HVX-200 as 2nd unit to a Varicam

is this even a real project?

all this talk of mutliple varicams has me skeptical..

but i could be wrong..
 
I've decided i'm going to be using SDX900s instead of Varicams... especially since it's my first feature... I saw a trailer from a movie shot on the SDX900 and it looks great... And the person that told me about it said they saw it in theaters and that it looked good. So I'm going to be using 3 or 4 SDX900s and 3 or 4 HVX-200s...
 
Loki said:
is this even a real project?

all this talk of mutliple varicams has me skeptical..

but i could be wrong..

Yeah, I'm taking this stance now too. Oh well, whatever gets a few laughs.
 
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
I'm thinking about dropping the Varicams and going with SDX900s..... Would the HVX-200 match up to this or would it surpass it ? How would the 900s transfer to film?


SDX900 upconverted looks terrific, IMHO better than native HVX footage. There is some info on the net about several features that have been shot on the SDX. There was one called "Smile" which I saw in HD and on film where the SDX footage was indistiguishable from the native HD footage, even to the engineers at the post house after it was upconverted... very very impressive and you get that 2/3" CCD DOF and low light capability.



ash =o)
 
Dude, it seems as if you have the $$ to shoot this, so why don't you follow my advice from the FIRST POST..

Go to your rental house, get the Varicam and the HVX and TEST IT OUT!
Learn from others mistakes and make sure you personally know that it will work, rather than listening to people on a message board..
If you will be renting this many cameras (which will be about $2000-3000 a day) they will be HAPPY to let you test it out!

BETTER YET, just rent 1 camera.. If you've never done a feature, getting 2 cameras to stay out of each others way is a pain, 4, HAHAHA.. 1/2 your shot will have your lights in them, or will just look like crap because you moved your lights to get out of the shot..

- - Justin
 
4 cameras

4 cameras

dougspice said:
On paper, sure. But for most shoots, you don't actually gain any time by having multiple cameras, at least not without sacrificing quality. Your lighting and framing decisions get compromised and you're back to breaking even, if that. Don't you think most Hollywood movies would use the technique all the time, if it made sense?
100% True. This is a feature film, not a sit com, right?
 
Back
Top