Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

[The Sarlacc]

People can't tell the difference...but that won't stop them from being good little consumers. Whenever I go to most theaters I find it amazing that people just settle for such a bad presentation of a film they just paid $9 to see. I think if people were taught to expect more out of going to the movies they would ask for a better presentation not to mention better movies.

Darwinandpaine, the whole converstation that was going on in this post was very laughable. I like having discussions like this about film and HD. Its funny because no one wants to back down an inch. Doesn't really make anything more along quickly but its good for some entertainment. Also take it easy with that whole PMing a mod thing. Don't get me wrong, I love DVXuser. But there have been plenty of times I didn't agree with the way certain things were handled.

Consumers are happy to deal with horrid projection, bad splices, dim bulbs, etc etc etc because no one ever taught them what they are supposed to be seeing. And they honestly don't seem to care. This carries over in to Television and SD and HD etc. Its annoying.

I agree and no, I wont back down an inch I believe we are close to reaching common ground, but I think I have more on set experience then you physically handling and dealing with both medium. Aside from also teching both. I won't say definately because I don't know your entire back ground, and I try not to make claims I am unsure of.

 

[The Sarlacc]

This is so true! Most people have shockingly low standards when it comes to video and can't tell DVX 24p from 35mm, let alone 1080p from an HVX. I have a dear friend (a videographer, no less) who bought a big, new, widescreen, LCD for the bedroom and had me over to show it off (the LCD, not the bedroom). He ended up getting some ED piece of crap that looks awful. My point? If someone who shoots doesn't even know a crappy image when they see it, what hope is there for the great unwashed?

And you're right, Sarlacc --- I think that fact really has hindered the adoption of HDTV. People don't care, 'cuz they can't tell the difference. Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

I have seen a lot of people that buy these TVs...they know nothing of specs...resoultions, formats. Nine times out of ten they dont even have their systems hooked up properly, and they sitting there telling everyone they know that HD looks like crap.

And there are some people who drop coin on big expensive plasmas (more sepcifically older ones) and think they look amazing...when in reality they look like junk.

This is why I think with competing HD DVD formats the consumers will be very confused, and end up saying nichts to both of them.

 

[mkhsfz]

Samples...

Samples...

Here is a link to some s16mm clips... you have to scroll to the bottom it's "The power of 16 video Clip". S16mm looks really good... I have access to (and use) a HVX200 and own two JVC HD100. I love digital but film does look better... For how long, who knows? But if you get a chance, try to shoot film it will only help expand the diversity of your reel. Plus i know all the big commercial agencys still want film. Heres the link...

http://www.arri.com/entry/416.htm

 

[The Sarlacc]

Here is a link to some s16mm clips... you have to scroll to the bottom it's "The power of 16 video Clip". S16mm looks really good... I have access to (and use) a HVX200 and own two JVC HD100. I love digital but film does look better... For how long, who knows? But if you get a chance, try to shoot film it will only help expand the diversity of your reel. Plus i know all the big commercial agencys still want film. Heres the link...

http://www.arri.com/entry/416.htm

Big commercials, Televisions, big features.

There is a time and a place to use HD and film. Would the project this thread was started about be suited for the HVX, yes. The unknown issue at teh time was that the client wanted to shoot super16, and it was presumed that the poster had the option of shooting 16 and wanted to shoot the HVX instead.

And when given the option to shoot film from someone willing to pay for means you shoot film damnit.

But when it was learned that shooting film meant someone else would get the job, then even I swapped over and told him how to hopefully get the job.


That clip is what they showed at the big 416 unveiling event last month. It was front projected and looked AMAZING...and they had a new aspherical 8mm lens (35mm format, but the way but on the 416.) OH MY GOD what an amazing peice of glass. NO distortion.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Here:

http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/0406/articles/02_la_event.html

This is an article about the event...but talks about little about the format what the big dogs think...and how viable 16 still is with the new stocks and DI...like I had said earlier.

Thanks for the find mkhffz

 

[Rookie Filmmaker]

I've shot both film and Video, and let me tell you, film is a pain. It's easy to screw up and loose everything if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[xray]

It's easy to screw up and loose everything if you don't know what you're doing.

LOL
If you don't know what you are doing, you shoudn't do it.

 

[The Sarlacc]

I've shot both film and Video, and let me tell you, film is a pain. It's easy to screw up and loose everything if you don't know what you're doing.

