Question for any who have done a movie on the XL1(s) -- have you seen your work screened at a festival? If so, so does it hold up on the big screen? Does it look the same (general) image quality of your tv, or when it's blown up does it get all pixeley and terrible?
Also, a somewhat unrelated question:
I don't use the 16x9 function anymore, nor do I mask, I just prefer to shoot 4:3. However, I just noticed (!!) that the video frame size is listed as 720x480, which works out to an aspect ratio of 1.5:1, rather than 1.33:1. So does that mean that when we shoot DV we're using the ratio 1.5:1, or does that extra length never actually get seen when projected, giving the proper 1.33:1 ratio?
Well I havent seen it on a huge screen but from a regular LCD projector on a 10ft screen it certainly doesnt look any better than it usually does but nor does it look terrible.
Also on the aspect ratio front: the pixel widths you gave were NTSC; PAL has a ratio of 1.25:1. With television I think it generally works out as a square because of overscan masking more horizontal information than vertical, but I believe a projector will display the full picture. Hope that helps.
I've been discussing formats with a friend who is also a professional DP.
He says,
MiniDV material does not work on a big screen unless you use a mini35adapter. On smaller cinema screens it can work fine.
So if I want to show my film in a 600+ seat cinema I would not go miniDV.
Quote from: kotteSo if I want to show my film in a 600+ seat cinema I would not go miniDV.
Shit. It's all I have...
Anybody know what Soderbergh did in Full Frontal? Didn't he use the Canon XL1? If you make a 35mm film print from your DV footage, can it become show-able in those larger theatres?
***
So, redlum, we can then say that one should compose for 1.5:1 for NTSC DV shots?
*IMHE, miniDV is going to look fine to all but the afficianados and film snobs. The general public won't be able to tell much of a difference from the small screen version. Of course, it doesn't improve the image...but it doesn't hurt it much either. SS did use xl1s...and blowing up to a film print will help, but not a lot because it's the original image that counts (which is why the mini35 works).
It's much more important to get it shot than to get it shot on film.
*Been to several video fest and video races ultimately shown on big screens. Looks like video.
It's not for nothing people think Full Frontal looks like shit.
But that also proves that with a good story the format matters little.
I don't have too much experience with showing miniDV material in a huge theatre.
I guess if you plan on showing this on festivals (read film snobs) it may hurt the picture.
I dont really think Full Frontal looks anything like DV, though. Soderberg blew it up, yes...but he also fiddled with it quite a bit. I would imagine he used a stock with pretty large grain to disguise the uniform noise inherent to any digital format - which is most noticeable on minidv. However though, Kotte is exactly right. Full Frontal is still a great film regardless of the format. However, it was financed by a major studio who can afford to pay for a digital to film transfer at around $250 per minute.
How does the mini35 adaptor help? I know it can give a film look with a shallower depth of field but how will that help in this instance, if its minidv compression?
Quote from: ®edlumHow does the mini35 adaptor help? I know it can give a film look with a shallower depth of field but how will that help in this instance, if its minidv compression?
One major thing that makes miniDV horrible is its depth of field. It's flat and thin. Shallow depth makes the image thicker. So the adapter adds quality in that area. It doesn't do anything with the compression, you still have a miniDV image but fuller.
A more precise answer is that the reason you can't get the shallow depth of field is that the chip on a dv is just TOO small. On the mini35 adapter, the image is first shown onto a 35mm size plane directly in front of the camera's chip. So basically you're recording a 35mm image from the plane...with a dv camera. Kind of like taking a video camera into the theater and filming the screen. Remember that it's the initial image that really determines quality. That's why the image doesn't change much when you view a film on a DVD.
To me, the video parts of full frontal (some was shot on film) looks like bad video. And the impression I got was that SS wanted it that way. You can make minidv look a lot better than he did if that's what you are going for.
Yeah but essentially thats an artistic consideration or a lens choice. Little to do with the technical quality of the end result. Considering the price of the thing wouldnt it a)be better to just shoot 16mm or b)be cheaper to move the camera back and zoom in? I don't really see the advantage of being able to use decent prime lenses either because minidv will never take advantage of the increased sharpness and clarity, will it?
Is this thing compatible with anything other than the XL1? Because I would say you'd be better off spending the rental price of the adaptor on a digital format with lower compression, like DVCAM.
You are correct in reference to DOF. That is an artistic choice. However, you could make an argument that the everything technical is an artistic choice. I could make a flip book out of a post-it-note pad and claim artistic license. I'm making the assumption that the filmmaker is trying to achieve a look that is more recognizable as cinematic.
A. Price is a consideration, and sometimes 16mm would be better. But you still have to do a whole lost of post on 16mm pic and sound. miniDV is certainly easier to shoot than 16mm and as cheap as tape stock is, it's better for a high shooting ratio.
B. Yes, you can do that. But since the chip is so small you aren't getting the latitude you would with a larger plane like 16 or 35mm. You'll get some use, but not as much. Also, you'll change the perspective slightly, but noticably by doing that.
c. It's true that the image is only going to be recorded at a certain quality...but why not get the image there as nicely as possible. Normally prime lenses are much sharper because of the minimal glass. There are lots of lenses and the quality can vary dramatically. If you have a very good zoom, then the prime isn't going to buy you much more. But if you only have a mediocre zoom, then use the primes.
Overall, you could definitely make a case that 16mm is just as cheap as having a camera, mini35 unit, prime lenses, etc....
Yes, the mini35 system is available on a few other cameras, but I'm not sure about formats. Check them out http://www.pstechnik.de/ .
Cool, cheers dude.
I see they've made it compatible with the latest HDV cameras.....but thats another story.
SS shot Full Frontal with a stock XL1s. Then once transferred to film he had the film pushed two stops to build up the grain even more.
I think by this point in time most audiences will accept miniDV footage without even thinking about it. In the past couple of years we've seen Pieces of April, Open Water, and a couple of other films released. And if you look at whats playing right now, Murderball, November, 9 Songs, all shot on the DVX.
I know it's cliche and all, but it's not what medium you shoot in, but what you do with it.