried about the DVX not being sufficient for your needs, then you can always sell it and purchase one these alternatives:

Panasonic HVX-200

Pros - Can shoot HD, SD, DV. DVCPRO in 16x9, also has Variable Frame Shooting. Also, the P2 Card prices have just dropped. DVCPROHD is a more robust format than HDV.

Cons - Expensive, and less recording times in HD if you don't have more than a couple P2 cards.

Canon XH-A1

Pros - Shoots on inexpensive miniDV tapes in HD (HDV format). Stock lens is a 20x zoom giving you greater ability to control depth-of-field. Has a lot of controls for in-camera image tweaking. You can shoot in HD, then downconvert to DV upon capturing.

Cons - Smaller LCD than the DVX. More complex than a DVX (requires more manual tweaking). HDV format is a comrpessed format, meaning that scenes with lots of motion could have problems due to the codec not being able to keep up. (Although this hasn't been much of a problem with the XH-A1s.)

As with all HD or HDV cameras, your editing computer will need faster processors, more ram, and more hard drive space to process and store all that HD footage. You may also need to upgrade your editing software to the newest version so that HD editing will be possible.

Also, with HD and DVD, most HD users say that when they shoot and edit in HD, then downconvert in post, they get better SD DVD results than a DVX. HD will obviously also give you better resolution for theatrical projection and HD-DVD or Blu-ray.

Canon XL-2

Pros - Shoots 24p on miniDV. Longer 20x lens. Lens is interchangable. Has native 16x9 CCD's. Price has recently come down again. Is only a little more than the DVX100. You could buy it without the lens, then add a LetusXL 35mm adapter and buy some Nikon or Canon SLR lenses and get closer to the film look with 16x9 as well.

Cons - Larger and heavier. No/small LCD. Might also require some more tweaking like the XH-A1 does in comparison to the DVX. SD only, so less resolution than HD.

I will say that I think the DVX is a great camera for a feature. I just wanted to offer some alternatives. These may or may not be affordable options for you now, but if I were making a feature right now I would shoot HD. Mostly for personal reasons than for fear of the DVX not being good enough.

Hopefully this was helpful. Now I gotta go edit and make some money so that I can shoot my feature some day too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! There seems to be a big move towards HD ultra and some newer technology will be coming out so I plan on waiting until I have something slightly successful before going HD. Start smaller..and work my way up. That is good info though and I have seen HD vs. DVX and have to say HD is a clear winner. But I need to improve my skills first and don't think it will matter quite yet. I leaning towards getting an adapter..maybe an M2 or Letus35 next. Need some better MICs.

This thread though happened to be about something I was concerned about. I didn't want to start on a larger project if I'm going to get hassled for it not being widescreen. But it seems like based on the helpful replies..that is not the case. :)
 
I also own a DVX and agree that it is a great cam. Putting more money into other equipment is a wise choice.

Good luck with your film. Let us know how it turns out.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Is there a smiley for a dead horse?
Click to expand...
1177100590.gif
 
Wow!!!

Wow!!!

Jim Brennan said:
I don't think that horse is suggesting exactly that. It's more that if you can't afford that (which is hardly the key to your success), you won't have access to the other things which ake a movie that will get a theatrical release. (like great actors, an amazing script, competent crew, good gear, etc). THe days of people getting excited about your indie feature, just because you got it made on the cheap are gone. You need to make a great film, or at least one that hits a specific niche really well. There are films shot with million dollar budgets that don't get theatrical release.

I know of a couple of films that got distribution (on DVD) shot on SD. One was on the XL2 (shot by our own Khendrix2) which hit a niche, one on the SD900 which had a few minor name actors. They had budgets of 50K and 100K respectively.

Make the film because you want to. Make it to learn and use it as a calling card. DO the best you can, and then make another one
Click to expand...

Very well said:thumbsup:
 
Actually, it was played on a piano, but it sounded great.

Our wedding programs were in script form, with a red card stock cover connected with small brass brads.
 
Very Cool. Except for the piano...that's just BLASPHEMY!

I would love to do my wedding over again. I would change almost everything, except the bride and a few of the guests.
 
Yeah, I see your point.

Another of the few things I would not change about my wedding was the song we picked: "One Year of Love" by Queen from the Highlander soundtrack. (I pushed for "Gimmee the Prize", but...)
 
Jim Brennan said:
Yeah, I see your point.

Another of the few things I would not change about my wedding was the song we picked: "One Year of Love" by Queen from the Highlander soundtrack. (I pushed for "Gimmee the Prize", but...)
Click to expand...

That was in the running (OYOL), but I couldn't reconcile the "one year" part. We had been together for five years at that point. We also considered "Las Palabras de Amor" (also Queen), but it, too had thematic problems.

We ended up with Alphaville's "Forever Young."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top