What DV does best

[clive]

OK -- so I'm working on a project and for it I need to really understand what DV does best as a format, from a cinematographer's POV.

It's cheapness is a given.

What I'm really interested in, is what as a format it does really, really well -- in comparison with other formats.

So, for instance, it's inherently easier to focus -- it copes with movement better than HDV etc etc.

Any thoughts at all you have about the visual strengths of DV would be appreciated.

My current thoughts all relate to how well it handles natural light -- its inherent fitness for ENG purposes.

Thanks
Clive

 

[knightly]

My response to this question deals not with DV, but more with which camera you intend to use. Or rather what you intend to use the camera for. Visually, different cameras do things differently with the DV storage.

If you want an analogue for this, think of DV as the actual celluloid upon which the silver halide is applied. It's only so wide, so what the individual film manufacturer chooses to do with the chemistry of what goes onto the celluloid (I know, it's not celluloid anymore - leave me alone) determines the different looks in the same way different film stocks provide for different color reproduction and lighting requirements. If you don't believe me here...watch the response to the statement:

"Canon makes the absolute best DV camera in the XL series."

The Panasonic folks are cringing right now trying not to type disparraging comments toward me. The color reproduction differs between the two...I think Panasonic does a better job at getting punchier, more vibrant colors. I think Canon gives a better more lifelike reproduction of colors that looks a little more muted (which I personally like). Both do a phenomenal job of acheiving sharp images and good detail in the distance (for SD).

The specific question "what is DV best at" can really only be answered in cost/storage savings.

It has a limited lattitude that can be "overcome" with careful lighting. B/W or Color Noir is easy with it's high contrast images. Low key lighting will get better results if the darks are attended well and the highlights are exposed well...expose for the highlights and bring the shadows into compliance.

It has a limited color space that can be "overcome" with careful scene composition and set design.

It has the same DoF (just about) of 8mm at the same iris size - for a 1/3" chip camera.

Cost/runtime allows for longer takes/shots than film would. "Rope" could've been shot with only one body wipe cut in the film.

Some cameras have a built in intervalometer that allows not just single frames to be shot at given intervals, but small bursts of frames at given intervals.

Given correct white balance, flesh tones tend to be very realistic...this, again, depends on camera manufacturer, I like JVC's colorspace the best for this in their SD cams. Canon tends to run a bit red and Panasonic tends to go a bit over saturated for me on everything. Granted, you can desaturate the panny and turn down the reds a bit on the canon, but then it doesn't matter what camera you have and the argument turns back to cost savings and appearance on set.

 

[clive]

So, can I just paraphrase back at you, to make sure I understand

DV has increased contrast -- and limited latitude -- that's useful + good fleshtone reproduction.

Just to cloud the issue -- the camera most likely to be used is a Sony!

It's the VX9000, a fairly rare camera -- but in terms of performance it's akin to the VX2000. Same electronics. This gives it the same inherent strengths and weaknesses of the PD150.

I'm beginning to think I'm going to have to do an extensive set of camera tests -- because there is such limited information on this particular topic.

Which is odd, because it's been the indie format of choice for god knows how many years.

 

[WideShot]

most DV cameras create the "video" look which often times is negatively referenced but in reality it can give a much more authentic and intimate voyueristic feel than film, I feel. The more fluid motion of 30fps and the limiting features can make it look like it was a guy (or gal) with a camera who found two people and followed them around capturing their story - hence the visual acceptance of the blair witch project and open water. You can accept it much easier than a voyueristic view shot on 35mm in my POV, because we all can relate the video look to reality and home videos much easier than the pleasing look of film.

So using it for that effect I think it can be very useful. For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

 

[clive]

I agree, these camera systems were designed for ENG and have become a mainstay of "reality" style TV and docos.

I've just ordered some of the more successful dv movies from amazon -- The Idiots, Bamboozled, The Last Broadcast -- to see what they did with it as a format.

The nature of all those styles is hand held -- constant movement -- ambient lighting.

 

[knightly]

For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

I disagree, there just needs to be lighting and space considerations to make the cinematic quality work in the DV format. Disfaming something because it's more difficult to achieve is counter to telling stories visually which is an inately challenging prospect. I personally feel the format forces you to work more creatively than film would (being the "accepted" way to tell cinematic stories). You can find volumes of reference for making a "Hollywood" looking "cinematic" piece of story telling using Film and 35mm, but much less reference with DV. This is partially due to its' youth and lack of acceptance by the mainstream filmmaking structure which is based strictly around money. Part of that money is derived from producing and processing film stock.

