HVX or FILM?

[mmm]

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

I think most people are captureing to HDCAM SR from the Viper, Genesis and D-20. So it is 1920x1080 very mildly compressed.

I was talking to a few Arri techs the other day and they said it is currently the only way to use the camera. Apparently the camera is capable of 4K, but there is no viable capture solution at present.

 

[jeffyjones]

Aside from tech snobs, film students, critics, gadget dorks and retro-grouches, the people that really buy tickets could care less how you shoot your film, or even know the difference between HD and film.

Does anyone remember content and storytelling?

 

[tak1108]

Here is a question. What would be better?

Varicam with Pro35 and DigiPrimes
2 HVX 200's with M2 and Ziess Primes (nikon mount)
Super 16mm Telecine to D5, edit on DVCProHD

I hear the pro35mm has issues. I don't know if that's an urban legend or not, or if it has been fixed if there really were issues with the resolution. The M2 will soften the image a bit.

I like that fact that as the editor, I can start piecing the film together right on location, and get roughs of the scenes done as they are being shot.

This will speed of the time to completion. 2 Cameras will speed of the production (Theoretically) although I have done multicamera shoots where it did speed of the shoot by about 30%. Less days crew = smaller budget.

We are budgeting $50,000 for our lab work. that would definately cover the Digital to film blowup, but would that cover the telecine, conforming, blow up of Super 16mm?

Obviously we are also looking at the film stock, tape stock, or Redundant Digital Storage for the different media.

The big question really is; will the convience of HD, (either varicam or HVX) outweigh the resolution and image reduction? I say yes.

 

[AshG]

I dont think you've even scratched the surface of researching what you really need and what the budget will allow. You have asked, Ford or Ferrari? There are a TON of things in between. If you ask anyone in Hollywood they will say if you are not shooting film, the F900 is the low-end of what is acceptable in the digital realm. As popular as the Vari is (and my personal fav) most everyone will pass it up for an F900 so I only assume they would pass on the HVX as well.

You want to know what is WAY more important than the camera? The PERCEIVED marketability of your film. Shoot a bunch of unknowns with a decent script on 35mm or shoot a mediocre script with Scott Baio on the HVX and 9 times out of 10 a distributor will pick Scott Baio. Brutal and harsh reality. For every Napolean Dynamite, there are 10 movies that SUCK that get distribution based solely on the perceived marketability.



ash =o)

 

[mmm]

Here is a question. What would be better?

Varicam with Pro35 and DigiPrimes
2 HVX 200's with M2 and Ziess Primes (nikon mount)
Super 16mm Telecine to D5, edit on DVCProHD

I have used the Pro35 with Digibeta and I was converted. It does slow down your workflow, but it just looks great - shallow DOF and a nice softened, but not out of focus look.

Super 16 looks great too - if you are a latitude fan, go for that. If you are shooting in direct sun etc the extra stop or two in the highlights will be helpful.

The HVX is the cheap option. It is still capable but I would only choose it if shooting style is more important to you that the image quality. I have only toyed with the HVX so I am no expert but I can't see it would look as "good" as the other 2 options - does that matter to you?

What are you priorities and what kind of film is it - Film noir, western, personal drama? Each camera would be best for a particular style, but to coin the now famous phrase, they are just different tools.

 

[tak1108]

The film is a comedy. There are names, but if it comes down to shooting on film, or me getting paid, I'm going to get paid.

 

[Andrew M]

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!

Yeah - film can be insanely pricey - but - there is no one way to do it. Let's face it, - anybody here watch the Oscars- not one HD project was mentioned - I mean - come on - if Sin City wasn't even nominated for a tech award - something's a-miss ...

