HVX200 used for Cloverfield? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Ian Slessor

01-09-2008, 10:43 PM

Hey all,

Just over at www.cloverfieldclues.com (http://www.cloverfieldclues.com).

They reposted bits of an interview with Cloverfield director Matt Reeves with some BTS shots.

In it he's holding and HVX200.

Is it likely they used the 200 for some or most of their shots?

Just wondering.

hmmm. imdb says they used the Genesis. Kinda heavy for a "handicam" movie AND they said there was NO steadicam work artificially jerked around because the audience would notice that.

hmmm again.

ian

Zander

01-09-2008, 10:56 PM

my guess is the HVX was being used for the behind the scenes stuff.

Ian Slessor

01-09-2008, 11:00 PM

Possibly.

In the original article it looks like they used "50 pound" cameras for the shots that would require fx.

They also claimed to use everything down to what they called "small" cameras.

Be interesting to see the range of cameras they used.

ian

The Sarlacc

01-09-2008, 11:15 PM

Most of the movie was shot using HVX200s. Dont ask me how I know.

west_matta

01-10-2008, 12:16 AM

seriously? saying "dont ask me how i know" is just like saying "ask me and i will tell you" haha

go oooooon

ProfessorU

01-10-2008, 01:28 AM

I heard that it was handed out for almost any shot where the talent was shooting (not a trained cam op). Aren't the trailers just driving you crazy? I can't wait.

Heath McKnight

01-19-2008, 08:23 AM

They shot the teaser on consumer cameras before they shot the movie, according to interviews at www.cloverfieldclues.com. It was obvious watching newer trailers and the movie that they re-shooting was done on a much better camera.

Also, I noticed they snuck one or two shots from the first teaser trailer during the party. The quality dropped and it was obvious the shutter slowed down to probably 1/30 or so.

GREAT film!

heath

LightningFilms

01-19-2008, 08:36 AM

I wish there was more "small" camera footage in the movie. it would've added to it's sense of realism. GREAT movie, don't get me wrong, but the pro appearing cinematography and uncanny film quality made it very "Hollywood" for me. Sure it follows the Blair Witch genre, but this film had a $30 million budget, not $100k.

Heath McKnight

01-19-2008, 08:40 AM

True, true. But I forgot all about that while watching.

heath

Heath McKnight

01-19-2008, 01:01 PM

They're selling the HVX200 used to shoot it on eBay:

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/01/cloverfield-for-sale.html

heath

ChipG

01-19-2008, 01:23 PM

They eBay auction says it has 6 hours on it and was never in the record mode or used to record. Did they use this camera as a visual viewfinder?

Kholi

01-19-2008, 01:25 PM

I dunno, but the HVX200 just got a huge rep boost. LOL

Andrew McCarrick

01-19-2008, 01:47 PM

They eBay auction says it has 6 hours on it and was never in the record mode or used to record. Did they use this camera as a visual viewfinder?

Could have been recorded onto for a total time of less than an hour, thus saying 0 hours.

AshG

01-19-2008, 03:23 PM

I thought most the movie looked like crap, I saw it on a film print though. I know that was the point but it is hardly a movie to brag about what camera was used!

ash =o)

skywalks

01-19-2008, 04:19 PM

There was a big panavision Logo at the end of the credits...

Jacquot

01-19-2008, 06:42 PM

Here are the actual facts: http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15469.shtml

aalleexx

01-19-2008, 07:57 PM

I dont know about everyone else here but I personally dont like the idea that the hvx was used to simulate the "handycam" look, I would of liked more the idea of a feature shooting hvx's to simulate regular scenes that would normally would of been shot on film :(

AshG

01-19-2008, 10:30 PM

aalleexx

01-19-2008, 11:03 PM

I know ash, but hey its nice to know that the no.1 movie in america was shot on a camera that I have at home right now but the idea of the handycam kinda brings me down, hopefuly the hvx gains more momentum in hollywood and who knows they might use it extesively on the next "departed2" or something of that sorf
ohhh dreams ....dreams