The resolution of DV is lower which forces tighter shots to hide backgrounds. This lends to more intimate story telling for which film is simply overkill.

The lower resuolution and long DoF also makes backgrounds distracting taking consideration spacially when setting up your shots. More space between your subject and background and lots of space between camera and subject allowing to pull the backgrounds out of focus. This also makes for a more "cinematic" look although the background being pulled closer when compressing space by zooming will look like you could only get hold of a longer lens.

The motion of 30p vs 24p is negligible...60i is much more distinguishable and this is the way DV folks tend to shoot when shooting to be printed to film (Open water is one of these examples). 24p is also achievable out of the box on most higher end DV cameras now...but as Clive is in the UK, he'll most likely be shooting pal which in progressive mode is 25p...with a simple 6% slowdown on the timeline it's nearly indistinguishable from 24p. The chief consideration is the shutter speed when shooting...it should emulate a 180 degree shutter, so for PAL, 25p the shutter should be at one half the temporal resolution or 1/50th of a second. for NTSC, 30p it would be 1/60th. This will render the motion in either format with the correct amount of missing information that we generally associate with film subconsciously.

Those are the difficulties in getting the correct technicalities to achieve the "Film/cinema" look...the rest is the same stuff already done for film anyway (careful lighting, set design, color palette choices, costume design, careful motion design within the frame and with the camera, etc. )...so if a cinema feel cannot be achieved in DV, difficulty would be had doing so in Film as well.

In case you can't tell, I completely disagree with WideShot. This is not a personal attack, just an attack on a prevalent attitude when having this discussion. I believe that attitude is antiquated and is falling victim to the opinions of experienced film based filmmakers who are clinging to a career that technology is changing against their will.

I hear fundamentally the same arguments when I mention that I am an admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster based entirely on the Apple Macintosh platform...they can't be used for business, they aren't PC's. Yet, we drew in tens of millions of dollars a year using them at about $.05 per transaction (running up to 1000 trans/sec at any given time 24/7 with 99.999% uptime).

The fact is that both mediums capture light and DV does an admirable job of it. Yes, it's lacking the resolution of 16mm and higher filmstock, but the effective resolution of 8mm is 1k...HD is being shot at 1k now. HD's lattitude seems much more forgiving than SD DV...even with HDV. Shunning digital for Film will soon be equivalent to shunning CD's for Vinyl. In order to sell in the marketplace now...film is still the thing, but that is changing as we speak...and clutching to the past will doom you to failure as festivals start shunning film based on the ease of handling of digital.

P.S...I stopped programming on punchcards when they became obsolete too. If you'd ever written a program on punchcards and dropped them, you'd know what I mean by ease of handling.

 

[Spatula]

I am an admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster based entirely on the Apple Macintosh platform...they can't be used for business, they aren't PC's. Yet, we drew in tens of millions of dollars a year using them at about $.05 per transaction (running up to 1000 trans/sec at any given time 24/7 with 99.999% uptime).

I have no idea what it means, but it sounds brilliant. I gotta throw my chips in with the admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster. Unless an executive of a one million diode computer made of chocolate (who is also a ninja) comes along.

But I agree with you- digital is the way to go, but film isn't dead yet. I'd love to use some in my career, even though I'll probably stick with digitial. I think if you come up with wicked stories, and film them creatively, it really doesn't matter about quality. DV works, and makes it cheap and easy. I'd rather spend money on lights than stock.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Film=punch cards? Really, now ... let's not go overboard. Film might be being replaced, but not because it is inferior to DV; only because it is less costly. 35mm film can be scanned at 4K resolution (12M pixels) with full, 4:4:4 chroma resolution. HD isn't there, yet. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the benefits of a larger focal plain, and wider dynamic range; even in the presence of good lighting. I agree with your assessment that DV (especially HD) has a place, and will eventually overtake film. However, you don't need to go overboard. I know a nature photographer who still shoots on 8x10 film with a view camera. Although many people might call him a dinosaur, I challenge you to find any digital camera that can come even remotely close to an 8x10 negative.

My answer to what DV does well is that it lets you spend your money on telling the story, instead of film stock, processing and telecine. A DV camera is also far more portable.

