HVX look like 16mm ?

[Mouayed Zabtia]

Hi all, I just looking 4 some film look like setting on my HVX , I read in some where that there’s setting can make HVX look like 16mm ! is in Barrys book have that?

www.mouayed.com

[AlexD]

i think the hvx is actually too crisp of an image to emulate 16mm. 24p on minidv looks identical to 16mm in my opinion, especially after some color correction.

[wgzn]

i think this is better done in post production

[Mouayed Zabtia]

Thank all of you for repaly.

[TimurCivan]

i think the hvx is actually too crisp of an image to emulate 16mm. 24p on minidv looks identical to 16mm in my opinion, especially after some color correction.

16 is alot sharper than hvx200 footage. maybe you mean "student" 16mm footage...


;)

[scoemlek]

Take a look at this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=119863

[sbaileymediaman]

I heard that the dvx100b looked like 16mm film before I bought it a couple of years ago. I've come to realise that you could be shooting on a top of the range hdcam sr and get footage less like film then a dvx for example.

It all depends on the camera operator and the colorist/editor.

In terms of the hvx vs dvx which performs better, i know low light isn't good with hd but what about dynamic range? Same, better worse?

I'm interested at one point in the next couple of years (or when the I can afford it!) upgrading to hd for low-budget filmmaking and this to me seems the best camera in it's price range.

[Jacquot]

DVX=DVX
HVX=HVX
Sony F900=Sony F900
Fuji Eterna Vivid 160=Fuji Eterna Vivid 160
Kodak Vision 3 500T=Kodak Vision 3 500T
S16mm=S16mm
35mm=35mm
My blue socks=my blue socks
My cat=my cat

:huh:

[NeverColdCall]

Ahh but you forgot the OP's point:

HVX = $
Film = $$$$$

[scoemlek]

Jacquot you are right, but I think the goal is to get the closest look to Kodak Vision 3 500T or Fuji Eterna Vivid 160.
Or why should spend manufacturers functions like Cinemode or something like that? I bougth myy HVX because of this, otherwise I could also buy a Sony or Canon.

//Cheers

[Erik Olson]

From a technical specification, 1280x720 is very close to the relative resolution of Super16mm negative film. IEEE publishes the 100 l/p mm specification, plus or minus 10 to 30 relative lines.

I think 30p most accurately mimics the cadence of 16mm film, though you're still off a couple of stops latitude-wise.

It isn't film.

e

[cardmaverick]

If your after a good digital version of 16mm, seriously consider a second hand Andromeda DVX100... My footage is typically confused for 16mm (when viewed in its highest quality, anything on the web can look like crap...).

[Jacquot]

If your after a good digital version of 16mm, seriously consider a second hand Andromeda DVX100... My footage is typically confused for 16mm (when viewed in its highest quality, anything on the web can look like crap...).

That's because the majority of people don't know the difference. But if you teach them the difference they can learn to see it. If you shoot film (and I mean lots of it), you will know the difference --and you will know the difference between stocks. Choice of stock is based on those differences.

Look everybody, film is film and video is video. And both are good. Neither is necessarily better than the other. But both are different.

And please, it's not just about resolution and shooting charts. It's about grain, tone range, organic artifacts vs digital ones, dimension, color gamut. Film has random grain (and I mean random) in each frame. Pixels are not random. Digital records in a completely different way. It's electronic and not photo chemical. A lot of people do photo chemical finishing because of the look (and not resolution) Film and video are just different products completely. And that's okay.

There's no sense in comparing between film and video. But there is sense in comparing between digital devices, compression algorithms, and work flows. And if you want to use the "look of film" as your baseline, then fine. But film and video are different animals. And they always will be different. They have to be since they are totally different processes.

[cardmaverick]

I never said film and video were the same, I'm simply saying that if you want a look that is similar (not necessarily spot on) to 16mm, but you have to shoot digitally, then Andromeda would be a good choice.

Simple as that.

I know they are different processes, thats obvious. As for tonal range, Andromeda is pretty nice, 9.5 stops. As for compression artifacts, they just don't exist, its RAW and uncompressed.

As for replicating the look of film digitally, yes, it can be done. Is it easy? Hell no, and most people don't have the required tools (think Dalsa Origin for exampe), resources ($$$), and TALENT (insert name here, ASC) to really do it. But I firmly believe it can be done, you just don't see it very often...

As for the HVX200 looking like film... Nope. It just doesn't cut it. You need a better camera, better signal processing, better lens....etc.

[reel film]

i'm gonna have to disagree that the hvx dont look like film, audiences members of my project which had its blacks crushed a little and a bluish mood was given to it believed it was a high end film shoot! and i was barely trying either.

its not just the tools, and so many times its said. its the user too

[Barry_Green]

In the right hands, using the right techniques, the HVX can make footage that would look exactly as if it had originated on film.

[Jacquot]

In the right hands, using the right techniques, the HVX can make footage that would look exactly as if it had originated on film.

