I kind of miss my HVX

[QuickHitRecord]

A couple of quick shots this morning with my $150 XH-A1, recording onto an Atomos.



Haven't really dialed anything in yet but I like the look.

[NorBro]

When cameras had character!

[QuickHitRecord]

Stumbled across this one:

https://youtu.be/5ncJiNTpGtY

Shot by Nancy Schreiber, ASC with a pair of DVX100s. It won Excellence in Cinematography Award at Sundance that year (2004).

[Mike Krumlauf]

Stumbled across this one:

https://youtu.be/5ncJiNTpGtY

Shot by Nancy Schreiber, ASC with a pair of DVX100s. It won Excellence in Cinematography Award at Sundance that year (2004).

I own the DVD of this. Saw it opening day in Chicago in 2005 on a 35mm print. The print looked like crap, was very very dark but the DVD looked amazing. I owned a DVX100A at the time so it was a very inspirational film for me to see what good lighting could give you with such a low res camera.

I know they mastered the film in 1080p so it would be interested to see it at that resolution. Im sure it would look far better than the HD master of 28 days later... the blu ray is just horrible, but, thats what you get when you put XL1 footage on blu ray lol

[James0b57]

I own the DVD of this. Saw it opening day in Chicago in 2005 on a 35mm print. The print looked like crap, was very very dark but the DVD looked amazing. I owned a DVX100A at the time so it was a very inspirational film for me to see what good lighting could give you with such a low res camera.

I know they mastered the film in 1080p so it would be interested to see it at that resolution. Im sure it would look far better than the HD master of 28 days later... the blu ray is just horrible, but, thats what you get when you put XL1 footage on blu ray lol

Ha, yeah, 28days looked good at the time everything was SD. “Couldn’t even tell it was video” back in VHS days. While they could have shot that film on anything, i believe the camera allowed them to be a little less precious. Maybe they always were that way, and likely the camera choice was more their willingness to free themselves of some restrictions, while simultaneously putting more money into other areas of the budget. Zombie flicks were all pretty low budget up till then. No? In any case the spirt of their camera work is still fantastic.

Nancy Schreiber has a strong lighting background. Got to work with her before, and she is a force.

[Mike Krumlauf]

Ha, yeah, 28days looked good at the time everything was SD. “Couldn’t even tell it was video” back in VHS days. While they could have shot that film on anything, i believe the camera allowed them to be a little less precious. Maybe they always were that way, and likely the camera choice was more their willingness to free themselves of some restrictions, while simultaneously putting more money into other areas of the budget. Zombie flicks were all pretty low budget up till then. No? In any case the spirt of their camera work is still fantastic.

Nancy Schreiber has a strong lighting background. Got to work with her before, and she is a force.

Yeah, I remember seeing 28 days later in the theater as well. 35mm Print, it was very contrasty but not as dark as November looked. I believe those were the only films shot on Mini DV I saw a film print of. Lots of PAL interlaced films like those of early InDigEnt had their film prints used as their DVD master like Personal Velocity and Tadpole which added an interested look to them. Digital really had a very unique personality back then.

On the HD side, i remember seeing Collateral the day it opened (which was my 14th birthday) and at that time I had no idea it was a digital film.. it was not until after seeing the movie I read it was shot on the Viper and F900. Still think to this day its Michael Mann's best looking digital picture.

[MDKfilms]

My old rig. Still going. Love the nostalgia threads. Gotta hand it to those Panny techs.

[MDKfilms]

Man oh man. That was a fun shoot. Circa 2009. A couple of 1.2 Arri Pars to balance the indoor outdoor light. The footage looked really good.

[juanlien]

I revisited an HVX200 early this year briefly and it brought me right back to 2006 when DV tapes were still king, tapeless was just slowly beginning to make its way into the market and cameras like the HVX and Sony Z1 were disrupting the DV filmmaking SD game. I will always have a love and appreciation for the 3 CCD SD and HD line of cameras. Hell, im still using one (Sony F900/3). CCD cameras have always to me produced a better image overall with cameras like the F900 and Varicam H having almost alexa like skin tone.. lets not forget the loved F35.. that camera to me still is the most cinematic digital camera alive. There are negatives in any form of tech no there is no reason to complain about the ones we all saw with DV tapes and so on. I really think the companies made a poor move with CMOS.. i understand the reason to a degree but I will never in my mind believe a CMOS image is as good or as natural looking as a CCD image. I know im probably in a minority group with that mindset but so be it. The HVX200 IS a beautiful camera, capable of beautiful images in the right hands.

nice