DVX100A getting the total film look

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

broskeeper

Member
So if you entered a contest for "most film-like look" and had every tool at your disposal, what would you use? What settings? Would you use the anamorphic lense? 24pa? Shutter speed? Gamma, etc...?
 
24P Advanced if you're going to view the footage true progressive... for starters... and yes 16x9 always looks more "filmish"
 
You're gonna find alot if you use the search...

Some of the main things that people bring up are lighting, audio, acting, etc.

One of the things that also sets a real movie apart from amateur ventures is camera framing and movement. Strong, creative composition along with the right dolly/steadicam operations can bring strong production value.
 
Let me get this straight. People buy the DVX, and all this equipment, and pour their time and energy into projects... ONLY to attain a film look? Isnt there a story to tell that should be in the foreground during pre-production instead of focusing on wheter or not your low-budget video production is going to replicate the looks of film? I mean don't get me wrong... film does look great. But if your only goal is to shoot footage that looks like film, you can shockingly do it cheaper than with a DVX!!! (although you won't be able to shoot hours and hours of it)

If you are interested in film and filming with it... why not, and this may be completely out of line, actually shoot with film? if you can't proccess it yourself, you can get it done cheaply... it doesn't need to be a professional quality transfer....

It just kind of boggles my mind that people are so caught up on the look of film.


It's like using a DVD burner to make a record.

anyway. Im ranting and probably sound like a jerk, but i see WAY more posts about "HOW DO I GET THE 35MM LOOK" and "BEST 35MM adapter and scene settings" than i do posts in the screenplay/writing section.


Gah ill shut up
 
I'm really glad that this is my first post. Wow...what a rant for me to find on my first day in this forum. Maybe the people that use this forum "DVXuser" are using a sreen writer forum for those questions. Or perhaps their strong points are story telling and conveying a message and they want those messages presented to the public with as much visual quality they can so they come here and ask for help.

Just my two cents.
 
Mattie you got me totally right. I'm much much MUCH better at the story aspect. I'm really goot at pacing, character, plot and the creative side, but the knock on me has always been on the technical side of things. So I'm trying to find out how to get the best look. I'm shooting a feature this summer on a DVX, so that's why I asked.
 
I am trying to get a film look too. I have a DVX100B. My recipe so far is to shoot 25p (naturalement) with Cine gamma D and a home made (but fabulous) 35mm adapter with Contax Zeiss T* lenses.

Regarding scene settings, I am trying to find the most post correctable image settings, sometimes known as the Digital Negative, (a ridiculous term really, as the latitude is not even close to film, but the principle of post-correctablity is even more important than with film. Shooting video is much like shooting reversal film in this respect - you have to get it exposed right in the camera. Fortunately, we have zebras in video, and other assistants like monitors.) There seems to be no clear concensus on what constitutes the most post correctible scene settings for the DVX. I would be happy to hear them if you have any ideas. In principle, the closer you can get to RAW mode, the better chance you will have of creating a film look, but it's not really that simple.

Question! Where do I really find out about scene file adjustment and what it all does, in detail? Is this a Barry Green Book thing?

I have Magic Bullet Editors on my Final Cut Pro, which is dedicated to creating the film look, and gives you all the tools to introduce film artefacts and reduce video artefacts. Highly recommended, by the way.

Scene file knowledge is what I really need now. But where from? My manual is hopeless.
 
broskeeper said:
So if you entered a contest for "most film-like look" and had every tool at your disposal, what would you use? What settings? Would you use the anamorphic lense? 24pa? Shutter speed? Gamma, etc...?
Click to expand...
I think I'd seriously consider film. As much as we can do with digital, film is still film. Now, I may change my tune when I get my RED, but probably not...
 
Lucas Adamson said:
Question! Where do I really find out about scene file adjustment and what it all does, in detail? Is this a Barry Green Book thing?
Scene file knowledge is what I really need now. But where from? My manual is hopeless.
Click to expand...

yea, you got to get the book for Barrys scene files and what they do for in-camera correction and tweeks but for raw/post you need to read the users here at this site!
 
Blaine said:
I think I'd seriously consider film. As much as we can do with digital, film is still film. Now, I may change my tune when I get my RED, but probably not...
Click to expand...

