260 feature films shot with DVX !!

Monglane

Monglane

Well-known member
Hi all,

I know IMDB to be the best movie reference database around, and on their site I've just found out that 260 feature-length films have been shot with the DVX !!! Some only in part, but most in totality...

Look here : http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Panasonic%20AG-DVX100.

Did you guys all know this ? Personally I'm baffled and all the more in awe of this extraordinary machine. :shocked:
 
There are actually more than that. Heck, I've shot 5 features and 2 shorts with it, but I didn't list the DVX when I added the imdb info. I'm sure other folks haven't bothered to provide that info either.
 
I wonder which percentage is greater:

The percetage of features shot with a DVX?
or the percentage of features that are actually good?
 
interesting point that illustrates the double edged sword of DV. Yes the technology is available to the masses to shoot and edit thier very own feature, but that affordability can entice sloppy filmmakers.
 
Edweirdo said:
interesting point that illustrates the double edged sword of DV. Yes the technology is available to the masses to shoot and edit thier very own feature, but that affordability can entice sloppy filmmakers.
Click to expand...

Touche.:thumbsup:
 
I have yet to see a good DVX feature film. Granted that they exist but I haven't seen them yet. :grin:

Serious films would probably have enough budget for s16.

*I feel bad saying this now. What are some great features that are DVX, not docs. :beer:
 
escozooz said:
I have yet to see a good DVX feature film. Granted that they exist but I haven't seen them yet. :grin:

Serious films would probably have enough budget for s16.

*I feel bad saying this now. What are some great features that are DVX, not docs. :beer:
Click to expand...

I don't think the format used to shoot the film defines how serious or how good the film is.
 
zooz, what is the typical budget for one of your vids??? pretty good stuff...I would guess you have some type of budget? or no?
 
araujofh said:
I don't think the format used to shoot the film defines how serious or how good the film is.
Click to expand...

Here, here. I've seen an award winning short, shot on a spring loaded Bell and Howell!
 
So, you're telling me, based on these definitions, that is what defines a feature film??

Tell that to the thousands of filmmakers out there that have made a "feature" film, that never got distributed or picked up for distribution; or just made a film for themselves, with no intention of distribution, or "intended for theatrical release"
I think they, including myself, would beg to differ.

#2: "a film formatted and targeted for the movie theater market."
What about the direct to video market, they're not feature films??!!

I think you stated it best above:"There are different interpetations for the "feature" film label."
But, I think length and genre are the primary ingredients.
 
I think Jim is actually right, and in fact, I checked that IMDB list and quite a few of those movies are actually short films (for example, "Art History", which was discussed quite extensively on this forum last year).

So, I was wrong to assume that all those movies were 90 minutes or more... but still, that's quite an achievement for the DVX ! :thumbsup:

(Waiting for delivery of my 100 B !!)
 
I haven't seen November yet, I bet its nice to see in Theaters.

In my own world of never working on a feature film or knowing much about them: I would consider a feature 70min+ with Distrobution.

I think that a lot of "feature films" go straight to DVD, like Disney sequeals. Mulan 2 OWNS!! Lion King 2 .. eeeehhh I do like Lions. :thumbsup: Krumbs New Groove shows potential but I really liked the first one, hard to top that.

In conclusion I think Disney is great. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
Edweirdo said:
interesting point that illustrates the double edged sword of DV. Yes the technology is available to the masses to shoot and edit thier very own feature, but that affordability can entice sloppy filmmakers.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. It isn't affordability it's the current generation. And the mtv-ization of everything. Look at the market place today most theatrical films suck too, it has nothing to do with dv, just the vast majority of filmmakers these days are sloppy.

The phrase "They don't make 'em like they used to" comes to mind.
 
I have to agree with ecking ... and with edweirdo as well.

Availability of desktop publishing tools makes for a ton of poorly designed and laid-out ads, with horendous spelling mistakes, because those ads are made by people who've never been taught the tools of the trade. Same goes for filmmaking, alhtough (fortunately) to a lesser extent so far.

*AND* it also seems that less and less people take pride in doing their work well and in providing attentive and punctual service, from motor workshops to dry cleaners... and count your blessings, my American friends : it's much worse in Europe !

That being said, merry Christmas to you all anyway !
 
Arrrgh, you got me there ! Please believe that it was only a typo, though, and not a misspelling ! :cheesy:
 
In reading this thread I noted that there was a disagreement over the definition of feature film. Monglane used the term feature-length in the original post which seems to refer to movies longer than 70 minutes. While a feature film might very well be a film designed for theatrical release, I believe the term feature-length is a good way of differentiating a longer movie from a short be it theatrical or otherwise.

A quick search brought up this website for a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top