668 | dv | faq

Welcome to a work in progress that will likely never be finished. Welcome to a world of digital chaos that is ever growing, ever changing, ever expanding. Mostly this guide will simply point you elsewhere, links to a wealth of web resources that cover this exciting revolution from A to Z. I hope you find it useful as a guide, a gentle nudge in the right direction. Enjoy.

First of all, let me point you to the best technical DV FAQ pages on the net. If I fail to answer your question here, or if you want more detailed technical information, I highly recommend www.adamwilt.com/DV.html. My FAQ "tech basics" only cover the first few questions you might have; I made an effort to keep the basic answers short and simple, but the complete answer is often not short and simple... So for more detail, see Adam's page or other pointers offered here.

Also, please visit the main 668 pages for more information specific to digital filmmaking and visual effects in the DV format.

Now, on to the basics...

1. What is digital video?
2. What is DV?
3. What is FireWire (IEEE-1394) ?
4. What is "i.link?"
5. What is "prosumer?"

1. More on the DV format, please? (i.e. I hear there are 3 kinds of DV: DV, DVCAM, and DVCPRO. What's up?)
2. How does the DV format compare to (insert one or more: Hi-8, VHS, SVHS, Betacam, BetaSP, Digital-S, D-1, etc.) ?
3. Is FireWire/DV really better than digitizing? What about component or Y/C connections with high-quality M-JPEG?
4. What's all this about non-square pixels?
5. What is 4:2:2, 4:1:1, or 4:2:0 and how does it affect me?

WAY BEYOND THE BASICS: FILM-RELATED

1. How do I blow up DV to film? etc. (Instead of putting this here, follow this link to our "Movies" Section.)

"Digital video" is mostly an all-encompasing term meaning video being viewed or manipulated in the digital domain (i.e. on a computer), or sometimes simply video stored in a digital tape format. The video may have originally been analog source material digitized into a computer, or it may have been stored directly to a digital tape format. Most people choosing to discuss "digital video" do so to discuss editing that material using a computer, i.e. non-linear editing (NLE). Of course, there is frequently some confusion about the term when used generically. Traditionally, digital tape formats were only available at the professional level (D-1, Digital Betacam, etc.), but now that some digital tape formats (DV) have emerged on the consumer scene, there is even more confusion about the generic term "digital video."

DV (and it's related DVCAM and DVCPRO) is a relatively new digital tape format. It was developed by a consortium of 10 companies as a "consumer" digital video format. There are now over 60 companies in the DVC consortium, including Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Philips, and other similar names you've heard before.

DV (also called "mini-DV" in its smallest tape form) was originally known as DVC (Digital Video Cassette). It uses a 1/4 inch (6.35mm) metal evaporate tape to record very high quality digital video. The video is sampled at the same rate as D-1, D-5, or Digital Betacam video, although the color information is only half the D-1 rate: 4:1:1 in 525-line (NTSC), and 4:2:0 in 625-line (PAL) formats. (Paraphrased from Adam Wilt; see his site for a discussion of color sampling.) DV images are compressed with a similar but superior technique to motion-JPEG, allowing for higher-quality 5:1 compression. DV video information is a constant data-rate of about 36 Mbps (or 3.6 MBps).

IEEE-1394 ("FireWire") is a communications protocol for high-speed, short-distance data transfer. It was originally developed by Apple Computer and they dubbed it "FireWire." 1394 is simply a digital data bus, and DV is only one kind of data that can be sent across it. Theoretically, 1394 could connect disk drives to computers (replacing SCSI), connect computers to computers (replacing Ethernet), or any other digital device to another. 1394 is fast, scalable, hot-swappable, and inexpensive to manufacture. What more could you ask for?

Sony calls their version of FireWire "i.link," but it is almost the same thing: a FireWire connection and the protocols to send data (in Sony's case, DV) over it. The only technical difference between FireWire/1394 and i.link is that an i.link connector does not deliver power. (For this reason, i-link only requires a 4-pin connector, while FireWire/1394 uses a 6-pin connector.) Sony may also have decided to rename their flavor of 1394 because Apple Computer owns the trademark rights to the term "FireWire." (Thanks to David Simpson for providing a more accurate answer to this question.)

DV is being called a "prosumer" product because it currently falls into the price category between typical consumers and video professionals. With most DV cameras in the $1,000+ range, average video hobbyists will likely buy more affordable VHS or Hi-8 cameras. Professionals are used to budgeting $20,000 for a pro Betacam camera. As the cost of DV units drop, and more DV material finds its way to broadcast, this area between consumer and professional will pull the two closer and closer together.

