Because they are that good.(2)

T

TizzyEntertainment

Well-known member
 My cinematographer in S. Fla. has been doing alot of work with a studio down there that owns the DVX with P+S telecine adapter. Thay have actually been using Nokia still camera primes with great success. The best part... the studio is going to be funding a feature I wrote and will direct (with my buddy as DP) in a couple months. In the meantime check out what they have been up to.

 This is from a feature they are finishing up in post now. The owner of the studio has Incredible Color correction skills and that mixed with the primes... well, see for yourself.

112151128.jpg

112151241.jpg

112152230.jpg

112152335.jpg

more.cgi

112152515.jpg

112152655.jpg

112152858.jpg


R. Michael
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

These are very sharp. I love em. Shows what Color Correction can do in your palette. Is this the DVX w/ P + S ? Is there a Trailer?

Keep us posted!
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

I can't see em
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

Very nice indeed!

And I second that John; Can we see a trailer?
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

Wow....those are gorgeous frame grabs..from color, to composition, to pretty much everything, that looks very good.

What software did you use for the color correction, and how did you achieve such a shallow depth of field on a camera with a small lens and only 7X effective zoom? Also (I'm about to buy a DVX100a, but not quite yet 100% sold), is the grain from post-production and/or jpeg artifacts, or does the DVX100a naturally have that much grain? It looks nice (and filmlike, even) but I do a ton of chroma keying and could never do it if the DVX produces that much grain in what appear to be decently lit scenes...

Again, very nice screen grabs...
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

very nice indeed! I shall one day attain(I hope) :)

3rd or 4th the trailer bring it on:) the trailer that is.
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

Thanks all!! Thought you would like those. My DP rocks and the studio owner has a gift when it comes to color correction. Now on to questions.

DOF: Yes, used the P+S telecine adapter with Nokia still camera primes actually. He got a set of six for like a grand. As you can see, they work ver well.

What did the color correction: The latest version of Final Cut pro actually. My DP says he can't even understand how the guy gets it that good but bassically he did his homework and understands light and color. I intend to have hi color correct everything I do... ever.

Trailer: They are taking their time getting it on their site (which has none of their work yet) but I actually ripped these from the trailer on DVD. Thats the best part. These are lower quality because they already had MPEG compression and generation loss bringing them onto tape and into my comp. When they do get it up I will be sure to let yoo know, it's even better then the grabs.

I'll try and snag a few more and post them soon. There is still some sick stuff in there I did'nt show you yet.

On a side note our HD feature that just premiered at the 2003 Palm Beach International Film Festival was seen by a rep from a major studio (cant say which one yet) anyway their head of aquisitions called and said he wanted to check out a screener because his guy believed they would want this film. Lots of exciting stuff, I'll keep you posted.
R. Michael
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

..these are obvisously very very good :) they do look a bit soft, but that could be due to the conversions, and generation losses you mentioned. wow! i would love to see this though. very nice work.
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

[quote author=Matt W link=board=Clips;num=1082673574;start=0#5 date=04/22/04 at 20:55:27]...and how did you achieve such a shallow depth of field on a camera with a small lens and only 7X effective zoom?  Also (I'm about to buy a DVX100a, but not quite yet 100% sold), is the grain from post-production and/or jpeg artifacts, or does the DVX100a naturally have that much grain?   It looks nice (and filmlike, even) but I do a ton of chroma keying and could never do it if the DVX produces that much grain in what appear to be decently lit scenes...

Again, very nice screen grabs...[/quote]

I am not sure as it is not my project but I assume.....

The DOF was created with the P + S (although it can be created with the stock lens you just have to be super creative and results won't be as dramatic. The 'grain' you are looking at is most likely from the ground glass on the Adapter.

Not sold on the DVX?! :o Sigh......................
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

and just because.... here are a few more.

116072446.jpg

116072644.jpg

116072809.jpg

116072857.jpg

116073006.jpg


I second John's frustration. Not yet sold? ........
R. Michael
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

Great looking shots. The first one at the top is especially beautiful.