My point exactly. Hardly lends credibility to it as a real tool.

ash =o)

markcheng

01-20-2008, 07:38 AM

what camera is he holding in this bts photo (http://io9.com/346836/theories-on-the-whisper-at-the-end-of-cloverfield)?

markcheng

01-20-2008, 07:43 AM

Here are the actual facts: http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15469.shtml

Great article, Jacquot! thanks for posting it.

mb72378

01-20-2008, 10:39 AM

Although it's really awesome about the HVX in cloverfield, I was extremely let down by the movie. I was literally physically sick afterward because the whole thing is shot handheld and is so shaky at times you cant even tell whats going on. I understand that the point was to make it more realistic but come on, this effect could have been brought about in a different way. Or at least a less shaky way.

Zander

01-20-2008, 12:03 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2290/2205426422_bef5254ed1.jpg

mb72378

01-20-2008, 12:26 PM

Man, I wish that they would have done that at my theatre. :) I probably would have seen it anyways but it would have been nice to be warned. I wouldnt have spent $10 on a popcorn and drink. It was really good, just hard to get over the extreme shakiness.

RedMenace

01-20-2008, 12:37 PM

I thought most the movie looked like crap, I saw it on a film print though. I know that was the point but it is hardly a movie to brag about what camera was used!

ash =o)

You guys are nuts. From what I've read, essentially everything that wasn't an FX shot was HVX. I saw the movie digitally projected and it looked amazing. It looked so good I questioned which shots were HVX and which were F23 and Viper. The fact that I had trouble seeing the difference makes me wanna do handstands.

Seriously, the HVX blown up looks spectacular. The movie sucked and the operation and framing was excessively cockeyed - but seeing all the crystal 50 foot tall HVX footage was worth the price of admission.

Jacquot

01-20-2008, 02:13 PM

Sorry, but as you all must admit, a HUGE budget and a few highly skilled, expensive post production companies makes all the difference on the final product and not which camera you might end up using.

http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?magazine/0712/stoo.htm~top.main_hp

"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"

The HVX appearing in a Hollywood feature might make you feel good about the purchase you made, but then there is the actual reality of it all.......:D

RedMenace

01-20-2008, 03:32 PM

Sorry, but as you all must admit, a HUGE budget and a few highly skilled, expensive post production companies makes all the difference on the final product and not which camera you might end up using.

You must either be a producer or a sound guy judging from your remarks...

You can't add resolution after the fact, regardless of how much money you've got.

Depending on what you're going for, which camera you use usually means everything to the final product.

The HVX appearing in a Hollywood feature might make you feel good about the purchase you made, but then there is the actual reality of it all.......:D

That's crazy talk. The purchase I made was solid gold from day one, I don't need JJ Abrams to make me feel good about it. The actual reality is the HVX rocks and it's nice to see somebody with a budget finally have a little faith in it.

"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"

Is this supposed to be a derogatory remark regarding the HVX? Yes, it was a camera the actors could actually hold and operate themselves. It's abilities far exceed 'consumer' status.

Andrew McCarrick

01-20-2008, 03:48 PM

"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"

Meaning, it was the easiest to used by an unskilled operator handheld and was easier to carry then the F23 or Viper. "Felt the most like a real consumer camera" means small enough to replicate consumer camera movements while still providing the 720 or 1080 professional look. You use a HDV camera the way the HVX would've been used there and you wouldn't get even half the results the HVX would produce.

(P.S.: I don't even own a HVX200 and I've only touched one once, in B&H.)

Jacquot

01-20-2008, 06:54 PM

sigh.....you didn't get the point.

The HVX is a really great video camera, enjoy it.

Corine

01-20-2008, 07:30 PM

Haven't seen the film yet but with all the feedbacks I may wait until it is out on DVD

Noel Evans

01-20-2008, 08:06 PM

They're selling the HVX200 used to shoot it on eBay:

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/01/cloverfield-for-sale.html

heath

HEH Quick someone buy it. It must have special powers.