Aaaaaand how long have you been shooting film???

 

[mccainds]

In regards to the comment about the HVX200 and Mini35 just looking wierd: Please go to my demo reel
http://www.danmccainproductions.com/demo_reel.html
website and click on Day in the life piece. Every person who has seen this clip believes it was shot on film if they are savvy enough to kinow how to describe that. The others say "WOW" that looks like a movie. And this piece was shot on the DVX with tape (it is also very compressed so obviously its hard to see the full quality).

I believe with the added color space and resolution of HD people, the majority of the auidence will never know the difference, or care.

 

[The Sarlacc]

In regards to the comment about the HVX200 and Mini35 just looking wierd: Please go to my demo reel
http://www.danmccainproductions.com/demo_reel.html
website and click on Day in the life piece. Every person who has seen this clip believes it was shot on film if they are savvy enough to kinow how to describe that. The others say "WOW" that looks like a movie. And this piece was shot on the DVX with tape (it is also very compressed so obviously its hard to see the full quality).

I believe with the added color space and resolution of HD people, the majority of the auidence will never know the difference, or care.

I don't anyone who said it looked weird. I have been very impressed with th footage I've been seeing from the M2 adapter.

People with a trained eye still know the giveaways.

You gotta weed through all the banter but we gave some good tips.

 

[mccainds]

Someone mentioned earlier that people won't noticed it's digital when downrezzed to SD for DVD/TV application.

That's BS. Even if you use the 35mm adapter, not all parts are going to look like super sixteen. And it's even worse if you use the HVX minus an adapter. The audience WILL recognize it as "weird looking".

That is the line I was reffering too. Thank you all for the advise, please dont let me stop the disscussion though, I am enjoying it.

 

[booth]

If I had the money and the crew, I'd go with s16mm. If not I'd go with the HVX.

However they are not worlds apart if you know what you are doing and it's post-produced to a decent level. To say the audience will notice it as 'weird looking' is something I strongly disagree with.

 

[DavidBeier]

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.

Do we have to go back to high school physics? Objects that are heavier will take longer to move and thus longer set up time. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly.

And do we even know if wants to use a 35 adapter or is this just yet another one of these assumptions you've made like a large budget and bit crew? Not every type of shoot calls for a very shallow depth of field. I personally act like having a deeper focus because I put a lot of effort into my compositions and i'm sure I'm not the only one. I tended to keep the focus pretty deep when i shot 16mm and I do the same with digital. Perhaps he doesn't need to have a 35mm lense for an educational video.

You're telling me a f900 or a varicam is quicker to set up then a 16mm camera because its HD.

No, I'm telling you that a HVX200 is quicker than 16mm. Read more carefully. If he's not asking about shooting HVX200 or 16mm then he's on the wrong boards.

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.

Those two secones (and it takes a bit more than that for many) add up. I've been on film shoots and I've been on HD ones and HD always moves much quicker. Listen to how many industry guys like Rodrequiz or others talk about how much they love HD because of the freedom and the speed. I'll take their word, and what I've seen with my own eyes, over yours.

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.

There are certainly a number of things to be done with digital but they still tend to go quicker. Swaping incredibly light P2 cards in and out of an HVX200 is a hell of a lot faster than running big magazines back and forth and anyone who says different has no idea what the hell they're talking about. With a firestore, or later the cineporter, the time is reduced even further.

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.

Ahh but these resources are much more important with film on a lower budget. If you need to shoot a lot of footage and don't have the neccesary amount of man power to manage the film magazines then how are you going to get much done?

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.

What I'm getting is someone who clearly isn't as knowladgible as he thinks he is. I've shot film. I like film. But it is harder than film and I've heard quite a number of people who know more about it than either of us to testify to that.

And I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly wasn't born and bread on video. I worked with film, liked it quite a bit, and then found that DV allowed a much more flexible workflow.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Do we have to go back to high school physics? Objects that are heavier will take longer to move and thus longer set up time. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly.

You're trying to compare moving around a 6 pound camera versus a 15 pound camera. And really there is no time saved. And when you factor in a mini35 adapter you are most likely talking about the same time to build up the HVX as you would to build up a 16 camera. High physics.....you are stretching here. We are talking about light weight cameras not 50lb built up 35 cameras...which still dont take that long to build up if you know what youre doing. And lets say we are talking about 35. Big f-cking deal, its going to take me a few extra seconds to lift the weight of the camera and move it...I dont know about you, but I, like most other ACs/Cameramen, have no problems properly lifting a built 35 package on a 2575 head on Ronfords. Keep reaching though.

