Feature shot in 15 days with HVX

darwinandpaine said:
Okay, here's some quick footy. This scene required a lot of light because the area we were covering was so large. For the record, we had about twenty minutes to light this, and about 7-10 minutes to shoot. This is only one piece of coverage, but I like this shot.
http://mrdeity.com/amelevator.html

Peter... you are absolutely right about the falloff of the flos. To get the back area of this scene lit (a rather large area), we used the 575w HMIs. But for small locations, I think the flos are great.
Click to expand...
What shutter-speed was this at? If the question hasn't already been answered.

Was there any choice specifically for content on the lens in this scene? The play back and forth between focus seems too forced. When they both could've been in focus and it wouldn't have been so distracting to see it shifting focus back and forth. That's the reason I ask.

Colors look great. Very clean image actually.
 
Kholi said:
What shutter-speed was this at? If the question hasn't already been answered.

Was there any choice specifically for content on the lens in this scene? The play back and forth between focus seems too forced. When they both could've been in focus and it wouldn't have been so distracting to see it shifting focus back and forth. That's the reason I ask.

Colors look great. Very clean image actually.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the shutter speed. It might have been 1/24, but it looks like 1/60 from the lack of smear.

As for the play back and forth, remember, this is just one piece of this scene I threw up for everyone who was requesting some footage. This scene has two or three more pieces of coverage, so it probably won't be cut as one take like this.
 
darwinandpaine said:
I don't remember the shutter speed. It might have been 1/24, but it looks like 1/60 from the lack of smear.

As for the play back and forth, remember, this is just one piece of this scene I threw up for everyone who was requesting some footage. This scene has two or three more pieces of coverage, so it probably won't be cut as one take like this.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Guess it would be better to check it out after the cut.

And I asked because it looked like there was a fair amount of smear going on when the girls were walking. I might have to check it out again.

Clean image, though.
 
Kholi said:
That makes sense. Guess it would be better to check it out after the cut.

And I asked because it looked like there was a fair amount of smear going on when the girls were walking. I might have to check it out again.

Clean image, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now that I'm looking at it again, I think you're right. That's probably why the DOF is so narrow too.
 
Do you think it was a wrong lens choice? You know, as well, audience probably isn't going to notice. Didn't mean to go picking at it.

I am interested in getting an M2 for the HVX as well, so I'm checking out lots of footage at the moment.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong lense choice." On location shoots, you often don't have a lot of choices. In this case, the director wanted to see a certain amount of the location, ending with a two-shot on the guys. Given the spot we had to be in to do that, we really didn't have a choice. We couldn't have pushed back any farther because there was a wall behind us. Had this been a set where we could have removed a wall, I would have had choices.

The amount of light also had to be taken into consideration. My fastest lens is a 50mm f1.4, so if that's what was needed because we were out of light... You see what I'm saying?

If you're interested in some more of my M2/HVX footage, you can also check out this no-budget video we shot real quickie-like: http://15minuteslatermovie.com/postal.html
I'm not thrilled with it for many reasons, but it does give you a good idea of what the HVX/M2 combo is capable of.
 
darwinandpaine said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong lense choice." On location shoots, you often don't have a lot of choices. In this case, the director wanted to see a certain amount of the location, ending with a two-shot on the guys. Given the spot we had to be in to do that, we really didn't have a choice. We couldn't have pushed back any farther because there was a wall behind us. Had this been a set where we could have removed a wall, I would have had choices.

The amount of light also had to be taken into consideration. My fastest lens is a 50mm f1.4, so if that's what was needed because we were out of light... You see what I'm saying?

If you're interested in some more of my M2/HVX footage, you can also check out this no-budget video we shot real quickie-like: http://15minuteslatermovie.com/postal.html
I'm not thrilled with it for many reasons, but it does give you a good idea of what the HVX/M2 combo is capable of.
Click to expand...

I totally get ya. Just asking because I am interested in the combination and the limitations that users have.

What lenses do you own/recommend for a new setup? And thanks for the link.
 
My lens kit is as follows:
24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2 (my favorite lens), 100mm f2.8, 135mm f2.8.

If I had one thing to do over, I wouldn't buy any lens that wasn't at least f1.8. Maybe the 135mm is okay at f2.8 because at that lenght you're either using it mostly outdoors or for close-ups were you can bring your lights closer. But I'd really like to have a faster 24mm and a lens in the 35mm range.
 
darwinandpaine said:
I don't want to give you the wrong impression. Like I said, I think I have an 87 page script that I could shoot in 12 days.....

