Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

[holditnowfilms]

Film does not blow out the same way and is more forgiving than HD/DV formats. So for shooting daytime exteriors there is no comparison. If your film takes place outside you will move faster with Film vs DV.

 

[The Sarlacc]

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.

How can you say film is a pain in the ass if you have never shot it before?

HD can be a HUGE pain the ass. HD can also be very simple. It depends on who you are dealing with, and how much they really know.

Film is pretty much always simple. Please, explain to me how you see it as a pain the ass,.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Easy one... HVX will cost less.

Perhaps for a project like this that might ring true. But if the company is willing to pay for it why split hairs about it.

But to touch on the cost factor. Everyone keeps throwing out that HD is cheaper then 16mm...This is just untrue, depending on your final outcome. Big commercials, TV, Features...by the time you measure out the costs of pre, pro, AND post production you'll find they are in same ballpark costwise. One is just more upfront, and one is more in the backend.

 

[Kholi]

Dunno about you guys--

But if someone offered Super Sixteen to shoot on, I don't think I'd be harping about using an HVX instead. Especially if it's not my own project and I'm not paying for it.

 

[The Sarlacc]

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.

Agreed. This is the same with almost any medium. It depends on who is shooting it and how good they are...and sometimes a wee bit of luck.

 

[Erik Olson]

$.03...

If you line produce the pitch and the numbers (client's target budget) match up, then go 16mm if the project will benefit from it.

Conversely, don't shoehorn film production into a low-no budget constraint. The HVX or DVX represent terrific production tools for clients on a limited spend.

Consider that with a typical 16mm commercial with a 100:1 or 50:1 ratio, you're rolling 36'/minute at $.33 per foot for raw stock alone. Jump through hoops or buy short ends or repackaged and you might get RS for as little as $.25 per foot.

Add processing, best light (or more realistically a scene-by-scene) transfer, burned viewing copies and digitizing / capture and it's easy to see why many low-no commercials opt out of film production when pure digital and HD workflow is here today.

It's really simple to suggest that an inexperienced filmmaker should jump into shooting celluloid but the place to learn film workflow isn't on the client's dime. Be realistic about your capacity and your agency's budget and you'll find your own answer.

e

 

[Kholi]

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.

And to add something valuable, you should check Evinsky's thread about the commercial shot with HVX + mini35. That's not exactly a point and shoot application.

As far as I've gathered: you need a serious amount of light to compensate with the mini35.

 

[Drew599]

Sarlacc, just because I haven't shot any film doesn't mean I don't know its drawbacks. I have been out on feature sets and just sat there and watched them shoot with film. I also use to work in film labs so I've seen every printing mistake know to man. Not to mention people or cameras scratching negative. Plus the size of the cameras and weight of the cameras with film stock. I would much rather have a HVX on my shoulder than a 16mm or for that matter a 35mm camera on my shoulder.

 

[Kholi]

Sarlacc, just because I haven't shot any film doesn't mean I don't know its drawbacks. I have been out on feature sets and just sat there and watched them shoot with film. I also use to work in film labs so I've seen every printing mistake know to man. Not to mention people or cameras scratching negative. Plus the size of the cameras and weight of the cameras with film stock. I would much rather have a HVX on my shoulder than a 16mm or for that matter a 35mm camera on my shoulder.

Dude... there are tape drop outs and file corruption in digital. It's the same thing both ways.

And, when weight comes into consideration, when you slap a mini35 on the HVX, it no longer boasts it's handheld abilities... that rig isn't for typical run and gun shooting.

Both mediums have their drawbacks, video more-so than film. But, that's just what I'd say.

 

[J P]

I agree with everything Sarlacc has said.

But I would like to see that side by side comparison; the link is broken.

 

[izoneguy]

You want grain? Shoot 16MM with ASA 400. Now we will probably have people shooting film wondering how to make it look like it was shot on the HVX. I love film and have shot loads of it. If you are experienced with shooting film and the film process go ahead and write up a budget. Then write up a budget for you with the HVX and compare. Just be prepared to answer the clients questions....

