PDA

View Full Version : HVX or 16mm?



will_griffith
06-02-2006, 10:20 AM
What say ye?

Right Click and Download (http://www.biblebaptistkpt.com/griffithw/fx1UC.mov)

Quicktime H.264

Justyn
06-02-2006, 10:42 AM
hmmmmm... First off... I'd say it's sweet nice looking footage. I'd go for HVX on that one. Darn hard to justify the expense of 16mm IMHO.


thanks for sharing... I think it's HD.

LighthouseMedia
06-02-2006, 11:01 AM
Very nice but i would also vote HVX but well done was this CCed or achieved in camera?

will_griffith
06-02-2006, 11:14 AM
CCed or achieved in camera?

Color Finesse

Why do you think HVX?

LighthouseMedia
06-02-2006, 11:19 AM
My reasoning would be the latitude of exposure in the shot on the chip chart behind the subject. But hey I could be wrong LOL. Nevertheless the color correction is top notch.

MojoTrancer
06-02-2006, 11:53 AM
I'll say 16mm just to be a different. Although if it is 16mm, what would be the purpose of posting this in the first place? Don't we have enough film vs. video threads?

But whatever it was shot with, it looks good.

Sproketz
06-02-2006, 12:02 PM
What's your point? Others have shown that the HVX can look very close to 16mm in overall appearance but 16mm is going to give you a more detailed image.

The real choice? Use the HVX for a very nice picture at signifcantly less cost, or go with 16mm for a sharper "HD" image and pay for the film/processing/transfer, etc.

will_griffith
06-02-2006, 12:03 PM
Don't we have enough film vs. video threads?

Yes we have enough of those.

This isn't a film versus video thread...
even though film is much better than
video (35mm anyway) IMO.

-will

zoostory
06-02-2006, 12:03 PM
Its not 16. I've shot a lot of 16 lately, and this has none of the grain structure of the contemporary stocks. As well as the limited lattitude, and, it's too clean. Even with the cleanest neg development and telecine, there'de be some black and white dirt. Not to mention minor jitter and gate weave.

Lens depth of field could be another hint. When you zoom out, there are a couple of frames of that BG chart that do not correspond with the circle of confusion pattern of 16mm. The Depth of field is a little more video-e. :)

Also, in telecine, odds are they would go to 29.97 then you'de rev pulldown to 24 in post, not 23.98. Depends on your sound workflow, I guess.

Either way, most of these are bad thing you don't want. Joe Audience isn't going to care. Looks great! Only thing I like about 16mm is that you can shoot at ASA500 and handle highlites more!

Sproketz
06-02-2006, 12:09 PM
It's also not realistic to make a judgement from a squashed-down-for-the-web clip. The real test is to see the images on a full screen HD monitor or projected in a theater, whichever is the final destination for the material.

will_griffith
06-02-2006, 12:09 PM
Zoostory...You cheated and looked at the quicktime info!
I assumed someone would figure out by the 23.98 vs 24.

Oh ya... it's not an HVX either. It's a FX1. :)

Now I better start running before an angry mob is formed.

-will

Barry_Green
06-02-2006, 12:16 PM
I would say FX1... just because that's what the clip is named...

Barry_Green
06-02-2006, 12:16 PM
Oops, you beat me to it.

will_griffith
06-02-2006, 12:21 PM
I should have known you can't get anything by Barry.

Man...that still took a long time. :)

-will

will_griffith
06-02-2006, 12:24 PM
just to be fair...

It was a FX1 strapped to a G5 w/Kona LH capturing analog component HD
to....DVCPROHD!!

We conformed to 23.98 and did a little CC.

But I guess you could save yourself a lot of time and money and just
buy a HVX, but what's the fun in that?? :)

-will

Aaron Marshall
06-02-2006, 12:25 PM
Yes we have enough of those.

This isn't a film versus video thread...
even though film is much better than
video (35mm anyway) IMO.


16mm too

J.R. Hudson
06-02-2006, 12:26 PM
Why are you trying to pass an FX1 for 16mm or even an HVX and at who's expense ? Don't be mad cause you bought an FX1 instead of the HVX.