Feature?

[Generic Skinhead]

People who like schlock will watch anything.

After watching Full Frontal I have come to the decision that the only feature I would shoot dv would be a documentary unless I had a script that was suited to digital.

In short bursts dv is fine, but over 90mins or more it begins to grate.

I liked 28 days later though.

[sn-films]

Miker and Yammeryammeryammer:
For the record, my cousin and I have just completed a feature-length action/sci-fi movie with a total run of 83 minutes, and I'm working on the artwork for the DVD right now. I'm in the middle of re-tooling my website, but here's the address...

http://www.sn-films.com/mvMacroV.htm

[miker]

more film vs digital, tsk.

okay, attack of the clones looks all cgi ... that's nothing to do with what was captured at source.

let's think ...

did you notice the cgi in scott's 1492? the frames were pumped through a computer, nobody noticed.

did you notice the HDTV footage in greenaway's propsero's books?

did you notice the wire/rig removal in 100s of modern films?

i mean, anything by lucas is a soft target, it's like saying sinbad films look like clay animation!

i have to say though, the cgi ship in titanic suxed donkeys.

digital is here and you didn't even notice. get over it.

[miker]

BTW, sn-films, the clip of macrovirus looks like fun which in itself means it'll probably be worth watching.

my criticism at this time would be that it's pretty obvious no colour grading work has been done.

colour grading is nothing to be afraid of, and it's not to be confused with 'trying to make video look like film'.

colour grading is that extra bit effort, on film or video, where you get the colours to match closer your vision.

i mean, take a look at lord of the rings -- that looks like film trying to look like video trying to look like film imo!

[Mods]

We're making a near-feature on DV. DV is fine if you want to produce to video, or to DVD, VCD etc, but I totally agree - in the cinema, why not just stick to good old 16mm and blow it up to 35mm?

[img]smile.gif[/img]
m0ds

[Chance1234]

To be honest i prefer Beta SP to DVCAM, there is something about the movement and depth which really bugs me with DVCAM

[Xendar]

DV is cheaper than shooting on film. So you'll see a lot more stuff in the future shot on DV. The fact that it's cheaper opens up doors to new and upcoming film makers and lets them produce full features as opposed to shorter films due to budget constraints. So in my opinion I'm happy to see films shot on DV.
I remember watching 28 Days Later at the cinema. I obviously noticed that it was DV transferred to film, but after a while didn't really notice anymore.
It's only a matter of time though until Hi-Def takes off and becomes more mainstream such as DV. Then people won't really need to worry about the quality so much.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Macrovirus looks sweet. See that is exactly what I was inquiring about. Just how popular trying to make DV features is for the lot of us. Maybe the day I get an idea I am totally convinced is good, then I might switch over to the 16mm > 35mm route for a feature, but as of right now, as a student, that is crazy.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

None of us are going to convert a video lover to film and vice versa. Ultimately, the debate is childish and waste of time.

That being said, I'm about to act childish, and waste some time.

As said elsewhere, the subject matter should dictate the format according to the director's (or producer's) opinion. I think if you get into the habit of taking the affordable, easy way out, your projects will suffer.

For me, film is the answer much more often. I'd love to elaborate on this but I don't have the patience right now. Maybe later.

Instead, here's something to consider. It seems the main reason most people use video instead of film is the cost. This is interesting since the budgets of professional feature filmmaking get higher and higher. And that's not just the Big Hollywood Blockbusters.
It's all relevant. Sure, for young eager guerilla filmmakers, every penny counts. But when you're dealing in the tens of millions, does it really make that big a difference?

Also, perhaps there's a fear in using film. It may even be a subconscious fear. A fear of responsibility. A fear that your script isn't good enough. A fear that you can't commit to complete what you start. All of these fears are washed away when you're dealing with electrical signals rather than emulsion. Because then you can say to yourself, "it's okay if I screw up, it's only video - it's cheap."

[sn-films]

Miker - Yeah, the colors need work, but I've got some new toys and a decent script that I'd like to start move on to. The CGI took me a lot longer than I anticipated, and I'm itching to start a new project. Unfortunately, the footage for Macrovirus was shot on a single chip Digital 8 camera. If I showed you the raw footage, you'd probably laugh your a$$ off.

Yammeryammeryammer - "Looks sweet" is a fantastic compliment. Thanks! I'd love to check out your flick too when its available. You gave a nice sysnopsis of your story in another thread, and it sounds like you've got quite a bit of substance to your story.

Incidently, I just heard a really interesting fact from a "reliable" source. Has anyone else heard of a movie called "Killjoy". Its a horror movie from Generic Skinhead's schlock-category. Anyway, the sequel, Killjoy II, was shot on high-end DV with a budget of around $35,000. Aparently, the movie has grossed over $250,000 in sales. Somebody's laughing their a$$ off on the way to the bank.

Sorry... I just thought that was an interesting factoid to pass along to the board.