Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

[The Sarlacc]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just because a camera is larger or heavier does NOT mean it takes longer to set up...and once you put the 35 adapter on it with 35 glass...you just increased the weight by a lot. You're telling me a f900 or a varicam is quicker to set up then a 16mm camera because its HD. That is simply NOT true. If you know the gear its very quick and simple on ALL accounts. With the exception that HD has all these settings and menus you can, as you say, fiddle with.

You're serisously going to tell me that lighting with a meter takes more time then lgihting with a monitor...lol. Give me a break. It takes two seconds to take a meter reading and look at the data it presents to you. Yes, there are DPs who light by eye...but those are the highly experience big dogs who have shot film for years and have their eyes trained. But for the most part you light your scene, take your intial readings and shoot from there. If you make adjustments it takes minor and quick readings to see if you need an adjustment. Its really no different then calibrating your monitors at the beginning of the day. Someone is who good and fast at lighting can do it for whatever medium he is shooting. It is not medium specific.

And you can't always trust your monitor and it is wrong to JUST light to it. You have to know what you are shooting for in HD. Your image will look different on a crt monitor, vs a lcd, vs a plasma. A monitor on gives you a reference. You still have to know what you are seeing with your eyes. Very much like film.

Whatever things you have to do for film, there usually something in HD that takes its place. Check the gate...Check the backfocus. Take a meeter reading...calibrate your monitors, perform a white balance. Its all relative.

How can you argue that shooting digitally presents LESS technical issues. The case is that it usually presents MORE issues.

In my arguements I do reference big budget a lot. But I still work mostly low budget. Like guerilla crews with liitle to no man power. Shooting on film. And it goes just fine. Very smooth. You don't need a lot of resources to shoot film, but its always nice to have them...hmmm, sounds just like video.

What I'm getting here is a lot of video born and bred guys who don't know anything about film trying to argue that is a more difficult medium. When, it is in fact a much simpler one.

 

[Kholi]

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.

Sarlacc is comparing a 16mm camera to an HVX + Mini35. I know for a fact you've seen the setups for a mini35 paired with an HVX (or vice versa) and its no longer "the little camera that could". Whatever point and shoot factor that the HVX once had totally disappears, and now you have to deal with the tool in a completely different manner

 

[The Sarlacc]

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.

If you know what you are doing you aren't guessing. Its all about experience. People have become so used to instant gratification they don't have the patience to learn and gain experience.

And go back and read my post about wasting money. It all depends on the final destination for your product. Sometimes HD costs just as much.

You want to bring waste into this? How much waste do you think is generated in the making of the camera? Why do you think the DVX100B came out using less lead then was in previous two versions.

How many CCD chips do you think it takes in a batch to get one good working chip?

Again, it all relative.

 

[mccainds]

Here is the reason for the question:
If I shoot with this package I get the job. If they shoot 16 it goes to someone else.

I have shot plenty with the Mini35 and HVX200 combo already and I am very aware of the lighting issues, weight etc.etc. I personaly believe we could give S16 a run for its money with this combo, especially when the delivery medium is DVD.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Do you already own the HVX and mini35?

 

[Kholi]

Here is the reason for the question:
If I shoot with this package I get the job. If they shoot 16 it goes to someone else.

I have shot plenty with the Mini35 and HVX200 combo already and I am very aware of the lighting issues, weight etc.etc. I personaly believe we could give S16 a run for its money with this combo, especially when the delivery medium is DVD.

Looks like Sarlacc was close enough.

So, is the lighting issue really an issue?

 

[Drew599]

If you know what you are doing you aren't guessing. Its all about experience. People have become so used to instant gratification they don't have the patience to learn and gain experience.

And go back and read my post about wasting money. It all depends on the final destination for your product. Sometimes HD costs just as much.

You want to bring waste into this? How much waste do you think is generated in the making of the camera? Why do you think the DVX100B came out using less lead then was in previous two versions.

How many CCD chips do you think it takes in a batch to get one good working chip?

Again, it all relative.

Sarlacc do you really think that the waste of making a HVX or a DVX even comes close to the waste coming from film prints. That's just crazy to think they even compair.

Just for the record if you are shooting film you are guessing you got everything right. You can light to make it look good and all that. But there's no way to see if you got anything...until the next day when you get it back from the lab and check your one lights. On digital you can check it right there, right after you shot it and back it up onto a couple different drives.

You make it seem like instant gratification is a bad thing. There's a time to wait and there's a time to see what you shot right away so you can move on knowing you got the shot "in the can" or I guess now "on the drive". I think people can learn much faster seeing what they got right away and better their craft. Of course that is the choice of the person to learn and improve their craft.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Sarlacc do you really think that the waste of making a HVX or a DVX even comes close to the waste coming from film prints. That's just crazy to think they even compair.

