Anyone seen DVX100 footage on Widescreen TV?
 

I recently checked out the movie 28 Days which was apparently shot on the XL1S. I have 61 inch widescreen DLP. I thought the movie looked horrible on my TV! There was edge enhancement all over! As well as problems and blurryness everytime the camera or actors moved! I was very discouraged by this because to me it basically seemed to prove that DV blown up looks pretty bad. I can't even imagine how crappy it must of looked in a theater! I don't have a problem with grainyness as much, but I was at least hoping for something that could at least be not so embarassing! When ever they went to a wide shot the resolution looked unacceptable. You could barely make out buildings.

I've read various posts and information from people that say the DVX100 footage looks good in a movie theater.... Somehow I have trouble believing that.... But what I'm wondering is if anyone has viewed footage on a DLP, Plasma, or LCD widescreen TV... How does the image hold up? Does it at least pass for 16mm? Does it look like video? Please say it looks like film!

P.S. If anyone has a short or movie on DVD that was shot in DVX100... Could you send me a copy so I could play it on my Wide TV?

IMO it looks like 16m film....

I have many corporate clients who have moved to wide screen progressive plasma displays for their wares and shows and this cam seems to fit the bill for the format nicely...

i guess if it didnt, id be out of business :)

we projected one of our projects on a 12 foot DLP projected screen and it looked fantastic.

28 days... is a pretty bad example of DV tranferred to film. It can be done much better than that.

Graeme

For the DVD release, did they go straight from DV to DVD MPEG2? or did they go from the film print to DVD?

Re: Anyone seen DVX100 footage on Widescreen TV?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Nauth : I can't even imagine how crappy it must of looked in a theater! -->>>

I saw 28 Days Later in the theatre and was actually very impressed. I haven't seen the DVD. But clearly they were going for an unusual look and made some deliberate choices. Unlike most of us, they weren't trying to make video look like film.... I think they wanted to make film look like video! They had a budget around $10 million and could have shot on film, HD, or with better widescreen DV cameras if that's what they wanted.
Now I personally don't like that over-enhanced edge look on my own work, but that's another story. I can't speak specifically for the DVX-100 since I've never used one, but my general impression is that DV can look fine on a big screen, as long as you don't have a really unreasonable expectation. It won't ever really look like film. We projected DV on a 40' wide screen in a recent production using a 10,000 lumen DLP projector and everybody was very impressed. The main problems are related to the DV compression itself, not the camera IMO. I say this since my project included a lot of 3d animation that was rendered as anamorphic DV. It exhibited the same sort of familiar problems seen with camera footage, such as banding and blocky detail in complex images, and no optics or anything were involved with the computer animation.

Graeme: if you want to really see a bad example of DV transfered to film check out "Full Frontal". I saw that in the theatre also, and it just gave me a headache!

AFAIK, they went from the film print to DVD, rather than from the original video files. BTW - it did look bad in the cinema - I nearly walked out because of the headache and really over the top "sharpness" edge enhancement.

Graeme

Well the XL1s in frame mode is hardly high-res DV video. Videos shot with anyother prosumer cam would undoubtly be much sharper.

Re: Anyone seen DVX100 footage on Widescreen TV?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Nauth : I recently checked out the movie 28 Days which was apparently shot on the XL1S. I have 61 inch widescreen DLP. I thought the movie looked horrible on my TV! -->>>

Maybe your t.v. sucks?

I'm kidding; don't take it literal.

I am curious though. You say horrible. Horrible as in how? Compared to what? I confess, I have only a 27" RCA. BUt it looked great on my t.v.

The underlying qiestion here is:

COMPARED TO WHAT?

I thought "28 Days Later" looked great in the theater, but maybe that's because I went into it worried that it was going to look terrible. By the way, a friend of mine who saw the movie and has no interest in filmmaking had no idea that it wasn't shot on film. She just thought they were going for some arty look. Didn't bother her a bit.

To John and Marco:
28 Days Later in comparison to a normal movie it looks like trash. With digital blockiness and edge enhancement abound it looks like something shot on VHS! Anybody who says that 28 Days Later looks acceptable in comparision to film (say even 16mm film) is in denial! The movie looked ghetto!

And "No" John my TV doesnt suck... I'm not trying to take what you said as literal either... Again, I have a 61 inch DLP Widescreen TV. If you look on the web you will find that it is not a poor TV. It beat out plasma flat screens this past Xmas.

Peter or anyone else,

You wouldn't happen to have anything on DVD that I could take a look at as proof that it looks acceptable on a wide TV?

First of all, 28 Days later was shot on 35mm AND Video.

They wanted the footage of the XL1 to look like crap as that was what they where going for. They had the budget to shoot it all on film, But Danny Boyle (director) is a little experimental and wanted it to look that bad... end of story.

Same thing happened with Full Frontal... and yes it Pisses Canon off.

This begs the question: Does DVX look better then XL1S blown up?

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Nauth : This begs the question: Does DVX look better then XL1S blown up? -->>>

yes.. no question about it. The DVX has more resolution, specially with the anamorphic adapter, Progressive.. of course and better gamma and a higher simulated exposure latitude.

Of course, there is the depth the XL1 can create with nice and expensive primes, so there is that benefit of the XL1.

"To John and Marco:
28 Days Later in comparison to a normal movie it looks like trash. With digital blockiness and edge enhancement abound it looks like something shot on VHS! Anybody who says that 28 Days Later looks acceptable in comparision to film (say even 16mm film) is in denial! The movie looked ghetto!"

Hey, I didn't say it looked good compared to film. It did look good enough to be accepted by mass audiences, and I guess I'm pumped about that because it's more evidence that I'm not wasting my time with minidv. But yeah, it could be kind of ugly and grainy, just nowhere near as ugly and grainy as I had feared. I still say it looked great considering the cost of the camcorder. To compare it against 35mm film is pointless and unfair.