Still not happy with DV...

[cowboykurtis]

I think that everyone gets so caught up in what camera to choose that they sometimes forget that a movie isn't good based just on its format. Yeah, the dvx100 does looks better than most dv, IF composed well. It won't matter how great it looks if the story is crappy and lacks effort. I'd much rather watch a well-made, well told, and well composed movie shot on an old vhs-c camcorder than an even average movie shot on the dvx100.

thats wonderful. thanks for the lesson -- this is a forum called "tech talk" hence the technical debate going on. we realize story is first and foremost -- but there is a reason people aren't shooting the matrix on a vx-1000. we're getting "caught up" in what camera to choose, becuase thats what the thread is about.

[astralpictures]

NO PROBLEM! I'm glad you liked my "lesson." I'm sorry that you don't see a well executed story and a well composed shot as technical. You definitely proved me wrong and in fact, you convinced me to not come to this site anymore. Have fun debating and hopefully soon sony will release a 24p pro-sumer camera to add fuel to the fire and you can keep going forever and ever...

And the last I knew The Matrix wasn't being shot on a dvx100 either.

[xerxes]

everyone is so defensive

[aclockworkjj]

everyone is so defensive

I didn't do it...it was him ---->    

[markums2k]

24 FPS can be achieved in post... and it does make a difference.  I think home-grown footage sometimes looks "too smooth" or too fluid, or over-fluid, if that makes any sense.  It cheapens the entire production.  Just like tape or mechanical noise can be picked up by the built-in mics on camcorders.  It may ruin the experience for the audience.

These are factors the director must consider to achieve the look and feel that he/she desires, no matter how amazingly great the story may actually be.

If you want to ignore production values, maybe you should be writing books, not making movies.  That's my opinion.

[cowboykurtis]

If you want to ignore production values, maybe you should be writing books, not making movies.  That's my opinion.

AMEN BROTHER

[ReelHotGames]

24 FPS can be achieved in post... and it does make a difference. I think home-grown footage sometimes looks "too smooth" or too fluid, or over-fluid, if that makes any sense. It cheapens the entire production. Just like tape or mechanical noise can be picked up by the built-in mics on camcorders. It may ruin the experience for the audience.

True this can be done, but one thing I think we are all focusing on is that 24fps is some kind of ark of the covenant or something. You're shooting on video - so instead of trying to hide it, embrace it and shoot well. The problem video has is lighting, so find someone who can light video and you will be amazed at what you can achieve in 30fps.

If you are so intent on the magic number then shoot on film and problems solved.... Oh wait, we can't afford to shoot on film, that's why we use video, right... Okay, so then don't turn 30fps to 24fps in post unless you have the real equipment to do it, and I'm not talking final cut pro or premiere, but then there's $$$$$ , okay you don't have the "pro" equipment for doing inverse telecine and for 24fps conversion and for... You get the point...  So what then? LET IT GO! 24fps, big whoopy do! Make you video look the best it can look, make someone impressed with what you have done with no budget. Then, maybe someone will give you the money to go play with the big boys.

I shoot on a SOny VX2000, I also use a GL-1 and an XL-1 and did soem of the trials on the Panasonic24p and you know what, 24p is still video until you jump to the HighDef stuff. So use what you use, be happy with your choice and learn to LIGHT.

So endeth the rant, let the flaming begin  

[markums2k]

True this can be done, but one thing I think we are all focusing on is that 24fps is some kind of ark of the covenant or something. You're shooting on video - so instead of trying to hide it, embrace it and shoot well.

I respect your opinion, as I've read many of your posts and you sound like you know your stuff.  I don't understand why your so dead set against converting 30 FPS to 24 FPS.  I'll agree, it does seem rather frivolous when there's so many other things to consider when making a film.  Good lighting will go further than reducing FPS... but I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone disregard lighting, or other practical methods of improving your shots, with the hope that reducing FPS will magically improve picture quality.

But myself, being obsessive and way too involved in trivial details-- when I finally get a project into post production, will probably convert the video to a lower FPS than 30.  I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to get it to look EXACTLY the way I want it.  

Well, okay.  Maybe I'm hiding it from myself?  To which I reply: why bother if you're not going to make every step of the process as complicated and drawn out as possible, right?  The Posterize Frames filter in Premiere should only take, what?  47 hours to render?  Bring it on!  

[aclockworkjj]

I shoot on a SOny VX2000, I also use a GL-1 and an XL-1 and did soem of the trials on the Panasonic24p  

Just curious...but out of these, what camera is your posion of choice?  Or does it depend on what you are shooting?

