DVX100A getting the total film look

Status
Not open for further replies.
i agree with that, but i think by sandwiching more layers of particle board on top will not make it look more like wood :D i would spend more time trying to get the surface veneer to look nice, rather than adding depth to it to make it seem more like wood :P

good analogy!
 
Kdawg said:
Nathan, I see your point. To me its like going to Ikea to get furniture. Its particleboard covered with a thin sheet of paper to create a "wood look". The average person would glance at it, and say "thats a nice oak cabinet". But upon further inspection it is not, does not feel like or look like real wood. Someone who works with wood everyday like me would glance at it and say "thats some trashy lookin material there."

I enjoy my DVX and the more I fiddle with it the better I get the picture to look, but yes film is film and video is video no matter how you look at it.

However, there is nothing wrong with trying to improve on that particleboard to make it look more and more like real wood.
Click to expand...

As a professional carpenter, cinematography student and now DVX owner, I love this analogy.

I would argue that the DVX with a very good 35mm adapter and lens can be considered a portable telecine, able to capture whole frames of 35mm to PAL or NTSC with a great many adjustable colour correction and gamma adjusting capabilities.

The ability to rewind a telecine and re-transfer at a different light is not possible on this DVX-telecine, however, as latitude is poor, but other than that, it is possible to create footage every bit as sumptuous as 35mm telecined footage sometimes, and almost as good in other less favourable lighting situations. Most of why 35mm looks better is down to the talent of the crew in lighting and all the sexy craft. I've seen 35 look like total **** when doe by amateurs.

I've been a video and digital hater for years, but I've swapped camps, and I am loving the challenge.
 
in regards to this thread... it's like talking politics and religion... it's a lose lose situation. digi vs. organic nobody will ever deny vinyl records... but you just can't ignore the convenience of mp3's either... you have to respect true film gurus but digital "film look" manipulation is where the money is at and thats why billion dollar companies go through such great lengths developing cameras and software to mimic the look of film... because one is sooo used to watching a movie that looks "film-ish" that is the demand... if it doesn't look "film-ish" we don't want to watch it... if i had to vote... digi is for me... just makes all the sense in the world. looks like film... ease of production and post production workflow totally takes the cake... anyways... most if not all filmmakers these days DIGITIZE their film footage for post workflow. so in the end... are we even watching film anymore?
 
Last edited:
It's not like talking politics and religion, and it's not like Ikea. It's a poster who doesn't know how to use the camera so well and wants a little help. And then it's a few people being showoffs. You want to know something? Those with the most strength don't go around flexing everywhere. They wait until something or someone needs some help and then they lift them up with hardly a bleat of bravado. People who go on and on about how many weights they've lifted when that's hardly the topic are simply trying to prove something. Maybe one day they will convince themselves they really are superfantasticexperts, and will be more in the mood to lend a hand to the weaker.

PS. digitizing film does not take away the "filmic" look, which generally comes down to some grain, some texture, more lattitude, as has been said above. I do'nt think the original poster cared to be actually shooting ON film, they wanted to replicate some of the filmic look.

My advice, aside from studying the manual and experimenting, would be to do the "film" look in post. There are a lot of plugins and processes available for that. I'm sure there is much more to say on this, but it's time for bed.

Play nice, carpenters and camera gods.
 
if they didnt want people flexing their opinions on them (or HIM) then they would have searched and found hundreds if not literally thousands of threads on this topic... so basically it was an invitation.

and to the poster who thinks digitizing film renders it nothing like film than wow!! this is my point! people who don't even KNOW what the film look is... but im not here to try and offend everyone i'm here to rant and discuss things in a hopefully mature manner.

one more thing: the "video mimicing film" industry is not multi-billion dollars. Well, maybe it is, but if you look at the productions that actually get released that use "digital film mimicing," well, they aren't exactly A movies.
 
I think the whole problem with this thread is there are about 100-200 simliar posts about this very same subject, and people get tired of answering the same old questions. Barry's DVX book is a good first start. I would browse around the clips section and see some things you like. Most posters will share their settings with you. The DVX is good for what it does, but even with an adapter, it will never get close to the resolution or latitude of true 35mm film.....but the hvx certainly is alot closer to that "look" than the DVX.
 
i think people should realise that the film look isnt a camera thing. its a Story, Set design, artdirection, cinematographer, director, acting, editor thing. the camera is the last piece of the puzzle. if youre weak on any of the others, forget about it.

Search function. im sick of reading this EXACT same arguemnt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top