Well-Known Cinematographer Gives Plug for DVX100A

Gibby

Gibby

Red Savant
Well-known cinematographer Peter Pilafian (Riding Giants, K2, Dogtown and Z Boyz, Survivor, War that Made America) gives a nice plug for using the DVX100A in a current article in Digital Producer Magazine. Link: http://www.digitalproducer.com/

If he likes the DVX100A, imagine how he'll also like the HVX200 for his mobile, rugged terrain work, assuming that he can get adequate DVCProHD footage storage figured out for remote field production work. I second his opinion of the DVX100A (I love mine!), and look forward to getting my hands on an HVX200. A lot of my work parallels Peter Pilafian's, in the same industries, although I don't acquire any of my footage in film - my acquisition is strictly electronic media. I think the newer generation of 1/3" hi-definition cameras, specifically the HVX200 and HD100, will have a major impact on many niches and sub-niches of the TV and film industries. That said, by Pilafian's response to the question after his DVX response, I think he still doesn't grasp the extent of the usage possibilities of the newest generation of 1/3" hi-definition camcorders. They can be the primary camera system for many types of projects - not just b-roll or backup angle cameras.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Good interview and yes he gives a great plug to the DVX100a - but he says it's definitely no substitute for film. Moral of the story: if you want film look - get a 16mm camera and shoot film.

If you were assembling kit today for a video shoot involving rough water and terrain, what camera would you pack if you could only take one?

Assuming it was a TV documentary, I’d take the Panasonic DVX-100A. It’s small, reliable and makes great pictures and is suited to that kind of thing. On a feature, that’s a tougher choice. As soon as you get into 35mm, you need a support system. However, I think Super 16mm blow-up is extremely good these days. The new Kodak stocks keep getting better. I
would take my trusty Aaton XTR and shoot in Super 16mm.
 
k2

k2

Just a note: K2 was shot by Gabriel Beristain -- Peter P. did second unit --

Gabriel Beristain, incidentally, was the "cinematographer" of Werner Herzog's crew in "Incident at Loch Ness" -- which was shot on a DVX -- (only the 16mm footage in the movie was shot by GB, the DVX footage was shot by John Bailey) --
 
Am I the only one who LIKES the stock DVX look?

It's not video. It's not film. It's something else. And it's pleasing to look at.

The difficulties in getting the best out of it, and working around the limitations is part of the charm and attraction of shooting with a DVX.

In 20 years you'll see a run on "vintage" DVXs (the 100's going for lots more than the "bastardized" A's or B's) as Spielberg and others try to cash-in on the "early-millennium digital look".

"It's not about image quality" says Spielberg, operating a vintage Mac Pentium running an ancient copy of Vegas 8, "It's about working within the limitations of the medium. Back in my day we had to work within the limitations of film, whereas nowadays any young whippersnapper can pick up a 20megapixel camcorder and have 30 stops of latitude. It's not about the technology... It's about the story." Mr. Spielberg, best known for working with an obscure format called "film", banged the top of the monitor as the screen turns blue. "Stupid Windows, " he mutters, "I heard that once Apple made their own operating system. Maybe I should try that."

Mark my words.
 
LOL, you ain't lyin. I got a gang of vintage Macs from like 86-87. Dabble on Ebay from time to time. Remember the arguments in the studios when we used to talk about Adats replacing 2" tape. Now that Adat is on the way out and many studios are now closed I can't say I told you so enough. And don't get me started on 'they better make a deal with Napster or the flood gates are gonna open!" Industry suits are so freakin stoooopid!!!
 
I agree with the statement,"work with the limitations of the medium". The limitations are the beauty marks of the thing.
Jeffery Tahl
 
I remember finding an old beat up 8mm in the basement of my grandmother's place. And we've all read about how so many directors got their start with dad's old 8mm. Wouldn't be shocked at all if our grandkids (assuming we have kids to have grandkids at some point) find the old DVX in the basement and launch their filmmaking careers.

Imagine some new director on the afternoon holographic entertainment show, going on and on about "RetroDogma 2040, a true return the roots of creative film making where the machines set the limitations and the artist must dig deep within his/her soul to express artistic vision." All the while proudly holding granddad's old DVX100 used to shoot his Nuveau Noir feature set in 2005.
 
tkoind really very true --when my kid pics up my old dvx and shoot his/her first clips/movie/short- i will be able to die and go to heaven---really i mean it *tear*
my life would be complete
 
pmark23 said:
Am I the only one who LIKES the stock DVX look? .
Click to expand...

Nope.

Quite aside from the fact I'm a noob on "color correction", I don't like messing with what comes out of the camera...except for the correction of actual goofs.

Film-look? Yeah, okay. But why try to make it more so than it already is?

I'd rather do stylistic looks with lighting & composition than messing around in post.

Play to the strengths, compensate for the weaknesses, be what it is.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top