[ReelHotGames]

I respect your opinion, as I've read many of your posts and you sound like you know your stuff. I don't understand why your so dead set against converting 30 FPS to 24 FPS. I'll agree, it does seem rather frivolous when there's so many other things to consider when making a film. Good lighting will go further than reducing FPS... but I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone disregard lighting, or other practical methods of improving your shots, with the hope that reducing FPS will magically improve picture quality.

I'm nopt DEAD SEt against it, but I have tried it, done test footage using Premiere, After Effects and FCP to do a conversion and the difference in look is minimal, nothing you can't do in camera by changing your frame rate or by using the iun camera movie mode, which isn't tremendous on most cams. Also here's this food for thought. How long is your movie? Let's say you clock in at exactly 60 minutesor 108000 frames at 30fps now convert that to 24fps and your 10800 frames becomes 75 minutes, so you've gained 15 minutes, everyone has slurred their words down a bit, and action becomes slightly slower. Unless of course your drop frames. Ew.
Use Magic Bullet or Cinelook and apply a 35MM filter, tweak it a bit and let that render for 47 hours, you'll be better off IMHO

Just curious...but out of these, what camera is your posion of choice? Or does it depend on what you are shooting?

My personal choice is the SOnyVX2000 and my reasons is it's incredible capabilities in low light and its ability to look like a video camera for guerilla shooting (like inside Casinos in Vegas - go see my website).

I really like the XL1 for its lenses and sound jacks, but I think if I were going to spend that kind of money I would jump to the Sony PD150, which is a suped up VX2000. Otherwiose the GL1 is not so great andf the new Panasonic 24p is fine, but the image quality is not as sharp and clean as the other 3, so shooting at 24p doesn't compensate for the loss in image.

Ciao

[jmj]

I'm in post on my first feature which was shot with a Canon XL-1 using the standard issue 16x lens and a 3x wide angle lens.  I got incredible results.  Seriously, most people who see the trailer or footage are incredibly impressed.  Does it look like film?  To a casual observer it could pass.  To you and me, we know video from film.  I honestly don't think any particular DV or HD Cam is the end all, be all best of digital photography.  It all depends on what you do with the camera.  Technically there are definite differences between the two but does it really matter? Camera's don't make good movies, good director's and d.p.'s make good movies.

Ghostboy and I have been putting together a budget to shoot a feature on HD and it's still pretty damn expensive.  For low budget, DV is still the way to go and if you know what you're doing it will look great.

[SoNowThen]

Please tell me how and what you light with.

I eat ass at trying to light for dv. I so wanna make natural light (or just practicals) work, but it never does.

[jmj]

Well, for my film we NEVER used practicals or nat lighting (except exterior day scenes of course.)  We always lit the scenes.  Mostly we would use a couple of 1200W HMI's for day light (or a 2K Mole/Richardson's with full CTB) , placed outside a window shining in.  That way we always had complete control.  For night scenes we did the same thing except we covered the lights with with a Straw/CTO mixture to get that Sodium Halogen orange glow of street lights coming in through the window.  Of course it's always good to use lower watt lights for key lighting (usually by way of an ARRI kit containing a 300watt, 2- 650watts, and a 1k).  I've always gotten the best result in interior lighting by bouncing it as opposed to shining straight at something.  Of course you can buy work lights at home depot and get creative with your lighting but having done both, it's much more satisfactory to spend a couple of hundred dollars to rent professional lights.

Another important thing that we did was we never used the white balance.  We only used the presets (daytime or tungsten) and adjusted the light as needed with gels.  Also, when you cut from a wide to a close (or vice-versa) instead of adjusting the iris for lighting difference it's better to keep the same "aperature" by adjusting the lighting as needed.

So basically our lighting package was this:
two 1200watt HMI's
two Mickey moles (or Mighty Moles)
an Arri Kit
a couple of extra low watt Moles (200 and 300watts)
lots of gels (CTB, CTO, white diffusion, party gels)
black foil wrap

of course you'll need all the grip equipment like stands, cords, etc.

Anyway, I know it seems like a lot but it makes a big difference.

Hope that helps.

[SoNowThen]

Yep.

But when you said you didn't white balance but used the gels instead, you're just talking about the daylight or tungsten conversion gels right? Not color gels...

[jmj]

But when you said you didn't white balance but used the gels instead, you're just talking about the daylight or tungsten conversion gels right? Not color gels...

For the most part yes.  However, to get that street light look we did have to use some some non-CTO gels like Straw.  And there were a few scenes where I wanted to play with some colors so that's why we needed the party gels.  But generally all you'll need are CTO, CTB, and diffussion.