Mad Hot Ballroom

Jed Williamson · September 28th, 2005, 04:34 PM

I just returned from the movie theatre & I hate to say it but the DVX100 looked terrible on the big screen.

The story was pretty good but much more suited for a 30 minute show on PBS not a feature length doc.

Not sure what went wrong, the colors were washed out, the focus was very bad at times. The depth of field had a very odd look, everything was slightly out of focus at times & everything in focus at other times. Only the closeups of dialogue looked good.

Having seen November & Murderball in the last month, I was very dissapointed with this one.

John C. Chu · October 23rd, 2005, 07:37 AM

Just got this from Netflix the other night and I thought this film was excellent.

I'm sure that seeing it on the big screen magnifies the limitations of it being shot on DV, but at home on my 30" set--it looked just fine. [The DVD is enhanced widescreen]

Besides, the story itself was too compelling to nitpick about the camera. It was so much fun to see these New York kids learning to dance and then compete. It is a really good time and very funny.

The DVX-100 doesn't have native 16:9--so I wonder if they shot this with a anamorphic lens--or just cropped the 4:3 frame? At times, it did look like everything was a bit too tight.

I also thought for sure they utilized the Steadicam--but from what I understand in an article in "Videography" that it might be a safety issue with the rig around kids and the distraction/intimidation factor.

But with that nice handle on top of the DVX---they got some really nice camera moves around the kids dancing that were as good as a steadicam.

Fun stuff. Check it out!

Marco Leavitt · October 23rd, 2005, 12:32 PM

I thought it looked pretty good for a run and gun type production. Some parts were pretty ugly, but it looked to be all natural lighting. If you were to light a scene very carefully with this camera, I'll bet it would blow up to film pretty good.

Wayne Orr · November 26th, 2005, 03:09 PM

I just watched this film last night on my new Sony KDF-E55A20 LCD projection HDTV (awsome!), and I thought it looked quite good, for the most part. As John C. pointed out, its really playing grinch to nitpik a doc that has this much heart. But I suppose it is possible that a film print could look worse than a dvd. However, my dvd player, DVP-NS70H, does up-rez the dvd to 720, and that is an advantage over a standard definition player.

Wayne

Peter Moretti · September 11th, 2007, 12:32 AM

I just watched this. The indoor color was horrible at times; it looked like it wasn't white balanced properly.

Also, in spots the focus was soft and sound out of synch.

However, the outside shooting looked very good w/ nice colors, perfect pans and clear sound.

Great story, cute kids, wonderful heart, just some really poor indoor color.

September 28th, 2005, 04:34 PM	#1
Jed Williamson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 175	Mad Hot Ballroom - awful quality I just returned from the movie theatre & I hate to say it but the DVX100 looked terrible on the big screen. The story was pretty good but much more suited for a 30 minute show on PBS not a feature length doc. Not sure what went wrong, the colors were washed out, the focus was very bad at times. The depth of field had a very odd look, everything was slightly out of focus at times & everything in focus at other times. Only the closeups of dialogue looked good. Having seen November & Murderball in the last month, I was very dissapointed with this one.

November 26th, 2005, 03:09 PM	#4
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	I just watched this film last night on my new Sony KDF-E55A20 LCD projection HDTV (awsome!), and I thought it looked quite good, for the most part. As John C. pointed out, its really playing grinch to nitpik a doc that has this much heart. But I suppose it is possible that a film print could look worse than a dvd. However, my dvd player, DVP-NS70H, does up-rez the dvd to 720, and that is an advantage over a standard definition player. Wayne __________________ Wayne If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it.

October 23rd, 2005, 07:37 AM	#2
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Just got this from Netflix the other night and I thought this film was excellent. I'm sure that seeing it on the big screen magnifies the limitations of it being shot on DV, but at home on my 30" set--it looked just fine. [The DVD is enhanced widescreen] Besides, the story itself was too compelling to nitpick about the camera. It was so much fun to see these New York kids learning to dance and then compete. It is a really good time and very funny. The DVX-100 doesn't have native 16:9--so I wonder if they shot this with a anamorphic lens--or just cropped the 4:3 frame? At times, it did look like everything was a bit too tight. I also thought for sure they utilized the Steadicam--but from what I understand in an article in "Videography" that it might be a safety issue with the rig around kids and the distraction/intimidation factor. But with that nice handle on top of the DVX---they got some really nice camera moves around the kids dancing that were as good as a steadicam. Fun stuff. Check it out!

October 23rd, 2005, 12:32 PM	#3
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I thought it looked pretty good for a run and gun type production. Some parts were pretty ugly, but it looked to be all natural lighting. If you were to light a scene very carefully with this camera, I'll bet it would blow up to film pretty good.

September 11th, 2007, 12:32 AM	#5
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	I just watched this. The indoor color was horrible at times; it looked like it wasn't white balanced properly. Also, in spots the focus was soft and sound out of synch. However, the outside shooting looked very good w/ nice colors, perfect pans and clear sound. Great story, cute kids, wonderful heart, just some really poor indoor color.