As I understood it from what I read at the time, the use of DV was purely artistic, since it provided an "otherwordly" look.

The XL1 was the camera of choice for most of the film. The scene at the end (where they made the signal out of bedsheets) was shot on 35mm as a contrast.

I think the XL1 worked out great for much of the film, except for the scenes in the church and the exteriors of London at the beginning where the artifacts were distracting.

Hi,

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/

July 2003 in the 'archives' section has a talk with Anthony Dod Mantle regarding the shooting of the film. Interesting read.

Best,

DW.

Pana 900
 

I just saw some footage shot with the Panasonic 900 (the one that goes for $25,000, if I have the model # wrong) and I liked what I saw. Most of it looked like it was shot on film.

Exterior scenes looked just like film, whereas a few interior shots had a somewhat "videoish" look to it, but not "videoish" the way a daytime soap opera looks. But this was raw footage, without and post prod tweaking or film looking software applied. Some shots I thought would have been helped by not having the actors against a mostly blank wall, arranging actors and furniture to give the set more depth, and some diff. lighting to also create illusion of depth.

Some shots looked like a cross between video and film, which I liked and found very interesting. Overall, the footage looked like film, but "sharp looking" film, a look I liked.

Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?

?

- don

Don,

The SDX900 does do just that. You can creat an unlimited number of looks with the camera, see the downloadable scene file area of the SDX900's web page. And if you kind of like one but want to chage it, you can do that as well.

The camera allows for DVCPRO50 recording at 4:2:2, 3:1 compression or 4:1:1 at 5: copression for DVCPRO recording. It does 60i, 30P 24P and 24PA, 16:9, 4:3, mix and match. You can go whereever you client needs to go.

Hope that helps,

Jan

Hello Jan,

How are you Jan? Hoping you are well! Yes, as you know, am very aware of the wide array of looks possible with the SDX900. It's one of my favorite cameras. (Love the V-27 even more.) We'll definitely be showing the 900 & 27, among other cams, at our Digital Acquisition seminar during Tech Day at the Woods Hole Film Festival 2004. Should have an even greater turn out than last year.
http://woodsholefilmfestival.com Looking forward to seeing you soon!

Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look".

- don

"Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?"


That sounds great Don, especially if that cam could be purchased for under $5K. Any idea when we might see something like that?
And what sort of 'other looks' are you talking about exactly? Does this camera shoot at different frame rates? Different gamma settings? This is, of course, completely hypothetical.



The SDX900 is really one incredible camera, but a bit too much for me at the moment (pricewise I mean). I would love to see panasonic release a new version of the DVX which was something closer to a 1/3" version of the SDX900. That would be one incredible camera (granted it would still be a bit up there in price, but I'd be willing to search the couch cushions for the extra change). Especially if we were given the ability to shoot at 50mb/s in a small form factor camera. Sure, we would only get 30minutes per tape, but I think most people would welcome the added datarate.

"Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look"

Is that really all you were hinting at Don?
:)

-Luis

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?
- don -->>>

We havent even begun to tap into the 'film look'. This is just the beginning. I think the future will have technology REPLACE film so to dismiss this as already past due is asinine.

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube :
Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look".
- don -->>>

What look is that? I dont know about this look?

Sorry Don, not trying to be difficult. I confess your comments surprise me. Film will be replaced (Its already happening) and it will take many years (10 to 15?) and as far as alternative looks to film I really am stretching here but? Im sorry, the soap opera look maybe? I dont know! You tell me!

Hi John,

No offense taken, of course. Thank you for your confession though!

And thank you for helping me to make my point. I was merely observing that if all we do is continue to strive for the "film look", then that is all we will ever have. Thankfully, there are other people out there who are capable of looking beyond that and striving for more. Thankfully, there are some manufacturers with R&D teams that do not simply strive to provide just "the film look" feature set.

Yes, there are many "filmmakers" who shoot digitally and obsess about wanting a camera that gives them a "film look", so that they can, in their own words, "finally" make their film and tell their story. That's all they want and they want it for as cheap as possible. Then there are others who maintain it is more about creativity, technique and skill than it is about any camera. Some will suggest a person who feels limited by a camera is being complacent. Obviously, there are many varying opinions out there, just as much as there are many varying levels of skill, creativity and expertise. Certainly, whenever you group more than one person into one room, there will inevitably be agreement and disagreement regarding what is most important. None of it is 'assinine' really, it's just natural that some will move forward, some will stand still, some will lay down and perhaps others will have already found the lightswitch and moved on to the next room.