1. More on the DV format, please? (i.e. I hear there are 3 kinds of DV: DV, DVCAM, and DVCPRO. What's up?)

DV video is sampled at the same rate as D-1, D-5, or Digital Betacam video -- 720 pixels per scanline -- although the color information is sampled at half the D-1 rate: 4:1:1 in 525-line (NTSC), and 4:2:0 in 625-line (PAL) formats. (See Adam Wilt's site for more details on color sampling. Continuing to paraphrase Adam...)

DV compression is a hybrid -- it is compressed using a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), the same sort of compression used in motion-JPEG. However, DV's DCT allows for more optimization within the frame than do JPEG compressors, allowing for higher quality at the nominal 5:1 compression factor than motion-JPEG.

DV also uses intraframe compression: Each compressed frame depends entirely on itself, and not on any data from preceding or following frames. However, it also uses adaptive interfield compression; if the compressor detects little difference between the two interlaced fields of a frame, it will compress them together, freeing up some of the "bit budget" to allow for higher overall quality elsewhere in the image. In theory, this means that static areas of images will be more accurately represented than areas with a lot of motion; in practice, this can sometimes be observed as a slight degree of "blockiness" in the immediate vicinity of moving objects (an artifact).

DV video information is carried in a nominal 25 megabit per second (Mbps) data stream. Once you add in audio, subcode (including timecode), Insert and Track Information (ITI), and error correction, the total data stream comes to about 36 Mbps.

The basic video encoding algorithm is the same between all three formats -- DV, DVCAM and DVCPRO. The VTR sections of DVCAM or DVCPRO cameras will record no better an image than the lowly DV format DCR-VX1000. (Note that this does not compare the lenses or optical electronics, only the tape format storing the final images!) The only difference in the tape format is track pitch. The consumer-oriented DV uses 10 micron tracks in SP recording mode. Newer camcorders offer an LP mode to increase recording times, but the 6.7 micron tracks make tape interchange problematic on DV machines, and prevents LP tapes from being played in DVCAM or DVCPRO VTRs. Both these small track pitches also make accurate insert editing difficult.

Sony's DVCAM professional format increases the track pitch to 15 microns (at the loss of recording time) to improve tape interchange and increase the robustness and reliability of insert editing. Panasonic's DVCPRO increases track pitch and width to 18 microns, and uses a metal particle tape for better durability. DVCPRO also adds a longitudinal analog audio cue track and a control track to improve editing performance and user-friendliness in linear editing operations.

On the practical side, DVCAM and DVCPRO formats are only "better" than standard DV (yes, "mini-DV") if you are editing material between decks. If you are using a computer and a non-linear editing (NLE) solution, the differences are practically irrelevant.

2. How does the DV format compare to (insert one or more: Hi-8, VHS, SVHS, Betacam, BetaSP, Digital-S, D-1, etc.) ?

DV formats are typically considered to be equal to or slightly better than Betacam SP in terms of picture quality (however, DV holds up better over repeated play cycles, where BetaSP shows noticeable dropout). They are a notch below Digital-S and DVCPRO50, which are themselves a (largely imperceptible) notch below Digital Betacam, D-1, and D-5. They are quite a bit better than 3/4" U-matic, Hi8, SVHS, and VHS.

As we move into digital TV (DTV) and HDTV broadcasting, these differences will become more and more relevant (i.e. noticeable).

3. Is FireWire/DV really better than digitizing? What about component or Y/C connections with high-quality M-JPEG?

Yes, FireWire/DV is absolutely better than even the high end of motion-JPEG, primarily because a 1394 dub is a digital clone of the original. Not a copy; a clone. This makes for editing and transfering and copying with no generation loss. A far cry from the old days.

Non-square pixels has always been an issue in the professional NTSC video world; it only seems new to the consumer digital video world because old-MJPEG boards hid the problem with lower horizontal resolution. With old MJPEG boards, the digitized resolution was typically 640x480. Now DV uses 720x480, much closer to the standard D-1 (NTSC) frame. This equates to a 0.9 pixel ratio, rather than a square one. The result is that DV video appears "squashed" on your computer monitor, which makes circles look like ovals.

