How is "Tadpole" on Screen???
 

"Tadpole" is the movie opened this week. This movie was shot with SONY PD-150 and transferred to film.
Anybody watched this film on screen? Just curious to know how
it look on screen?

More info:
FILM: Tadpole
DIRECTOR: Gary Winock
DISTRIBUTOR: Miramax
PLAYDATES: Opening theatrically July 19, 2002
FORMAT/CAMERA: DVCAM – Sony DSR PD150 PAL
TRANSFER: Duart Laser
NOTES: Won Best Director at 2002 Sundance.

Another one of those films that are not trying to hide the fact that they are shot on video. Good or bad? I don't know. The PD150 can produce better results on screen then we have seen in any movie so far. So can the XL1.

I still think "Sweet" the short shot by Alan Daviau on a VX1000 is the best DV to screen effort so far.

I think the aesthetic of video blown up to 35mm highly depends on transfer technology.

A few years ago I saw Chuck and Buck (VX1000) on the big screen and it was just distracting to me. The depth of field looked like crap and the close-ups looked fantastic. Everytime they would cut to the establishing shot it looked horrible. I watched it again on video an it looked fine.

Don't get me wrong, general production has a lot to do with the aesthetics as well, but from what I have heard some dupe houses are making major advancements in DV to film blowups.

I will always feel video looks best viewed on video. With more and more theaters investing in HD projection systems it won't be long before DV to film transfers are obsolete. I would suspect DV filmmakers would opt to blowup to HD instead. It's cheaper and it looks better (DV to HD transfers). Though, by that time Sony and Canon will probably be making prosumer HDcams.

Sorry to hijack your thread, Syerneni. Haven't seen <i>Tadpole</i> yet. I have however heard some really great things and the screen shots look great. I can't wait to check it out.

IMO the success of TADPOLE is the script/acting ... the dv video to film transfer does not distract from the story ... the dv video looks OK to good up there on the BIG screen ( i saw it in a theater seats 80 - could look different in one that seats 500) ...... also after watching 4 "film " previews of coming attractions you do notice the quaility drop when tadpole 1st starts but you adjust to it in 5-10 minutes ......

IMO if the audience likes the story/acting they will not be distracted by the "video to film" ......

It looks better than "Full Frontal". I'm curious how they could get name actors like Sigourney Weaver and John Ritter yet they can't afford film?

How about 'ivans xtc' by Bernard Rose. A great film and shot on DV (don't know the specs though). Some shots look good but when there is a lot of movement there's quite a lot of blur.

Sometimes actors work for free or a lot less than usual, don't they? Film stock never does!

<<<-- Originally posted by JustinMorgan : How about 'ivans xtc' by Bernard Rose. A great film and shot on DV (don't know the specs though). Some shots look good but when there is a lot of movement there's quite a lot of blur. -->>>

I looked up that film. Apparently it was shot with Hi-definition Sony betacams. Bernard Rose stated that he sees Hi-Def as indistinguishable from film. I personally don't know how close it is but it still beats the heck out of 525 lines. I just can't wait till Hi-Def cameras come down in price to below 10k.


Revolver1010.

I read something which said that Bernard Rose (the director) had shot some test footage using both film and the digital camera he was proposing to use. He then showed the footage one after the other to a group of cinematographers he had gathered and says that none could tell which was which (from your research it suggests that he was using something a bit more high level than an XL1s or PD-150 though).

Here's something quite inspirational for us DV bunch that he wrote on the film's website (www.ivansxtc.com):

Walking through the Art Institute of Chicago I was
struck by something._ The gallery, which concentrates
on European painting, is arranged in chronological
order; the flat two dimensional early religious works
give way to the renaissance experiments with depth and
perspective, which_ in turn give way to the overblown
work of nineteenth century genre paintings - ugly
gaudy canvasses with observation and subject matter
taken entirely from convention.

And then comes the Impressionists._ The breath of
fresh air is palpable._ No more sylphs dancing in fake
ancient settings. Now we get Manet's girl friends -
dressed and undressed as they are, not some paying
patron or king._ We see Van Gogh's bare room - the
place he actually lived._ The lily pond in Monet's
back yard. The light fairly shines from these
canvasses - the real light, as it might fall on a
haystack at different times of the day._

This is the heart of the digital revolution. Most
people are not constantly back-lit in real life._ At
night the 'moonlight' does not come from a high crane
with powerful arc lights that cast a blue glare as
bright as any baseball stadium._ Women do not wake up
in bed with perfect hair and make-up. Industrial
Cinema is a legitimate form - but it is stuck in rigid
conventions, hamstrung by money, and like traditional
oil painting, has entered its decadent phase.

In digital cinema your girl friend is the star. Your
back yard is the set. Your life is the script._

Interesting. But I still want my stuff to be purty to look at.

Looks great to me
 

Since I am in Hong Kong, chances of seeing anything without Arnold in it at the cinemas are very slim.

I caught the trailer of Tadpole and it looked great to me, I was unsure whether or not it was shot on DV until the restaurant scene where the light reflects off the actor's faces, other than that, I thought it looked very good. it's the best PD-150 work so far, it didn't have that digital glow in brightly lit scenes that you usually see.

One thing I found to be consistent in most DV films is that they usually shoot the talents at the head and eye levels. DP's on DV features tend to do that, may be it's just me. Anyone else sees this?

Daniel

>I'm curious how they could get name actors like Sigourney >Weaver and John Ritter yet they can't afford film?

these are SAG actors ... they work for SAG min ... SAG has some low budget contracts ... the SAG min$ depends on the budget.

some of them catch you on the back end with HIGER RESIDUALS... on the 75K budget contract you have to pay off the defferred before your sell the project -no pay - no commercial release from actors. ..

i think starting on the 300K budget you are free to sell your project as you paid them in FULL when they worked at the SAG min but they still get the higher residuals.

OK my girlfriend and I saw Tadpole in the theater last night. The screen was big but just a bit smaller then most screens for major motion pictures but DAMN we were impressed!! Anyone that says you can't blow up DV to the big screen is simply just being overly pessimistic. Neither of us could really tell the difference between it's footage and film. Now granted there are those of you out there that are veterans with this stuff and can see it easily. But hey, if we, as DV filmmakers, can get our stories out there and have ordinary people see it and not know that is was shot on DV then I think we've been granted a low budget filmmakers dream come true :-)


Revolver1010.

I saw it too, with my girlfriend! Oh my God, it must be destiny! Yes, well, anyway. Good movie, good footage. Only thing I can really say is that (to me) it looked as though they used avaiable light, as opposed to lighting each set.

Also did not know Chuck and Buck was dv. Great movie (no I'm not a creepy childlike stalker--but no offense to those on the board who are creepy childlike stalkers).

A good example of how beautiful DV can look on is "Personal Velocity," which was also shot with PD-150s and won the Dramatic Jury Grand prize at Sundance this year.

Rebecca Miller directed. Gary Winick, who directed "Tadpole" produced it.

Gorgeous color depth, artful lighting, low grain.

I saw a clip of it on a Sundance promo DVD and can't wait to see the whole film.