My desperate last minute plea

[Shaw]

For those of us who like to use nearly inaccesable locations in nature the lighter weight becomes a BIG deal!

 

[sojrn]

Of course the footage is really what matters.

 

[pkendall]

stick one of those cinematographer's chamois eye pieces on it and a nice audio technical shot mic on it and it looks pretty rad. in real life it looks pretty dope. you have to own one to appreciate it.

they even curved the support rod underneath the handle so that your hands slide on it easier.

 

[jpsheets]

Yeah, if the camera looked cooler my films would be much better. Isn't that how it works?

 

[Joe Walker]

I've never had a client judge me or my work by what camera I used. I'm on my umpteenth paying gig with my DVX and have yet to have anyone question the validity of the camera. Everytime I show a client my demo reel, I'm never asked what camera I used. I mostly get asked HOW I shot certain scenes, not what I used. Evinsky is right, having a smaller and lighter camera does shore up the costs of dollies, jibs, steadicams, etc. Judging you and you're work by the look of your camera is like judging an artist who chooses a pencil over a paintbrush.

 

[booth]

I think the question is more how paying clients perceive you with the camera. A small camera can make them feel short-changed.

For indie film, the same applies to cast and crew who may have no evidence of your skills and a small camera may make things look like amateur night.

Most of my clients have insisted I use a small camera so it doesn't intrude on the events and end up taking centre stage rather than the stuff going on at the events I cover.

For Indie film ~ in my experience the actors couldn't care less. What they do care about is seeing how their performance and appearance looks on the monitor. It's a strange thing, I expected actors to be more critical of the image too, but I've not met one yet even though our indie movie Bad Lad is made to look grainy and rough as hell. Perhaps 'marquee value' actors are different?

If you light and rig things properly and have the right people doing key jobs, it doesn't matter whether you're using pixel-vision, it's still going to look 'professional' (though not on-screen of course).

 

[R Gale]

size sometimes matters

size sometimes matters

Perhaps 'marquee value' actors are different?

They can be. I'm talking about well-known actors. Their careers live and die by the quality of films they do, so the sight of a small "DV" looking camera can make some of them feel insecure. (e.g. Keifer Sutherland)
This of course can be mitigated by pimping your HVX with matte box, rods, follow focus, 35mm adapter, external monitor...
suddenly you have a pro-looking rig of twice the length! rogar-Evil(DBG):

And more than double the weight!!!

 

[booth]

But what about the use of noddy-cams in such films as 28 days later? Full Frontal? Pieces of April? rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The talent dealt with them okay.

 

[R Gale]

But what about the use of noddy-cams in such films as 28 days later? Full Frontal? Pieces of April? rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The talent dealt with them okay.

Yes, but 28 Days Later was no micro-budget indie. Several XL1S's pimped out in the extreme, follow focus, HD cinema lenses, matte box, etc., not to mention Danny Boyle's top notch crew... That was a very impressive shoot.

The camera in Full Frontal was VERY impressive, because Steven Soderbergh was holding it.

Same with Pieces of April, that was produced by the InDigEnt team, who had already established a track record with the Sundance hit Tadpole, shot the same way.

The talent behind the camera, if well-known, helps alleviate any fears of a less-than-professional shoot.

 

[booth]

Yes, but 28 Days Later was no micro-budget indie. Several XL1S's pimped out in the extreme, follow focus, HD cinema lenses, matte box, etc., not to mention Danny Boyle's top notch crew... That was a very impressive shoot.

I know what you're saying, but let's face it a micro-budget indie isn't often going to attract the Keifer Sutherlands anyway is it - unless you are Steven Soderbergh, or have sufficient background to attract them.

And I think you're wrong about 28 Days Later with regards to the HD Cinema lenses. I was told it was shot with the stock lense by someone who worked at the post company it was edited at. And that was later reiterated on a DV forum by one of the post guys (either here or DVinfo.net I think). The only change was in the final scenes which were shot with 35mm. From what I heard they weren't 'that' pimped out because Danny Boyle wanted to see if he could get away with using something that anyone could get hold of.

That said, I suppose 28 Days Later didn't have a superstar cast at the time. Brendan Gleason and Chris Eccleston were the most famous in that pack, and I hear those two - especially Christopher Eccleston because he went to the same Uni I did so I know a few people who know him - don't have many airs and graces and probably couldn't give a monkey what it was shot on. The rest, Cillian Murphy (etc) at the time, weren't that well known.

But if I did attract a big star to my film, I'd just spin the HD monitor around and let them see what kind of image quality we're getting. I'm sure they'd be happy with the HVX image composed with a good DP, it looks very nice indeed.

 

[R Gale]

You're right Booth, this is a VERY rare instance we're talking about, in which a "name" or well-known actor is working on a low-budget shoot with an HVX. But with the quality of this camera being what it is, the possibility does exist.

...as for 28 Days Later, it was a massive production. They used up to 8 XL1's at a time, and in some cases lit with 18K HMI's. There was nothing small about it.
Dod Mantle replaced the stock lenses with the higher-resolving Canon EC (640mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses, attached with Optex adapters.

Check out this article in American Cinematographer, a really good interview with Anthony Dod Mantle, the D.P. of 28 days later.

Yes I agree, show your talent the image on the HD monitor. Problem solved!

 

[booth]

I stand corrected Mr Gale. It's amazing how things are spun to make the achievement much greater! Wish I'd have read that article before release as I was wrongly told that they were using the stock lense. And in the documentary about the making of 28DL you can see quite clearly that the stock lense is still on the front of the XL1 in quite a few instances, so had no reason to disbelieve what I'd been told.

Sneaky 'lets make this seem even more of an achievement than it is' sneaky! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Makes me realise how important it is to get the Red Rock M2 though

Thanks for the linky.

 

[R Gale]

Sneaky 'lets make this seem even more of an achievement than it is' sneaky! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Makes me realise how important it is to get the Red Rock M2 though

Yeah, it's a good way to hype a film. You gotta have some kind of angle...
I'm planning to get the M2 also. (I'm on the list for G35, but it's taking too long...)

cheers
Richard

---sorry for veering so off-topic!

 

[darwinandpaine]

Sorry for bringing this thread back to the topic, but...
I wasn't impressed with the look of the HVX at first either. And I must admit, that JVC is one sexy beast. However, having used the HVX now for five days, I have to tell you that this thing gets sexier every day.
Twenty years ago, I dated a girl who was not that attractive. However, I soon found out that she had other talents that I valued highly (hint, hint, nudge, nudge, say no more...). And it amazed me how much my perception of her physical attractiveness changed for me once I discovered these other talents. That's the same experience I'm having with the HVX. Get one and use it. It will blow you away (no pun intended).
And remember; beauty is only skin deep. DVCProHD and variable frame rates are to the bone!

 

[jazzx]

Nicely put Mr. darwinandpaine

say no more!