My point is that Big Shots who run the studios [and the distributors] and many other still like film, still want film, and your movie will be more mareketable on celluloid. If you can shoot film, there is no reason not to - I think anyone on the forum would be lying if they said they would choose HD over Film if they could afford to shoot on celluloid. That just wouln't make sense - film is the basis for what looks cinematic - and as filmmaker utilizing digital equipment we try to make our movies as cinematic (and thus film-like) as possible. If someone could shoot on film but chose video because of some 'New School' complex then they really shound'nt be the ones in charge of techinal decisions for their movies because that's just redicoulous. AND plus - you dont have to use the an ARRI SR3 or Aaton XTR prod. You CAN shoot on NPR, OR LTR 7, or SR1. You CAN shoot on recans or short ends. You don't have to telecine to HDCAM, and you don't have to strike a print. If your project is shot on film and tranfered to Digibeta or even DVCAM and edited on a desktop you will have quality product to show at festivals and then based on that if someone wants to distribute the movie they'll pay the money for all the $$$ post (DI, Prints etc.)

I have been thourogly impressed by some of the footage I have seen from the HVX200 BUT let's get real - it'll be pretty damn hard to get a project shot on a handheld digital cam to get distrubuted UNLESS it's so good it makes Billy Wilder roll over in his grave.

Andrew

 

[xray]

Here is a question. What would be better?

Varicam with Pro35 and DigiPrimes
2 HVX 200's with M2 and Ziess Primes (nikon mount)
Super 16mm Telecine to D5, edit on DVCProHD

I think you need lenses on the Aaton too, so S16mm with Zeiss primes, Kodak scanner -->D5, edit offline with Aaton TC, online en CC uncompressed or DVCPROHD.

 

[xray]

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

This is fun. So for film you need lighting crew with a truck and an audio crew, a professional DP and lots of other equipment, and if you make a movie with the HVX you only need to buy one mic, the HVX, a laptop and a harddisk. I dont think this is a good comparison.

sarcastic mode on//It is the same! It is almost magic!// sarcastic mode off

 

[booth]

My point is that Big Shots who run the studios [and the distributors] and many other still like film, still want film, and your movie will be more mareketable on celluloid. If you can shoot film, there is no reason not to - I think anyone on the forum would be lying if they said they would choose HD over Film if they could afford to shoot on celluloid. That just wouln't make sense - film is the basis for what looks cinematic - and as filmmaker utilizing digital equipment we try to make our movies as cinematic (and thus film-like) as possible. If someone could shoot on film but chose video because of some 'New School' complex then they really shound'nt be the ones in charge of techinal decisions for their movies because that's just redicoulous. AND plus - you dont have to use the an ARRI SR3 or Aaton XTR prod. You CAN shoot on NPR, OR LTR 7, or SR1. You CAN shoot on recans or short ends. You don't have to telecine to HDCAM, and you don't have to strike a print. If your project is shot on film and tranfered to Digibeta or even DVCAM and edited on a desktop you will have quality product to show at festivals and then based on that if someone wants to distribute the movie they'll pay the money for all the $$$ post (DI, Prints etc.)

I have been thourogly impressed by some of the footage I have seen from the HVX200 BUT let's get real - it'll be pretty damn hard to get a project shot on a handheld digital cam to get distrubuted UNLESS it's so good it makes Billy Wilder roll over in his grave.

You're mostly right and partly wrong Andrew. We took a film to market last year, Cannes was our first port of call and it was a fast and steep learning curve. All the distributors wanted a 35mm print. If we mentioned a HD master they'd say 'oh so it's for television then'. We'd say no, and they'd say 'well HD is a tv format isn't it'. To be honest a lot of buyers were a bit behind the times, not just in HD but in other things. They aren't the most original thinking of people and to be honest downright lazy. What distributors or sales agents really want first and foremost is a star or stars - if you haven't got that you've little chance, other than if you get your project making some noise (enter Blair Witch). Why do they want these things? Because if your movie didn't they'd have to do some work! And that's the last thing these people want to do.

However things are changing. there's going to be 220 digital screens in the UK by 2007 (at present there's about 50) and in Spain there's already 200 digital screens. These screens are using the latest 3chip DLP projectors (the UKs are the Christy PJs).

