The Hollywood DVX100

S

skunker

Well-known member
Here's a question that I am not sure has been asked before, and I apologize if this is the wrong forum, but I was wondering if anyone has seen or tested the DVX100 on a Hollywood production. What I mean is, has anyone ever put a DVX right next to a 35mm on a live shoot? I wonder how much of a difference there would be between the two.

Anyone? Clips? Samples? I'd like to see them!
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

In American Cinematographer they tested the DVX next to 35mm and 16mm. Read the review online at http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

I shot DVX/mini35 next to 35mm, and the DVX/mini35 was extremely comparable. Without the mini35, it's not the same, but with the mini35 it looked very, very much like 35mm film. Check out the spot here: http://www.fiftv.com/NetDrMatrix.wmv


The DVX by itself looks something like a hybrid between film and video. With the mini35 added, it just plain looks like film. Or, with careful attention in post (see Matt McDermitt threads) it can look very much like 16mm film, but the DOF differences add a depth to 35mm that you just don't get on the DVX.
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

There's a big difference between film and digital. I don't know of any clips that show side by side comparison but you can just take a look at a digital movie (28 Days Later, Open Water, etc) and a film and you will obviously tell which one looks better. Film has much more resolution and you are able to get shallow depth. I love digital for its ease and speed, but if I had to choose between the two to shoot a feature length movie and money was no option I'd definitely go with film.
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

Tyler, but wasn't 28 days shot on XL1s? I hate their looks...reminds me of documentaries and news.

ANyways, what is a Mini35 and how does it make the video look like film?
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

Yes 28 Days Later was shot on the PAL XL1s, but I was saying you can use that for comparison. The mini 35 is an adapter that goes in front of the existing DVX lens and it allows you to use different lenses.
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Events;num=1092086157;start=0#7 date=08/09/04 at 15:18:45]What hasn't been mentioned is that a mini-35 runs about $10K.[/quote]

You can always rent it....

However that will cost you also since most rental houses require you to have General Liability of 1,000,000 USD and equipment insurance....
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

Rental rate is around $300/day. Use it with a still-camera adapter and your own Nikon, Canon, or Contax lenses, and it's not very expensive at all. Considering the DVX rents for around $200/day, $500/day for what delivers the look of 35mm film is not bad at all. If you don't have your own lenses and you have to rent Cine lenses, that starts driving the price up.
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1092086157;start=0#9 date=08/09/04 at 16:15:32]  If you don't have your own lenses and you have to rent Cine lenses, that starts driving the price up.[/quote]

You can always just rent one long zoom lens rather than multiple primes. The entire Band of Brothers series was shot with just two different zoom lenses...

Barry is right though. It gets pricey when you add lenses to the mix...
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

Only problem with zooms on the mini35 is that zooms are typically slower than primes, and light is at a premium when working with the mini35...
 
Re: The Hollywood DVX100

Regard the comment about Matt McDermitt's ability to get the dvx looking like 16mm, it's honestly just as much in the lighting as it is in post. If you light like film, your video will look a staggering amount more like film. A lot of really good movies have been shot with a deep depth of field! (Anyone seen The Royal Tenenbaums?) And if you carry around a bunch of ND filters, you can keep the iris open at all times which makes a pretty big difference (zooming in to full telephoto for talking head shots helps too, although it flattens out the image--but the blurred background helps make this less noticeable.)


The two things people never mention about film that I feel set it apart most from video are its dynamic range and its unlimited color detail. Even with the mini-35, you still only have 4-5 stops of lattitude, whereas with film, you can have as many as 13. And 8 bit color looks great, even with 4:1:1 colorspace, until you start to color correct. Even before this, it still doesn't compare with the much truer color of film.

Still, if you light your video like film (thankfully less light and far less attention to color temperature is needed, though), use tricks to maximize DOF, shoot in 24p mode, use smooth camera motion, and color correct decently, you should be able to get a pretty great looking product that very few people would bother to realize was shot on video.

And I hear that the dvx is often used as b-roll in big productions (my friend interns/works--honestly not sure which--for a company that shoots on either cinealtas or varicams and uses the dvx for b-roll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top