Exactly? With a film finished photo-chemically (cut and glue; no telecine) and projected? Don't believe so, Mr. Fields. :D

Film is film video is video. Why can't it ever be left at that? They are different, that's all. Not better or worse, just different. Why do videographers keep getting their knickers knotted up over this quasi "film-look?" And with such extra effort and expense. You're shooting video not film. We all got used to MP3 audio files and we'll get used to video. Paradigms do shift. I'm happy looking at good video, too.

I guess I'm dense. But the last time I saw a film load it sure looked different than a P2 card. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Just because a guy in China can make a pair of shoes look like a pair of French Mephistos doesn't make them Mephisto shoes. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[Barry_Green]

Nobody said that it'd be the original. I only said that it'd be indistinguishable. :thumbsup:

(of course, this also depends on factors such as how the footage is presented, etc...)

[Jacquot]

In the right hands, using the right techniques, the HVX can make footage that would look exactly as if it had originated on film.

The "as if" part is the clincher. "It was as if he were Superman and he jumped over the bridge." :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The HVX makes great video, absolutely no question about it. And in some very careful circumstances may produce video "as if it had" originated on film. But it didn't.

I guess that's my (redundant and now getting pretty tedious) point. Let's maybe drop this constant comparison and instead say "wow, that's fantastic video" or "wow, that's fantastic film." In the end, it makes video always seem like it's in the shadow of a bigger brother who, in reality, doesn't exist.

[Postmaster]

Have you ever tried vice versa?

If you play a tape or a DVD of a 35mm film a bit faster (and I live in a PAL country - so let´s say 35 instead of the 25 frames per second) all the 35mm magic is gone and it looks exactly like shot on a cheap homevideo camera.

That always puzzeled me. I mean the light, setup, lens, DOF, grading and all we try to do to get that film look is still the same.

So the motion seems to make a big difference. And belive me, shooting video in 25p doesn`t cut it. Thou it`s damn close to 24 it still looks like video.

I´m thinking about that since years but never came up with a solution.
I shot in 24p - still looks video, I shot in 30p played back at different framerates on the timeline - closer but still video. I think it´s a combination of shutterspeed, framerate and DOF (letting alone latitude wich can not be replicated as long you have no Adromeda or something like that). Resolution means nothing in that case (as long as you don`t want to blow it up un a cinema screen) - that´s the only thing I learned.

Frank

[KMR]

I guess that's my (redundant and now getting pretty tedious) point. Let's maybe drop this constant comparison and instead say "wow, that's fantastic video" or "wow, that's fantastic film." In the end, it makes video always seem like it's in the shadow of a bigger brother who, in reality, doesn't exist.

Jacquot, I'm not sure you're really getting the point of the people aiming for a "film look". Speaking for myself, I love the typical "look" of film. And I loathe the typical "look" of video, when it is used in narrative works. In my perception, film most definitely is the "bigger brother" in whose shadow video lives. But film is more expensive and more difficult to work with, and that is the reason for being overjoyed when the HVX (or another camera) is able to produce images that come very close (and sometimes very, very close) to emulating the look of film. Yes, it's video, but it's video that looks a heckuva lot like film. And if that's what an artist is striving for, within his or her means, THAT is the point.

[Jacquot]

Jacquot, I'm not sure you're really getting the point of the people aiming for a "film look". Speaking for myself, I love the typical "look" of film. And I loathe the typical "look" of video, when it is used in narrative works. In my perception, film most definitely is the "bigger brother" in whose shadow video lives. But film is more expensive and more difficult to work with, and that is the reason for being overjoyed when the HVX (or another camera) is able to produce images that come very close (and sometimes very, very close) to emulating the look of film. Yes, it's video, but it's video that looks a heckuva lot like film. And if that's what an artist is striving for, within his or her means, THAT is the point.

I do get the point. I really don't mean to belabor this issue, sorry. And I'm just being abstract, but film is film and video is video. The HVX is a very good video camera for the price. But film is still film, that's all. And video is video, that's all. Two ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT mediums. Painting is painting, yes, but acrylic is acrylic, and oil is oil. Oil is more expense and more difficult to use than acrylic. Acrylic has more "contrast" and a different gamut than oil. The pigments in oil are so varied. Yes, it's all "painting" but different media.

If an "artist" is striving for film than they should use film. Oil painters are oil painters and acrylic painters are acrylic painters, both making a painting but with different media (and that's not even bringing in the substrate to play.) Neither try to be one or the other, nor do users of acrylic view oil as an example of something to emulate.

Anyway enough of this diatribe of mine. I know it's getting boring. :-Dum(DBG): For the record, I used to own a HVX. Now I have a Canon HV20, a small Panasonic 3CCD, and an old Sony 950. I also have a Super 16mm camera and some prime lenses. They're all wonderful tools. And the products that they produce are different. And that's what's great about them.