Can we all just stop bashing film, and film people? Here is a still shot I did on 35mm film a few weeks ago (you won't need a punchcard reader for this one). The shallow DOF was key to this photo, so film was the best medium for the shot.
35mm still shot

 

[knightly]

Can we all just stop bashing film, and film people?

Only if the film people stop bashing the DV and DV people Why can't we all just get along.

 

[WideShot]

I disagree.

And that is completely your option. Hell thats what makes forums like indietalk go 'round.

And yet, i gave DV its due, the same as I give HDV, 4k, 35mm and 65mm its due. They all have a certain purpose.

DV and all digital formats have a certain asthetic which film cannot achieve as well and film has a certain asthetic that digital cannot achieve as well. Thats all. Theres no more discussion, because they are not the same. They do not capture light the same, they do not have the same resolution, and they are not projected the same.

Lets assume we ran a test. We have one set, one lighted scene, and we have whatever DV camera you choose and any standard industry 35mm camera. You shoot the same scene twice, once with each camera.

In a real cinema projection (15' or wider) you cannot stack a 720x480 DV image directly up against a 4k 35mm image without the DV image going off and whimpering in the corner from solid embarassment.

DV is PAINFULLY lacking in resolution and latitude compared to film, but those same limitations can achieve a desired effect, similar to reversal film achieving a higher contrasted and saturated image.

That said, in a direct comparison of the same shot, there is no question in terms of the most asthetically pleasing and theoretically more sophisticated format.

And while your experience as a system administrator is wonderful (hey! I come from a tech background too!), it really has no relevance to a discussion on the asthetics of two formats nor the reality of the business behind the movie industry as a whole.

Furthermore, when you next discuss with a distributor about your next project, make sure to tell them you're going to shoot it on DV and don't have the budget for a 35mm blowup, you have no name talent and its not a hot genre film. That really gets the buzz going.

But again, I think this conversation is getting off track. Its best to treat these formats simply as what they are, different medium to acquire different asthetic, which is most appropriate for your project? And if your excuse for not allowing anything but DV into your budget is because you are self funding your project or can only raise enough to shoot on DV, then I think you are severely limiting yourself and very possibly harming your project.

Thats not to say that you shouldn't make your movie on DV. You just need to realistic views on the potential outcome, and although you can make a beautiful little piece on DV or s8, or 1q6, or 35, it is what it is, and its potential place in the market is pretty well carved out at this point. How many films shot on DV right now are playing at your local Amc, Regal, or any other chain? Is that because theres nobody out there making beautiful films on DV?

Now if you look at the movies that have been shot on DV and had major theatrical distribution, its because there was some major driving force behind it - well known stars, the video asthetic, or a documentary on a hot topic.

Thats not the way I wish it was. Thats the way it is. Maybe the future will change that but we're in the business of making productions for today not five years or more down the road.

 

[spinner]

So using it for that effect I think it can be very useful. For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

I agree that you aren't going to really get that 'cinema' quality, but you can get close. Personally I like the ease and the quickness to which you can begin to edit. Once everything is shot, I could feasibly start editing in a matter of minutes. That is a big part of what I think sells people on DV. And you can get DV to look alittle like film, which for me was a selling point.

....hope that wasn't to obvious an answer....

-- spinner

 

[knightly]

The example of the lighted scene between the DV and the film would never hold up...I agree with your statement, but I also wouldn't shoot the scene the same with the different formats. I would shoot in a way that would allow the DV footage to hold up when blown up to that size. I'll go back to previous statements I've made in the past...I've seen Video that makes me think it's film...and film that makes me think it's video. So mych can be done to overcome the shortcomings of DV that you can get to the point where you don't notice it's not film anymore.

to the point of distro:

If I intended to do a 35mm print at the end of a production, I would budget for it and test the filmout and shoot according to the outcome of those tests.

When talking to distributors (which I honestly have no experience with other than understanding the business as a whole), I would also have done my homework not only about the release formats they (specific distributors I intended to approach) tend to use, but the possible other distribution options my project could garner. I would plan and shoot accordingly. If my project could draw big name talent and be projected across the nation in multiplexes...I would absolutely shoot 35mm (or rather, budget to hire someone to do it for me).

If I thought I could turn a good profit shooting HD and printing to film for distro...I would use that option. Any and all combinations here are possible if you can make a solid business case for them. So far, my projects have each cost less than $300 (including my feature), it shows and I'm realistic about the possible outlets for them.