Goin off topic but thought you would like this:

Just picked up my Porta-Brace case. Dealer had 2 Canon XLH1's going out the door. "Bob" I ask. "how many Canon's have you sold?" This is it, he replies, these 2. He tells me "I have sold 24 HVX's, have 12 more on order and have 2 more Canons sittin in the warehouse." Makes you wonder what the 16MM film camera salesperson is sayin???

 

[Drew599]

I use to be all die hard about films should be shot on film and all that BS. But then I started doing shorts and I realized that digital is the way to go. Now there's 24p and HD along with overcranking. What reason would I want to go with film. Other than, just like I said before, for the experience.

Plus I get to see a lot of HD content at work, 4:2:2 stuff and 4:4:4. Most of it looks amazing...not all but most.

Kholi, I've had tape drop outs before working with DV and I've seen them on HD tapes as well. I'm not saying that tape is the way to go. I hate tape more than anything. Its the biggest pain in the ass. I like it so much better when people bring stuff in on drives. But even that isn't without problems. But those problems are more on the people putting the info on the drives and not so much the player. Nothing is 100% rock solid. Right now I think P2 is the coolest thing ever and I really hope it takes off, more so than it already has. I might have some problem with it down the road but so far its been doing its job rather nicely.

 

[The Sarlacc]

You want grain? Shoot 16MM with ASA 400.

Makes you wonder what the 16MM film camera salesperson is sayin???

Have you seen the new Vision 2 stocks???? Do you watch scrubs? the first 3-4 season of Malcom in the middle.

Seriously you haven't shot film in awhile or been paying attention to whats been happening with the industry to make that comment. It just isnt true anymore with todays advancements.

As for what 16mm is doing in sales...we'll when the ARRI 416 actually goes on sale, as well as the Aaton xtrprod2 (i prefer arri.) Considering super16 is alive and well in the medium-big budget realm, I dont think either company will have an issue. And it will most likely cause a small bump in the used world with more people selling and buying older cameras.

Ask Abel Cine...they still sell used Aatons. Its not on a mass level, but I don't it ever was...not like these more affordable video cameras.

 

[The Sarlacc]

I use to be all die hard about films should be shot on film and all that BS. But then I started doing shorts and I realized that digital is the way to go. Now there's 24p and HD along with overcranking. What reason would I want to go with film. Other than, just like I said before, for the experience.

Yeah, I used to be a pure film snob. Then, I was put in charge of two Sony f900 packages and began my learning from there.

I'm am not against HD. I love HD...but HD IS NOT film. Not yet. Film still holds way more advantages. But when certain features are shot on HD I am all for it (Sin City for one.) I am dying to see what the Genesis will show us on Superman..and from the new trailer released yesterday it will be amazing.

But film is still the best when all is said and done. HD has not caught up or pushed past yet. Its coming closer.

You still never answered why you think film is a pain in the ass...but I'll put words in your mouth and say that it simply is not.

In the end I will shoot both, and continue to love both and grow with both as they advance. But right now, film is the best medium in which to capture overall.

 

[Kholi]

I use to be all die hard about films should be shot on film and all that BS. But then I started doing shorts and I realized that digital is the way to go. Now there's 24p and HD along with overcranking. What reason would I want to go with film. Other than, just like I said before, for the experience.

Plus I get to see a lot of HD content at work, 4:2:2 stuff and 4:4:4. Most of it looks amazing...not all but most.

Kholi, I've had tape drop outs before working with DV and I've seen them on HD tapes as well. I'm not saying that tape is the way to go. I hate tape more than anything. Its the biggest pain in the ass. I like it so much better when people bring stuff in on drives. But even that isn't without problems. But those problems are more on the people putting the info on the drives and not so much the player. Nothing is 100% rock solid. Right now I think P2 is the coolest thing ever and I really hope it takes off, more so than it already has. I might have some problem with it down the road but so far its been doing its job rather nicely.

I think that you're saying Digital is the way to go based on your idea of digital filmmaking and budgets. Or, most people's idea of it.

In this specific case, the budget isn't his, and they're probably willing and ready to fork over the money for S16. Why sell yourself short when you can work on a more established medium?

For me, if budget's involved, then of course digital is the way to go. Do digital, climb the ladder to film-- for sure.

