The future of HVX

Nicely summed up Jack. Let me just add the DV Rebel perspective—sometimes the ability to grab-and-go makes all the difference in the kind of movie you can make. The first day I had an HVX200 all to myself I grabbed a shot on the Bay Bridge by hanging the camera out the window of a car, about a foot off the ground, going 60 MPH. I would not be so eager to do this with a camera that cost as much as the car I'm in!

I'm excited as heck about Red, but one year from now I'm afraid we're going to see a lot of Red-shot shorts that aren't very adventurous with camera placements!

-Stu
 
Jack_Felis said:
Really, I would be happy with either option. In fact, my brother and I were planning to buy an HVX200 and deck it out with all the fixings, but then the RED came a knockin' and we couldn't resist the possibilities, especially since we want to do lots of green/bluescreen effects work (think "300"-level) and even though some people are doing great work with the HVX200 (take a look at the "Midnight Chronicles" thread), we just couldn't resist the added benefit of having 4K at this early point in our lives (we're juniors in college now, waiting to get out and go to film school). The RED would just carry over a lot longer than an HVX200 would in our situation.
Click to expand...

And, if their "future-proofing" sort-of approach is really there... you won't be purchasing another camera for a really... really... reallly long time. No need to sell your gear so you can upgrade. I'd say that sounds pretty nice.

If only I could buy one Playstation that would evolve like RED.
 
ProLost said:
Nicely summed up Jack. Let me just add the DV Rebel perspective—sometimes the ability to grab-and-go makes all the difference in the kind of movie you can make. The first day I had an HVX200 all to myself I grabbed a shot on the Bay Bridge by hanging the camera out the window of a car, about a foot off the ground, going 60 MPH. I would not be so eager to do this with a camera that cost as much as the car I'm in!

I'm excited as heck about Red, but one year from now I'm afraid we're going to see a lot of Red-shot shorts that aren't very adventurous with camera placements!

-Stu
Click to expand...

People do it every day, though. Film Cameras, stock, etc aren't cheap.
 
Jack I really appreciate your analysis and such, however that wasn't my question at all. My fault. I should'nt have included a figure for a budget.

My question was simply: if the budget were such that the cost wouldn't make a difference, would the HVX have any applications where it may excell over the RED?

once again, budget is not a consideration in this hypothetical.

And then on a seperate note, the difference between 3ccds and a single cmos sensor. As I said, I'm a proof-pudding guy, but even with some spatial offset, I imagine that 3ccds still have an advantage in low light and with color reproduction.

Back to the HVX versus RED sans budget debate... I imagine a few things where it may be better starting with ProLost's DV rebel reasoning.

The HVX I assume would allow a smaller crew. Some people, myself included, prefer small crews despite the budget. The HVX may have more of the "intimacy factor" where the actors have more freedom without the hot lights in their face and the looming "big" camera. I do a lot of shooting on location and I know every pound and piece of equipment counts. Smaller/lighter is better. The RED won't be that much of a difference, but enough that it may be a factor in some situations. Run and gun is a no brainer. Mounting to a car is also a no-brainer, I don't think I'd trust a stickpod with a RED camera, not to mention I can get 40 minutes with P2 @720p on two 8gigs. They have a flash solution but I don't know if the math adds up for the RED... yet. The last thing(s) off the top of my head would be cam-placement and the "hands on" factor. I know I like to operate the camera in any situation for the most time I possibly can. Needing a pro to steadycam the RED would not appeal to me regardless of budget. The HVX is easy to stabilize and lets me be a control freak the way I like it.

With all of that said, I'm interested to hear other's opinions on the matter.

However, it just hit me that the most important advantage may well be: TIME.

DVCPRO HD (I guess this doesn't apply to just the HVX but to all of the pannies), is established, easy, and not very demanding on hardware. Cost aside. I can load it on a laptop and edit it on the fly. Work on special effects etc. 4k or 2k in a wavelet based (much more processor intensive) codec will require not only more HD space/speed (no bus powered portable drives), and a desktop or server, but rendering will still take longer, and that is time that could be spent working.

I remember talking to a producer from PBS who worked on the News Hour, and he told me that that did all of their HD programs' CGI in SD to save on rendering time. This was both for deadlines and for efficiency.

Anyway, this is my take, and again, I really think the RED is awesome and one day would like to own one or perhaps even just rent one, but am still interested in differentiating the HVX to more than just a budgetary alternative.
 
I think the RED and the HVX are two totally different animals and it's really pushing it to try to evaluate them as equals. RED will be considered the more professional camera in the sense that it will make pics that will stand up to 35mm film and will be much more feature laden. No matter how hard you push the HVX it will never be in the same league (imagine the difference between them blown up for big screen). However I can see it being used as a great supplemental camera on some (especially documentary) projects to be able to get where a larger camera cannot go.

Also the RED can be set up to be pretty small, especially if using the flash media and powering it from a belt instead of mounted on the camera. I've seen some pretty intimate situations shot on big cameras. And even though the HVX is small, I'm currently working on an indie using the HVX with a Brevis and primes. With everything mounted it's pretty big, can be heavy and not too easy to throw around as a hand held camera. I really like using the HVX...but I can't wait to work with the RED.
 
So am I to assume then that if budget were not an issue... say a 10 million$ production or something, or 1 billion, doesn't matter in this scenario... if that were not a consideration, there would be NO REASON at all to use the HVX over a RED, no PROs at all? The RED is simply better in every single possible way?

What about Hydra?

I'm just saying there has to be SOMETHING that the HVX handles better than the RED. (not in terms of quality. Just in terms of anything else. Workflow? Speed? etc.) 35mm looks way better than a cell phone camera, but for spontaneous shots of my friends being jerks or doing something stupid, 35mm isn't quite as likely to get it in time, etc... quality doesn't matter in that scenario.