Many shooters who have experience with high end cams like the VariCam 27, Thompson Viper, Cine Alta, etc would even suggest that the "film look" is just scratching the surface of the looks that are possible with cameras that offer such high end image control, lattitude, resolution, color depth, variable frame rates, etc. Many of these people have their own idea of what the exact feature set or recipe is for creating the image which they visualize inside their head.

24P is not the Holy Grail to everyone. Yes, thankfully, it is now available to many people. Some people have a stygma about 60P because it is something they have never seen before. Sometimes people feel most comfortable with what they are most familiar with, or at least with what they think they are familiar with. We are all intrigued by different things. 60P certainly intrigues me. Film is not transparent or flawless. But, many are so used to it. Perhaps some want the film look because they have become used to the anomalies inherent within film being the medium, while others may not actually want to be distracted by the medium itself. Perhaps it would be best if the actual medium was transparent, with no anomalies. You could hand four crayons to a group of people and some will inevitably complain about being offered only four colors, while perhaps others might embrace those four crayons and create something wonderful. In any case, I'm sure we could obsess about this for days on end, in countless posts.

Who knows, eh?

Best regards,

- don

I see your point. Well put.

I think we're greatly simplifying film art with this idea of "film look". There is no film "look". The art of film is using the moving image (an not always even that) to tell a story or evision some meaning. Film now doesn't look like it did in the silent era, it doesn't look like it did in the seventies for that matter. There is no end to what film (here being used loosely for any medium) can look like. I'm not sure exactly what film look people mean to attain but there are thousands of them all born of the major trends of film making since the moving image was cultivated as an art form. The medium means little. Am i saying that some equipment is no more limiting than other equipment? Of course not. Yet those limitations are hugely belittled by the true art of film encompassed in cinematography, directing, acting and writing, that I can assure you.

Not to skip the techie side of it: I bought a DVX100a because for my money it gave by far the richest image of any the cameras in its price range and that was what I wanted. Secondly, for the sake of the actors I'm working with the progressive mode has the type of motion blur they are accustomed to seeing in film so you see something closer to the end product on the monitor (not that they have been on film before, but they've watched a lot;). Before anyone says "wait you said film doesn't have a look". That isn't film its fps. Interlaced video after a good film out played a 24fps looks like what we're accustomed to seeing on the big screen too, but if it's lit like sh!t and framed like sh!t it's still going to look like a home movie at 24fps. Maybe that would serve an idea or story though, who knows, and that's my point. Films look like they do because the director and cinematographer were trying to achieve a look that fits thier ideal of the story. That should be a film-maker's first concern, right?

Find the look you want and find out how to make with the best equipment you get, or experiment and find something you haven't seen before. Either way if anyone else is going to see it on a big screen its going to be at 24fps (for now).

Oh, just to chime in on one more thing film is on the way out have no doubt. It will always be around to some degree, don't get me wrong, but as we start getting more cameras with ridulous data rates and smaller hard-drives, you'll see. So many big movies now use digital intermediates as is, plus the bonus of seeing your footage the moment you shoot it, non-linear editing, etc... There will always be die-hards but it's going the way of the LP. So anyhow, I'll shut up now. I've already wasted to much of everyone's time on this verbal vomiting.

The dvx100 doesn't look like film. It looks like a hybrid..the "vilm" look...

The sdx900 is a great cam, but it's for rental only. A "baby" sdx900 with SD, 1/2 chips, 24p and 16x9 could be sold for 6 to 8k and be used to make flicks that could projected digitally or uprezzed to film.

The dvx100a needs just a weeeee bit of resolution boost, and 16x9 native.

I hear you, man. Never said it did but it moves more like what people are used to seeing on the big screen than 60i. Vilm is a good name for it. For my budget the 100a is the best I can do right now to achieve what I want. I may have held off on buying it if there was something between the 100a and the sdx900 with a bit higher resolution and native 16:9. I guess more to my point two DV movies have won best cinematography in major festivals (Personal Velocity & November) so that shows even the dvx100a should be enough to make a good looking and compelling film image. That's the whole of it. Do the best you can with what you can get your hands on. For me, that's the 100a.