Can The Hvx Capture An Actors Soul?

Dumb? This is a serious problem in Holywoodland! I beg to differ!

What I do is save myself the casting hassle and add it in post. There is some really good 3d soul CGI software out there for really cheap. I got Soul Splash 6.0, but expect to spend a good 8 to 12 hours for your average LA actor for a believable soul effect. Or you could do what many indies do, just shoot on a different state! You don't really have to go too far though, as long as you leave LA you are pretty much good to go.
 
There's a 35mm soul-out test thread floating on the boards,

do a search before asking, Xhenchmen.
 
A soul sucking DP on the loose in Hollywood. I've seen this before in AD departments. The 1st and 2nd go on this vampire-like feeding frenzy with the PAs. Could make a good cheesy horror flick though.
 
Phil Maker said:
He say's the problem with HD is that it doesn't capture an actors soul.
Click to expand...

An HVX can't capture an actors soul. When you become an actor you sell your soul. Nothing to capture.:happy:
 
Glen Johnson said:
an actors way of saying there is no depth of field with the stock lens...
Click to expand...

Actually, I've been working on a solution for this. It's called the Soul Scope. It works with infrared.

Anyone interested in a device like this?

Just testing the waters. :bath:
 
Last edited:
The reason I started this thread was not to attract every comedian/DP in cyberspace. Although I do appreciate all the humor, which in itself does allude to an answer, the point still has gone unfortunately missed.

#1 This "actor" said 16mm is WAY better. He made me feel bad for going with the HVX over 16. I wanted to know peoples feelings on this matter and not one person addressed it.

#2 I thought it was interesting that here was someone pointing to an intangible as the cause for video not being as good as film. I've heard all the arguments based on concrete examples, but never one that was based on an abstract idea.

I think everyone took the idea of "soul" and ran with it. The thing that interested me was not about the soul so much as it was about the idea that film is able to record something intangible in a scene or performance that digital is not.
 
Phil Maker said:
I think everyone took the idea of "soul" and ran with it. The thing that interested me was not about the soul so much as it was about the idea that film is able to record something intangible in a scene or performance that digital is not.
Click to expand...
Physical, real, tangible pieces of man-made equipment cannot capture different intangible elements of an actor's performance, soul or otherwise.

The look of the image will vary, obviously, but are you really asking if there's some mysterious juju that film will capture and digital won't? Sounds like metaphysics to me. And there is no metaphysics in cinematography. That's why everyone ran with the soul thing...It's ALL tangible, measurable and physical. The only thing that will change is the way an actor acts in front of a different camera and that's a whole other topic...Kiefer Sutherland...
 
Phil Maker said:
The thing that interested me was not about the soul so much as it was about the idea that film is able to record something intangible in a scene or performance that digital is not.
Click to expand...
I think what that actor is calling soul is really the organic feeling that he gets from film. I think that all the excitement people have for the HVX and the DVX is that in 24P, these cameras are so much closer to that organic feeling.

Does the HVX or DVX have less "soul" than 16mm? I think in the right hands, these camera have as much "soul" or feel as organic as any film camera. I also think that that "soul" comes from the actors performance as well as the screenwriter's, director's, DP's, editors passion. A film can have no soul in the wrong hands and a digital film can be loaded with soul in the right hands.

That said...

I'm on a G5 dual 2 gig with FCP 4.5. Whenever I drop footage with soul into the timeline I have to render.

Any workaround for this?:happy:
 
Phil Maker said:
The reason I started this thread was not to attract every comedian/DP in cyberspace. Although I do appreciate all the humor, which in itself does allude to an answer, the point still has gone unfortunately missed.

#1 This "actor" said 16mm is WAY better. He made me feel bad for going with the HVX over 16. I wanted to know peoples feelings on this matter and not one person addressed it.

#2 I thought it was interesting that here was someone pointing to an intangible as the cause for video not being as good as film. I've heard all the arguments based on concrete examples, but never one that was based on an abstract idea.

I think everyone took the idea of "soul" and ran with it. The thing that interested me was not about the soul so much as it was about the idea that film is able to record something intangible in a scene or performance that digital is not.
Click to expand...

The reason I started this thread was not to attract every comedian/DP in cyberspace
Click to expand...

:happy:

Well now we're bordering on the film / video debate (Again)

I see your point. Film is film; film rules.

He's giving you crap about using the HVX over 16mm ? Was he going to pay for the developing and telecine ?

You have the right story and the right talent and that 'soul', that 'intangilbe' ingredient is going to come to the surface

Patricia Clarckson 'Pieces of April' (academy Award nominated performance)
Tom Cruise & Jamie Foxx 'Collateral'
Cilian Murphy '28 Days Later'
Brittany Murphy 'Sin City'
Rudy Youngblood 'Apacalypto'

Can you deny the performances in these films were any less there than if shot on film ?

Tell Robert to stick to acting.
 
The actor's soul is in the performance.

You can capture it with Hi Def, Super 16, MiniDV or a crappy phone cam. If the performance has soul, it will be captured by whatever equipment you use.
 
OK, I guess it is back to reality.

I'll offer my opinions on what the actor was trying to say.

The soul in this case has very little to do with bringing something out in the actor's performance on 16mm film that isn't there on the HVX. Either he is a good actor or he is not. The device used to capture the scene doesn't change anything in relation to that.

I think what he was refering to is a certain mood or look to the picture which has less to do with the camera than it does with lighting, composition and technique in handling the camera.