Just for the record if you are shooting film you are guessing you got everything right. You can light to make it look good and all that. But there's no way to see if you got anything...until the next day when you get it back from the lab and check your one lights. On digital you can check it right there, right after you shot it and back it up onto a couple different drives.

You make it seem like instant gratification is a bad thing. There's a time to wait and there's a time to see what you shot right away so you can move on knowing you got the shot "in the can" or I guess now "on the drive". I think people can learn much faster seeing what they got right away and better their craft. Of course that is the choice of the person to learn and improve their craft.

Making HVX, DVX anything generates is own form of waste. As much as film stock. Maybe not...but do you know what goes into making a chip? And each camera has 3 chips....The ratio is something like one good chip for every one hundred made. Something to that effect. I honestly do not know real numbers.

You tell me that Janusz Kaminski, John Toll, Emmanuel Lubezki, Allen Daviau all just out there guessing. Yes, for a percentage of less experienced its a bit a "wait and see" game, but part of that is the magic. But if you know what you are doing you will pretty much know the outcome of what you are doing on set.

There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. I love it. I own a DSLR, I own a HVX. I enjoy being able to see my work on a monitor right away. But I dont think it makes people learn any faster. I also think it makes people impatient. And gives people a sense of unreal expectation. "With HD you can go from 18 set ups a day to 35." Bullshit.

 

[darwinandpaine]

Here is the reason for the question:
If I shoot with this package I get the job. If they shoot 16 it goes to someone else.

I have shot plenty with the Mini35 and HVX200 combo already and I am very aware of the lighting issues, weight etc.etc. I personaly believe we could give S16 a run for its money with this combo, especially when the delivery medium is DVD.

I'd probably sell them on the quick turn-around (no labs to wait for, instant digest into your edit suite, etc...), instant playback (so they can feel comfortable knowing that you got the shot --- right on set). I'd definitely give them a DVD with HVX stuff on it to show them how good it looks on DVD (make sure you have some slow-mo in there). And, of course, tell 'em that you'll beat the S16 budget by 15-25%.

It also wouldn't hurt to tell them that the S16 guys are terrible people who kick cats and take candy from babies. Good luck. I hope you get the job.

 

[Kholi]

There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. I love it. I own a DSLR, I own a HVX. I enjoy being able to see my work on a monitor right away. But I dont think it makes people learn any faster. I also think it makes people impatient. And gives people a sense of unreal expectation. "With HD you can go from 18 set ups a day to 35." Bullshi*.

You really can go from eighteen to thirty-five in a day--

You just won't be selling that movie, or getting it distributed... probably. =)

 

[izoneguy]

Here is the reason for the question:
If I shoot with this package I get the job. If they shoot 16 it goes to someone else.

I have shot plenty with the Mini35 and HVX200 combo already and I am very aware of the lighting issues, weight etc.etc. I personaly believe we could give S16 a run for its money with this combo, especially when the delivery medium is DVD.

Show them the HVX/16MM split screen. Did you find it?? If not look in the video section around the middle of March. If you have that combo I am sure you have DVD samples. The shoot and the post would be the same. Savings would be film, processing & transfer.
Not cheap when you are talking a longer form project.......

 

[The Sarlacc]

I'd probably sell them on the quick turn-around (no labs to wait for, instant digest into your edit suite, etc...), instant playback (so they can feel comfortable knowing that you got the shot --- right on set). I'd definitely give them a DVD with HVX stuff on it to show them how good it looks on DVD (make sure you have some slow-mo in there). And, of course, tell 'em that you'll beat the S16 budget by 15-25%.

It also wouldn't hurt to tell them that the S16 guys are terrible people who kick cats and take candy from babies. Good luck. I hope you get the job.

That is a start.

You want to sell them on the quality of the image, and what they will be seeing on set is what they will be seeing on the DVD.

Sell them on the seamless workflow. They will have there footage to begin editing ASAP as opposed to having to waiting for the day long lab turnaround. They will save on processing, telecine, and crew costs.

Bring them examples of the work on DVD. Show them what their final product will look like.

Sell yourself, sell the abilities of the camera, and most importantly sell the final product.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Show them the HVX/16MM split screen. Did you find it?? If not look in the video section around the middle of March. If you have that combo I am sure you have DVD samples. The shoot and the post would be the same. Savings would be film, processing & transfer.
Not cheap when you are talking a longer form project.......

I honestly would NOT show them 16mm footage. They know what it looks like. And if they don't know...why tempt them.

 

[The Sarlacc]

See...I can play both sides. If it means a fellow HVX member might lose a job to someone else. I will gladly help.

But...I love the debate we have been having, and my feelings won't change.

 

[mccainds]

Yes I already own the HVX200 and mini35 combo and accessories lenses etc.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Yes I already own the HVX200 and mini35 combo and accessories lenses etc.

Good, then offer to undercut the competitions price by a reasonable sum.

