Video before film: which camera
 

There are numerous discussions on this board about what cameras, settings, and techniques produce the most film-like result. Here's a different take on that question:

I'm in pre-production of a feature film that will be shot on digital video. It is my intention for this movie to eventually be transfered to film for general theater release. What camera(s) should I use and what settings? 60i? 24i? I assume I'll be shooting in 16:9.

Just FYI, I'm a big fan of Canon products (a GL2 is my primary cam).

For film out the recommended camera is the XL2 shot in 16:9 in 24PA mode. The DVX-100A will work as well but most would recommend an anamorphic adapter as it does not shoot true 16:9.



ash =o)

That would depend on your budget, too. I agree with Ash if you're wanting to stay in the 10k and under club. The XL2 will get the job done in this price range.
Moving up the food chain a bit there is also the SDX-900, which looks really nice. They use it as their main camera on Laguna Beach on MTV. (yes, I admit, I watched it..but just to see the SDX images..I swear..)
I think American Cinematographer did a review on the XL2 and said it looks great in a film out.
And yes, the DVX will work too, I just prefer true 16:9.

Is DV resolution suitable for the big screen?

Take a look at my two favorite examples.

1) 24 Hour Party People. This is, at most points, indistinguishable from film. I find it frankly amazing. And it was shot interlaced and converted ex post facto. Double plus.

2) 28 Days Later. Duh. A given. People complain that it's a little too video-y, but I think that's intentional on the part of the director to give it immediacy and a little rawness.

So the answer is yes. And it these aren't even DV. Of course there are bad examples too. Dancer in the Dark was weirdly processed, to be kind, and looks like a digital movie. And then there's Figgis' Timecode which wasn't processed at all. So it looks pretty much like a digital home video. Well...four digital home videos.