Finish on DVD, Capture on . . .?

[cyan]

Hello, all. I'm looking for the big brains around here to help spark some ideas.

If you planned to release your movie on DVD exclusively (with little possibility of ever having to project it), what would you capture on for lowest cost and highest image quality? miniDV, HD, S16mm, 35mm?

I realize this is a broad question and I don't want to start a digital vs. film flamewar. I am just trying to get an idea of how some of you might approach (or have approached) the issue of planning your production based on where you intend to end up.

Thoughts?

 

[lux]

I guess there is no reason to shoot 35mm or even s16 if you don't plan to ever project the film. Why would you spend so much money on film when people are only ever going to watch it on a tv.

Also, I'm not sure if you would be able to make your money back from dvd sales when you take into account the budget of film. You could argue that film would have a superior quality than dv or hd, but is it worth the price for dvd?

 

[clive]

Good question and one that I've been thinking a lot about recently.

I think I'd go for any digital camera system that could shoot in anamorphic 16:9. I know that's not so important for the US market, but for the rest of the world it is.

Even though this would mean that in theory you could shoot on miniDV or DVCam, which would be ultra cheap, I'd still tend to try to find the budget for a higher quality format. At the moment this would be a toss up between going for a HDV camera for cheapness and going for Panasonic DVCPro50 for a combination of not massively expensive but high quality. The advantage of DVCPro50 is that in real terms it gives you the option of proejction without the inherent costs.

I thnik the argument about shooting on mini-dv is that almost every lo/no budget feature maker is pushing out "features" on minidv. The market is saturated, a little more investment makes a huge difference to the overall picture quality and I think it's worth it.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd look at HDV (Although I understand that some people have had problems with this format, but I cna't find anyone who can clearly articulate them) or if the budget will wear it DVCPro50.

 

[WideShot]

lowest cost
1. Mini-DV
2. HDV
3. S16 w/ Telecine
4. HD

Highest Quality for DVD only Distribution
1. S16 w/ Telecine
-. HD (Depends on the look you need, clean with no grain, or classic film look)
3. HDV
4. Mini-DV

"I thnik the argument about shooting on mini-dv is that almost every lo/no budget feature maker is pushing out "features" on minidv. The market is saturated, a little more investment makes a huge difference to the overall picture quality and I think it's worth it."

Clive nailed it. Hopefully you can see why this is true, if not you'll end up like 90% of indie features out there struggling to make back the cost of the budget. In a way I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it needs to be reiterated: once you step up to the big leagues and are trying to compete with budgets which may be 10-1000x the one you have or more, you need to do absolutely everything you possibly can to ensure success, and simply shooting an average feature on mini-dv will likely end in misery. Thats my opinion only, its not meant to scare people just to warn them of the perils of this business.

 

[JohnCarter]

I have shot two of my features on film and never made a penny. I shot 2 features on miniDV and I made my money back. It is all about the final product's quality and what the market will bear in the end.

I also shot a little on miniDV. Let me articulate why it is a bad format:

- Difficult to edit precisely (despite the claims of most editing software providers except FCP)

- crappy compressed audio

- Absolutely unusable for FX work - kiss your blue screen bye bye. Even DV does a better job at 4:1:1 compression!

- Danger to lose up to half a second if you have a drop

- Very compressed image that has artefacts when you have fast motion

I shoot mostly FX heavy actions pictures so HDV is definitely not for me.

If you must shoot HD on a budget, I recommend to wait for the Panasonic P2 - same price range has HDV but MUCH better quality and real HD if somewhat compressed a bit.

 

[JohnCarter]

I have shot two of my features on film and never made a penny. I shot 2 features on miniDV and I made my money back. It is all about the final product's quality and what the market will bear in the end.

I also shot a little on miniDV. Let me articulate why it is a bad format:

- Difficult to edit precisely (despite the claims of most editing software providers except FCP)

- crappy compressed audio

- Absolutely unusable for FX work - kiss your blue screen bye bye. Even DV does a better job at 4:1:1 compression!

- Danger to lose up to half a second of footage if you have a drop

- Very compressed image that has artefacts when you have fast motion

I shoot mostly FX heavy actions pictures so HDV is definitely not for me.

If you must shoot HD on a budget, I recommend to wait for the Panasonic P2 - same price range has HDV but MUCH better quality and real HD if somewhat compressed a bit.

 

[directorlca]

if it's just for living rooms/home theaters, you could get away with HDV, but HD would be best.

We'll see what this next year's round of new cameras and formats brings us, maybe 10 new versions of a high resolution digital format? Heh, who knows! hopefully the dvd wars will be resolved (blue ray vs hddvd).