And do we even know if wants to use a 35 adapter or is this just yet another one of these assumptions you've made like a large budget and bit crew? Not every type of shoot calls for a very shallow depth of field. I personally act like having a deeper focus because I put a lot of effort into my compositions and i'm sure I'm not the only one. I tended to keep the focus pretty deep when i shot 16mm and I do the same with digital. Perhaps he doesn't need to have a 35mm lense for an educational video.

Yes, we do know he wants to use his mini35 adapter because he said so in his very first post. You want to try and educate me then try reading yourself.

No, I'm telling you that a HVX200 is quicker than 16mm. Read more carefully. If he's not asking about shooting HVX200 or 16mm then he's on the wrong boards.

If I am just picking either one up out of case and running to shoot. Then, yes, the HVX is quicker. But not on a lit set. It takes the same amount of time to light either way. The speed will dependent on how fast you can light.

Those two secones (and it takes a bit more than that for many) add up. I've been on film shoots and I've been on HD ones and HD always moves much quicker. Listen to how many industry guys like Rodrequiz or others talk about how much they love HD because of the freedom and the speed. I'll take their word, and what I've seen with my own eyes, over yours.

Rodreguiz is a filmmaker on an entriely different level then most. He does everything himself and pushes hard for it. He is NOT a good example because does everything his own way. He does not follow the traditional form of filmmaking. He is an innovator.


And I'll say it again... two seconds to take a meter reading, or two seconds to white balance. 2 mintues to backfocus, 2 seconds to black balance...two seconds is two seconds and once you've lit the scene you arent really taking meter readings after that if you know what you're doing.

There are certainly a number of things to be done with digital but they still tend to go quicker. Swaping incredibly light P2 cards in and out of an HVX200 is a hell of a lot faster than running big magazines back and forth and anyone who says different has no idea what the hell they're talking about. With a firestore, or later the cineporter, the time is reduced even further.

Yeah whoopity do...It took you 5 seconds to swap a P2 card, and it takes you 7 seconds to swap a 16 mag and hit the phase button. Damn man, you sure got me beat.

Ahh but these resources are much more important with film on a lower budget. If you need to shoot a lot of footage and don't have the neccesary amount of man power to manage the film magazines then how are you going to get much done?

I've been on 5 man crews shooting full scenes on 16 with no problems. How do you think docs that shoot on film get made? you think they have 40 people of support with them? Again, it comes down to knowing what you are doing.

What I'm getting is someone who clearly isn't as knowladgible as he thinks he is. I've shot film. I like film. But it is harder than film and I've heard quite a number of people who know more about it than either of us to testify to that.

You're right. I'm a total moron, and I obviously don't know anything about film or video. (this is sarcasm by the way.)

And I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly wasn't born and bread on video. I worked with film, liked it quite a bit, and then found that DV allowed a much more flexible workflow.

DV does offer a more flexible work flow...at a cost. You make sacrifices for it. There are projects suited to digital and projects suited to film...its all about what does the story or product call for...but at the same time if a client WANTS to shoot film you will hear no argument from me. It is still superior.

 

[Kholi]

If I had the money and the crew, I'd go with s16mm. If not I'd go with the HVX.

However they are not worlds apart if you know what you are doing and it's post-produced to a decent level. To say the audience will notice it as 'weird looking' is something I strongly disagree with.

Why would you strongly disagree on that?

I can tell you why I believe that they'll notice it as weird looking:

Whether video advocates want to believe it or not, an audience CAN tell when DOF is missing. it's not something they can describe correctly, probably, but it's something they're used to seeing and the "all sharp and in focus" of video that the HVX still has will be noticed.

In regards to motion in video, even during motion controled segments, I'd noticed that footage (this was with a mini35/Zeiss 1.3 combo) still retained an electronic radiance that just seemed odd. While it still looked VERY good (i watch the DVD version over and over just to see what the DVX and Mini35 can really do), it's still video, and it just feels weird. I let my girlfriend and friends view the same image, and while they said it looked really good... they all said "it's got a weird look..", they all agreed that it went well with the content.

