4 DVX films in the Theaters Now!

Jan_Crittenden

Jan_Crittenden

Veteran
Hi

Looks like a good summer for the DVX. There currently 4 films that have been shot with the DVX in the Theaters right now. www.movies.com can help you find if there is a theater near you.

9 Songs
Mad Hot Ballroom
Murderball
November

All the best,

Jan
 
Just saw Murderball yesterday and it was amazing. The editing was spectacular. I didn't know Mad Hot Ballroom was filmed on a dvx. Now I have to go see it.
 
Isn't there any place where it just lists the towns they are showing in? I'm willing to drive more than 25 miles to see one of these...
 
Well, in some cases I know because the filmmaker contacted me, or in some cases I found out by being at the screening like Murderball. Another way is by doing a search over on IMDB.com. That is how I found 9 Songs. People post on this list. And I basically go out looking on occasion to find them.

Best,

jan
 
just saw mad hot ballroom. The film itself was great! A family oriented audience will enjoy it the most. It has been compared to spellbound and it does share some of the same qualities. I saw spellbound at home alone on a dvd and enjoyed it. mad hot ballroom was in a theatre where the audience cheered and cried at the end.

As for the quality of the cinematography: I'd like to hear what others think. This is the first dvx film I've seen on the big screen (I saw murderball but wasn't sure which were dvx shots and which were not).

here they were all dvx.

My opinion: the flim on the big screen was not all that sharp and lacked contrast. I kept wondering if the lack of contrast was due to the camera or the cinematogropher or poor color correction in post.

The sharpest shots were the close-ups. The exterior shot seemed inferior than the interior shots, for the most part and went the other way at times.

Personally I'd like to hear from more experienced individuals if mad hot ballroom represents some of the best work or at least very good work that could be accomplished with the dvx for the big screen.

I realize that this film was doc and the filmakers had to work with the available light they had. So of course you won't get the very best results when compared with other genres. But I would still like to hear what others think.
 
Just saw November tonight.

The Plot:
The movie was good, creepy and moody. Also, highly confusing, especially at the end. Not my favorite film, but certainly entertaining.

The Look:
Awesome.

The Look, part 2:
Allow me to elaborate on that. Awesome because I knew it was shot with a "lowly" DVX100, and it still stood up EXTREMELY well in a big movie theater. Compared to other films, it looked fine. Not Lord of the Rings spectacular, but fine. It really didn't look like video, except for a few scenes where the highlights were blown out. This was done for artistic purposes, I'm sure. Also, in some of the darker scenes you could see a bunch of artifacts, the "mosquito noise" that plagues MiniDV that's been heavily color-corrected. Also, there's a scene in a photo darkroom which is all red coloring, and there was a lot of pixellation in everything. But overall, quite impressive for a $3500 camera.

The good news is that none of that mattered. I stopped paying attention to the look of the film about 5 minutess into the movie, and that's all that counts. It was engrossing, and very effective storytelling, and the medium didn't distract at all from the story.

For the record, my wife saw it with me, and she didn't notice anything wrong with the look of the film. No artifacts, no jagged edges along highlights, no pixellation of the reds... Nothing. She didn't particularly like the movie, but it was because of the plot, not the cinematography.

Therefore, if anyone has doubts as to whether a DVX movie looks ok on the big screen, I can officially say it CAN be done. Absolutely. With lots of care and a talented team, yes it can be done. And I still maintain that the most important part of a movie is the screenplay.
 
Rasquachemedia said:
As for the quality of the cinematography: I'd like to hear what others think. This is the first dvx film I've seen on the big screen (I saw murderball but wasn't sure which were dvx shots and which were not).
Click to expand...

Only the first few scenes wereshot with the other camera. 95% was shot with the DVX.

Best. Can't comment on Mad Hot as I have not seen it yet.

Best,

Jan
 
I just returned from watching "Murderball" and want to comment while it's fresh in my mind.

The filming style of "Murderball" is more MTV than National Geographic. Throughout, there is a raw, "home movie" quality to it. I can't remember more than a few shots where a tripod is used. I've edited video shot this way and it is not easy to do as you're missing the usual sequences to build the story. As an editor you can either tear your hair out or make the decision to do the best you can with what you've got. As a viewer, you either enjoy this frenetic style of filming or you don't. Most of the docs I've shot (visit my web site for a list) aired on the History Channel or Discovery Channel, where a more conservative shooting and editing style is the norm.

Much of the first 3/4's of the film has a murky look as if the footage is underexposed. This was footage shot early on from 2002-2003 and, if I had to hazard a guess, I believe this was shot with a DVX100, since the DVX100a had not been released. The DVX100 is hampered in two respects: the is no gain-up at 24p and the signal processing is 10-bit instead of 12-bit in the 100a.