Ted Spencer

01-20-2008, 08:31 PM

I got back from seeing this film about an hour ago and I still feel somewhat nauseous. If you thought the Shakycam in "Bourne Ultimatum" was annoying, don't even think about seeing this movie.

Regarding its use of the HVX, all I can say is that if the entire opening scene at the party was shot on an HVX exclusively, then all my concerns about its suitability to the big screen are put to rest. On the other hand, if some of it was HVX and some was Viper (or another high end camera) then it's not so clear. There were some shots that were decidedly lower rez than others in the sequence, and if only these were HVX shots, then I'd say it was merely acceptable under the circumstances. Most of the party scene shots looked just great though - plenty sharp and hi-rez, enough so that I'd never call them out as "prosumer" otherwise. I sure would love to know all the specific details there.

The blogspot article linked above does seem to imply that scenes like the party were shot entirely on the HVX. It's a fine piece of news if that's correct.

Masta T

01-20-2008, 09:54 PM

I noticed some shots in the party scene did look better than others too.
So im not sure if it all was done on hvx, but theres a good chance.

I dont know about everyone else here but I personally dont like the idea that the hvx was used to simulate the "handycam" look, I would of liked more the idea of a feature shooting hvx's to simulate regular scenes that would normally would of been shot on film :(

Well the hvx was used to mix in with footage shot from viper and f23, to look the same. Thats got to mean something. I'm sure the normal audience couldn't tell the difference.

Also ask yourself, why didn't they use similar small cams from sony or canon?
They picked hxv.

delaro

01-21-2008, 01:49 AM

Also ask yourself, why didn't they use similar small cams from sony or canon?
They picked hxv.

ok i ask myself .... maybe because canon and sony images were too good for simulating cheap handycam .... ;)

Bob Gruen

01-21-2008, 09:36 AM

This mixture of cameras was the result of a compromise. "Matt Reeves really wanted to try to do as much as possible with the HVX 200," Bonvillain explains. "But it was already a bit bigger and heavier than he would have liked. His concern was that there is a feel about images from a tiny camcorder that is different from the look you get with heavier, more solid equipment. A consumer camcorder is so light, and when you pan it, there's a different feel than when you pan these bigger cameras."

I don't see the article discounting the HVX as some do. He actually states he wishes it were lighter, more like a consumer camera.

As far as Post Production, there are a few techniques that can sharpen soft footage (but there are limits of course), and there are several types of printing techniques that will have an impact on what the final print looks like. IF you shoot a great film that gets accepted at a top festival, AND a distributor decides they want to distribute your film to theaters, then I would recommend you deliver your whole project still on the NLE to the distributor and let them decide how they want to go forward. Personally, I'd make 2 exports and send them via different carriers, then I'd toss my NLE in my car and drive it to them myself.

But that's just me...

Bob

mash

01-23-2008, 01:42 PM

I've seen Cloverfield, own a HVX and do Special efffects for a living. I can see why they used Higher end Cameras for the effects Plates. I'm surprised they didn't use Film for those shots.

"When you do a fast pan with the Viper or the F23 under sodium-vapor lighting, you get a triple image," the cinematographer notes. "You get the image itself and then two trails. Kevin Banks was freaking out: 'How do we cut people out of stuff when we've got three of them?' 'If we animate something to composite into the shot, we've got to duplicate the two trails!' Matt [Reeves] and I said, 'You gotta do it, man. We're shooting on the streets and we can't turn off the streetlights.' They did manage to do it, though, and they did a great job."

http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15469.shtml

Between that and the tacking hand held shots it sounds like a painful project.

"Well just fix it in Post. ......Oh wait we are post......crap"

Sven

01-23-2008, 02:00 PM

The Genesis (Panavision) credits Cloverfield in their film list.

