Article on November in new videography

Re: Article on November in new videography

thanks a lot for that. im still anxious to see some clips or a trailer. more so now.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

we were treated to a screening of it at the so cal dvx user meeting , it looked pretty is all i should say about it. we were asked to not give much away , great movie though
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Well, I've been resisting the urge to comment on "November" (I was at the screening Tuesday night too.) But since it's come up... Story/content aside, I can say if I had a $300,000 budget ($150K prod/$150K post standard for Indigent productions) and Courtney Cox as my lead, having seen "November" I personally wouldn't use my DVX 100. I was kind of underwhelmed, even with the transfer to uncompressed 4:2:2 and eventual uprez to 1920X1080i (which is what we saw it projected at.) With a 15 day shoot, I would have rented HD equipment. The image was soft (Nancy admitted this several times) and there was low light noise and blown out highlights. (The noise bothered me much more than the blown highlights.) I also personally felt the color palette they used degraded the image more. I guess it looked good for a $3500 video camera, but with that cast and budget, IMO it could have looked a lot better.

Interestingly, I watched "Pieces of April" last night on my new widescreen HDTV (albeit at 480i) [I didn't see it in the theater] and while a really nice little movie, it looked terrible (much worse than the DVX blowup I saw the night before). (I believe "April" was shot with a couple of PD-150's.) Again, as an Indigent production, they had the same budget and a great cast. Look at what Robert Rodriguez does with his Sony HD cams. Does it cost more than $2K a day to rent a full HD camera package? To me, spending $25-30K on my cameras when I have a $300K budget and name talent like Katie Holmes or Courtney Cox seems reasonable.

Now since I don't have a $300K budget (or Courtney Cox  :o), I will continue to shot my projects with my DVX 100. It's certainly the best looking video for $3500 we may ever see. And people who don't know a thing about video routinely comment on how great my productions look. I'm not at all complaining. If I have $15K to spend on my next film, I'm gonna use my DVX and hope like hell it's good enough to justify an uprez. But it seems to me "November" and esp. "Pieces of April" - production-wise at least - would have benefited from a higher end camera. My $.02... :o
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Man, I want to see a trailer for november more than ever now. You say the the DVX 100 looked better than the pieces of april? I saw the trailer for it at the theater and thought it looked good enough. You could completely tell that it was shot on video but I didn't mind...It's all subjective, right...
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Also - I just want to be clear, my comments were about the medium only. I think Nancy did a great job with the cinematography on "November". She's a talented DP and deserved her award at Sundance. And I thought the camera work and esp. editing on "Pieces of April" were very good (I actually liked that movie a lot.) It's primarily the issue of putting stuff that was meant for a television (DV resolution 720X480) on a big screen -esp. when you have a budget and name talent.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

300k isnt really a budget.. but I agree with you, there is only so far you can push 720 pixels before you start to notice.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

And people like us "notice" before most in a general audience.

I remember watching a film and wondering if it was shot on 16mm or HD or even DV. The story was great but it looked horrible, soft and blown out in too many places. When I got home I talked to my wife and others and they thought it was "fine, maybe a little out of focus a couple of times." After some research, I came to find out that critics had raved about how great it looked and I learned that it was a well funded 35mm film.

What was wrong? We had just watched a BAD PRINT. The distributors may have cut corners. Someone in the lab might have screwed up. Then I found all sorts of stories by directors like Spielberg and others lamenting all the "bad prints" that get out to the theaters.

The lessons I learned from this:

1. Most people don't notice a bad print or a "soft" film like you and I will, or like other people in the film and video industry.

2.  A good DVX print (or digital projection) can compete with bad prints of 35mm films.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

.. also this says nothing of the home video market, on which it will look great. .. kinda stinks that it can only be so good on the big screen from what weve got, but thats they way it is. other blowups have looked really good, so it could possibly even somthing with the way they did it?
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

I thought it was stunning looking for a feature shot with a $3000 camera. A few scenes suffered from blockness, especially a scene shot under a red light simulating a dark room light. Overall it was fantastic looking. Yes, it suffered from some lack of sharpness, but I was very impressed with the image and felt it looked better that "28 Days Later". Was it as good looking as Super-16? No, the blacks were too crushed in the first part of the movie and the highlights did blow out and looked very video-y.

