HVX or FILM?

abalex

abalex

Well-known member
Maybe someone already asked about this but what the heck here I am!
Where am I going to be spending more, to finally have my movie onto a 35mm print?

1- shooting super 16 and then do the blow up to 35mm? (what's the entire process for this option?)

2- shooting with the HVX at 24p and then transfer to 35mm. Almost 30 grand for the transfer to 35mm(350$ per min), according to www.dvfilm.com. Am I going to get the film quality i wanted form the begining as if the movie was shot originally on film?

thanks for you help!
g.
 
Last edited:
Are you just talking about the cost of the final transfer, shooting costs, what? Are you talking about buying an HVX/P2, renting, etc...? Are you going to be editing the HVX stuff yourself on equipment you already own, would you have to buy computers, monitors, hard drives, etc... Or are all of these problems going to be solved by rentals (with either s16 or HVX)? Right now, the question is too vague (IMHO).
 
I have my own editing equipment and I'm planning on editing the movie myself either on film(after the telecine) or HVX. I just want to know if is really worth shooting my movie on film or on HVX. Where am I going to be spending more money.

thanks
g.
 
Well, first thing to factor in is: are you definitely going to be getting a 35mm print? Because if you are, just may be better off to just shoot 35mm in the first place (depending on your ratio).

Short of that, it depends on your shooting ratio, for one thing. Secondly, you'll have to check with your lab for a cost on blowups, it's been a while but I'd guess a 35mm blowup from 16mm will be in the range of $1 to $1.50 per foot, so on a 90-minute film the blowup alone will cost around $10k to $15k. So factor in your 16mm stock, processing, transfer, then EDL/negative conform and release print, and then having to blow that release print up to 35mm, it'll probably all told cost quite a bit more than HVX origination/35mm transfer.

Not saying that they'd be directly equivalent, of course, but you'd definitely want to run some tests to see if S16 origination is going to be giving you enough extra to justify the costs involved.
 
Does anyone know of a place where i can get good price on a transfer from digital to film? DVFILM.com charges 350 a min(for 35mm) . This includes complete print and sound.

thanks guys!
g.
 
With 2k projection already in most festivals and a few theaters, and the rest following soon, why is a 35mm print so important? Your indie film is many times more likely to be projected digitally in the current environment. And if your film is the next Clerks or Pi or Big Fat Geek Wedding then you'll be damn sure the studio will be glad to shell out $35K for release prints.

Just my opinion.
 
I have used these guys before.

http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/

I'm not sure on how the price compares but there service is priceless. They have you talking with there engineers before you shoot a thing. And check on you all through the process. Then they work with you on color, sound, effects everything. Good group of guys. You should give them a call and get a quote.

I do agree with Evin, if you are going to festival I would just keep it digital. There is no point going to film out for festivals anymore. Allot of the time if a studio buys the film they want to add and change stuff anyway so they are going to pay for a new print anyway. Just keep it digital and save your self the head ake.
 
why do film if with the HVX you can see all your footage instantly and have it all loaded in ready to edit... I mean, I love film (and the difference in looks is a matter of huge debate) but HD has it's usefulness for indy filmmakers.
 
Last edited:
pkendall said:
why do film if with the HVX you can see all your footage instantly and have it all loaded in ready to edit... I mean, I love film but HD has it's usefulness for indy filmmakers.
Click to expand...

because film looks better, has more latitude, blah blah blah. it's just better looking.
 
Movies is about writing "insconscient" feeling into the brain of the people. They will remember a nice slow dolly-in with a music, a crane shoot in your intro, a steady-cam shoot that following your subject for 10 minutes of run, etc...

If youre ready to shoot tomorow, shoot HDV and get the "hype" to be the first features shoot with the HVX. But plan your shoot in advance: will the movie shoot a lot hand-held in a agressive way ? Shoot film and you will catch everythings light's showing you without "blasting" or have to change the iris all the time. I thinks its all depend who will surround you as a team (its very important btw). If your DoP did magik in the past with DV, get him and shoot HVX. if he is more comfortable with film, shoot in 16mm. How many night shoot do you have ? Need heavy lighting package ? do you need to "steal" shoot in the streets with your camera ? etc...