His initial question revolves around shooting for a client that already wants super sixteen.

Which leads me to ask: are you trying to get more money for yourself by using the HVX to save money elsewhere??

 

[The Sarlacc]

I think that you're saying Digital is the way to go based on your idea of digital filmmaking and budgets. Or, most people's idea of it.

In this specific case, the budget isn't his, and they're probably willing and ready to fork over the money for S16. Why sell yourself short when you can work on a more established medium?

For me, if budget's involved, then of course digital is the way to go. Do digital, climb the ladder to film-- for sure.

His initial question revolves around shooting for a client that already wants super sixteen.

Which leads me to ask: are you trying to get more money for yourself by using the HVX to save money elsewhere??

Bingo.

I'm curious if he has never shot film before, and therefore is worried about losing the job to someone who has the experience. Just a guess, not a flame.

 

[Kholi]

Bingo.

I'm curious if he has never shot film before, and therefore is worried about losing the job to someone who has the experience. Just a guess, not a flame.

Yeah, not a flame.

I'd be scared as all get back to shoot on film, but that just means I'd hire people who know what they're doing to work around me.

Maybe it's a "more money for me" situation?

 

[darwinandpaine]

Isn't it great that we finally have an "under 10k" camera that makes this debate relevent, and not entirely a slam dunk?

I too would shoot film if the budget was there. But if you're more comfortable with the HVX workflow, that's a significant thing to factor in. I'm a total digital/techno junkie, so I would definitely understand it on that level.

 

[DavidBeier]

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.

Ummm...No. I don't know about the new Arri 416 but most 16mm cameras are both a fair amount larger and a fair amount heavier than the HVX200. I'm sure there are ultra light and small 16mm that are really expensive that I don't know about but most aren't as light or small as the HVX200. If someone wants to look up the wieght of the various cameras (HVX is only 6 pounds I believe), I'd be happy to hear more debate on this.

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.

It's not a matter of lighting well. I agree that film is actually more forgiving lighting wise than video in many regaurds. What I'm refering to is the speed of lighting. With a good monitor you can light entirly by eye and not have to worry about a light meter. Light meter time and other aspects of film add up and makes it take longer. It's just a fact. I've heard of some DPs who actually have the confidence to light almost entirely by eye but that's not common.

And define "because the technology is more transparent." because that just sounds like a load to me.

Someone sounds testy I'd argue that shooting digitally presents less technical hurdles than film does. Not that there isn't a lot of art to digital production but I'd argue it's a bit easier and more transparent.[/quote]

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.

In most of arguments however you seem to be making the assumption of a rather large amount of budget and resources. You argue for the latest in film stocks and the latest in 16mm cameras (which I still doubt are as light as an HVX). You argue for a big crew and who will take care of virtually every need and make everything completely seemless for the director.

Honestly, if this was the case, I don't know if he'd be asking here. I think if he had such resources at his disposal he'd probably have a lot of smart people to tell him what to shoot and have much of this lined up. The fact that he says he's trying to convince his client to go digital probably indicates he'll think it'll be more appropriat for his needs. In a perfect world we'd all be shooting 35mm.

Oh, and I have shot 16mm.

 

[Drew599]

Sarlacc, I thought I listed off some reasons but I guess I was typing in invisable type. I just like to see what I'm shooting, instead of guessing. That's why I went from film to a digital SLR. I want to see what I'm getting. I don't want to have it be developed and then printed. I also use to do darkroom stuff so I know a little about developing. I guess if the client is paying for it and is just all about shooting film then by all means make their dreams come true. But if a client came to me and asked which would be the best way to go about saving money and getting great quality I would tell them to shoot in HD. Why waste money?

Also now that I've mentioned waste lets talk about all the waste that comes from shooting on film. I know its all about quality and stuff like that but if you really want to get down to it there's a lot of waste from developing film, printing it and what's done with the run to death prints out there. I know there's a recycling program for film, at least the stock but not the chemicals. I'm sure that the chemicals its takes to make tapes and P2 cards isn't anything you would want to feed your dog. But its nowhere near the volume of what film does.