Scott
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

I forgot to mention this, which was funny about Nancy's comments after the screening. Ok, she knew the look of the movie had it's warts, but she and Greg Harrison, the director, kept saying to each other, "Embrace the medium." If something doesn't work the way you like it, then make it work for you. I thought that was a good way to look at it. She went on to say if you have a 2 mil budget then you should shoot film.

Scott
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

..yes. it's important that we concentrate on waht we can do with the cam, rather than what we cant. theres no point in lowering your opinion, or positive outlook on the one thing that you have to work with. ..its not going to help at all. on the other hand. doing your best withit, and being creative, and positive will make a world of difference.. all i can say is hey.. it won the cinematography award.. so what could they possibly complain about? im sure it has sold, and will be in theatres too. and the common movie goer wont care if its slightly soft. so why should we lament over this victory that says "hey, look at what you could possibly do too!"
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Well put IAL.

There is constant talk of "What it cant do" and "35mm Solutions". When I bought the camera, I knew in advance the limitations. I knew it wasn't film. I wanted the ability to create on a medium I could afford and a medium that was at the least "broadcast quality".

I was sold on the 24p.

I never forget that its a 3 CCD camera around $3000. Im not disapointed in that either. One day the medium will catch up and surpass film. It's inevitable. IN the meantime, I'll create with the DVX.

If I am so fortunate to have an opportunity to make somethin in film (Super 16 or 35mm) then thats awesome. If Im not, I do know, that in my lifetime, the $3000.00 3 CCD 24 Camcorder will one day take over film emulsion.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

yeah, its kind of annoying hearing you guys complain about the movie being soft at points or blocky at points. its a $3000 video camera! thats the point.

"star wars: phantom menace" LOOKED amazing! because of it looking amazing with sharp images and bright colors does that make it a great movie?

the DVX is a cheap camera that you can do a hell of a lot with, thats why we are all on this forum right? i know thats why i bought it.

i didnt see "november" but if it wins best cinematography i think you guys need to lighten up a bit, i think i can say that pretty confidentally without even seeing it myself.

"28 days later" looked pretty crappy, in my opinion, but combining that visual side of it with the story i thought it all worked great together and thats all that matters in the end. indie movies succeed because of great story and by pushing boundaries on limited budgets.

they dont have a "mostest prettiest high-budgetest-looking indie image quality award".
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Don't get me wrong - I think the DVX 100 is the best thing to happen to DV and video in general since the original SONY VX1000 came along. I just finished a 42 minute short film with my camera and love the look - and so do others - people who don't know a thing about production all comment on how great it looks. So that's not my point. My point is, having now seen "November" which was obviously made by very competent and talented people, if I had that kind of money and cast, I personally would choose another camera. Probably HiDef, though I'm very interested to see how Noah's feature shot with the SDX 900 comes out. And for those of us who don't have the cash or talent to do a "November" on our next project, the DVX is an excellent tool. Hopefully you'll all get a chance to see the film in theaters - and then you can decide for yourself.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

Since someone brought it up, am I the only one who thought Clones didn't look amazing? My impression of the film was that everyone was working so hard to keep the blacks from being crushed and the highlights from blowing out that they ended up with flat pictures. When added with the flat acting and flat script, you get a flat movie. Anyway, a little black and a few highlights aren't necessarily bad things.

And one more note about Clones. Those early CineAltas weren't extremely sharp with their resolution. I'm not saying the DVX would come close to winning a side-by-side comparison with the early CineAltas, especially with the DV color compression and everything, but the difference isn't as large as some people might think.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

24Peter

Im sure alot of us would shoose FILM over the DVX if the circumstances (Needs/Practicality) warranted it.

The whole jist with INDIGENT is that they use DV on purpose.
 
Re: Article on November in new videography

am I the only one who thought Phantom Menace didn't look amazing?
Click to expand...

No! I can't stand the look of the new ones 9not to mention stories, acting...) A lot of it is the heavy use of CGI, too... but they are horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top