Our project managed to get distribution/sales representation, and is going out in 100 cinemas in the UK, which for a tiny budgeted film made in the NW of England is an amazing achievement in the UK. Normally a limited release of a film in the UK would be lucky to get in 6 cinema theatres (yes thats SIX). And on top of that DVD release (at least) in the US is secured. We've got a good chance of getting in those 200 Spanish screens, and HBO Europe want to secure the PayTV rights.

What was our project shot on ~ partly the DVX100.

I'm sure it won't be very long before someone takes one of these hand-held HD cameras and totally breaks out.

But you are right when you say it's hard. It's been very difficult to get a distributor, but that is not solely because of what it was shot with - there are a lot more factors to it than that - marquee value actors, going to the right parties, they go a long way.

 

[CareyB]

It's really great that this is such a hot topic. Interesting to read the side conversations that have sprung out of the original post.

All this basically, as most have said, is a matter of cost. How many of us might not even be considering doing film if these tools weren't available. And the HVX in particular, because it breaks new ground in flexibility and in its ability to more closely approximate results abtainable with film--we hope. Sure it may not be THERE yet, but hey, it seems its close enough to perhaps do what narrative film is all about--creating that willing suspension of disbelief in the audience that permits them to get into the film and really care what happens to the characters.

In the end its all story that will or won't make your efforts a winner. And sometimes a winner is the guy that decided to just do whatever it took to make it happen, look at "Clerks" and "The Brothers Mulligan," before this digital age. Yeah they were shot on film and maybe even with mediocre results, but they found an audience enough to make it all worth while for the independents that made them. Today we have an even better chance of doing as well or better.

Since I come from a writing background I'm looking at how best to tell my story realistically and with as much punch as possible. But I wouldn't be doing it at all if it weren't for tools like the HVX and its contemporaries. It's just the latest, greatest hope to get it right, get it real enough that people will not trip over the medium and will actually give the story a chance. How many really great stories have never been told, will never be told, because their creator's dream exceeded his reach. This technology gives anyone with the burning desire to tell a story, move people, or change minds, a better than fair chance to pull it off.

For my money and my ability to reach, its going to be digital. And at this point in time the HVX appears to be the overall best tool (with the biggest bang for the buck) with which to tell compelling stories and perhaps make a difference. So follow your dreams. Do what you must to get on with it. Its a great world that has provided us with an affordable technology like this.

I'm with you guys. Lets kick some butt.

Carey

 

[jeffyjones]

Yeah - film can be insanely pricey - but - there is no one way to do it. Let's face it, - anybody here watch the Oscars- not one HD project was mentioned - I mean - come on - if Sin City wasn't even nominated for a tech award - something's a-miss ...

Yeah, it's called Rodriguez told the Director's Guild to go screw themselves when he wanted to co-credit directing with Frank Miller. Unions and guilds risk turning Hollywood into a dinosaur, if it's not already there. It's just not evolving with the medium.

 

[pretopost]

This is fun. So for film you need lighting crew with a truck and an audio crew, a professional DP and lots of other equipment, and if you make a movie with the HVX you only need to buy one mic, the HVX, a laptop and a harddisk. I dont think this is a good comparison.

sarcastic mode on//It is the same! It is almost magic!// sarcastic mode off

Wow...

Didn't know there was an "OFF" to the sarcastic mode...

 

[R Gale]

- anybody here watch the Oscars- not one HD project was mentioned -

Andrew

True, however..... "Murderball," nominated for the Best Documentary Oscar, was shot with a DVX100. "The Celebration (Festen)," shot in 1998 entirely handheld with a one-chip sony miniDV handicam, the PC-7E, won the Jury Prize at Cannes, was nominated for a Golden Globe, won the NY Film Critics Circle award and the Los Angeles film critics assoc. award for best foreign film. You will hear about HD movies at the Oscars. Count on it.