During rehearsal, my cast and I had gotten into a small discussion about films that they'd seen lately. One of them brought up "Collateral", which we all know had been filmed on a high class hi-def digital camera (Viper). He went on to say "I liked the movie, but it looked weird at times."... and it made me laugh. "That's because it was digital, not film.", and his response was priceless. "Oh! I didn't know that! Well damn, digital is getting better, but it's not there yet.".

The audience knows. That's why content is king when you don't have money to shoot on film. Trust me... film is the medium of choice for a reason. You just can't beat organic , at the moment.

 

[The Sarlacc]

During rehearsal, my cast and I had gotten into a small discussion about films that they'd seen lately. One of them brought up "Collateral", which we all know had been filmed on a high class hi-def digital camera (Viper). He went on to say "I liked the movie, but it looked weird at times."... and it made me laugh. "That's because it was digital, not film.", and his response was priceless. "Oh! I didn't know that! Well damn, digital is getting better, but it's not there yet.".

He could tell when they were using the F900....I bet you money he couldnt tell when they were using the Viper or Film...You've had my back in these discussions so I am in no way trying to bag on you. I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree to a point. But I would be willing to bet not even you are able to tell when they were shooting with the Viper and when it was film. **** had me thrown too. Luckily, one of my friends was an editor, and another on one of the camera units, and I was able to find out...and I was very surprised.

 

[Kholi]

He could tell when they were using the F900....I bet you money he couldnt tell when they were using the Viper or Film...You've had my back in these discussions so I am in no way trying to bag on you. I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree to a point. But I would be willing to bet not even you are able to tell when they were shooting with the Viper and when it was film. shi* had me thrown too. Luckily, one of my friends was an editor, and another on one of the camera units, and I was able to find out...and I was very surprised.

No, I'm not saying that he said it was digital. I was just going to post that. I'm saying that he said it was "weird looking". And he did say "at times" as well. I quote that specifically, because it was only "at times".

No, no audience member is going to say "this is shot digitally", but I've heard it come out of the mouths of people I'm around that know nothing about camreas. "This just looks weird."

I watched November in irvine a few weeks back, and someone walked into the living room to sit down to watch it as well. "Why does it look like that?". And to me, I thought it looked great but that's because I knew it was a digital movie.

"What's wrong with it?".... he said "I don't know, it just looks weird.", but the movie was still decent, so it didn't matter.

No, they won't say "this is digital", but I bet more than half will notice that something's off.

 

[The Sarlacc]

No, I'm not saying that he said it was digital. I was just going to post that. I'm saying that he said it was "weird looking". And he did say "at times" as well. I quote that specifically, because it was only "at times".

No, no audience member is going to say "this is shot digitally", but I've heard it come out of the mouths of people I'm around that know nothing about camreas. "This just looks weird."
No, they won't say "this is digital", but I bet more than half will notice that something's off.

I get that. I'm just saying he was refering to the scenes shot with the F900. What I'm guessing is neither he, or yourself, said or felt that during the scenes shot with the Viper.The Viper camera blended REALLY well with the film, and did not give off the "weird look." Like I said I was sure as hell surprised when I learned what was shot on the Viper that I swore was film.

 

[Kholi]

I get that. I'm just saying he was refering to the scenes shot with the F900. What I'm guessing is neither he, or yourself, said or felt that during the scenes shot with the Viper.The Viper camera blended REALLY well with the film, and did not give off the "weird look." Like I said I was sure as hell surprised when I learned what was shot on the Viper that I swore was film.

Yeah, that's probably true. The second unit stuff was probably what he was referring too. Me? I was surprised as you were, not only because of the quality, but that there was a digital camera involved at all with star talent (though now I know it happens a lot more than I thought it did.)

I'm sure it was the F900 that he noticed, but my point was that he noticed that it looked weird at times. That was what I was getting at.

By the by-- You're like, fending off all of the replies by your lonesome. It's like Dante in Devil May Cry, that's how quick you are at responding with relevant points. Scary. ;

 

[Barry_Green]

He went on to say "I liked the movie, but it looked weird at times."... and it made me laugh. "That's because it was digital, not film."

Not a good example. Collateral looked weird because they used the shutter off, which makes it far more "smeary" than it otherwise would look. Nothing to do with DOF, it's because at 1/24 there's way too much motion blur, and that's what would make it look weird.