The solution to this non-square problem? There are many, but I will offer two. If you are creating artwork in Photoshop or some other graphic-arts package for use in your DV project, work with 720x540 images, then scale them to 720x480 right before mixing them with your DV footage. This is superior to starting at 640x480, since you are scaling down.

If you are using Adobe After Effects, get used to setting the Pixel Aspect Ratio in the Interpret Footage dialog box for each source clip. Set it to Square Pixels for any graphics sources, or to D-1 if it is either DV or art you have scaled to 720x480. Then let After Effects handle it in the composite.

The other solution? Adapt. Many people who work in computer graphics with digital video source simply get used to everything looking "squashed" on their computer monitor. They know it will look right when played out and don't stress too much about it. Often, I make any type design a little squatty and know it will get a little taller in the final viewing. If you are using a program like Digital Origin's EditDV or Adobe After Effects, which are both savvy about non-square pixels, you don't even have to think about it, except at the art creation stage.

The first number refers to the 13.5 MHz sampling rate of the luminance in a video signal. This number is "4" in D-1, D-5, Digital Betacam, BetaSX, Digital-S, and all the DV formats.

The other two numbers refer to the sampling rates of the color difference signals R-Y and B-Y. In 4:2:2 systems (D-1, D-5, DigiBeta, BetaSX, Digital-S, DVCPRO50) the color is sampled at half the rate of the luminance, with both color-difference samples co-sited (located at the same place) as the alternate luminance samples. Thus you have 360 color samples (in each of R-Y and B-Y) per scanline.

In 4:1:1 systems (NTSC DV & DVCAM, DVCPRO) the color data are sampled half as frequently as in 4:2:2, resulting in 180 color samples per scanline. The U and V samples are considered to be co-sited with every fourth luminance sample. Yes, this sounds horrible -- but it's still enough for a color bandwidth extending to around 1.5 MHz, about the same color bandwidth as Betacam SP (which, were it a digital format, would be characterized as a 3:1:1 format).

Many argue that chroma-key, blue-screen and green-screen should be drastically affected by DV being 4:1:1 rather than 4:2:2. But the truth is, you can still pull perfectly decent chroma-keys with 4:1:1. (As Adam Wilt explains...)

"Many early DVEs were 4:1:1 internally; plenty of digital boxes out there still are (such as the Panasonic WJ-MX50 and Sony FXE-series vision mixers, both of which chroma-key). As previously mentioned, BetaSP could be considered a 3:1:1 format in terms of component bandwidth, and BetaSP is used for chroma-key applications all the time.

"True, the chroma performance of 4:2:2 formats is superior to 4:1:1 formats, especially in multigeneration analog dubbing. Part of the standard JVC sales pitch for Digital-S is the superiority of 4:2:2 (which is true), and the utter doom and degradation that awaits you should you try to do anything -- including chroma-key -- with a 4:1:1 format (which is, shall we say, a wee bit exaggerated). But that doesn't mean that you can't do very satisfactory work in 4:1:1. A Bentley may not be as fancy as a Rolls Royce, but it'll still get you there in style. If you're used to the VW Beetle world of color-under analog formats, DV's Bentley should present few problems."

DISCLAIMER:
This information is culled from various sources and is not intended to be taken as gospel. It is intended as a reference only, and may contain errors or omissions. Comments and corrections welcome and appreciated.

There are a lot of opinions here, and no easy answers. Below, I'll offer some links to some excellent services that can help you if you are shopping in the chaos of the $500-$2500 range, where an abundance of options now exist and there are likely a lot of different answers to which is the "best" camera for you.

If you are looking $2500-$4000, higher up in the "prosumer" 3-chip range, I'll discuss that first...

The two "top dog" sub-$4000 camcorders are and have been the Sony VX-1000 and the Canon XL-1. (For DVCAM "professional" cameras, seek elsewhere.) The recent release of the Canon GL-1 puts Canon electronics in an economy body-type very similar to the venerable Sony model. The imminent release of the Sony VX-2000 further confuses the issue (see below), though it is safe to say this camera will now join the debate as well. Numerous haggling between the two "top" cameras make a direct comparison difficult, though I'll offer a few links which attempt to do just that.

