Super 16 vs HD...... Opinions HEHEHE I know you want to!!!

[Martini Yernazty]

Hello MY DVX Family
I'm researching both formats....
I shot with both, love both, but I love the mechanical feel of Super 16.... my crew for some reason takes it more seriously, but ( like always we have one ) I been developing a technique on digital based on the film technique named Cross Process... I did on the DVX... and gentleman people ask me with what stock did you shoot, it was a pretty nice feeling
My dilemma is I can Just get My Super 16 cam or get the HD cam that will be outdated in a couple of years
Plus the looks that I can achieve with both are great , but in this dubious night I ask You
what do you prefer


Best

Martín Yernazian

[donatello]

prefer super 16 ... and waiting for www.RED.com

[Bionicpix]

HD,24p, DVX, etc. is exciting cuz it's accessible. We can shoot it, edit it and TRY to make it look like film with great results. But if you have the $$ and ability, Super 16 still looks waaay better (just worked on some nighttime stuff for Studio 60 with the AAton A-Minima - lush).

[Martini Yernazty]

HD,24p, DVX, etc. is exciting cuz it's accessible. We can shoot it, edit it and TRY to make it look like film with great results. But if you have the $$ and ability, Super 16 still looks waaay better (just worked on some nighttime stuff for Studio 60 with the AAton A-Minima - lush).

Who did you like it ?
the told me the A minima is a great cam ....
I'm getting soon an Eclair NPR Super 16.... with awhole bunch of toys
.... will see what will happend

[Ralph Oshiro]

The A Minima looks awesome (I only played with one "dry" but never shot with one). It's nice because it's so small. You can put it almost anywhere you could put a large prosumer camera. I was thinking of buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used ones a while back. I can't remember the price, but it was way less than new, and A Minimas are hard to find on the used market. You have to use those special reverse-load film reels, and they only come in a few film stocks. How much are you paying for your Eclair package?

[Martini Yernazty]

The A Minima looks awesome (I only played with one "dry" but never shot with one). It's nice because it's so small. You can put it almost anywhere you could put a large prosumer camera. I was thinking of buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used ones a while back. I can't remember the price, but it was way less than new, and A Minimas are hard to find on the used market. You have to use those special reverse-load film reels, and they only come in a few film stocks. How much are you paying for your Eclair package?

The package is 6500
and it comes with all this :

1 Lens Angenieux 12-240mm 1 $2000
2 Lens 5.9mm #06433-7075-121001 w/ gears for uw use + 85 and UR pro filters, C-mount. 1 $1600
3 S-16mm Eclair camera #10162 w/ Alcan motor. 1 $6500
4 Kinoptic viewfinders w/eye piece (one is orientable) 2 $1400
5 Eclair film magazines 2
6 Lens mounts C or Eclair or Nikon, all fit super16 or 16mm. 3
7 Underwater Film Camera Housing 1 Kit $10,000
8 Lens dome port for 5.9mm, 9mm, 5.7mm replacement glass coated acrylic domes. 2 $400
9 Flat ports for 9.5-57mm, 15-150mm, 5.9mm, 55mm Nikor. 4
10 Gears and index rings for each lens. 1 Box
11 Spare Parts Kit
12 Sekonic Light meter No901950 1 $350

I mean the value is great ... for all this stuff... is in perfect condition, is beign in maintence constantly( nothing is broken but the owner has in great condition)

[HDCinema25]

I personally prefer film, so super 16 would be the way to go with me.

Kev

[Martini Yernazty]

I personally prefer film, so super 16 would be the way to go with me.

Kev

Thanks Kev....I'm personally open for everything but right know Film is still the winner...
but I still shoot digital...

[DavidBeier]

I'd rather go with HD. I've shot 16 but I feel more comfortible with HD and the flexibility it offers. I vastly prefer a digital workflow. I've also seen enough footage to know that, even though Super 16mm basically blows the hell out of HD if all things are equal, the multiple generations and digital intermediats pretty much give up that advantage (look at the report about good 35mm only offer around 700 lines of resolution on average when projected in theaters). Also, with the 4:2:2 color sampling of the HVX, I find the image can look just as nice. I've seen tests and the HVX200 looks like pretty nice Super 16mm. All I know who have seen it on film outs say the same thing.

So, HD being cheaper (yes it matters), more flexible, and easier to work with makes me wanna use it. I also love the fact that I can see what I'm getting with digital rather than hoping it'll come out well after processing.

That said, Super 16mm certainly has its advantages. Yes it looks and feels more professional. More importantly, you'll get a good 11 stops of lattitude out of it compared to the 8.5 max you'll get from an HVX.

Still, for me the pros of HD outweigh the cons.

[Sarmoti]

Depends on the project, we shoot both. We don't produce for theatrical release so I've never gone from HD to film with the exeption of a few short tests. We now post everything at either 1080P or 1080i, I personally find shooting on film a more enjoyable process. I also for the most part prefer a well telecined negative over digitally adquired material when in post.