These are all heavily argued topics from other threads here and on every other indie filmmaking board on the web. The bit that got me fired up enough to type these couple of novels of text was the implication that DV isn't able to be used to make anything worth putting on the big screen.

"For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake." - WS

This statement, although clearly stated as opinion, is in a thread in which Clive has asked for information about a specific job.

"I'm working on a project and for it I need to really understand what DV does best as a format, from a cinematographer's POV." - Clive

I have specifically used DV to shoot a traditional Cinematic story, based on the movies I've enjoyed watching myself. I got horrible footage and great footage out of those 47 hours of tape...Some of it will even project quite well when I rent the theater to play this cinematic masterpiece The goal of my feature was to learn what the format could and couldn't do. I've put hundreds of hours of research and shooting into this particular format. I've seen my footage projected 30' tall. DV is absolutely capable of being accepted as cinematic at that size if care is taken with it. Reread my previous posts in this thread for how to handle it. I'm sure it's harder to do than shooting the same thing on film and takes alot more planning...but it's absolutely useable for any purpose you can forsee...except maybe a 70mm iMax blowup.

 

[WideShot]

I agree that you aren't going to really get that 'cinema' quality, but you can get close. Personally I like the ease and the quickness to which you can begin to edit. Once everything is shot, I could feasibly start editing in a matter of minutes. That is a big part of what I think sells people on DV. And you can get DV to look alittle like film, which for me was a selling point -- spinner

But I can get my film processed and telecined to uncompressed blackmagic 8-bit on hardrive, a format far superior technically than DV the same day in any major metro area, for just dailies, editing my edl or finishing on video.

 

[Shaw]

I suppose it's all in the intent... I have no problem with shooting cinematic style stuff for DVD release (talking mostly shorts here) on DV. None at all. In fact, I'd be hesitant to shoot a format other than DV, HDV etc for a short since they're mostly for practice in my opinion (unless I needed do do FX work).

Now if I were shooting for theaters.... there's no doubt I'd be looking at a good format. In fact, I'd probably be looking at the SI 2k or RED cameras.

 

[spinner]

But I can get my film processed and telecined to uncompressed blackmagic 8-bit on hardrive, a format far superior technically than DV the same day in any major metro area, for just dailies, editing my edl or finishing on video.

...I didn't know you could do that! ....well, I'm not a film person

...I think I've been away from IndieTalk far too long....

-- spinner

 

[spinner]

These are all heavily argued topics from other threads here and on every other indie filmmaking board on the web. The bit that got me fired up enough to type these couple of novels of text was the implication that DV isn't able to be used to make anything worth putting on the big screen.

...well, just the trailer for Broken proves that to be not so...

(...you're welcome for the shout out, guys... )

-- spinner

 

[clive]

Thanks Guys -- there are some really interesting POV's here.

 

[freezer]

Film=punch cards? Really, now ... let's not go overboard. Film might be being replaced, but not because it is inferior to DV; only because it is less costly. 35mm film can be scanned at 4K resolution (12M pixels) with full, 4:4:4 chroma resolution. HD isn't there, yet. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the benefits of a larger focal plain, and wider dynamic range; even in the presence of good lighting.

Red camera with 4k, great latitude

I know a nature photographer who still shoots on 8x10 film with a view camera. Although many people might call him a dinosaur, I challenge you to find any digital camera that can come even remotely close to an 8x10 negative.

digital camera with 216 megapixels
maybe a bit hard to carry, but you said 'any'

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Red camera with 4k, great latitude

I said it isn't there, yet, and it's not. Who do you know who has shot a feature on Red? Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

digital camera with 216 megapixels
maybe a bit hard to carry, but you said 'any'

216M pixels would be much lower resolution than an 8x10 Kodachrome positive. I pull 16M pixels from a 35mm slide which is about 1/60 of an 8x10. Also, you haven't addressed exposure lattitude.

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

For a MiniDV camera, I bought the Sony DSR-PD170, the best quality MiniDV camera on the market. It also records DVCAM on standard MiniDV tapes.

IMHO, it's the best MiniDV camera you can get, but we're all at the point where we're looking at HD now. I've seen a large chunk of HD cameras now for around $2K. Pretty soon, they'll be under $1K.

I paid $4K for my PD170 two years ago, and it was well worth it.