As for my opinion (yes, I've shot with both), images captured with the XL-1 are a tad bit softer but also a bit cleaner (less noise) and thus subjectively nicer. The Canon is quite a bit more obtrusive (and thus also more professional-looking). The XL-1 frame movie mode captures a more "film-like" image, and also makes computer-graphics easier to integrate (no interlacing). The Canon also offers a 16:9 mode that only exists in the PAL or Japanese versions of the VX-1000, although this mode is actually inferior to using an anamorphic adapter (see "Shooting in Widescreen DV" link below) on either camera. For my taste, it's just almost a coin toss and certainly more dependent on what and where you are shooting than anything else. (The VX-1000 will fit on the dirt-cheap Steadicam JR, while the XL-1 will just barely fit on the improved -- but pricier -- DV Steadicam.)

I've read several veterans comment that images from the VX-1000 blow up quite a bit nicer in a tape-to-film transfer than those from the XL-1. Related commentary usually mentions that since Sony's VX-1000 was the first DV camera out of the gate, their CCD array and related optics were actually designed to higher standards than more recent models. (This might well account for the VX-1000 retaining its value for so long.) These are, as always, informed opinions.

Here's a few more opinions of which camera is the "best" for shooting DV movies...

Now that Sony has discontinued manufacture of the VX-1000, it is possible choices between them won't last long, although used gear auctions like eBay (not to mention rental houses) might still make getting your hands on the VX-1000 possible. For more pertinent information on each camera, see the links below.

Steve Bennett, a wealth of information on Webcinema and both a veteran and pioneer filmmaker at IFMP, recently offered these opinions on the new VX-2000 (Steve definitely falls into the pro-VX-1000 camp, at least when compared to the XL-1):

The VX-1000 Resource Group — "A collection of items from the web of specific interest to owners and users of the Sony VX-1000 Digital Video Camera."

There are a lot of excellent cameras out there, and I don't know many people who have shot with all of them. I offer a few more opinions and links from people who have touched quite a few...

Yes, there are other options. About fifty or more by now, and growing steadily. In fact, there are too many options to easily summarize all of them in any FAQ. Instead, I offer the following methods for seeking out the "perfect" DV camera...

The @ctive Buyer's Guide is a fabulous walkthrough for narrowing down your choices in DV (or other) camcorders. Simply selecting "Digital" only will limit the Guide's scope to DV; it is the best general-purpose method for matching and comparing many camcorders with your own needs and preferences, including clever cross-references between features and price. (Of course, you do need to know something about the features you are after to successfully use the Guide.)

Features to consider:

3-chip vs. 1-chip — 3-chip CCDs give much cleaner color reproduction than 1-chip cameras. In the case of the XL-1, pixel shift technology actually contributes to a higher perceived resolution in the 3-chip case. Also consider the size of the CCDs themselves. Some have higher resolution as well.

flip-out color viewfinder — When shooting in tight spaces or hand-held, the traditional eye-piece viewfinder becomes worthless. The new small cameras with flip-out and rotatable viewfinders allow you to frame shots you'd otherwise be shooting blind. Very nice for car interiors or tiny bathrooms.

body style/size — Shooting in places where at typical camera crew might not be welcome has become a lot more practical if your DV camcorder isn't too large or obtrusive. Some of the smaller body styles and hand-held designs are popular for this reason and others (they can be used in tight quarters, they can also help capture more natural performances).

digital/optical steadi-shot — Shooting hand-held can be greatly enhanced by a good steadishot system. Some are better than others, but anything is better than nothing.

progressive-scan (frame movie mode) — Some people believe this is half the "film look" equation, and indeed "frame movie" mode often takes the video edge off of your source. Note that many of the newer Sony cameras falsely advertise a "progressive" mode that is only good for capturing stills, not for shooting video. (This mode only records a progressive image at a shutter speed of 1/15th.) I personally think this is very deceptive advertising (and a sorely-missed feature).

audio inputs — Very few cameras include XLR "pro" audio inputs, but there are also adapters for many of the popular cameras. With XLR inputs, high-quality boom and lavalier mics will allow for much better sound recording than the built-in microphones.

analog input jacks — If it is important to you to be able to input old Hi-8 footage or other analog footage you might have, the only way to record this source to DV is to have a camera (or deck) with analog DV-in capability. Some of the lower-cost units do include this feature, while several higher-end cameras do not.

widescreen mode — Also called 16x9 mode, this format is not only more cinematic, it is also the future of television. Very few cameras actually have a wider CCD array for their "widescreen" mode, meaning they are scaling-up the middle of the image to record widescreen images. Although an anamorphic adapter (see next section) is a better solution, even the blow-up version is better than nothing, if you want to shoot in the wide aspect. Amazingly, many new DV cameras are missing this option altogether. Consider this article on the subject: Fake 16x9: Not All Bad.

