Anarmorphic Adapter= Yes/No?

FilmMakerr

FilmMakerr

Veteran
Well, I just got my dvx100b. I love it, to be honest I may be obsessed, I can't go a day without holding it. Some grain that bothers me, but again, I've only shot about 40 mins of footage since I had it, and I don't know any editing techniques, but learning :)

But, heres my question for you. I wanna make films for peoples home pleasure on DVD, and also for film festivals, is it good for me to get an anamorphic adapter? to be honest, I actually want a nice 35mm Lense by Jim here, and I can't decide wether I need the anamorphic or not, cause if I don't, I'm going straight for the lense.

I was hoping someone could give me an inside, I also know the "Disjecta" way of doing the 4:3 transfer to 16x9, its hard for me to do, so I put it a side, if I really need it I'd much rather buy the lense.
 
People seem to be asking for that Anamorphic when they want me to shoot for them. I would invest in that and maybe a boom mic too. I know paying almost $800 for a good one, or should I say the right one, may be a bit too much, but in the end it is worth it. A decent matte box would also help you out to do what you want.
--Zev
p.s. I own the DVX100 B and love it too!!!!
 
well as far as sound, lighting goes, I live in LA, and so do you, lol so we can practically go any camera store and rent top quality equipment for cheap weekly prices. But I wanted to know if its required for me to shoot in 16x9 for festivals, this I wasn't sure about.
 
LOL! Festivals don't blow up your film to 35mm. You need to submit a 35mm film print to the festival (if that is the case). There are some digital festivals, but not a ton really. Of course some little festivals will let you bring a DVD or DigiBeta or something like that.

Good company to use to get a film print:
http://dvfilm.com/

The original Academy aspect ratio was 1.3 (4:3). They only did the widescreen stuff to get people out of their homes and into theaters in the 50's. There is no such thing as "the" aspect ratio. But if you submit a 4:3 film doubt it will get much attention. 4:3 is for TV, and even that is dying with all the HD and widescreen stuff these days.

Just block 16:9 in your viewfinder, and then uprez your project in post. There are a lot of problems with the Panasonic adapter. It's good for establishing shots and wide shots, however. Others swear by it.

Some films are 4:3, some are 16:9, some are scope 2.35, some are 70mm monsters like Cinerama (my fav).
 
FlintMI said:
LOL! Festivals don't blow up your film to 35mm. You need to submit a 35mm film print to the festival (if that is the case). There are some digital festivals, but not a ton really. Of course some little festivals will let you bring a DVD or DigiBeta or something like that.

Good company to use to get a film print:
http://dvfilm.com/

The original Academy aspect ratio was 1.3 (4:3). They only did the widescreen stuff to get people out of their homes and into theaters in the 50's. There is no such thing as "the" aspect ratio. But if you submit a 4:3 film doubt it will get much attention. 4:3 is for TV, and even that is dying with all the HD and widescreen stuff these days.

Just block 16:9 in your viewfinder, and then uprez your project in post. There are a lot of problems with the Panasonic adapter. It's good for establishing shots and wide shots, however. Others swear by it.

Some films are 4:3, some are 16:9, some are scope 2.35, some are 70mm monsters like Cinerama (my fav).
Click to expand...


Doesn't that make me look some picture quality? uprezing?

What kind of problems, I don't know, people say it works perfectly fine, so you're saying uprezing is better than sticking the lense on my camera?
 
Thanks for the respond.

You see, I'm really interested in sending my shorts to festivals, and passing dvd copies around to friends, people, connections for them to view. I wanna make sure it looks right on their TV.

If 16x9 isn't such a big issue, why do so many people look forward to making 4:3 intos 16x9? sorry, I'm kind of new to this part =)
 
Most prefer the letter box feel.
nowadays, most tv are in 16:9
As HD is also in 16:9 . you might want to consider to get on in the future.
for me, i usually just crop the 4:3 to 16:9
you will lose some resolution, but to crop while shooting, does not make sense
for me. as you might have chance to crop while you edit in fcp.

but in long run, i plan to upgrade to 200 series.
which is already in 16:9 mode. hence i will not invest too much in my current 100series.
 
EyeBite said:
And don't believe for a second your film will get less attention from a festival based on how many pixels make up your image. You need to worry about making them see the best story ever created - aspect ratios, camera choices, color correction aside.

And FlintMI, two quick things. First, I believe theaters made and keep the screens wide to pack in as many seats as they can. Second, "FlintMI" - is that supposed to mean the city of Flint, Michigan? Just curious since I'm not far from the area, myself.
Click to expand...

When it comes to claims that image quality doesn't matter, I call BS. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. :) Have any films shot on DV ever won a major (or minor) film festivals? And gained national distribution? And gone on to make money? Not sure, but I doubt it. HD, 16, and 35 rule, with very very few exceptions (like Blair Witch, which is a totally different kind of animal because the camera was part of the story).

Story first, tru dat. But if you shoot Gandhi on DV, it will forever live in the $1 bin and be considered "a cute bio film." 35mm gets it the Oscar. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Take a look at these numbers. Proportional to the media, every time. Source IMDB:

November (DVX100)
$300,000 budget
$191,000 gross (ouch)

My Date with Drew (DV)
$1,100 budget
$85,000 gross

9 Songs (DVX100)
$2,000,000 budget
$50,000 gross (triple dog dare ouch)

Lonesome Jim (DVX100)
$500,000 budget
$? gross (just opened)

There are more probably. Look I love 24p DV and some films shot on 16 and DV should be huge for the talent and effort alone. But they're not, because audiences smell low budget when they don't see 35, and stay away in droves. Someday, it might happen. We'll see.

