DVX100, film, and DVD content

Bart_Boge

Bart_Boge

Well-known member
This is the most basic of questions, but I would like to have a better grasp of the relationship between original format to final DVD appearance.

If all DVDs are encoded at the same resolution (480 x 720), how can it be that "Hollywood" releases always seem to look richer and sharper than anything I have ever seen from a video camera?

I can understand that 35mm film crews have incredible lighting crews and equipment with which to control the sharpness and color.  They also shoot to a larger format with a wider array of lenses so they can control depth of field better.  I also understand that film is shot at 24fps and has much more depth in the blacks and subtlety in the handling of color than video.  And, of course, huge budgets for killer sets, costuming, and production design!

Allowing for those factors, if the DVX100, in the hands of someone who really knows how to fake the lighting, DOF, and color response film, were used on a "straight-to-DVD" production, could the final result look as good as a "Hollywood" release--in the REAL world?

Yes or no.  If "yes," please comment on what you would consider the most important factors.  Let's have the list of priorities as you see them. I realize that this whole web site is more or less dedicated to this very purpose, and I have seen a lot of fabulous ideas here. It would just be nice to have a consensus as to which factors are the most important ones to address to achieve that "holy grail" of DVX100 production work--having your work mistaken for 35mm.
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

>>If all DVDs are encoded at the same resolution (480 x 720), how can it be that "Hollywood" releases always seem to look richer and sharper than anything I have ever seen from a video camera? <<

There's a lot to this answer.  I'll just start with one simple one.  They are not using DV compression to aquire the footage for one.  Remember DV footage starts off with 5:1 compression right to tape.  Then you go through a MPEG2 encoding process that further degrades the image before going to DVD.  Hollywood MPEG2 encoders are also more robust that off the shelf software encoders as well.

Also keep in mind that the frame size really doesn't mean much. All DV cameras shoot that same frame size, but the image doesn't look the same on all. For instance, my DVC200 1/2 cam with Canon lens is extremely sharp compared to my DVX100A. However, that may or may not be what you're looking for... There are so many factors - Latitude of film makes for much more subtle details. The DVX uses some gamma curves and knees to try an emulate that of film, but it definitely is emulation. Film is film. Another thing to note is Hollywood productions use very highend lenses that give the filmaker much more control...DOF being a key one...

That said, in the right hands, the DVX can produce very high quality DVDs. So good, that I wouldn't get hung up on the technicalities, but worry about your story. The tool works well.

Just some thoughts.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

[quote author=Bart_Boge link=board=news;num=1084591469;start=0#0 date=05/14/04 at 20:24:29]

Allowing for those factors, if the DVX100, in the hands of someone who really knows how to fake the lighting, DOF, and color response film, were used on a "straight-to-DVD" production, could the final result look as good as a "Hollywood" release--in the REAL world?

Yes or no.  If "yes," please comment on what you would consider the most important factors.  Let's have the list of priorities as you see them.[/quote]

First, why would you want to "fake" it? You make it sound like there's some kind of cheat, and there really isn't. You need to use the same techniques you'd use if shooting film.

Of course, you'll never get the color response of film in DV, and with everything else you wrote, you've pretty much answered your own question -- you can make it look damn good, but will it ever *really* look every bit as good as 35mm film? Prob'ly not. The source material for the Hollywood DVD will be superior.

If you can do it, try this -- watch a DVD in 480p on an HDTV. Then watch the same movie in 1080i HD. While watching the DVD, you'd have thought "wow! This is *sharp*!" -- but then when you turn around and watch it in HD, you'll be even more blown away (a GREAT illustration for this is "Monsters, Inc."). In a way, that's sort of the same difference between DV and film. DV can look great, but properly-produced film will look better.

You can uprez DV and make it look better, but as Barry mentioned in another thread, it'll never equal 35mm, and if your output is DVD, there's no sense in wasting your time uprezzing anyway.
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

So OK, OK, I get the fact that nothing REALLY successfully "fakes" the look of 35mm productions. The consensus here regarding my original question is a resounding "NO." Granted. But what can be done with a DVX100 to get as close as possible?

Perhaps it is time to rephrase the question:

"What would you consider the top ten techniques or considerations for creating a great cinematic look from a DVX100, in the order of importance?"

(The "order of importance" part is probably the most critical part of the question--versus throwing every trick in the book out there.)
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Lighting
latitude
composition
camera moves
grain (and control of it)
color correction

but most of all a story and acting are so compelling that the the ligting, color correction, editing, music, etc. are not noticed, but felt.
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Bart, I really get the idea that you already knew the answers to this stuff . . . ;)
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Most people who have seen 28 Days Later haven't said a thing about it looking *different* than a professional production or seeming of less quality...a good movie is a good movie. (For the record I haven't seen 28 Days Later, but I'm using it as an example).
Thing is, though, that 35mm film is much higher quality to begin with...but why on earth *would* a $4000 camera produce equal results to a 35mm production, which spends upwards of $50,000 alone on the film stock itself. The pros use 35mm for a reason, and it is because it is the best darn quality you can get (well, other than IMAX, and other large format films, but that's besides the point).

One thing that the DVX does compete well with, though, is a 16mm film transfered to DVD. The 16mm has a wider exposure latitude, and a more shallow depth of field, but the DVX footage will look cleaner. And they're both in 24P.
The only difference: the 16mm costs WAY more than the DVX.

I personally think its AMAZING that a $4000 camera can compete with 16mm film, which costs FAR more (when taking into consideration the cost of the stock, processing, colour correction, etc). So while our little buddy can't reproduce the best of the best quality, it's still damn good, and I know that I'M insanely amazed and proud of it's capabilities!
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Yeah, well, don't use "28DL" as your example. It looks like video transferred to film. I must admit, though I liked the movie, it was a disappointment in terms of the capability of DV. To make it worse, the final scenes were shot in 35mm and there's a *marked* difference.

But then, it was shot on an XL1. ;D
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

[quote author=Bart_Boge link=board=news;num=1084591469;start=0#3 date=05/15/04 at 01:49:58]So OK, OK, I get the fact that nothing REALLY successfully "fakes" the look of 35mm productions.[/quote]

Before you declare that, take a look at these two spots:

http://www.fiftv.com/MMAH.wmv

http://www.fiftv.com/NetDrMatrix.wmv

One was shot on the DVX, one was shot on 35mm film. Is the difference really so obvious? Which is which?

For those who haven't seen these spots before, go ahead and vote for which was DVX and which was 35mm.

For those who have seen these before and know the answer, don't spoil it for the new guys! :)
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

They both look good, but I'm going with the second one as well.

Being shown on a computer screen complicates it, though.
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Nice rack focus on the dolly shot at the end of the BBB PSA--gangster in focus to phone and poster in focus, gangster out of focus, all while moving.

My guess is that BOTH were DVX100. It is really hard to tell. There was something of a bluish tinge to the PSA spot, and the lighting on the brother in the Matrix spoof was a bit glaring, but both certainly showed decent detail. A WMP file is hard to make the call with.
 
Re: DVX100, film, and DVD content

Yeah, well, don't use "28DL" as your example
Click to expand...

Well, I was just trying to say that most people don't care, or for that matter, notice, the image quality.

And, yeah, it was shot on an XL1! 'nuff said!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top