When the action shifts to Athens, Greece in Summer 2004, it's as if someone turns the lights on. This footage looks spectacular: the murkyness is gone and the colors jump out at you. It is amazingly sharp and grainless and could easily pass for super-16. Yeah, it's THAT good. I'm willing to bet that this was shoot with a 100a, which became available around this time. When you consider that it came from a CCD about the size of a fingernail, it is a jaw-dropping experience.

The story is a terrific one and subjects the viewer to a gamut of emotions from spitting-out-your-popcorn laughs to genuine sadness. Many of us find the subject of wheelchair-bound persons a little disquieting. When we see a person in a wheelchair we tend to momentarily gawk and then awkwardly turn our eyes away, thinking "there but for the grace of God..."

"Murderball" gives you an entirely different perspective: these are not your everyday cripples, but brutal, in your face athletes who would tell you to take your sympathy and stick it where the moon doesn't shine. They are often vulgar and the film is expletive-laden. You will learn more about quadraplegic sex than you probably want to know, and you'll leave the theater with dramatically changed perceptions about what so-called handicapped persons can accomplish.

If this is an example of the empowerment that Panasonic has given us with this marvelous tool, the DVX in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, has the capability --- literally --- to change the world.

Mike Parker
www.mp-tv.com
 
Hi Mike,

The very beginning of the filmming started with a PD150 and then moved to a DVX100 shortly thereafter. I think there was probably some getting used to the camera stuff, but they shot over 300 hours of stuff.

I saw it at Sundance which was a digital playback and the colors were much better than the film out that I saw at the Lincoln Center, but none the less, it was a compelling story and I didn't find that the medium got in the way of the message. I thought the colors were really due more to the color correction in the film transfer.

Enjoyable none the less.

Best,

Jan
 
Hi Jan,

300 hours of tape for an hour and a half documentary? And, one must assume that the doc was their BEST stuff! Not to disbarage what they've done, but a shooting ratio of 200:1 is a bit excessive. This falls into the "roll on everything and we'll sort it out later" method of shooting. If the producers I work with went by that guideline, neither of us would ever work in this town again. A typical shooting ratio for a one-hour network doc would be around 50:1. Anything much beyond that and you're either doing l-o-n-g interviews or lurching into "spray and pray" territory.

The quality of the cinematography in "Murderball" is --- and I suspect I'm going to get flak on this --- generally pretty dismal. Shots are poorly framed, lack sequences, lack variety (too many wide shots), are badly lit (if lit at all) and the camera rarely settles down. These are typical novice mistakes. I know because companies hire me to teach their reporters and producers how to shoot news and the first assignments usually come back looking like the video in "Murderball".

One of the FIRST things I teach is that it is easier to shoot good, editable video than it is to shoot lousy video. Huh? You read that correctly. If you know how to shoot good video, you can generally shoot a 1:30 package on 15-20 minutes of tape, for a shooting ratio of around 10:1 to 15:1. And you'll have all the shots you need to put it together: establishing shots, medium shots, close-ups, reverse angles, AND the reporter's standup. If you don't know what you're doing, you tend to shoot EVERYTHING you see and end up with a mess. All of this takes MORE time and is MORE work.

I make a point of critiqueing everyone's work in front of the entire class so students can learn from the mistakes of others. Generally there is significant improvement by the third assignment. Students learn how to work SMART instead of working HARD.

Based upon my teaching experiences around the world, I have developed my "Baker's Dozen Rules for Shooting News and Getting Home Alive." My "rules" have been translated into several languages and briefly codify what you need to do to get the coverage you need to edit a coherent story. If there's any interest, I'll be happy to post them on this forum.

Mike
www.mp-tv.com
 
Hi Mike,

Frankly I wouldn't disparage their work either as I think when it started out it was idea that started from the article that Dana Shapiro wrote, and it formed into a film along the way. There is a very interesting article about the film and how it grew into film concept and story on the Murderball Website. However, if one had to judge a film strictly on its technical merits, then Supersize Me would have also been a box office dud. Not all films are perfect but the content is king and I think that these young men did a very remarkable job in pulling a story together.

Could the cinematography be different? Yes. But that also might make it a different film. I frankly enjoyed it. And frankly this looks better than most of the non-DVX generated films that I have seen.

Best,

Jan
 
I saw Murderball almost two weeks ago and have thought about it many times since then. I saw the new Star Wars and literally almost fell asleep during the movie and haven't thought about it for a moment since I left the theater. Sure, the production value and technique of Murderball was lacking, but I did not find that the least bit distracting. The content was compelling which is 90% of what it takes to make a good film. How many countless films have we all seen with enormous budgets, stellar production value, and expert technique which were wholly forgettable? I'll take the person with a minimal budget, average technical skills, and a burning desire to tell a good story with genuine integrity over most productions saddled with the beauracracy of hollywood and its financial interests anyday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top