Docs are excempt from this conversation. :dankk2:
 
honestly, if you ask me given more cash flow, i will have gotten the HVX200.
SG10k for DVCproHD. wow.thats a good deal comparing to others are just hdv.
which is a lower resolution. And its worth the money. If you are serious film maker,
time to upgrade.
 
FlintMI said:
Story first, tru dat. But if you shoot Gandhi on DV, it will forever live in the $1 bin and be considered "a cute bio film." 35mm gets it the Oscar. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Take a look at these numbers. Proportional to the media, every time. Source IMDB:

November (DVX100)
$300,000 budget
$191,000 gross (ouch)

My Date with Drew (DV)
$1,100 budget
$85,000 gross

9 Songs (DVX100)
$2,000,000 budget
$50,000 gross (triple dog dare ouch)

Lonesome Jim (DVX100)
$500,000 budget
$? gross (just opened)

There are more probably. Look I love 24p DV and some films shot on 16 and DV should be huge for the talent and effort alone. But they're not, because audiences smell low budget when they don't see 35, and stay away in droves. Someday, it might happen. We'll see.
Click to expand...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/business
 
Yeah, but 28 days later they used the Mini35, and plus they had a real cast, great lighting, something me and you cannot get.
 
Virum brought up a good point. I had heard about 28 Days Later and didn't include it in my list, and I should have. Even with the Mini35, it's still DV and I think that makes it the most successful DV film other than our Blair Witch friend, I'm not sure. However, that is still a very, very small list. Lighting and all that is not on the table, just the video format is. No one argues with the fact if you don't have good lighting you don't have a good movie.

Bad lighting=You Tube.
Good lighting=Festivals.

LOL!

Ahem, just look at Hero Fest, you have to shoot 16:9 to even get accepted! Case closed. Not worth escalating any more.

Yes, I was born and raised in Flint, Michigan. Holla Flinttown!:)
 
FlintMI said:
When it comes to claims that image quality doesn't matter, I call BS. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. :) Have any films shot on DV ever won a major (or minor) film festivals? And gained national distribution? And gone on to make money? Not sure, but I doubt it. HD, 16, and 35 rule, with very very few exceptions (like Blair Witch, which is a totally different kind of animal because the camera was part of the story).

Story first, tru dat. But if you shoot Gandhi on DV, it will forever live in the $1 bin and be considered "a cute bio film." 35mm gets it the Oscar. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Take a look at these numbers. Proportional to the media, every time. Source IMDB:

November (DVX100)
$300,000 budget
$191,000 gross (ouch)

My Date with Drew (DV)
$1,100 budget
$85,000 gross

9 Songs (DVX100)
$2,000,000 budget
$50,000 gross (triple dog dare ouch)

Lonesome Jim (DVX100)
$500,000 budget
$? gross (just opened)

There are more probably. Look I love 24p DV and some films shot on 16 and DV should be huge for the talent and effort alone. But they're not, because audiences smell low budget when they don't see 35, and stay away in droves. Someday, it might happen. We'll see.

Docs are excempt from this conversation. :dankk2:
Click to expand...

I JUST heard this SAME thing from some long experienced guys where I work. They got onto me for wanting to shoot hVX200 when I have the DVX100 and Mini35 option.

They said this almost exactly:

The story, yes. Get a good storying going. Spend your money on the BEST image you can, then the BEST locations you can, and then the rest follows. At least if the actors suck, your IMAGE is outstanding.

So you have a good story that falls apart because of actors, and a really good image.

But maybe that's just an opinion.
 
Bottom line is--It shouldn't matter what anyone says or thinks. Just keep on going and believing in your project. Everyone has an opinion (even me). You'll always find obstacles. The challenge is how you get beyond these obstacles. If you are creative enough you'll figure out a way to do things and make it work for you.
HINT: A little trick I do is try to make things look as if I meant them to be that way (as in the short I am doing now). I've shown my stuff to a few pro's and they seem to be impressed with my lighting, background, extras, or what nots...hell, I'm winging it blind here---but I NEVER let them know that. I just nod and say "yeah, well, you know, I try to do my best for each shot" and hope they don't see me sweat too much.

GOOD LUCK,
Zev
 
cinealma said:
Open Water didn't do to0 badly at the box office.
Click to expand...
You read my mind! I wanted to catch Open Water in a theater, but never got around to it (new baby at the time). I enjoyed the DVD version I rented. The bonus features alone, to someone in film & video production, are worth the $3 rental -- in particular, the "making of" documentary. It was shot with Sony VX2000 and PD150 with stock 4:3 lenses. Most likely cropped and up-res'd in post.

Back to the anamorphic lens: I bought one in mint condition on eBay for $475 a few weeks ago, and so far I love it. I haven't spent more than 30 minutes with the lens, but I haven't noticed any limitations as far as focusing and depth of field. I've heard about vignetting problems, but haven't experienced that either. Maybe I'm not zooming in enough. I do, however, seen an overall sharper image compared to 16:9 footage from my little GS120 that's digitally squeezed.


T.J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top