Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mccainds

Active member
Im trying to convince a client to shoot with the HVX200 Mini35 combo instead of shooting S16 for a DVD education feature. I have a list of arguments already but would like input from the board on various arguments why this would be a better work flow, quality, etc etc.
 
There was a clip posted a bit ago, showing 16mm and HVX split screen and they looked practically identical.'

I highly suggest someone or you find that thread and post a link to it.
 
What if people like me think its not like film S16 or 35mm or Viper?

Another question is: can you shoot an educational DVD with the HVX200 in a controlled studio? Is there a good workflow for, will the quality be good?
The answer is: yes you can.
 
Here's my argument:

1. The two will look the same to 99.9% of viewers but the HVX200 will be cheaper.

2. Getting to see exactly what you're getting. With DV, you can see exactly how it will look without any of the guess work of film. For many, that helps them produce a better image then they would on 16mm.

3. Faster and easier to light.

4. The more transparent technology lets you focus more on the acting and directing.

5. No worrying about sending it to the lab and possibly having them mess it up. You get the pure MXFs strait from the camera and work with them.

6. Smaller, easier to move, all around more flexible.

7. You can achieve a wide variety of looks by simply changing the scene files and color correcting rather than having to mess with different film stocks and processing methods.
 
I dont know about arguments for educational videos or slice of life--but for anything that relies on FX and the Melies school--digital is ultimately the way to go. Cost savings and greater creative freedom-especially for indies. I cant imagine going back to 16mm and struggling with rear projection and matte lines. You have to transfer to digital to do anything serious anyway.
 
Another argument for the HVX is that if you bring a good monitor to the shoot, you can replay the clips to see how they look... Try doing that in 16mm. :)


Bob Diaz
 
mccainds said:
Im trying to convince a client to shoot with the HVX200 Mini35 combo instead of shooting S16 for a DVD education feature. I have a list of arguments already but would like input from the board on various arguments why this would be a better work flow, quality, etc etc.
Click to expand...

If I had a company tell me they wanted to shoot in S16 I would jump on it. Why do you want convince the company that obviously has the money to NOT shoot on film???

S16 is still superior in terms of overall resolution, color, and latitude. And the new film stocks just keep upping the ante. And new cameras like Arris 416 will keep S16 in the forefront of productions.

Have you never shot on film before? And you will lose the job if they go 16, and tha's why you are trying to convince them otherwise?

Don't get me wrong. I love HD, I love the HVX, but I will still ALWAYS shoot film when given the option over video. You can't beat Super16 with a HD transfer. Side by Side with any of the HD cameras (wtih an exception to the Genesis and D20) Super 16mm with HD still looks better. And its why a lot of TV shows and commercials and music videos are shooting that way.
 
Originally Posted by DavidBeier
3. Faster and easier to light.

4. The more transparent technology lets you focus more on the acting and directing.

6. Smaller, easier to move, all around more flexible.

Neither of these are true.
Click to expand...

I think you mean NONE of those are true. And yes they are.

16mm are larger than the HVX200 and heavier, making them slower to set up and hence not as fast. The lighting thing is a bit more subjective but I think many would argue that video can be a bit easier to light. Finally, once again subjective perhaps, the technology feels more transparent and lets you spend less time fiddling with things and more time focusing on what counts.
 
DavidBeier said:
Originally Posted by DavidBeier

16mm are larger than the HVX200 and heavier, making them slower to set up and hence not as fast. The lighting thing is a bit more subjective but I think many would argue that video can be a bit easier to light. Finally, once again subjective perhaps, the technology feels more transparent and lets you spend less time fiddling with things and more time focusing on what counts.
Click to expand...

My crappy grammar aside (And I meant neither because I didn't mean to include #4 only #3 and #6.) Just because 16mm cameras are a bit larger doesnt mean anything. They arent that much heavier and again the introduction of the new arri 416 only evens out the balance (25% lighter then a SRIII.) The amount of time it takes to set up a 16mm camera is probably in the same ballpark as setting up a HVX with a Mini35 adapter.

As for lighting...it has ALWAYS been a myth that HD requires less lighting. Lighting is lighting. And the speed of lighting comes from your personal experience and style. If you are able to light quick and GOOD it translates to whatever format you choose to shoot. Hell, in some cases HD is more like shooting Anamoprhic where you generally end up needing larger/more light sources.

Unless you are a one man band, the people "fiddling" with things are the people paid to fiddle. And the director or whoever shouldn't be paying attention to that regardless of the medium. Not to mention there is WAY more to fiddle with on video then there is on film. And define "because the technology is more transparent." because that just sounds like a load to me.

IF this is a one man band job...that is my arguement for going HVX instead of 16. But if the adequate crew is also hired then its a no brainer to shoot on film.
 
Last edited:
I'd have to agree too.. if someone else is footing the bill, shoot some film. If you are paying for it, or could make more money with the HVX.. then that's a different matter.


I rarely get to shoot film and when I do, I'll do it for less than I would video.. and it seems somewhat special... Ahhh, I love the smell of stock in the morning... Smells like victory...

Sometimes ya have to just go back in time and have some fun with silver hallide... ahhhhhh.
 
I've been on shows where they shot film and it was cool seeing it and if someone right now gave me the option to shoot a short or something on film I would do it. Only because I haven't shot any of my stuff on film before and I would like to say at least I did it once. Personally I think film is a total pain in the ass. I've been running film for the last 10 years and I love the look of it. The look and the ease of working with it are two different things. But I do see it as a very old technology. Film can look amazing in the right environment. But out in most theaters or on DVD isn't the right environment. If your looking at a wetgate print off the original negative then yes it will blow away any HD format. But in the real world you aren't going to see that. Most theater prints are done at high speed and when they get to the theaters are destoryed by the retards that work there.

So if your shooting for TV, DVD or even theatrical release I seen no problem in shooting HD. It should all be in the story anyways.
 
I've shot a bunch of film, and it CAN look great. Just because it's film doesn't mean it WILL look great. Same for shooting on HD.
 
Easy one... HVX will cost less, 16mm will look marginally better... why not split the difference and rent a Vari?


ash =o)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top