NeverColdCall

01-24-2008, 01:18 AM

"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"

Ok, let's put that in perspective - these guys come from the film world, and I remember Barry Green once posting on this site, "A film camera is a big heavy big big heavy beast."

To these people an HPX500 probably feels small and consumer-like.

Look, the HVX is a GREAT camera. I love mine. Love it, love it, love it. Plugging the component output into my HDTV looks better than the compressed broadcast signal for Discovery HD. But, this is the real world. As much as I love my HVX, if I had a multi-million dollar budget, I'm not going to go with a $5,200 prosumer cam.

I love my HVX and will probably get a 2nd one sooner or later. I know it's a *great* camera and that's good enough for me. I don't expect people with millions of dollars to burn to use it.

booth

01-24-2008, 11:38 AM

Well we aren't Hollywood but we're making a feature with the HVX200:
http://www.pleasedsheep.com/bar_stewards_the_movie

And plenty of other people are. I think it's a great camera when coupled with a 35mm lens adaptor, for shooting smaller less action packed movies. That said we have VFX in a several scenes. We'll be posting it on a Davinci2k but a lot of what we've shot needs no additional sharpening and looks great on a high-end 2k monitor.

When you consider that 28 Days Later was shot on several Canon XL1s's in 576i, the HVX yields a much better image both in color and resolution.

Once we're done with this it's another HD production, then we're hoping to make the jump to 4k (fingers crossed).

Zander

01-24-2008, 12:15 PM

Well we aren't Hollywood but we're making a feature with the HVX200:
http://www.pleasedsheep.com/bar_stewards_the_movie
Nice grabs! Just based on the stills the movie looks funny. What was your set up?

Charlie Anderson

01-24-2008, 12:18 PM

Booth, are you shooting with a SGPro?

booth

01-24-2008, 01:05 PM

Booth, are you shooting with a SGPro?

Strangely enough there's a character in the first film we did called Charlie Anderson :D

Nice grabs! Just based on the stills the movie looks funny. What was your set up?

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Hopefully it will be funny (more fingers crossed!)

We used HVX200 + M2 with Marshall for monitoring. Nikon lenses were 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, 135mm and 200mm. Ronford F3 head, along with shorts and talls. And plenty of lights... Kino's, HMI's and a set of red heads.

We're lucky to have a good up and coming VFX guy on-board who's just scored work on the next Batman and Bond movies. He's been using Nuke amongst other things. So that adds a decent amount of production value. Some stills from the movie are in next months 3D World magazine in the UK in a grading tutorial.

Only disappointment is the HVX is just a little too noisy in darker areas of frame. If we're lucky and the camera's arrive in time we'll be shooting nightclub scenes on a Red One. Everything else (apart from two shots on a Sony V1 which was supposed to be camcorder and CCTV footage).

Charlie Anderson

01-24-2008, 01:09 PM

Strangely enough there's a character in the first film we did called Charlie Anderson :D
Well I am such an awesome character ;) And I meant to say M2, I can definitely tell just by the picture quality. Awesome stills again man, makes me glad to own one as well :D

booth

01-24-2008, 01:12 PM

Yeah but you have Zeiss primes which I'm sure make a big difference ;)

Thanks again.

AshG

01-26-2008, 01:32 PM

You guys are nuts. From what I've read, essentially everything that wasn't an FX shot was HVX. I saw the movie digitally projected and it looked amazing. It looked so good I questioned which shots were HVX and which were F23 and Viper. The fact that I had trouble seeing the difference makes me wanna do handstands.

Seriously, the HVX blown up looks spectacular. The movie sucked and the operation and framing was excessively cockeyed - but seeing all the crystal 50 foot tall HVX footage was worth the price of admission.

I saw it again in a digital presentation and I think you are nuts. I could easily tell which shots were which and again, it looked like crap. To be fair, they wanted it to, I have actually seen XL2 and DVX blown up to look better.

ash =o)

Zander

01-26-2008, 01:57 PM

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Hopefully it will be funny (more fingers crossed!)

