Major Site Changes Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
Over the next few months, we will be revamping and overhauling DVXuser. Our goal is to put its focus back on making films. To help with that, we will be reorganizing the site so that the major sections will focus on pre-production, production, and post, with our most prominent section being the Screening Room, where members can display what they’ve made, hopefully with help from other DVXuser members.

We will be shifting focus to craft, artistry, and technique, and away from heavy emphasis on gear. The idea is that people discuss and learn filmmaking first and foremost, with specific camera and gear discussions being secondary, and in support of, good cinematography, sound recording, screenwriting, and everything that goes into making films.

We will be ending individual camera forums, though we will archive the existing ones and leave them available to read, because there’s a wealth of information there. But going forward, camera discussions should take on a more specific role – advice on how to apply cinematographic techniques to specific cameras, where they differ in the details.

Any camera today is good enough. We’re looking to put an end to endless pixel-peeping and debates about cameras and encourage all to get out there, learn filmmaking, and come back with results.

We’ll provide more information as we start to make the site changes.
 
David Jimerson said:
Any camera today is good enough. We’re looking to put an end to endless pixel-peeping and debates about cameras and encourage all to get out there, learn filmmaking, and come back with results.
Click to expand...
Yeah, many (not al) cameras today are good enough, but I think its a mistake to assume the operation, features, functions, etc. of every camera is the same as every other one. That's naive. Just because you can fly a single engine Cessna doesn't mean you understand a 747. And cameras are coming out with new stuff all the time that is important to understand BEFORE you shoot a bunch of crap and ask other people to comment on it. There's a lot of really bad information on social media and DVX is a place where people with a known reputation and experience can come and hammer things out. I predict this will be a misstep for the forum if you implement it and enforce what you have described. My 2 cents.
 
Doug Jensen said:
There's a lot of really bad information on social media and DVX is a place where people with a known reputation and experience can come and hammer things out.
Click to expand...

That is what we are counting on.

We don't assume that the function of every camera is the same, which is why we're keeping camera discussion. But it'll be more like how to do what you learn in the Cinematography section on a specific camera, if it does it differently from every other camera.

General cinematography techniques translate from camera to camera.
 
Hey David!

What about lighting and camera support sections, what's the plan for these?

What's the definition of making films? Is it narrative work, or a corporate video for a medium sized company? There's no hard rule for which format has the most pre/prod/post work, with potential for either style to be a greater showcase of filmmaking skills depending on the project.
 
rob norton said:
Hey David!

What about lighting and camera support sections, what's the plan for these?

What's the definition of making films? Is it narrative work, or a corporate video for a medium sized company? There's no hard rule for which format has the most pre/prod/post work, with potential for either style to be a greater showcase of filmmaking skills depending on the project.
Click to expand...

We'll be making all that clear soon. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that it's in the works.
 
Hmm! Tend to think along the same lines and questions as Rob and Doug.

I believe the forum has become more technically orientated due to the fact that the basis and direction of a lot of the original posts in new threads have pushed it that way. More shooters seeking objective technical information rather than subjective artistic discussion. Time will tell if a change in direction of the forum will fire up the belly of dvxuser. I guess if pushing back against what appears to be the main leanings on this forum doesn't work, you can always change tack again.

Chris Young.
 
Last edited:
I truly enjoy the production/problem solving insights we get from Charles, or the great Sony knowledge that Doug is able to share. This site was also such a great resource when I needed to brush up on tech for a job using a different system than I normally shoot on. Hope we still get that discussion.

My first thought though was of when someone bought out the powerlifting gym I used to exercise at, with the intent of turning it into an MMA gym. No one asked for this, all the patrons left within a month. It's an Asian grocery now.
 
The old-timer DVXuser NorBro thinks the move is so radical that it's actually deliberate to end the forum for good, lol - but I try to see the brighter side, especially with an open mind for business and the site's future.

Like, it is obvious the heart and soul of DVXuser is cameras, gear talk, software/hardware, random interactions, random stories....it's the cafe we love to hang out at.

But there are only a few of us left and it's been pretty dead here (compared to years ago).