Robert Silva's camcorder section on About.com's Guide to Home Electronics as well as David Simpson's About.com Guide to Desktop Video both include many links to reviews and details describing various individual models of digital camcorder. If you want more detailed information and hands-on guidance, seek there.

Shooting in Widescreen DV — An informative discussion on the use of anamorphic adapters to accomplish widescreen shooting; particularly relevant to the Sony VX-1000.

The DV Steadicam and Steadicam JR — As I've said before, "one of the most significant steps you can take toward making your hand-held video look truly professional."

By "DV-tuned" I mean non-linear editing (NLE) solutions that use native DV codecs and remain native DV throughout. Some systems (Like DraCo Casablanca and some Media 100 options) provide a FireWire connection, but transcode their video to M-JPEG (or some other format) for editing. This defeats a lot of the added benefit of DV technology, being in this case near losslessness. The FireWire connection in DV gear provides a data-transfer...a clone, not a copy. And it is exactly this lack of generation loss that makes DV editing truly worth it. Even "professional" 4:2:2 "broadcast" formats can degrade enough after three or four generations of dubbing (not to mention one or two) to look considerably worse than DV video.

The following systems are capable (some more than others) low-cost (sub-$1,000) DV editing solutions. (There are possibly other true DV systems, but I don't have experience with them. Links to other DV NLE reviews are welcome.)

Final Cut Pro ($999) is currently considered the creme of the crop. Functionality, with version 1.2 on a G3 or (better yet) on a new Velocity-engine enhanced G4, Final Cut is sleek and stylish. In addition to being a very capable editing package, Final Cut also includes a considerable portion of compositing tools you would normally only find in Adobe's After Effects, including the ability to use any After Effects or Premiere plug-ins.

Final Cut might be considered expensive compared to Premiere and EditDV, but considering the added functionality of compositing, this cost is more understandable. Personally, I find the inclusion of these compositing tools a tad bit superfluous (but then again, I already have After Effects)...I'd rather my editing package focus on doing that well. But this aside, Final Cut Pro looks to be quite capable as an editor, and nice to look at as well.

On the negative side: Apple itself owning software of this kind is a mixed blessing. It actually seems to hurt third-party vendors who now compete directly with Apple (i.e. EditDV's Digital Origin), as these vendors are dependent on Apple for basic OS support (controlling FireWire, QuickTime, etc.) and there seems to be a slight conflict of interest regarding compatibility and timely upgrades.

Additionally, Final Cut Pro does demand a high-performance Mac, and it is Mac-only. Don't expect to run this app on anything less than a G3, and consider a snazzy G4 to run it well. Also, Apple's DV codec is inherently inferior to the Digital Origin codec, a fact that I find baffling in a world where DV capture should simply be a data transfer. Apparently multiple compressions with the Apple codec is a less-than-happy experience.

Considerably cheaper than Final Cut Pro, Digital Origin's EditDV ($599 software only, $799 with FireWire card) is a no-nonsense non-linear editing package tuned specifically for DV. As of release of Apple's latest FireWire Support, EditDV is usable with either built-in FireWire or Digital Origin's own IEEE-1394 PCI card.

EditDV is not quite as slick as Final Cut, but for the price it's performance is phenomenal. Efficient, fast, and straight-forward, the pluses far outweight the minuses. The quality of the DO codec is excellent, and the stability of the application is admirable. EditDV is also based around Apple's QuickTime Media Layer, and this is one of its great strengths. Edited movies are openable and usable in any program that utilizes QuickTime, including such compositing/fx champs as Adobe After Effects and Puffin Designs' Commotion.

Also on the plus side: I've used EditDV on a PowerTower Pro 200, and seen it run on lesser PowerPC stations. In fact, the main reason to go G3 or better is to take advantage of IDE hard drives, which are easily fast enough for DV (no need for RAID arrays or even expensive SCSI) and unbelievably cheap these days.

On the negative side: Digital Origin may continue to suffer from compatibility problems caused by Apple's control of FireWire hardware and system-level support. It is often critical to check the DO website for the latest workaround or system configuration to keep EditDV running smoothly with the latest system software. (i.e. You might have to wait a while before upgrading your system.)

Also, EditDV continues to be bothered by reports of audio sync issues, although many people edit successfully with none of these problems. Whether it is operator error or the consequence of some obscure system configuration, no one seems to know for sure.

