Posted by UMBRO at clspdslgw2poold12.clsp.uswest.net on March 03, 2001 at 14:53:27:
In Reply to: Re: Q for Vincent - one more thing (not really DV) posted by seanbonner on March 03, 2001 at 08:38:21:
: Vincent-
: sorry I didn't mean to offend you or anything like that. I'll will be the first
: to admit that I don't know jack shit about filmmaking but i'm very
: interested in it.
*I don't think he was offended. Vincent always provides information and he was just talking about his preference.
In the last 2-3 months I've seen a lot of talk about DV,
: some of it from people who if nothing else I'd think know a little about
: filmmaking like SPIKE LEE and GEORGE LUCUS. Both singing it's
: praises. That seemed interesting to me and unless I'm missing
: something huge, which is a giant possibilty, a camera like the
: Cannon XL-1 souped up with all pro parts is only like $6,000 and that
: provides the best image quality on the market. It can also be
: transfered to film after final editing for almost idential results as being
: on film from the begining.
*Well, this could maybe be true if it was done perfectly. The thing is, you can have the BEST DV camera on the market and if you don't shoot the footage properly, it'll look like a camcorder shot. Lighting is very critical as is playing with depth of field to give it a certain look. They are both very different formats and require different needs for the look. I'm about to shoot a feature on the Canon XL-1 and I'm hoping that it'll look great, but I know that it won't look similar to film. Which is fine by me. But if you need the film look, don't chance it with DV and hope that it'll look the same as film, because it won't. But that's not a bad thing when you don't have a huge budget.
Michael