So a revamp to a, say, more official source which could possibly attract a new audience, new opportunities, is likely the bigger picture here.

___

I would have nothing to contribute to filmmaking discussions and people's films, just not interested at all.

Ideally, you'd have everything like it is, but you don't make such a crazy change without having other plans and end-goals on your mind.
 
NorBro said:
I would have nothing to contribute to filmmaking discussions and people's films, just not interested at all.
Click to expand...
Same here. I have about as much interest in hearing about most people's pet projects and "films" as I'd like hearing about their kids.
 
I'll always watch some quick clips on YouTube here and there, but 1-2 minutes is all I have in me.
 
Do we really think that the site design influences the discussions? Can't people discuss their films using the site's current format? And if "gear" were relegated to a single catch-all category, couldn't the same number of gearhead discussions happen all in that one place? I guess these changes are a bid to attract a different user base...

I, for one, value the broader sort of lifestyle bent of the forum. I lurked here infrequently for years until the pandemic hit. Then there were a couple of threads about dealing with the pandemic, specifically with the challenges of the economy shutting down and the resources available to freelancers. That's when I started posting. I really appreciated the solidarity and sense of community.

I would rather see a loosening of discussion guidelines than a tightening.
 
I’ve been here for over 10 years, now and the activity is definitely much lower than when I started. You could come on here several times a day and there were constantly new posts and replies to keep up with. Now, you can go days and nothing or nothing of consequence transpires here. The most activity that has happened on here recently that I would have enjoyed discussing was in the lighting forum and ironically it was while I was essentially locked-out of the site, the way Abe is, now.

NorBro said it’s like a cafe, along those lines, I say it’s kinda like a food court, there’s something for almost everyone. I think trying to push out everything that’s not “film making” is a mistake. You’re going to possibly alienate some of the last remaining regulars that you have. Unless that of course is part of the plan.

I think you keep the site “open” to all forms of production. I don’t work in narrative. I’m in the broadcast/network, sports, doc, sports doc, corporate and light production worlds, mostly. To echo what Doug said, I really don’t care too much about someone making their “awesome” movie with their friends on the weekends with this “cool” camcorder that they found in their parents garage. Now if people want to talk about that, that’s cool. There should be sections for that. But if that’s kind of the soul focus of the site, it becomes very one dimensional. As a professional, certain things are already known and understood. We need technical/gear related sections, too. Along with the ability to discuss other types of productions. Narrative is such a tiny percentage of what goes on in the world of production on a daily basis.

I understand how and why DVX started, but it evolved, and I think it’s a mistake to try to take it all the way back to that first day. But what do I know? I’m a dinosaur that still does at least half my work on broadcast cameras that are old enough to drive me to the shoot.
 
Come on we're here to quarrel over technical details.

Btw, did you hear DJI released the Action 5 Pro. They added "Pro" that's got to count for something don't you think?
 
Peter C. said:
Come on we're here to quarrel over technical details.

Btw, did you hear DJI released the Action 5 Pro. They added "Pro" that's got to count for something don't you think?
Click to expand...
Hold on a second, before you get into trouble, don't give us any technical information, specifications, comparisons to previous models, or details on how to use it. Instead, tell us all about how YOU will use it in your next feature film! Apparently, that's what we are supposed to care about now.
 
Meanwhile we treated John Brawley like he was a troll and chased him away. Now his latest show (Bad Monkey) is topping the streaming charts while we ask ourselves how to make dvxuser a better home for serious filmmaking discussions.

Actually that's probably the easiest way to achieve this rebrand: just label gear discussions political speech
 
Doug Jensen said:
Hold on a second, before you get into trouble, don't give us any technical information, specifications, comparisons to previous models, or details on how to use it. Instead, tell us all about how YOU will use it in your next feature film! Apparently, that's what we are supposed to care about now.
Click to expand...
To be serious I agree with R&G and probably most current members feel the same way. I don't think it's a good idea or will work dictating what should be talked about. I can understand the desire of returning to cinema based focus but it has to happen naturally.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top