The other thing to keep in mind is to fine-tune your script for your budget and number of days. Be reasonable and don't reach too far.
Click to expand...

Brian, everything you are saying is acknowledged and very relevant. I/we appreciate that you have been so generous to share your experience. All the best with post. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
I understand how things can be quantified when it comes to lighting... but that still requires a couple of circuits at the location which sometimes can be problematic.. And certainly expensive on the utility bill... I mean, sometimes I shoot with my kinos and a couple of 350s and still i'm under 1k of light used. Now then if I'm looking to create some patterns and hard edges.. thats a different matter.



How do you like that Cavision matte box? Gets a lot of bad feedback, but it's so reasonably priced it's affordable..
 
cool. It's going to be a present to myself on my birthday. Partially as I'd like to be able to use it and I know I'll get better results.. but also out of vanity and purely for looks. I know it makes the cam look more impressive to clients. I know... I'm a wanker but it's the biz...


What filter set did you buy? What size filters? I'm hoping to keep my spending down to a grand or less. I'll probably have to buy the follow focus later as initially I'm going to buy either the varizoom or the bepop controller... I'll get a lot more use out of those and they are much cheaper...
 
Darwinandpaine,

The M2 HVX footy looks nice. Was this same combination used on the 15 Minutes Later project?

e
 
Justyn,
I bought CAVISION'S 5-filter set. Works great!

Overlandfilms,
The "15 Minutes Later" promo trailer was shot on a DVX100 without the M2. The "Postal" video and the Mr. Deity episodes are the only things on-line that were shot with the HVX/M2 combo.
 
Darvin i liked your footage although i think going with M2 combo was a wrong choice. Since you wanted relatively wide DOF you could have gone with stock on-camera lens and ahieve similar results. And then you wouldn't have to worry about using lights 2x as powerful as they have to be.

I shot a comedy a few months ago with HVX200 called "Catching the Fever" (with similar budget to yours):
http://catchingthefever.com/film_stills.html

and we were using stock lens as i knew it's about being funn and not beauty of the images (if you can belive a DP would say that...).

I think it's great that you provide so much info so peeps around here can learn and hopefully not make too many similar mistakes -- such as shooting features in 15 days. The highest i ever shot was 8 pages in one day and it was a nightmare. Besicaly i told the director to sit the actors down and that's it... Nowdays i look at the page count and if it's more than 4 pages i start worrying. Also i find that shooting more than 12-14 camera setups per day (by that i mean going closer from similar camera angle too) is simply unresaonable.

Also it seems that your department was seriousy understaffed. My simple people-package usually consits of 1-2 ACs, 3 G&E, sometimes extra PA or 2 that i steal and tells him to learn about cameras or lighting too -- that said though on bigger shoots i learned not to mess with other people's jobs and nowdays i hardly ever touch the lights or camera (other than while operating).
 
Patryk,
I agree with everything you said, except one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone wanted relatively wide DOF. No one wanted that. This movie is not a comedy, it's a drama --- a melodrama actually. The director insisted on the M2. And, by the way, I wouldn't really want to shoot anything without the M2. I love the aesthetic it brings. Hope that clarifies things.

P.S.: What's up with the page you linked to? It's blank.

EDIT: Okay, the page finally loaded. The stills look good. Although, for my taste, they're a bit overlit and have that "everything's-in-focus/video" look. It's just not my bag, baby.
 
Regarding the "ghosting" . Are you using the "UV filter that came with the M2 adapter in the path between the achromat and the GG?
If so that could create the ghosting. It has no purpose - throw it away.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Regarding the "ghosting" . Are you using the "UV filter that came with the M2 adapter in the path between the achromat and the GG?
If so that could create the ghosting. It has no purpose - throw it away.
Click to expand...

Damn! If that's it, we're gonna have to keep it between you and me. The director hated that we couldn't get a few shots he wanted (because we were shooting into too much light). It's a great suggestion. I'll be thrilled if that's it. I just assumed that there were now too many elements that the light was passing through with the Nikons in front and the HVX lens in back. Thanks!
 
Would love to see this scene edited. Please, keep us updated, Darwin. I specifically want to see how that specific shot where the focus pulls between the two while delivering plays out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top