If you're a independant (i guess). Shoot with HDV, take the extra money for camera movement, edit-it on computer, send DVD to festival ! And trust me, on every chain of this industry, people want to make money from your "dream to make afilm"... so you will pay 50-75$ just to be seeing by a panel of people who will decide if they want to program your film into their festival. By my experience, thoses peoples are "film expert" and are very sensitive to "cinematic language". If youre accept, output in HD and voilà ! If people want your film in their "very famous" fest., find money and do a filmprint if you want... (if its good, people will want to help you for a film print)

If you compare cinema to litterature... DV was writing by hand, HDV is writing on type-writer and film is a laser print. Everytime that you read somethings thats missspell (like my post :-), your brain dont understand and stop the "reading-flow" and he lose the pleasure of reading !
 
Last edited:
I had this exact conversation with another DOP friend of mine today. He's lensed a few films on the F900 but just recently shot an S16 project. He was in telecine and was remarking on how much he liked the film. I told him I'd never recomend shooting S16 over HD. 35mm maybe but even that is a question with the Viper and F950 to be had for the same price. I understand the romance of film but I've become spoiled by the immediacy of HD. The creative possibilities are right there at your fingertips, and you never have to wait 24 hours to see if worked. I'll give up a few stops of lattitude for that. But then again I was fooling people into thinking my DVX spots were 35mm.
 
abalex said:
Where am I going to be spending more, to finally have my movie onto a 35mm print?
Click to expand...

If you really have the money in advance to go out with 35mm filmprint but not the money to shoot on film? Shoot it with a camera like the F900 or other cinema-cam (Viper filmstream). Oh well, you probably know al this stuff.

But try to discuss the possibilities to send a digital out, digital projection. I was one of the thirst in the Netherlands to do so, shoot on S16mm film -scan and edit- distributed it in the cinema with digital projection... It was not my real thing to do, but I couldn't get the money to re-cut on film, and the National broadcasters are happy with the video.
 
Last edited:
If I had to rent a HD camera and the footage had to easily integrate with my post-companies workflow I'd go with the Varicam. The only other contender would be the HDCam.

Viper, Genesis - anything over 2k infact would be useless because we can only deal with resolutions of 2k at the moment.

However, we're aquiring a HVX200 for economic reasons. We can shoot independent features with a fully paid-for HVX200 with Red Rock M2 far cheaper than renting a Varicam plus primes for the necessary weeks. And we get to keep the HVX200 for future shoots at no extra cost.

I wouldn't shoot on film personally. I'd like to but we can get a lot more of our budget on screen (for stunts, cgi etc) if we shoot digitally.
 
evinsky said:
I had this exact conversation with another DOP friend of mine today. He's lensed a few films on the F900 but just recently shot an S16 project. He was in telecine and was remarking on how much he liked the film. I told him I'd never recomend shooting S16 over HD.
Click to expand...

If I can make the choise today and shoot for cinema I would like to shoot S16mm and not HD. But there was a Kodak meeting here in Utopia cinema to show the new 16mm HD vision2.

Together with a ´blackbox Kodak scanner´we looked at a Barco 100 HD projector
to review the Kodak shoot and the HDcam Sony 900 mark III en de Panasonic Varicam. To be honest for digital projection: the Sony wins.
 
abalex said:
I have my own editing equipment and I'm planning on editing the movie myself either on film(after the telecine) or HVX. I just want to know if is really worth shooting my movie on film or on HVX. Where am I going to be spending more money.

thanks
g.
Click to expand...