About the DVX, I can understand about not yet being sold about it if what I read about low light performance is true. Apparently the DVX doesn't do so well in low light (compared to the VX2000/PD150). Anyone care to report on this? Sorry for going OT.
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

ya know.. i hate to be pessimistic, but i really dont understand why so many people are concerned with how a camera performs in crap lighting conditions.. it dosent matter how well it performs.. the image is always going to look crappy with crappy lighting. gain is the devil. the dvx is a camera geared toward filmmakers, so in the 24p mode .. no its not good in low light, but what filmmaker would shoot without reasonable light anyway. and you need to compare apples to apples anyway. the dvx in 60i mode is really neck and neck for getting crappy images in low light with the pd170 or any other junk 60i camera for that matter. if you want to be finnicky about the dvx in 24p not being as good as the sony pd170 or whatnot in low light, than simply switch the sony to its nonexistant 24p mode and then compare..apples to apples, or perhaps try its nonexistant 30p mode as well ..
sorry to come accross as upset.. it just that this is just such an old dried out issue..
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

About low light: the DVX delivers about 98% of the low-light performance of the PD150. However, the question is, what is your intended usage? If it's cinematic/dramatic/professionally lit stuff, then the low-light argument is a red herring, the one last gasp of the Sony crowd to try to justify their choice.

If you're shooting weddings or Bar Mitzvahs in dark interior settings, the PD170 may have enough of an advantage in low light circumstances to justify considering it. But the smallest on-camera light can go so far to improve your footage that it's really a moot point. If you're shooting in dark situations where the difference between the cameras is becoming a factor, then it's likely your footage is going to be so dark anyways that it's going to look lousy, so it really doesn't make much difference.

Look at it this way: if you need low-light performance, the AG-DVC30 can see IN THE DARK. Completely lights-out, 100% darkroom stuff. The PD170 could never come near what the DVC30 can do. So if ultimate low light is your concern, the PD170 wouldn't be in the running. And if ultimate low light isn't the only concern, but is just one of many, then you have to start weighing all the things a DVX can do that a PD170 can't do, and weigh those against the very small reported advantage in darker situations, and see which matters to you most.
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

iamaloser, no need to get so defensive. Good low light performance can be an advantage in different situations for sure. Of course it's not the only thing one would base their choice on. The DVX's strenght is obviously its 24p capability. That would be the reason to choose it over other cameras in it's class. Still it's good to know of it's weaknesses also.
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

..i was actually being blunt, not defensive. i really dont feel the need to defend the camera (it speaks for itself), as much as i was just tired of hearing that particular question.. not that it matters. perhaps my tone was a bit harsh. sorry for that.  anyway, imho the only weakness the dvx has when compared to other cams in the pricerange, is its lack of telephoto, but you can overcome that with a tele adaptor if you really needed to.  ive never really considered it a weakness personally because i own an unlimted zoom device for the dvx that i like to call "my feet :) " which lets me get about as close as i want to anything about 95% of the time, becuase im usually in a somewhat preplanned or controlled environment.  everything else about the cam is really on par, or superior to its competitors.
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

Hey total noob here. My first time posting.. I'd just like to add a bit. I dont have a ton of money, but I would love to be able to shoot as well as some people here. So of course the dvx is a dream camera (on order actually). But my wife performs onstage. And I shoot her troupe's shows, 2 cameras is best, I cannot add any light. Recently the company rented 2 PD150s for me to use. They performed extremely well. So I decided to purchase 2 cameras on my somewhat tight budget. I DO need great low-light capablities in an environment I cannot change, yet I know eventually I want to shoot some stuff for myself and be creative. So the dilema.

So I ended up getting a vx2100 and the dvx100a as a compromise. That way, I can cut to the Sony when the scenes are really dark, I can use the dvx in 60i mode at these times, I get the 'good' audio from the dvx, and .. I will own the dvx so I can do what I want on my own time. Plus I didnt break the bank (jury's still out on that one)

and another reason for wanting the dvx:
Best possible picture (think budget again) for my 16x9 digital tv so I can watch anything I shoot for myself in progressive.

So the dvx will be somewhat of an all-round camera for me.
 
Re: Because they are that good.(2)

Tizzy

Those grabs are great! Love it! Keep em' coming!

LOW LIGHT - I second IAL and BARRY's takes.
 
Re: Because they are that good.

Re: Because they are that good.

[quote author=TizzyEntertainment link=board=Clips;num=1082673574;start=0#8 date=04/23/04 at 09:17:28]  
DOF: Yes, used the P+S telecine adapter with Nokia still camera primes actually. He got a set of six for like a grand. As you can see, they work ver well.[/quote]

Tizzy-

Did you say he used "nokia" lenses? As in the cell phone manufacturer!? Were you referring to "Nikon"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top