In SIMILO, the short film by Macgregor, shot with a DVX100, the picture quality, is excellent. See picture 1:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

Yet the natural picture quality in picture 2 doesn't look good. See picture 2:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

These are both shot with the same camera, yet the picture quality is different.

Why/How is this?


Apologies for the double-post, I think I realised this should be here and not in the other forum!

He had a lot better lighting.

What do you mean by "better" lighting? Come on, the entire edges look totally messed up in picture 2, and it was shot in daylight, and the entire picture crispness and detail is significantly better in the similo film yet it's the same camera- how does one achieve this quality with that camera?

I'm just looking for some insight into how it was done. I'm thinking about getting a DVX100 but I won't if the quality is going to be like that shown in picture 2! Thanks for any insight. :)

Sorry, but he's right. It's mostly lighting. And maybe a little cc action. As for the differences in overall picture quality that could be attributed to a harsher daytime light in the bottom pics BG. Maybe the edges are blown out (overexposed)?
PM MacGregor on this site or DVXser and ask him.
You'd be absolutely shocked at how much cinematic lighting can change the way a shot looks. The bottom pic has flat lighting and low contrast.
The top has beautiful "Golden Hour" lighting to one side of her face creating dimension in her facial features.
Combine this with a nice composition, the fact she has a white jacket against a dark background, etc...it all begins to add up.
The little things matter.

One more thing...MacGregor is a very talented guy, but you'd do better to get Cinematography: Theory and Practice by Blain Brown and learn nuts and bolts stuff instead of scratching your head trying to figure out how he did it. Trust me, it'll change your life. (at least the part that deals with lighting).
Best of luck.

lighting is absolutely everything, its how images function, he shot that shot at magic hour. light adds 3d volume to objects and adds drama. learn lighting then learn the camera, i guarantee you I could pull images like that with a pos camera.

Hi,

Thanks for the in depth info! I will check that cinematography book out. I have PM'ed macgregor aswell. I read contrasting views around the forum, some people say cameras don't work well with contrasting light. Macgregor's film seems to proove the opposite.

Hi Riley, if you are able to get the same apparent image quality as Similo in a short, combined with your magic vfx talents then sure I will be interested in making music for it. :)

Matt

I'm thinking about getting a DVX100 but I won't if the quality is going to be like that shown in picture 2!

This, I don't get -- you know the DVX is capable of macgregor's image, so why are you worried that it can only produce the lower one?

I actually helped out on the Similo project and worked with macgregor. You are all correct, it is all lighting and shot in magic hour or golden hour. But in the end it's all down to Macgregor/Bruno Zacharias and good post skills.

Also I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare those images. The first image is from Similo, which took much tweaking in camera,tweaking in post, patience and lighting. The 2nd pic is just point and shoot, he didn't do any post or tweak the camera. So it's not a fair comparison.

I actually helped out on the Similo project and worked with macgregor. You are all correct, it is all lighting and shot in magic hour or golden hour. But in the end it's all down to Macgregor/Bruno Zacharias and good post skills.

Also I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare those images. The first image is from Similo, which took much tweaking in camera,tweaking in post, patience and lighting. The 2nd pic is just point and shoot, he didn't do any post or tweak the camera. So it's not a fair comparison.

Thanks for that, every bit of info helps..

This, I don't get -- you know the DVX is capable of macgregor's image, so why are you worried that it can only produce the lower one?

I don't know that Simillo was shot on DVX. It might have been FX-1, there is some confusion about this, I guess only macgregor can answer that.

I don't know that Simillo was shot on DVX. It might have been FX-1, there is some confusion about this, I guess only macgregor can answer that.

It was (mostly) the DVX. BTS photos of that very shot show the DVX taking it.

http://personales.ya.com/elfabrica/IMG_2994.jpg

It was (mostly) the DVX. BTS photos of that very shot show the DVX taking it.

Some people think it was the FX-1, and Macgregor implied it was the FX-1 (I could have misunderstood that) in another trhread about this at dvxuser.com, he goes "Also, similo has been sharpened for the web compression...Anyway i dont have the FX1 anymore".

You might have missed my edit. Click the link in my post directly above.

You might have missed my edit. Click the link in my post directly above.

I see it, thanks! That is a dvx100 in that shot but was the same camera used in the shot on the film.. are there any more bts shots or info? such as post app/cc, lighting equipment+techniques. Thanks for the help.

Now, get over it.

DVX100E. Simple.

There are lots of films of the dvx100 around the place, and none as good-looking as that one, so I guess these people may be right- it might be down to lighting and post and cc. The question is, what specifics? what NLE, what cc plugin? what lighting equipment? I don't mean to sound like its all down to equipment, I'm aware of that, but if I have the same equipment then I know for sure that it's not a restricting factor.

Thanks :)

Matt, I don't mean to sound like a prick...but you've gotta learn all this stuff yourself. Noone can give you a magic recipe. There's so much to learn. The only way it's really going to make sense is for you to do plenty of shooting and plenty of research. The pieces come together slowly. Once you start getting the building blocks, more and more starts to makes sense.

And don't be worried about the DVXs abilities. It's a wonderful camera. That said, you'll definately be able to make terrible looking footage with it. But you (or anybody) will also be able to make terrible looking footage with a camera costing 10 times as much.

Matt, I don't mean to sound like a prick...but you've gotta learn all this stuff yourself. Noone can give you a magic recipe. There's so much to learn. The only way it's really going to make sense is for you to do plenty of shooting and plenty of research. The pieces come together slowly. Once you start getting the building blocks, more and more starts to makes sense.

And don't be worried about the DVXs abilities. It's a wonderful camera. That said, you'll definately be able to make terrible looking footage with it. But you (or anybody) will also be able to make terrible looking footage with a camera costing 10 times as much.

Hi Steve,

I'm aware of that, thanks. This is all a part of my research. Although I'm a record producer I'm not entirely a beginner when it comes to photography and I learn a lot from behind the scenes pictures, info, and seeing the set up vs. results of shots. I have a finite budget and organised plans, but the questions I'm asking at the moment are all relevent to the permutations I'm considering.

Thanks,

Matt

It was (mostly) the DVX. BTS photos of that very shot show the DVX taking it.

http://personales.ya.com/elfabrica/IMG_2994.jpg


FYI, that photo isn't the DVX taking that very shot in the film. Look closer! :)

If it isn't the exact moment of the still frame, well, no one's really THAT nitpicky.

Chill out!

Anyway you didn't say "that exact frame," you said that shot, and she's standing in a different place in the still, not stopping in the middle of the road. :-)

I'm chill. I guess I should have included a smiley.

In any case, you're right.