One added plus: EditDV is now available for Windows as well as Mac. Version 2.0 is available on both machines with some nice new features, including the ability to use third-party QuickTime Effects plug-ins. This is not the same as allowing Premiere/AE plug-ins, but it is a step in the right direction.

Digital Origin has also recently merged with Media 100; the effect of this merger on the product could be either good or bad. We'll have to wait for version 3.0 to know for sure.

While Adobe Premiere 5.1 ($549) does support some nice enhancements to older versions of Premiere, I still find it hard to endorse this product. Premiere was originally burdened by the unrealistic desire to be everything to everyone, and it still suffers from the attempt. Premiere is theoretically usable with almost any video card out there (this includes MJPEG as well as DV), and this makes for a headache of driver support and configuration issues.

Version 5.1 is still sluggish and feels overburdened. The interface seems almost overly friendly and somehow less-efficient as a result. The new two-window source/preview screens is finally up to standards, but the stability (while better) is far from perfect. One big plus to counter all these minuses is the use of a large number of third-party plug-ins for effects and filters.

Although in my view there are far better choices out there than Premiere, you can certainly edit a project with this program, and many people swear by it. It is also the cheapest of the programs in this category, and can be found on either Mac or Windows platforms, including projects that will open on either platform (EditDV does not yet have this). For many, Premiere is an adequate and capable editor; but don't expect a bumpless road. If DV is your focus but you're on a tight budget, I'd recommend the more capable EditDV for only $50 more.

It is actually a shame that such a questionable product exists in the otherwise spotless family of Adobe products, and I've heard rumors that a new beginning may be forthcoming in a future upgrade. I hope so.

668 films+fx /Little Beast — Host of this website, writer/director R. Zane Rutledge and producer Matthew Fassberg will soon bring you the next evolution of episodic thriller...

Alta Vista Films — Director Jim Bruno of Austin, Texas brings you Beyond Words, an "unromatic comedy" in post-production online. Includes links to other Texan DV filmmakers.

Opera Film — Martin Munthe's debut feature Heart of Stone premieres in April, a Dogma-style tale of the Russian mafia in Scandanavia. Opera Film is a production company headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.

IFMP — Filmmaking veteran Steve Bennett's collection of filmmaking is an online effort called the IFMP Network; several clips of past works -- including a number of films and shorts shot in DV -- are online, and Steve promises "a new style of web moviemaking" will screen in the near future.

Bangor Films — Home of Todd Verow (Shucking the Curve, A Sudden Loss of Gravity) and a DIY attitude that can't lose. Shucking the Curve won the No-Dance Grand Jury Prize for best feature film back in 1999. Verow pumps out digital films like nobody's business, and distributes them himself. Check out his Manifesto 2.0 if you're in need of a little inspiration.

Spam, the Movie — a DV "how-to" article that turned into a horror film. Insanity at its finest.

PlasterCity Productions — With Bel-Air and Bloodhead, this production company of the Coppola bloodline are extending their traditional filmmaking reach into the digital arena. Christopher Coppola, director. Alain Silver, producer.

The Eden Myth — an independent film, part of the new First Rites program through Hollywood Video, a unique form of distribution for independent filmmakers to come. Mark Edlitz, Writer/Director.

The Glove — a very notable short film, with an excellent presentation. Shows how an independent can present his own work in a very professional and impressive sequence of web pages. Simon Kim, filmmaker. Psychological thriller, with online screening.

Note: There are way too many DV shorts to list (I will only be selecting those most notable), so I will primarily focus only on feature-length work, of which there is...well, also way too many to list! If you would like to have your digital feature listed, please contact me and I will try to find time to update the list and get your film added. ;-) Please include the title, the director, any links to website information, and any other production-related information you think important. This section will soon be expanding to include feature projects in pre, pro, and post-production, as well as completed films.

Lots of questions exist about the mysterious "blow-up to film." And a lot of opinions also exist about the "best" way to do it, including details on lighting, shooting, camera settings, format (NTSC vs PAL), interlacing vs. progressive-scan, etc. I'll detail some of these issues -- inject only a few uninformed opinions of my own -- and mostly direct you to a wealth of collected data from the people who actually do it.

- Always use manual exposure, or shutter-priority auto. Use 1/50 (PAL) or 1/60 (NTSC) shutter speeds, as they give your electronic image the most blur. (Film has even more blur.)