This is what i'm trying to say! People go to such great lengths why don't they just shoot film in the first place?
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
This is what i'm trying to say! People go to such great lengths why don't they just shoot film in the first place?
Click to expand...

A- Obviously it's way easier/cheaper to shoot video- a beginners prerequisite
B- If everyone shot on film they could no longer blame "not having the film look" for why no one liked their masterpiece.....

Interestingly, on the film based forums they're all asking how to get the video look..... okay, i'm kidding on that one......:D


DDP
 
i dont believe filming on film would necessarily be more expensive. el mariachi was shot for the same price as "broken" the short film.

I agree though, the workflow of digital is easier and more attractive... but if people are going to such great lengths as having ti flip all footage vertically before editing, film might be less of a hassle.. considering you can get it digitized then edit on the pc.
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
i dont believe filming on film would necessarily be more expensive. el mariachi was shot for the same price as "broken" the short film.

I agree though, the workflow of digital is easier and more attractive... but if people are going to such great lengths as having ti flip all footage vertically before editing, film might be less of a hassle.. considering you can get it digitized then edit on the pc.
Click to expand...

El Mariachi is exceptional in this respect though. Also, there was some quite creative bookkeeping that led to the figure of $7000. In reality, it cost tens of thousands more than that to conform and finaly resolve all the sound, but he had studio backing towards the end.

I have shot mostly on film, and it is quite considerably more expensive - even Super8! If you consider a shooting ratio of 6:1, which you should aim for at least, a 10 minute piece will take an hours worth of film. Work it out. A DV tape is 1 hour long. The cameras cost much the same (ie. 1960s 16mm vs. brand new DVX100b) but the film camera needs an audio recorder and sync slate. If you think flipping the image is a pain, try audio syncing all your footage in Final Cut Pro before you start to even think about editing. Film, nice as it is, is pricey. As a Director once told me, if you're an artist in training, you want a big box of paint and brushes and canvasses, not three tiny tubes and one brush you have to be incredibly precious about. If you're poor, that's what shooting film can be like. Video is liberating. Video will lead to the democratisation of film-making. Hell! It's already happened.
 
Lucas Adamson said:
Film, nice as it is, is pricey. As a Director once told me, if you're an artist in training, you want a big box of paint and brushes and canvasses, not three tiny tubes and one brush you have to be incredibly precious about. If you're poor, that's what shooting film can be like. Video is liberating. Video will lead to the democratisation of film-making. Hell! It's already happened.
Click to expand...

phew, glad you chimmed in, my head was getting screwed up by that guy!
 
Lucas Adamson said:
El Mariachi is exceptional in this respect though. Also, there was some quite creative bookkeeping that led to the figure of $7000. In reality, it cost tens of thousands more than that to conform and finaly resolve all the sound, but he had studio backing towards the end.

I have shot mostly on film, and it is quite considerably more expensive - even Super8! If you consider a shooting ratio of 6:1, which you should aim for at least, a 10 minute piece will take an hours worth of film. Work it out. A DV tape is 1 hour long. The cameras cost much the same (ie. 1960s 16mm vs. brand new DVX100b) but the film camera needs an audio recorder and sync slate. If you think flipping the image is a pain, try audio syncing all your footage in Final Cut Pro before you start to even think about editing. Film, nice as it is, is pricey. As a Director once told me, if you're an artist in training, you want a big box of paint and brushes and canvasses, not three tiny tubes and one brush you have to be incredibly precious about. If you're poor, that's what shooting film can be like. Video is liberating. Video will lead to the democratisation of film-making. Hell! It's already happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, sure it wasnt a "ready-for-the-screen" production... but it was done well enough that a studio would back it.

a film shot on the DVX would cost a studio nearly the same amount in getting it ready for the screen.
 
Also keep in mind that El Mariachi was shot almost FIFTEEN years ago. There is no way that movie gets made with only 7k these days.

I've shot film a few times and video and I' am interested in manipulating the image from a digital camera. This is a DVX forum afterall, no?
 
Davester said:
This is a DVX forum afterall, no?
Click to expand...

Ummm.... I thought it was:

D - Ditch
V - Video
X - & get a 16mm Aaton XTR Camera


xtrprod.jpg


:grin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top