That does not make any sense. You have your own editing equipment? Do you mean an NLE or a flatbed? If you did a telecine you would have a tape and you would want an HD tape probably HDCAM if you decide to shoot film. You will spend a lot more money shooting and editing on film. I think Spielberg still likes to edit with film. Lets see what you are really asking. If 35K is too much too transfer a video edited feature film then lets see what we are really talking about. Yes film would look better if: you had a good DP, lighting crew, etc. Remember shooting on film requires a totally separate audio department. I don't know your location but a good DP will run $600-$3000 per day. A good lighting crew with a truck will add another $2000-$3000 per day. And you will need to rent all the film gear - an SR3 package could be had for about $700 day
add more if you want different lenses. A good audio crew will cost about $1000 day. And the film stock is about $125 for a 10 min load. Processing is about the same cost per load and then a telecine to HD tape will cost $400-$800 per hour.
These are Basic costs - so per day shooting on film would be about -
$4500-$8000 per day, 20 days of shooting - $$90,000-$160,000
Your transfer would probably be about $10,000
So unless you have about a $250,000 budget just to shoot???
So editing is a whole nother ball of wax.

Or you buy the HVX for $5500, 2-8 gig cards.
A laptop and a big harddrive.
Total $10,000 add some mics for $1000
and now you get back to reality. Would I spend $35K to
transfer a DVCPRO HD production to 35MM film?
No, why?? You can play HD right from a computer or in the near
future HD-DVD, Blu-Ray. Many theatres around the country are equipped to project electronically.

I have shot 35MM, 16MM DP and operated. I did edit on film 25 years ago. Would I go back to film? Sure if I had $100 million in the bank and did not have to compete with everyone who wants to be a director today. I use the HVX and have been pumping P2 cards in and out as fast as I can! The stuff looks great for what it is. Most movie goers are looking for a great story. The technical aspects most not incumber what you are trying to say but Academy Award nominated "films" have been shot with the DVX. So get an HVX start learning HD and don't look back!
 
Last edited:
To help this dicussion - i am viewing a film out of hvx footage we shot as a test for our feature on 35mm tomorrow at postworks in NY - I will report back about the experience.
 
Well, first of all there is the cost situation.

First of all, lets assume your feature is short (90 minutes) and you get a really good deal on film. Even if you shoot really economically (5:1), the film alone will probably cost you about 4K. Even if you get a really good deal (and people can correct me on this since I haven't shot 16mm for 2 years and the prices may have changed) the developing and video transfer (so you can just edit at home and send them your EDL back) will probably cost you between 6-8k. You've got 10k just on the film. With that 10k (not talking about where you get your cameras, your lighting crew, ect), you could get a HDVX200, a cineporter drive to go with it, a good tripod, a decent boom mike, and a decent mini-steadycam.

Cost aside, it comes down to the the logistics of shooting.

Someone did a test where they compared 720 HVX200 footage to Super 16mm. I personally could see the differences (and in some cases the HVX200 actually looked better) but I'm guessing 99.9% of viewers couldn't.

The bottom line is that you can get the HVX200 to look near indistinguishible to film. You also get the following pros:

-the ability to light by eye and see what you're getting immediatly.
-easy digitization and digital manipulation.
-sound with video if you so chose.
-much more flexibility in shooting.
-lighter/cheaper cameras, tripods, steadycams, and jib arms all make life way easier.
-less light and less lighting equipment needed.
-instant scene access

All this means that I'd still rather shoot digital cost or not because of the flexibility makes the creative process so much more fluid. That's what really matters to me.

The only thing that really would make me consider film is the lattitude and this may be an issue for you. HD does a great job of reproducing the gamma curve, the percieved resolution (most film uses digital intermediaries anyway), and the color depth of film. However, the one thing you can't hide from is the lattitude. Film has WAY more lattitude that HD. You can simply record a MUCH greater range of light levels and this can really make a difference for some. It usually isn't a big deal for me since I like big dramatic lighting anyway with lots of contrast but it may matter to you.

Despite that, I think digital is still clearly the way to go for anyone but those who have Hollywood sized budgets and 35mm cameras. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that digital is going to be the future. There will probably come a time when digital will catch up to film in pretty much every respect or excede it if for no other reason that it's what everyone is excited about and is trying to push farther. Maybe it'll even take all the old hardcore film people retiring before digital can take over but it'll happen one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top