Feature film format

S

Shacke

Active member
Hi,

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. I am shooting a feature film and in the process of deciding which format to shoot on. My options are DVX100A using 25p progressive scan or Canon XH A1 which is HDV. I have the DVX100A but will have to buy the Canon. I am hoping for theatrical release and wondering whether the DVX100A is good enough for that or whether it will be worth investing in the Canon to give me a better chance for theatrical release?

Thanks.
 
It all depends. There have been features shot with both cameras; resolution aside, it all comes down to what you need out of the camera and how you use the camera. Each one has strengths in different areas. I'm not qualified to evaluate them, but I can tell you that in the long run, it probably won't matter which one you choose, neither will give you a better chance for release. It's all about cast and script. My $.02.
 
To add to the comment by Aroon, content is king. If you have great actors, great crew, and a good editor, these will outweigh the camcorder to a certain extent. Video is almost always gonna be a dead giveaway to any audience, from there they think completely different about your product. Now they aren't gonna be yelling "It's a DVX! Burn him!" but they will feel the low budget-ness of the film and have a different opinion of your movie compared to a 16mm/35mm made film.

OF course there's always the option for the RED (I'm going a little to far with the budget it seems).

In my humble opinion, if I was shooting a feature in your situation, I would probably go out and rent a decked out HVX. I did a little research and a decked out HVX came out to be $1500 a week, which is not bad if you are on a tight budget and you are organized enough.
 
If you don't have distributor interest, then you should shoot with the camera you have -- as advised. Put your time and money in getting a good cast and working hard to make a good movie.

If you have money, say about $50 k or over, shoot 35mm short ends.
 
"It's a DVX! Burn him!"

Love that!

Assuming you have everything else in place, you can do this with the DVX. I would suggest a 35mm adapter. Great lighting, great sound. Find out the film-out requirements, too.

I agree that doing shorts is the best way to start, for many reasons. Most important, continue doing searches in this forum as there is a great deal of info for you.
 
Hmm... DVX 24pA or HDV. That is a tough choice! Believe it or not, based on Iraq... in Fragments, I might choose the DVX100a.

e
 
DVX 24pA vs HDV isn't really a comparison...one's a framerate and one's a codec.

The XH-A1 can shoot 24f and I've used it on a feature. It performed better than my DVX in my opinion (though I haven't shot a feature with the DVX, but like Erik said - Iraq in Fragments is a damn fine example of quality DVX footage).

-Kegan
 
Kegan Sant said:
DVX 24pA vs HDV isn't really a comparison...one's a framerate and one's a codec.

The XH-A1 can shoot 24f and I've used it on a feature. It performed better than my DVX in my opinion (though I haven't shot a feature with the DVX, but like Erik said - Iraq in Fragments is a damn fine example of quality DVX footage).

-Kegan
Click to expand...

Depends on the HDV camera. If it was a 1/2 imager, like XDCam and HD lens, well... that would be different. If it's a Z1U or comparable camera with CineFrame-style hackery, I'd choose the cadence and color quality of the DVX.

e
 
That is true. The only reason I specified the XH-A1 was because he had narrowed it down to those two. I agree about the Z1u and it's horrible CineFrame.

-Kegan
 
I don't think you have to be concerned about format at all for a simple reason: the chance of getting theatrical release is close to nil for a low budget film, which is what you have if you're shooting with a DVX or an A1. This is not a diss on your ability, it's just cold hard fact. The originating format has NOTHING to do with helping you getting a theatrical release. If by chance you are one of the lucky few to "make it," then which ever distributor bought your film will spend as much money as it takes to make it presentable to movie going audiences, including blowing it up to 35mm film, and so you have nothing to worry about. Spend the money on a good DP, production design, good actors, set, scripts etc. and those will help you more than the camera format.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Pretty much confirmed what I was thinking just thought i'd double-check the general consensus. Cheers.
 
Yeah you need a lot of money and name actors to get a theatrical release except in very rare cases.

This doesn't mean you won't make money off it. You can still sell and distribute as an indie, you just need a good cast and great DP.

Good luck!

P.S. Check out the very first sticky on this thread. Read it through... and yeah that was NOT a theatrical release (as far as we know atleast ;) ).
 
I know this is DVX User, and I've shot with the XH-A1 myself, in fact it was one of the first cameras I shot with, besides when I was younger the XL-1s and also some XL-2 stuff, and I wasn't a huge fan of the XH-A1 but it's still way better than the DVX. I mean come on, you're comparing SD versus HD. The DVX is an old camera. I'm not saying it's "bad" but it's a glorified camcorder. It's 2008 now... honestly time to move on to other options, IMO.

The HVX200 is used professionally much more often now days, but even then I wouldn't shoot a feature with my HVX200s. For that, I'd want a RED One. I personally would never shoot with film, that's just me, too expensive and too annoying. I'm also too paranoid to shoot anything where the only copy of the footage is going to be on some archaic medium that I have to give to some "lab" to develop, what a joke. This is 2008 not 1957.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top