A little DVX-200 horror movie trailer.

Allen McL

Allen McL

Member
I was originally down to shoot this, but another job came up out of town, so had to pass it over to a friend who used my DVX-200 to film it. All done in UHD 3840x2160 (PAL) at 25p 1/50th with some timelapse at the beginning and post production FX. The lighting remit was "make it look cartoonish", it also got a neat little mention in a recent Starburst Magazine review too. Full 11 minute feature to follow if anyone would like to see it (being redubbed at the minute). This clip only goes up to 1440p but I'll chase them for a 2160p version of the main feature. :thumbup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZjFEhIENE

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/re...nt-review-jennifers-bodies-film-festival-2017
 
LOL - you lent him your camera? I never lend out my cameras or girl friends. You must really trust your friends! The DVX200 performed well. Your friend did a good job, look forward to the finished feature. Thanks for posting.
 
Design Media Consultants said:
LOL - you lent him your camera? I never lend out my cameras or girl friends. You must really trust your friends! The DVX200 performed well. Your friend did a good job, look forward to the finished feature. Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...

Hah yes, well we do go back a long way, and I've known most of his girlfriends too, no not "known".. :-) Yes although I was busy on another shoot at the time, I was looking forward to seeing how the DVX-200 performed in a low light but 'lit for tv' situation. Most of the guys and gals involved in this production are BBC engineering colleagues. And whilst nobody is claiming an Oscars invite, or anything even a million miles away, it was a worthwhile technical exercise. The idea was to light a night shoot to a sufficient level as to keep the gain/ISO levels low. Utilising the old television adage of "no gain, no pain". Hopefully it comes across that way, I'm going to a large(ish) screen, cinema presentation next week, always a good test.
 
So, "negative gain is negative pain?" I'd be fine with that, too. lol

My eyes were opened about proper exposure when I saw BTS footage of one of the A Nightmare on Elm Street movies. That dark, creepy boiler room? Super overlit and bright on set. But, in-camera: dark and creepy. Because what's scarier than meeting Freddy Krueger in his creepy boiler room? Not being able to follow foccus because you're shooting Super 35 at under T2 because the set wasn't lit properly and your DP and director yell at you for botching another perfect take.
 
Call me old school if you will, I'll be fifty in a few years, worked in television more than half my life too but have never really identified with the new generation of "It must perform in low light ???" camera reviewers. Particularly in the modern digital cinema realm where ISO means GAIN and GAIN means AMPLIFICATION. The big desire to make a camera work in zero lighting is as admirable as it is tedious too (to me). Twenty years ago I worked with a seasoned British television lighting director, his name was Bill, affectionally know as 'The Prince of Darkness' owing to his reluctance to turn on any of the lights. Were he still alive now, I suspect he'd be the prince of "negative gain"... :cheesy:
 
Cameras that can see in the dark without noise are super cool........for reality work. A movie still needs to look like a movie. You still have to light for drama as it's part of your storytelling toolbox. Just having a guy stand under a practical without artistic merit because of laziness is not storytelling. However, lighting to appear asif it's all practical light? That's perfectly fine. That's why the Godfather movies look so real: because the real prince of darkness, Gordon Sillis, ASC, lit and composed for fantasy and drama but grounded it in reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top