...I have been thourogly impressed by some of the footage I have seen from the HVX200 BUT let's get real - it'll be pretty damn hard to get a project shot on a handheld digital cam to get distrubuted UNLESS it's so good it makes Billy Wilder roll over in his grave.

If you are shooting with an HVX chances are you have no stars. So yes, if you have no stars (not even David Hasselhoff), your movie better be great if you want distribution.
But there is one exception:
The horror genre. Ultra cheap horror films (even mediocre ones) can find distribution with no name talent. Because the monster/creature/psychopath is the star. Of course, with the current glut of horror films, you better make a good one...

 

[Justyn]

I'll tell you what.... I'll take the challenge of what looks better on the 1000th projection of your film vs. a digital master.


let's not forget that. Every time I see my film projected.. it has more skratches.. more dust.. maybe a new tear and all that mess. Cost so much money and it just takes one bad projector and/or operator and it's ruined. I remember a guy at IFFM that had 8 seconds of his film completly burned and melted from the projector... Now hat's a great big splice and enough to make a grown man cry...

Film as the ultimate king is hopefully dead for TRUE filmmakers attempting to break into the biz... Making a 60K film print.. just isn't a logical decision for festivals or otherwise.


My buddy works for christy and they will be installing 2300 projectors as soon as humanly possible across the US...

 

[pretopost]

I'll tell you what.... I'll take the challenge of what looks better on the 1000th projection of your film vs. a digital master.


let's not forget that. Every time I see my film projected.. it has more skratches.. more dust.. maybe a new tear and all that mess. Cost so much money and it just takes one bad projector and/or operator and it's ruined. I remember a guy at IFFM that had 8 seconds of his film completly burned and melted from the projector... Now hat's a great big splice and enough to make a grown man cry...

Film as the ultimate king is hopefully dead for TRUE filmmakers attempting to break into the biz... Making a 60K film print.. just isn't a logical decision for festivals or otherwise.


My buddy works for christy and they will be installing 2300 projectors as soon as humanly possible across the US...

I agree and look to what the HVX can do as a way to compete against film. The digital revolution is overtaking film and it is only a matter of time...

Also, to echo a unanimous point of this forum. --It's about the story you tell, not the tools you use. They just make it easier.

 

[R Gale]

So follow your dreams. And if you must, get your equipment on your cards and get on with it.

Carey

Good post, Carey! But I disagree on one piece of advice...
Follow your dreams, absolutely. Use your credit cards to finance them?
Dear God no. I speak from experience. beware the credit card quicksand... BEWARE!

Back on topic, if you can afford film, shoot film. It will help you get distribution. If you can't, great looking HD is within reach via the HVX. You can make a great looking version for festivals, and if a distributor wants it, they can pay for the filmout. If not, and you own the camera, you can go make another one! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[CareyB]

Good post, Carey! But I disagree on one piece of advice...
Follow your dreams, absolutely. Use your credit cards to finance them?
Dear God no. I speak from experience. beware the credit card quicksand... BEWARE!

Back on topic, if you can afford film, shoot film. It will help you get distribution. If you can't, great looking HD is within reach via the HVX. You can make a great looking version for festivals, and if a distributor wants it, they can pay for the filmout. If not, and you own the camera, you can go make another one! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Honestly, couldn't agree with you more. Been there. What I mean is don't let finances be the barrier that keeps you from getting on with your film. If you have a desire to create, the time to get on with it is when your young, don't wait till you're older and wish you had. But if you're older, what the hell, get on with it anyway. it's never too late to start and it may be the most important thing you'll ever do. Creating is what life is all about, and with the medium of film we have our public's attention and the literature of our time at our disposal. Just don't do anything less than your very best. Don't let it go until you're proud to put your name on it. The ultimate aim of art is the creation of an emotional effect. Quality will not go unnoticed.