- Never add "filmlook" style grain or contrast/color correction processing to your shot images. If you wish to treat them with such for video screenings, do so as a separate pass. These processes only add compression artifacts and your images will gain both grain and contrast when they are transfered to actual film stock.

- Each blow-up house recommends different things regarding lighting and camera settings (so check with the house you intend to use for details), but all agree that lighting is a key factor for how much the final images will truly look "like film."

RES Magazine Winter 99, Vol 2 #1 — "DV Filmmaking by the Numbers," in which filmmakers James Brett and Lori Fontanes steer a clear path through the DV to Film transfer process. (Back issues can be ordered through the RES Magazine website.)

Viva la Revolucion DV — An article on several DV movies and their transfers, including The Celebration, The Cruise, The Last Broadcast, and more.

Sony Pictures High Definition Center — 10202 W. Washington Blvd. Culver City, CA USA 310/244-7434. Electron beam Recording (EBR). Transfered The Cruise.

Four Media Company (4MC) — 2820 W. Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA USA 818/840-7144. EBR. Transferred Hoop Dreams.

Swiss Effects — Thurgauerstrasse 40 CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland +41 1 307 10 10 In NY: 212/727-3695. Lots of details on their new website, including camera setups. Transferred Saltmen of Tibet.

DVFilm — 2819 Foster Ln Suite F150 Austin, Texas 78757 512/459-0502 Recommends 16x9 mode (especially using an anamorphic adapter), If shooting PAL, use progressive "frame movie" mode if available. If shooting NTSC, use interlaced mode. Check out their FAQ for more. Cost: 35mm: $375/min. 16mm: $245/min (as of 4/2000). Also does HD and CGI to film. Many Canon XL-1 transfers. Transferred Sundance award-winners "G" and "Titler," and Emmy-award winner "The Reunion."

Lukkien — P.O. Box 466 6710 BL Ede, The Netherlands +31 318 638041. Seems to be more focused on being a full-production studio than a tape-to-film blow-up facility. Hard to find info on their Flash-animated website. Transferred The Celebration.

Ringer Video Services — 2408 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA USA 818/954-8621. Kinescope.

The true leader in quality media formats, now fully streamable for the Internet. The best thing about QuickTime is it keeps getting better, and is already the standard media wrapper for all of the best media software tools. With the latest Sorenson compression, Net movies look better and compress smaller than anything to date. (The best tool to compress Sorenson QuickTime movies: Terran Interactive's Media Cleaner Pro, especially with their Sorenson Video Developer Edition 2.1 professional upgrade.)

Probably the leader in fully Web-based streaming, Real Networks RealPlayer G2 is a popular one among streaming sites. A Pro version is available for a nominal cost; the basic player is free.

I wish Microsoft would just give it up. Nothing I've seen compressed with the Windows Media Player looks half as good as streaming QuickTime or compares with the RealPlayer media. Still, some sites only stream with this Microsoft player.

THE DOGME 95 PHENOMENON

This remarkable sub-revolution ostensibly began with Festen, known to English-speaking audiences as The Celebration. This "Dogme #1" film was shot with an incredibly-lightweight 1-chip Sony DV camera (a PAL PC7), and was directed by Thomas Vinterberg, although a directorial credit will not be found on any Dogme film. This is one of the self-imposed "rules" a Dogme director swears to adhere to when taking the Dogme 95 Vow of Chastity, originally penned and signed by Lars Von Trier (Breaking the Waves, The Idiots (Dogma #2)) and Thomas Vinterberg in March of 1995.

The Celebration was blown-up to 35mm and enjoyed a small but well-praised theatrical distribution in the US. While most do not argue that the DV-to-35mm blow-up was nothing remarkable so far as image quality was concerned, the gripping story and amazing performances made any questions of imagery largely irrelevant. This simple fact silenced a lot of debates over the viability of DV as a filmmaking format, and focused on the critical, all-important point: story is everything.

The Celebration is a "must see" for all potential DV filmmakers out there. It is now available for rental in video.

Lars Von Trier's The Idiots is the second official Dogme film, and while it did not receive critical-acclaim (or even theatrical release) in the states, it is also a thought-provoking experience in "avant-garde" filmmaking. It is available in obscure video release through international distribution. (Unfortunately, the only version I have found in the US has rather dismal sub-titling, barely readable in many of the outdoor, brightly-lit scenes.)

Any filmmaker can now receive an official Dogme certification of their films, if they choose to adhere to the original Vow of Chastity, and submit their films to the Dogma collective.

