DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Techniques for Independent Production (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/)
-   -   Somethings Going on in Hollywood (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/3539-somethings-going-hollywood.html)

BobKloss September 4th, 2002 01:03 PM

Somethings Going on in Hollywood
 
I went to see Jenifer Anistin "friends actress" in "The Good Girl". I would like to know if this thing was shot in DV or Film. I say this because the film was riddled with bad frames. Kinda like using one of those software plugins to make the film old looking. In one spot the film completely stops then pops (noise) then starts again like about 5 seconds was cut out. If it is film and its brand new why would it look ten years old? If it was DV then they did a good job or maybe not. If it is DV then I think they went too far to prove their point.





Don Donatello September 4th, 2002 03:42 PM

could be a bad print or damaged print.

Josh Bass September 24th, 2002 01:24 AM

I'm thinkin' film. I don't know what I'm talking about here, but bear with me. I believe a lot of indy films are shot on 16mm, and in addition, not tweaked the way the Hollywood films are. They don't do all the color correction and whatnot. You get a much more raw look. . .see "L.I.E" or most foreign films. I don't know if this is a property of 16mm or the lack of CC.

I saw this movie too, and I noticed there were certain portions where all the dark areas were blue. . .not black. Maybe, once again, a bad print.

I think you can definitely tell when you're seeing DV in a theater (Tadpole, it's quite obvious). Of course I don't remember being able to when I saw Bamboozled, but I wasn't looking for it either.

Derrick Begin September 24th, 2002 11:43 AM

* * GOING TO CHECK IT OUT * *
 
I'm going to go check this out. If the above is true, thats too bad because I heard it was a solid movie. However, if there are those types of distractions in the film/DV/ or whatever, the director should have pulled. Sounds like you were pulled from the story.

I look forward to seeing it. Maybe it was the look they wanted.

Cheers!

Derrick

BobKloss September 24th, 2002 12:02 PM

horizon
 
No, actually it probably wouldn't matter to most people. Have you ever been to the dollar movie? It looked just like that, like it had been played a thousand times. But it was brand new. I tell you, I believe it was shot on DV and then run through something such as that software that makes your DV look old. Anyway, the movie is still good and if it is DV then they just went a little too far to make sure that no one would ever suspect it.

Jay Gladwell September 24th, 2002 12:17 PM

If I'm not mistaken, that was shot with Panavision equipment--on film. There are so many things that can effect the final projected image, i.e., the print, the projector, the screen, auditorium lighting, etc..

Addition -- Go to:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct2001/goodGirl.shtml

BobKloss September 24th, 2002 12:59 PM

Good Dog
 
Hey, thanks. I've got to say Im surpised. Also, thank you for the great link!

Josh Bass September 25th, 2002 03:36 AM

If it was shot on DV, wouldn't I have heard about it on Access Hollywood or something? I'm unfortunately paid to watch this tripe on Sunday nights, and they had several pieces on "The Good Girl," and I never heard the word DV mentioned. It was a really big thing when Tadpole and Full Frontal were shot on DV. You heard about any time the movies were mentioned.

Don Donatello September 25th, 2002 09:46 AM

to me DV means dv , dvcam,dvcpro ... so i find this interesting that person can't tell if this movie was shot on 35mm or dv ..which tells me ?? there should be a HUGE difference ..

however if posters are saying DV and meaning HD24p then i could see that one might think HD24p was film ...

so when one see's DV posted should that include ALL digital formats or perhaps poster can make it clearer and say HD DV, HD 24P, or DV to show a difference between HD & Dv (for dv ,dvcam, dvcpro) ... as these threads are pretty much 90+% dv.

Hagop Matossian October 7th, 2002 07:27 AM

I find the biggest giveaway when something is shot on DV (or video in general) is the depth of field.

Video almost always has fantastic ( too good for some peoples taste) depth of field. So if everything in the shot is in focus , its prolly video

Martin Munthe October 7th, 2002 04:12 PM

...and of course you can get that typical DoF stuff (and Justin Chin can tell you all about it) using the P+S Technik mini35digital adapter.

I'd say the dead give away of DV is the limited latitude and color resolution. Burnt out windows and limited skintones is the thing typical to DV.

Hagop Matossian October 9th, 2002 05:31 AM

yeh, along with lack of detail, in dark areas.

Anyone see the Nick Broomfield Documentary 'Tupac & Biggie'? Great piece of work

it looked like it was shot on film, I remember a shot where they were driving along in bright sunlight and went under a bridge, and you could still make out the pattern of the concrete on the underside of the bridge (in shaddow). I cant imagine achieving that with a DV cam

yet I remeber at one point they went into a lift with a mirror, and saw the camera, it looks like a disgustingly huge video cam, maybe one of the hdcam systems


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:27 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network