DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/)
-   -   "Gabriel" movie shot on JVCHD100 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/108061-gabriel-movie-shot-jvchd100.html)

Joe Bowey November 15th, 2007 04:49 PM

"Gabriel" movie shot on JVCHD100
 
Just saw this. MUST check out trailer. http://www.sonypictures.com.au/movies/gabriel/

Sean Adair November 16th, 2007 08:35 AM

making of...
 
Intense, and possibly the highest profile release yet with this camera.
I put a post in the new projects sticky as well referring to this article about the making of it:
http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/cinematog...le_16628.shtml

Oliver Smith November 17th, 2007 06:26 PM

I just went and saw Gabriel last night at. On the big screen it looked fantastic. There wasn't really much hint that it was shot on HDV in terms of overall image resolution. The motion was pretty spot on too. The movie overall started fairly roughly, but the themes in the middle were fantastic! It's not a quasi-Underworld ripoff, but something completely different. A few scenes really let the low budget side shine through, but overall I thought it was a sucess. The 8-bit colour made its appearance well known in some of the cloud shots, and there were a few blocky moments if you looked really closely at the background fog in some of the shots. Overall, however it was quite excellent. Definetly worth a watch!

Eric Ramahatra November 19th, 2007 11:45 AM

awesome !
i guess they didn't use any 35mm adapter on this feature, so to get short depth of field, they had to shot long lense ?

Brian Drysdale November 20th, 2007 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Ramahatra (Post 778023)
awesome !
i guess they didn't use any 35mm adapter on this feature, so to get short depth of field, they had to shot long lense ?

You don't want to use a 35mm adapter if you're planning a 35mm film out. You are fighting for all the resolution you can get on the the big screen, especially with wide shots.

There was a mention of a "wide angled lens", so perhaps that could be the W/A zoom. Although, they did say their budget was tight.

The film looks good on the trailer, interesting to see it on the big screen. Also, what sort of workflow they went through for the film out.

PJ Gallagher November 20th, 2007 04:41 PM

I'll slightly contradict Oliver, in that I thought the look did somewhat betray its video origins.

Maybe it was the theatre I was watching it in, but I thought the image overall was a bit soft, and that the blacks were more towards the dark grey end of things. Of course this may have been a conscious grading choice, but to me just made the footage look more video-like.

But, damn, the lighting looked sweet (apparently they had about half the "Superman Returns" lighting crew working on the film), and while the film has recieved some critical reviews in regards to the actual plot, I quite enjoyed it.

This is the sort of thing we can do in Australia when we don't have government funding bodies forcing us to make films that are "culturally significant". :-P

Andy Graham April 2nd, 2008 07:24 AM

does anyone know what kind of budget they had?

Andy.

Amos Kim April 2nd, 2008 12:57 PM

Brian, why wouldn't you want to use a 35mm adapter when planning to filmout? The adaptor doesn't take away any resolution.

Giuseppe Pugliese April 3rd, 2008 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Graham (Post 852878)
does anyone know what kind of budget they had?

Andy.

according to IMDB its AUD 200,000. I have no idea what that is in USD$

Kent Frost April 3rd, 2008 08:05 AM

Well, TODAY the conversion is as follows, according to http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic.

200,000 Australian Dollar = 181,982 US Dollar

Julian Maytum April 6th, 2008 09:13 PM

I saw this flick.. amazing!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network