To those who must have 35mm Adaptors to make Movies

I really like the message of that video. For me, though, it only reinforces the value of a 35mm adapter. The message is not "use cheap equipment" per se, the message is "care about what you are producing." If you want to be sure you push the artistic limits of the DVX or the HVX, and if you truly care about the emotional impact of your program, then using a 35mm adapter is a positive step in that direction.
 
the message i got from it was 'having the most expensive equipment doesn't guarantee a good film/production' and 'learn to get the most out of what you have before you get your next addition' all of which i agree.

i can see how some people get caught up with buying a lot of additions for the camera and spending a lot of $$$ and still not having a good product.
 
I'd have to agree. It has nothing to do with 35mm adapters in specific. He could very well be talking about people who think they need an HVX to shoot a good movie.
 
If you care about a project and doing it in general, its always best to atleast get the minimum of the best equipment (the HVX200) it future proofs your project for years to come and will show others you are serious as well.

I would never shoot something i care about in SD.

My opinion of course.
 
In my opinion, the "professional" did exactly what he was supposed to do. The reason pros do that for recitals like that is because parents get furious when someone elses kid has some great close-up shot, and there kid never does: thus the complete wide shot.

The second half of the video makes sense - but everyone should know that by now...
 
Eric Papa said:
In my opinion, the "professional" did exactly what he was supposed to do. The reason pros do that for recitals like that is because parents get furious when someone elses kid has some great close-up shot, and there kid never does: thus the complete wide shot.

The second half of the video makes sense - but everyone should know that by now...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought that too. He basically was shooting a meeting video. They hired the guy to shoot a wide shot of the whole recital, which is why he only charged $25 for a copy. He would be in the expensive wedding video range if he had to edit broll montages of the kiddies and all that. Can't blame him for that. He's gotta feed his kids, too.

Just a passing observation, but I think it is ironic that, given the message, this digital juice episode is shot with what looks like an HVX.. (which is a bit more expensive to shoot and edit on than a GL2). I still like the message, which is to just give a darn about what you do. Care about the result. Have passion for the project. (Some of us have a passion for our toys too. And that's..ok.)

Incidentally, I used my dvx and Letus35fe to shoot video of my kids baking Christmas cookies and it looks priceless. Luscious shallow depth of field as they put colorful sprinkles on the dough. I guess I could have shot it with my old GL1..but I love my kids more than that. No wait..not that people with GL1s don't love their kids.. what I meant is..oh forget it.
 
Eric Papa said:
In my opinion, the "professional" did exactly what he was supposed to do
Click to expand...
Well I take your point, but surely he should have used at least two cameras - one on the tripod and one to move around?

And I'm also aware that you can get fantastic results with extra narrow DOF but I have to wonder how many of the guys shelling out their hard earned cash are capable of using these adaptors - especially in view of the HVX (and all other "prosumer" camera) focus limitations.

But I love the feedback here - it's refreshing and constructive!

Andy
 
it was a well produced video, i like that guy hes good. He didnt tell me anything i didnt arleady know, but there are lot of ppl out there who need this advice :D
 
andynick said:
And I'm also aware that you can get fantastic results with extra narrow DOF but I have to wonder how many of the guys shelling out their hard earned cash are capable of using these adaptors - especially in view of the HVX (and all other "prosumer" camera) focus limitations.


Andy
Click to expand...

What does a 35mm adapter paired with your points have to do with what he's saying? Is this a personal thing with 35mm adapters?

There's not a single thing that he says that doesn't relate to everything in a production, from the newest Glidecam Crane system or whatever doo-hickey-ma-bob you want to name.

His point was "hone your skills if you want to be a great and respected talen". That's what I got from it.

Again, this sounds like frustrations with people buying adapters... not waiting for the next big RED release.
 
Kholi said:
What does a 35mm adapter paired with your points have to do with what he's saying? Is this a personal thing with 35mm adapters?

There's not a single thing that he says that doesn't relate to everything in a production, from the newest Glidecam Crane system or whatever doo-hickey-ma-bob you want to name.

His point was "hone your skills if you want to be a great and respected talen". That's what I got from it.

Again, this sounds like frustrations with people buying adapters... not waiting for the next big RED release.
Click to expand...
What I got out of the video is that people who use adapters are better. Maybe I am reading into it.
 
pmgmedia said:
What I got out of the video is that people who use adapters are better. Maybe I am reading into it.
Click to expand...


I got "You'd better order that sausage biscuit or I'll do the flip-the-screen-with-a-paper-clip mod on your HVX without your knowledge".

It's all so subjective, I can't function.
 