(If one has never used film, then there's quite a bit more to it than resolution, which seems to be the **big thing** in everyone's mind. There's the ergonomics of a balanced shoulder mount camera, the slow and calculated way of working, the purr (hopefully :happy:) of the motor and film running thru the mag, the film stocks to choose from and to manipulate, the grain, the threading of the mag, the tactile feel of the camera, etc.. And then there's the super convenience, inexpensive, easily acquired cameras and cost savings of video which makes it so very, very desirable. Although, as you know, high-end video production can be as expensive as film production.)

Okay, I'll shut up now....:smile:

[Barry_Green]

Yes, oil is oil and acrylic is acrylic. But if the basic paint set for oils cost $1,000 and the basic paint set for acrylics cost $8, you can bet that there'd be lots of aspiring painters asking how to get their acrylics to look like oil. :thumbsup:

Point is, people who could afford film and want the film look should shoot film. People who can't afford film, and want the film look, are going to try other ways to get it. And it's not impossible, the HVX can be made to look extremely filmlike, so there's nothing wrong with the discussion.

[Jacquot]

[QUOTE=Barry_Green;1161413]Yes, oil is oil and acrylic is acrylic. But if the basic paint set for oils cost $1,000 and the basic paint set for acrylics cost $8, you can bet that there'd be lots of aspiring painters asking how to get their acrylics to look like oil. :thumbsup:


Actually Barry, that is the case. A 45 ml tube of Lascaux cadmium red acrylic is 11.97USD while a 35 ml tube of Schminke Mussini cadmium red oil is 35.96USD.

(I got my MFA in photo/film and also painted while in school ...:happy:)

Oil paint gives depth of color and richness that is unsurpassed by any other medium but is inherently more difficult to work with... and expensive. But the majority of painters using acrylic know the medium and aren't trying to emulate something else (i.e., oil) They use acrylic not because they are wanting to use oil but can't afford it nor have the patience for it, but they use acrylic because of its own inherent qualities (gamut, etc..)

An interesting analogy perhaps (?).....

But look, of course I realize that if one is doing commercial work and/or needs to work under tight budgetary constraints, that video makes all the sense in the world. Or simply wants to do a lot of work instead of only one or two short films a year becasue of costs. But why always this comparing video to film? I just feel it's unnecessary. The original OP's question was "HVX look like 16mm film."

Who knows, someday in the future, as film fades from the horizon, we might be saying "Eeww, that looks just like film. It looks like cr*p compared to HD video." :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

[Barry_Green]

Because an overwhelming percentage of users want to make something that looks like a movie. Video doesn't. They can't afford film, so they're looking for the solution. It's simple, really. :)

[ProfessorU]

Sensor size shold be a concern unless you're using a 35mm adapter.
16mm film is almost exactly the same diagonal as a 1/2" sesor.
Super 16mm gives you a little more diagonal but less than 2/3".
I've been told quite a lot that the footage I shoot on the HVX looks like 16mm, but I'm always shooting with a wide open aperture.

[Alex.Mitchell]

Sensor size shold be a concern unless you're using a 35mm adapter.
16mm film is almost exactly the same diagonal as a 1/2" sesor.
Super 16mm gives you a little more diagonal but less than 2/3".
I've been told quite a lot that the footage I shoot on the HVX looks like 16mm, but I'm always shooting with a wide open aperture.

No, actually. A 1/2" sensor is only slightly larger than Super8. the Super16 frame is also larger than a 2/3" sensor.

[ProfessorU]

My bad on the math. I forgot that 2/3 is not 2/3. :P
http://books.google.com/books?id=18Ck5PZX_ZsC&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=16mm+film+diagonal&source=web&ots=uKOtsL0136&sig=kxulskp1oyUraYEJ3Y7_s8C4OPM

[aleyland]

Have you ever tried vice versa?

If you play a tape or a DVD of a 35mm film a bit faster (and I live in a PAL country - so let´s say 35 instead of the 25 frames per second) all the 35mm magic is gone and it looks exactly like shot on a cheap homevideo camera.

Frank

I know what you mean,
I've watched snowboard footage that was shot on 16mm at like 48 fps (probably telecined at 25fps) and sped up(in post), and as soon as it's sped up it loses the motion rendering that makes film look like film.... but instead it looked like a vx1000, minus dof and dynamic range.

[New_Zealand]

Ran across this old form and thought I would put my two cent in. I shot with the HVX200a using the Redrock gear and Nikon Lens. I have had two friends that have had block buster films released and they thought what I did look like film so I now ask the question to my fellow dvxuser group does this look like film or video? As Barry said in the past, the camera (HVX) in the right hands make a huge differences.

Here are two clips from 'Night Forest' and one clip from ‘Prologue’ The clip from prologue is the last clip.

Oh one more thing - this is just raw footage from the camera with no color correction, or real editing. I threw in some music just to give it a nice feel. We haven't started the major editing.

http://coolpeoplestudio.com/films/sneaking%20up.mp4

http://coolpeoplestudio.com/films/don't%20worry.mp4

http://coolpeoplestudio.com/films/different.mp4

[New_Zealand]

Keep in mind this is just web footage - the real footage looks much better and this isn't in full ress.

[siraj]

nice new zealand.

[New_Zealand]

Thanks Siraj