The big thing that is likely to be different is depth of field which can be made much more dramatic with the use of a 35mm adapter.

There will also be resolution differences and differences in the texture of film grain or noise. There is not much to be done about these except to set up the camera in a way that changes the look or minimizes the noise inherent in the HVX. Unless you are going to a 50 foot screen, the resolution isn't going to be an issue. The HVX has plenty of resolution.

I don't know the actor's background but he is an actor and as such may not know how to quantify the intangable spirit of a picture in a way that is meaningful to a camera operator.

My opinion is that the HVX has a great deal of mojo or magic in the way it captures an image. The true 24p frame capture and the color rendition has a great deal to do with it. It campares to film better than any other small form-factor camera out there right now.

Perhaps he wasn't familiar with the HVX in particular but was thinking of HDV cameras that don't do true 24p.

I think that if you were to question the actor more and find out what he meant by soul, the HVX is likely to be able to provide it combined with great lighting and skilled operating.

Don't get me wrong, only film is film, but the HVX has a lot going for it.
 
kevinM said:
OK, I guess it is back to reality.

I'll offer my opinions on what the actor was trying to say.

The soul in this case has very little to do with bringing something out in the actor's performance on 16mm film that isn't there on the HVX. Either he is a good actor or he is not. The device used to capture the scene doesn't change anything in relation to that.

I think what he was refering to is a certain mood or look to the picture which has less to do with the camera than it does with lighting, composition and technique in handling the camera.

The big thing that is likely to be different is depth of field which can be made much more dramatic with the use of a 35mm adapter.

There will also be resolution differences and differences in the texture of film grain or noise. There is not much to be done about these except to set up the camera in a way that changes the look or minimizes the noise inherent in the HVX. Unless you are going to a 50 foot screen, the resolution isn't going to be an issue. The HVX has plenty of resolution.

I don't know the actor's background but he is an actor and as such may not know how to quantify the intangable spirit of a picture in a way that is meaningful to a camera operator.

My opinion is that the HVX has a great deal of mojo or magic in the way it captures an image. The true 24p frame capture and the color rendition has a great deal to do with it. It campares to film better than any other small form-factor camera out there right now.

Perhaps he wasn't familiar with the HVX in particular but was thinking of HDV cameras that don't do true 24p.

I think that if you were to question the actor more and find out what he meant by soul, the HVX is likely to be able to provide it combined with great lighting and skilled operating.

Don't get me wrong, only film is film, but the HVX has a lot going for it.
Click to expand...

Which of course negates all of those performances shot with a deep focus.

-

That settles; it is a Dilm vs Digital debate in disguise !
 
John_Hudson said:
Which of course negates all of those performances shot with a deep focus.

-

That settles; it is a Dilm vs Digital debate in disguise !
Click to expand...


Ya think?

That's what is so strange about the actors comment. We can only guess what he was trying to say.
 
Phil Maker said:
The reason I started this thread was not to attract every comedian/DP in cyberspace. Although I do appreciate all the humor, which in itself does allude to an answer, the point still has gone unfortunately missed.

#1 This "actor" said 16mm is WAY better. He made me feel bad for going with the HVX over 16. I wanted to know peoples feelings on this matter and not one person addressed it.

#2 I thought it was interesting that here was someone pointing to an intangible as the cause for video not being as good as film. I've heard all the arguments based on concrete examples, but never one that was based on an abstract idea.

I think everyone took the idea of "soul" and ran with it. The thing that interested me was not about the soul so much as it was about the idea that film is able to record something intangible in a scene or performance that digital is not.
Click to expand...

All kidding aside, and being someone who has studied both acting and filmmaking (and remains a student not an expert in both) I would not put much stock in this persons comments. Anyone who has ever walked the boards knows that acting is what happens internally. What happens internally then manifests itself outwardly for the audience to see/judge not the actor. If this actor thinks about the external while performing, I would guess he is not very good.

The medium, whether it be live, 16, 35, DV, HD is irrelevent to this process. It is the actors job to give his performance and it is the directors job to capture this and judge if he has the tools necessary to do so. The HVX is more than adequate in my view.
 
Wow, this thread was amazing. I haven't laughed this much in a long while. lol You have to realize that the comment your actor made is simply ridiculous. Your actor should never make you feel bad over your choice of format. especially between 16mm and HD. It's just like what John Hudson said in regards to an actor's performance. The camera can only record what the actor gives, and the actor's he mentions can deliver. Don't feel bad with your choice in format. Just make sure your talent can deliver. And if your actor tells you that you didn't capture his soul, just tell him there was nothing there. Best of luck on your film. :)
 
Since this thread has degenerated into a serious discussion, I have to contribute.
I once successfully captured an actors soul on the HVX. P2 capacity dropped immediately from 20 minutes to less than 3, forcing me to transfer via firewire. During the transfer, I noticed a large lump in the firewire cable, sort of like when a python swallows a rat. It slowly lumbered down the cable and disappeared into the Mac.
I opened up FCP and started to click on Import Panasonic P2, when I noticed a
new option right below - "Import Actor's Soul". Clicking on that option brought up a window I had never seen labeled, 'Window to the Soul".

So it appears not only can the HVX capture an actor's soul as well as 35mm, but
the process has been fully facilitated by the Final Cut engineers. I'm pretty sure Edius
Broadcast is not yet soul compliant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top