I have to say that investing in gear is a 100% solid idea if you take your work seriously. Yes you should be able to opperate your gear(who doesnt know that). buying a 35mm adapter for even a gl2 would be a wise move because as most indie filmmakers would point out you could upgrade the camera and still use the adapter! Of course you don't need a 35mm adapter or a nice camera to make movies, you could shoot on hi8 and have a great story that applies to the medium of capture (blair witch project, of course they shot on 16mm as well but you get my meaning), but down talking tech heads is kind of a weird thing to do on these forums don't ya think:huh: ?
 
Let's put it this way: better gear will not make your film better than you are.

Better gear is definitely better. But if your skillset is not up to the task, then you're just wasting money and time waiting for and buying stuff that's bigger and better than you need.
 
Barry_Green said:
Let's put it this way: better gear will not make your film better than you are.

Better gear is definitely better. But if your skillset is not up to the task, then you're just wasting money and time waiting for and buying stuff that's bigger and better than you need.
Click to expand...

I.E. Barry is a guru.
 
HDkilledFILM. said:
Of course you don't need a 35mm adapter or a nice camera to make movies, you could shoot on hi8 and have a great story that applies to the medium of capture (blair witch project, of course they shot on 16mm as well but you get my meaning), but down talking tech heads is kind of a weird thing to do on these forums don't ya think:huh: ?
Click to expand...
I hear ya. Genghis Blues was a documentary shot on Hi8 by two guys who had never made a film before. I really like that movie.

Chuck Peters point is, however, a wakeup call to all of the people who are waiting for RED to come out because they think it will instantly make them a filmmaker. Not that it won't, though, with its magical powers which I both fear and respect.
 
pmgmedia said:
Chuck Peters point is, however, a wakeup call to all of the people who are waiting for RED to come out because they think it will instantly make them a filmmaker. Not that it won't, though, with its magical powers which I both fear and respect.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes sence but I don't know of anyone here who is unskilled and expecting red to make them that way. Most red camera reservations (that I can tell) are to people who have done their homework and who know what they are getting into, which is a magical make you a cinema god forever camera that will never let you make any bad footage, I think, maybe...
 
It's a double-edged sword. Chuck cites both Steven Soderberg and Danny Boyle as examples that DV can be used on the professional level. However, there is more to the story. I can only assume that for Steven Soderberg (all hail), Chuck must have been referring to Full Frontal, in which the DV footage was degraded and amaturish for artistic purposes, thus not showcasing its full potential--nor exposing its true limitation. For Danny The-Greatest-Thing-To-Come-Out-Of-England-Since-Bowie Boyle, the obvious reference is to 28 Days Later..., which used the XL-1 coupled with a superior film lens kit (Canon has been cool that way since the onset of the XL series). So to cite Boyle as an example of why you don't need a 35mm adapter (which Chuck does not do) is erronious. I did not have the opportunity to see 28 Days Later on the big screen, but on DVD it looks fine. I have heard complaints about the filmout, though. In other words, even when you are someone overflowing with talent, like Mr. Boyle, you can still run into the limitations of your equipment.

I agree with the sentiment of the video, but I would not use blanket statements like, "35mm adapters are bad/a waste of money." I think Chuck would simply have us understand that the rich filmmaker is not necessarily the best filmmaker.

I wouldn't trade HD nor my 35mm adapter for anything--probably not even for 35mm film at this point because I know my skill level, and that of those with whom I work--is not yet at a 35mm film level. But when we are, we will kiss goodbye to our $5,000 camera in favor of superior equipment.
 
rapsucks said:
It's a double-edged sword. Chuck cites both Steven Soderberg and Danny Boyle as examples that DV can be used on the professional level. However, there is more to the story. I can only assume that for Steven Soderberg (all hail), Chuck must have been referring to Full Frontal, in which the DV footage was degraded and amaturish for artistic purposes, thus not showcasing its full potential--nor exposing its true limitation. For Danny The-Greatest-Thing-To-Come-Out-Of-England-Since-Bowie Boyle, the obvious reference is to 28 Days Later..., which used the XL-1 coupled with a superior film lens kit (Canon has been cool that way since the onset of the XL series). So to cite Boyle as an example of why you don't need a 35mm adapter (which Chuck does not do) is erronious. I did not have the opportunity to see 28 Days Later on the big screen, but on DVD it looks fine. I have heard complaints about the filmout, though. In other words, even when you are someone overflowing with talent, like Mr. Boyle, you can still run into the limitations of your equipment.

I agree with the sentiment of the video, but I would not use blanket statements like, "35mm adapters are bad/a waste of money." I think Chuck would simply have us understand that the rich filmmaker is not necessarily the best filmmaker.

I wouldn't trade HD nor my 35mm adapter for anything--probably not even for 35mm film at this point because I know my skill level, and that of those with whom I work--is not yet at a 35mm film level. But when we are, we will kiss goodbye to our $5,000 camera in favor of superior equipment.
Click to expand...


Tingey you make very valid and detailed points. I am ashamed of myself. LoL.

Who's that in your avatar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top