Carey

 

[Andrew M]

I'll tell you what.... I'll take the challenge of what looks better on the 1000th projection of your film vs. a digital master.


let's not forget that. Every time I see my film projected.. it has more skratches.. more dust.. maybe a new tear and all that mess. Cost so much money and it just takes one bad projector and/or operator and it's ruined. I remember a guy at IFFM that had 8 seconds of his film completly burned and melted from the projector... Now hat's a great big splice and enough to make a grown man cry...

Film as the ultimate king is hopefully dead for TRUE filmmakers attempting to break into the biz... Making a 60K film print.. just isn't a logical decision for festivals or otherwise.


My buddy works for christy and they will be installing 2300 projectors as soon as humanly possible across the US...

Like I said in my post - no need to pay for a film print, FILM can be projected DIGITALLY from DIGITAL MEDIA - ever seen a dvd, ... ever? AND should the film get picked up THEN distribtors can can cough up the cash for the print(s).

ALSO - At the risk of sounding like the Kodak Poster Child, Film IS the most widely distributable format. ALSO in film you work down, want a 4k transfer 10 years down the line? - you got it ... BUT with video it's the opposite: You work upwards - if you EVER want 4k you HAVE to shoot 4k. Celluloid is like an organic harddrive (a freakin' huge one) and you always have that comfort that you have all that resoulution available to you should you want/ need it later on. (Just illustrating a couple of the many benefits of shooting on film).

I believe in GREAT STORYTELLING and using the medium right for the story/ project. I think there are so many people bent on using the lastest, "greatest", and shiniest equipment that many filmmakers are forgeting what their damn job is: telling stories. Video is just learning to walk and is already quite amazing ... but Celluloid will be around for a while folks ... people still listen to LPs.

(Personally I dig the organic quality of celluloid + but am a big fan of video as well)

As for this comment:

"Film as the ultimate king is hopefully dead for TRUE filmmakers attempting to break into the biz... Making a 60K film print.. just isn't a logical decision for festivals or otherwise. "

It seems to me like you have a predudice towards celluloid - or am I interpeting it wrong ... are you just against expensive film prints? ...

It seems like many people are afraid to admit they love the look of FILM, there's nothing wrong with liking celluloid ... there have been 1 or 2 good movies made on it.:thumbsup:

Just because HD is there doesn't mean you have to use it. Personally, I will be shooting some of my projects on film long after it's the 'old way' because I like the way it looks.

I hope everyone understands that I am all for video and believe that it will help empower a new Generation of Filmmakers but I am just trying to remind everybody here: Film kicks ass - and it's okay to love it ...

 

[abalex]

Alright! Here is the one that brough all this trouble to you guys but hopefully helped to understand a few things, things that we all needed to know.

First of all THANK YOU so much for the time you spend writing your opinions. I believe that the digital era is here, now, and that will continue growing.
Honestly I want to shoot my movie on film because i like the look and feel of it. I grew up with a panasonic M2500(VHS shoulder mount camera) and edited my movies while I was shooting them, used the audio doubing option to add music to the movies, all just using my camera as my editing suite. So as you can see I did a lot with video(I know HD is different but still...)

To help you visualize and understand the look and feel of my project I'll name a few titles: Garden State, everything it's illuminated, The thumbsucker, thrirteen, Elephant, Junebug, BottleRocket, brick(new release) just to name a few....

The goal? Take the movie to festivals and try to sell it. One big example of team work and good story would be PRIMER. they've shot their movie for 7000 dollars, used S16, and sold it to ThinkFILM. The crew were the actors, just four guys an a big desire to make it.

Pieces of april was shot with a PD 150 and none cared. So first of all I'll make sure I have a good script that is worth all this trouble, then I'll think about the medium I'll use to shoot it. film is not dead and will never die. More film cameras are being created and better film stock it's being produced while I'm writing these lines.

Again thank you guys for all your advise and time spent on this threat. I promise I'll keep my eye on the HVX..

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.
G.