ONLY make this offer if they seem confused, on the fence, or skeptical.

 

[Drew599]

Making HVX, DVX anything generates is own form of waste. As much as film stock. Maybe not...but do you know what goes into making a chip? And each camera has 3 chips....The ratio is something like one good chip for every one hundred made. Something to that effect. I honestly do not know real numbers.

You tell me that Janusz Kaminski, John Toll, Emmanuel Lubezki, Allen Daviau all just out there guessing. Yes, for a percentage of less experienced its a bit a "wait and see" game, but part of that is the magic. But if you know what you are doing you will pretty much know the outcome of what you are doing on set.

There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. I love it. I own a DSLR, I own a HVX. I enjoy being able to see my work on a monitor right away. But I dont think it makes people learn any faster. I also think it makes people impatient. And gives people a sense of unreal expectation. "With HD you can go from 18 set ups a day to 35." Bullshi*.

Since you don't have real number on waste lets think about something. One 20 minute reel of film weighs around a HVX a half. That's one reel out of an average of 6 reels. So with one film print you get 9 HVXs...about. I myself don't have the numbers in front of me so this is all on how I feel my HVX weighs and how much a reel of film weighs. So for 3000 prints, which is a big domestic opening you get 27,000 HVXs. Now in 3 months time 95% of those films will be well on their way out and in the trash soon after. Will those 27,000 HVXs be in the trash after 3 months. Lets hope not. But wait a second, there's a couple films released every week in theaters domesticly. So lets say that there are 3 films released every week with a 3000 print capacity. Which is 81,000 HVXs a week and if you go the whole year that's...4,212,000 HVXs a year that will make it in the trash. Now which one has more waste domesticly. I keep saying domesticly because this is only based on the US theater releases.

BTW I wasn't saying that if something happened to the footage while shooting film it would be a DP's fault. I mean it could but it could also be a camera problem that no one noticed. I've seen it before and that show lost a half a day of footage because of it. So no matter what your still guessing that it turned okay.

I also never said anything about setups. That's all on whomever is running the set. Personally I think people spend way to much time f-ing off on a set and not enough time shooting, if there's money to just throw away.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Since you don't have real number on waste lets think about something. One 20 minute reel of film weighs around a HVX a half. That's one reel out of an average of 6 reels. So with one film print you get 9 HVXs...about. I myself don't have the numbers in front of me so this is all on how I feel my HVX weighs and how much a reel of film weighs. So for 3000 prints, which is a big domestic opening you get 27,000 HVXs. Now in 3 months time 95% of those films will be well on their way out and in the trash soon after. Will those 27,000 HVXs be in the trash after 3 months. Lets hope not. But wait a second, there's a couple films released every week in theaters domesticly. So lets say that there are 3 films released every week with a 3000 print capacity. Which is 81,000 HVXs a week and if you go the whole year that's...4,212,000 HVXs a year that will make it in the trash. Now which one has more waste domesticly. I keep saying domesticly because this is only based on the US theater releases.

BTW I wasn't saying that if something happened to the footage while shooting film it would be a DP's fault. I mean it could but it could also be a camera problem that no one noticed. I've seen it before and that show lost a half a day of footage because of it. So no matter what your still guessing that it turned okay.

I also never said anything about setups. That's all on whomever is running the set. Personally I think people spend way to much time f-ing off on a set and not enough time shooting, if there's money to just throw away.

I'm not even going to continue on the subject of waste. Because neither of have hard numbers or real knowledge to support any sort of real debate on the matter. I do know there are proper ways to dispose of film. And the "waste" does not really concern me. Your concern of waste will only disapate as digital projection comes to more and more theaters.

Sure...you can have camera problems that could harm the film...You could have camera problems within a video camera that will harm that footage as well.

Again, you have never worked with film. So, you would realize that when shoot film you do a proper checkout. And part of that checkout involves testing the camera with VIRGIN film running through. And running film through EACH mag. And then properly checking the film for scratches.

You also shoot registration tests and framing charts which would show if anything might "damaging" the film.

Yes, **** can happen. And does. Buts its no different then video. Everything can go fine during a checkout, and then bam...heat failure. clogged heads, video drop outs, file corruption.

**** happens mans.

Your arguments against film have absolutely no base. Let me know when you actuall get on a set a loader or AC and have dealt with raw celluloid, film cameras, and changing rooms. Handling film prints on print stocks is honestly nothing.

And I never said you said anything about set ups. It came up on tangent in my rant.

As for f-cking off...depends on the set.

 

[izoneguy]

Where is that steel cage of death when you need it??

 

[The Sarlacc]

Where is that steel cage of death when you need it??

Hahaha. I over here debating film and video shooting...because a lot people here pretend to know about film and havent a clue....where a lot of film people pretend to know about video and havent a clue. And this dude is to trying to make this an argument better suited for greenpeace