Check out the Dogme 95 Official Website, including information on the upcoming Mifune (Dogme III, directed by S¿ren Kragh-Jacobsen), and The King is Alive (Dogme #4). Julien Donkey-Boy (Harmony Korine) is also considered a recent Dogme-approved film.

There are a few successful DV documentaries, but this was one of the first that enjoyed a theatrical run. A cleverly-edited examination of a truly unique New York City tour guide, whose personality carried the stark black-and-white film to greatness.

This year's Sundance-acquired notable DV film was picked up by Artisan. The film was directed by Miguel Arteta (Star Maps) and produced by the digitally-savvy Blow Up Pictures, an indie production company with Hollywood history behind it.

Mike Figgis' (Leaving Las Vegas) latest film will not be the typical Hollywood picture. Instead, four DV cameras will track the same 94 minutes of continual time in a storytelling exercise that could not have been produced without video technology. An exercise breaking the typical constraints of movie-making, Timecode 2000 will be something new to ponder.

Whatever your personal likes or dislikes regarding this film (and opinions are often extreme), The Blair Witch Project was notable for two reasons: (1) it was very profitable and largely shot in video (Hi-8 in fact, not even DV), and (2) it was very successful in using the Internet for promotional purposes.

These two facts have in some ways "woken" Hollywood to the DV revolution, and may have changed the landscape of future cinema forever. Although not technically a "DV movie," I'm including this here for historical purposes.

Of note, also, is the surprisingly similar The Last Broadcast, which most people (those who saw it) actually glimpsed before Blair Witch. Both directing teams took a similar approach to cleverly integrating video into their films, and both used the horror genre to do it. BWP obviously won the internet "hype" award, since only a limited audience remembers TLB, but The Last Broadcast was also a pioneering first, digitally transmitting the film to many theatres via satellite. An article discussing the "similarities" of the two pictures can be found at the 11th Hour Website.

DV Central — the DV-L Discussion List is an email list-serv with a plethora of digital video info. I heartily suggest digest mode or your mailbox will overflow in seconds. "Topics normally revolve around matters DV and Firewire, but can be quite diverse, covering NLE, camcorders, computers, and new technologies in general."

Webcinema — DV filmmaking and low-budget film advice in general. Some highly-experienced players and some total newbies. The value of content -- like that of most Internet lists -- comes in waves. There is a main list and also regional lists to subscribe to.

2-Pop — Primarily focused on DV editing using Final Cut Pro, this site's message boards also contain useful information about After Effects, Commotion, and other desktop tools and digital filmmaking tips.

The EditDV Discussion List — And other available lists for Digital Origin products. Again, like most lists here, digest mode is recommended. The EditDV lists is available as both a subscribable email list-serv, or as an Internet Newsgroup.

Adobe User to User Forums — Relaunched in January 2000, Adobe has been upgrading their discussion lists; hopefully they will prove to be even more useful than before.

IndieWire — A general "indie" film site, with way more emphasis on Hollywood than I'd prefer. It does, however, have some useful areas, including its discussion lists and a daily email newsletter.

RES — The single most-important source for DV filmmaking and low-budget computer-assisted filmmaking in general. With a significant bent towards shorts and music, RES and the popular RESfest Digital Film Festival are both well worth checking out. Stylish and glossy, the content is always worth tackling the sometimes-confusing (but always hip) layout. Technical without being geeky, artsy without being overly-editorialized, RES is the only magazine that lies somewhere between total tech-head and artsy film-snob. (The upcoming launch of www.digitalfilmmaking.com might also prove to be worth the wait.)

DV — At the opposite end of stylish, the often incredibly simple layout of DV Magazine still reveals a no-nonsense and well-directed path toward digital video enlightenment. More technical and computer-oriented than RES, DV Magazine features regular tutorials and up-to-date reviews on many facets of DV and its related technology. The comprehensive website includes the entire content of every issue (in both PDF and HTML), as well as additional links to clips and even more detailed information than its paper-based articles allow.

The Independent Film and Video Monthly — An excellent online resource from the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, including regular articles on DV filmmaking and filmmakers. See From Mags and Gates to Bits and Chips, an excellent article detailing many interesting stories from recent DV features and films, including candid commentary on the benefits of shooting DV over film. Also catch Digital Video: Catch The Wave, an older article about the process, interviewing Hal Hartley (Book of Life) and Todd Verow (Shucking the Curve).