I love this grab:

http://www.pleasedsheep.com/images/Bar_Stewards_33.jpg

And that Roxanne girl is mega fine.

markcheng

01-27-2008, 08:15 AM

hey HVX owners and others,
you shouldn't feel upset or have your feelings hurt by the comments in this thread or the article about how the HVX was used (as a steadycam) or that it's called small or what others said about adding special effects and stuff into the footage. if you use it and know how good the quality is, that should be enough for you. I guess if you're considering buying the HVX and know not too much about it, it would mean something to hear that Hollywood's used in a big budget film, but the quality should speak for itself. what i did think was particularly note worthy in that article was the part (which was quoted here in the thread) about having triple images with fast pans. for totally pre-planned shots, i wouldn't be surprised if that alone was cause to switch cameras as it would otherwise double/triple the workload for the fx guys later on. i'm sure there were some shots filmed with the HVX that it was later on decided needed some fx work. the final shots in the film are definitely a testament as to what can be done with a prosumer cam like the HVX.

PhoenixF2B

01-30-2008, 07:23 PM

That is not correct, the Genesis was NOT used on this film, it was the Sony F23 Cinealta that was used for most of the exterior shots.

IMDB actually lists 3 cameras used:

The HVX
The F23
and the Viper

Not sure where the HVX or Viper was used.

ChipG

01-31-2008, 04:31 PM

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tech...ects/8989.html (http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/8989.html)

Nathan Beaman

01-31-2008, 05:08 PM

If you check out this link on my blog it refers to an interview with the DP - which states that they used the HVX whenever possible and when the shot was not required for compositing.

idk how many of you have seen the F23 and Viper (the 2 other cams the used) but they are as easily whipped around. Granted the Viper is much smaller than the F23 --- but none as small as the HVX.

The film was horrible and sickening ---- IMHO

http://www.finalcutuser.com/2008/01/27/cloverfield/

ChipG

02-01-2008, 01:20 AM

Cloverfield was marketed it to the "Y" generation and made $$$$$$!!! It's a movie for the youtube generation. Hey, try selling them "On Golden Pond"...

PS Your quote:

Cloverfield

I have to say that Cloverfield is hands down one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. I won’t use the hyperbole of saying that its the worst, but it’s definitely down there.
The film is a classic example of excellent marketing that shares little or no information about the film, but just enough to encourage large ticket sales.
The film is dizzying, irritating and unbearable. I had a migraine halfway through. Handheld action taken way to far. No still frames or images to focus on, which help take attention from mid quality CG - tricking the viewer into potentially thinking that it looks better than it does.
Cloverfield is a rip off of the Blair Witch, but with Aliens. The Marketing ploy is the same, the structure is similar and even the ending and final shot of the film is the same as Blair Witch.
Now that I’ve finished bitching. The technical stuff. The film was shot with a the Viper, the F23 and the HVX. Director of Photography, Michael Bonvillian said that they would use the HVX whenever possible, when the shots weren’t needed for compositing. Makes sense as the other cameras are difficult to whip around like that.
This month’s ICG (http://www.cameraguild.com/) has an article on filming. The link is on the mainpage. I’d post direct, but the php is preventing it.

ChipG
Lets see you make a more profitable movie???? HELLO? Did you not get the article from WebMD about motion sickness for the age's of 25 and up???

I'd like to thank you for your post to keep the Cloverfield marketing going...

ChipG

02-01-2008, 01:42 AM

They got your $10 ($24 for me with a mini pizza, popcorn and a pepsi WTF?)

Why are people so angry about this?

The Industry is trending to handheld movies right now...Remember several years ago when they were all white washed and on tripods?

Call it creative or not but you will see more movies shot like that (but not as extreme). Seriously, I just sit back and watch BUT what movies can bring in 3x thier budget in the opening weekend? It is a business....