Is there no analagous sitution for the HVX/RED?
 
Look, man, I don't know what you want people to say. If you have the money, you would be a fool not to get a RED camera for your production. It offers way too much production value-wise.

If you didn't have the money for the RED, but could afford the HVX200, with or without the Hydra modification and an M2, then more power to you, you'll have a lot more available to you than most indies do. Nothing could ever prevent your film from holding up against a 35mm or digital 4K production. All that you have to do is pay attention to lighting, scene composition, and shot choices.

The HVX is in a unique position where it does quite a lot of things better than its competition and now that the Hydra mod has come out, it dominates its price bracket entirely. The RED can trump it, all it depends on is how you configure it. The RED Flash options give you a lot more bang for your buck compared to P2. Workflow is still up in the air but if anything, they sound about equal really. Speed has nothing to do with it and nobody said you couldn't get just the RED body, the viewfinder, a little Nikon lense, an accessory shoe adapter for a microphone, and a few compactflash cards and have a little 10-11 pound HVX-size camera ready to go for covert 4K filming.

Simply put, the HVX doesn't do anything better than the RED can do except for weight (5 pounds versus 9+ pounds) and price. But configure the HVX with an M2, big LCD panel, lenses, matte box, follow focus, and all that other stuff and you might as well have bought a RED for the same price. Then it all comes down to weight, which will depend soley on whether you want that M2 and other jazz or simply stick to the basic HVX camera itself, which is pretty bad arse anyway, then it could or could not matter and could or could not make the RED a 100% ultimately superior camera. The RED is about the same size as the HVX too, so it can get into any nook and cranny that the HVX can.

As you have said and insinuated, all it depends on is the budget, and I think that's really what you've been wanting to hear. If you've got the money, go RED. If not, go HVX with or without the Hydra mod. But you should put all of your resources into getting a RED because it can beat the HVX200 nine times out of ten (the 1 HVX win being for price).

As you guys know, I'm no RED fanboy, I like all of the cameras out now for one reason or another and I support everyone with their choice of camera. Mine just happens to be the RED, I was going for the HVX before but based on the needs of not just myself, but also my brother who is wanting to get into special effects, I made the push for us to get a RED as that seemed to give us the biggest canvas for our filmmaking needs. Based on the technical facts which I don't have too deep a concept of, I am a college student after all, I have compared the HVX personally with the RED in every possible way and no matter what, the RED can beat the HVX at just about everything I can think of. I don't want to start a flame war about which camera, of all things in this business, is better, that is up to the person buying a camera. But I'm merely stating the facts as I see them to answer the question posed in this thread. To throw another bone into the discussion, there's always the option of the SI-2K, which seems to have had its thunder stolen by the RED. For the same reasons as I was going to buy the RED, I would have bought the SI-2K instead had the RED actually fallen through to the delight of many trolls and flamers who have wanted it to. I am thankful that it has not and that the RED delivery schedule will coincide with my senior year of college, in which I will have many opportunities to use it and learn the camera and 4K workflow inside out.

Regarding this thread, I think it has gotten way off topic (RED vs. HVX territory) and the future of the HVX can be continued elsewhere thanks to the annoucement by Juan about the Hydra mod and potentially to any announcements at NAB in, literally, a couple of weeks. I love the HVX and would be delighted to hear any new announcements about its advancement to meet even more of our needs, including my own regardless of my future RED ownership.
 
Just remember guys, while it's fun to discuss gear, a true filmmaker can make great **** with ANY TOOL.

Whether its a Canon ZR60, DVX100, Arri D-20, or actual film

Then when you get into the realm of super35 it's easy to say "Oh well if I had widescreen 8 perf, that would make it better..."

And this goes on and on

Guess what - figure out your idea and then decide what equipment you need.


DO YOU NEED HD FOR THIS?

Well unless you're doing compositing, motion tracking, or going for a film out, no. HD is just a format, it has more resolution, and if that resolution is coming from a 1/3" chip who cares. It's just like the DVX to 90% of the people who will see it (on TVs or internet streaming)

2/3" chip makes a difference

CMOS makes a difference

etc

but the format isnt that big of a deal to be honest, and it gets a little silly sometimes, with all this talk about which camera to buy based on how much vertical res it has and why it is better to shoot interlaced on this camera because it doesn't have true progressive scan or why this camera has a slightly wierd cadence or knee setting

I mean does it really matter? No.

Yes it is important to understand workflow and basic camera usage, but it gets to the point where we're splitting hairs, I mean go test out the damn cameras and see which is more comfortable, which you like the image out of better, which has the nicer workflow, etc.
 
monte said:
It's just like the DVX to 90% of the people who will see it (on TVs or internet streaming)
Click to expand...

IMO the HVX looks better than the DVX even in SD - but I have to admit that mostly I have to judge it by downloads given that I don´t own any HVX or DVX. But on those downloads I see a big difference in latitude and colourspace. The HVX always looks crisper, fresher and more filmlike.
 
Jack, you may be right about Red, that it all has to do with budget. I just wanted to hear an opinion. Yours is that it only comes down to budget, and perhaps weight. In fact I probably agree; it just seems like we're missing something. I don't know. But you actually got to compare the two side by side? I didn't know the first batch had shipped. Or did you get access to a prototype?

The only other thing is, I don't WANT to hear anything. I'm interested in facts and opinions. It's about learning. That's what I'm here for.

Also I didn't realize that the two cams were the same size. I was under the impression that the RED was more like the XL1, in terms of size.

I do disagree that this is off topic. If even a small percentage of people go for the RED instead of the HVX, then that affects the future of the device, and what applications it will be used for. Hydra will also change things. So no this is not off-topic at all. Perhaps a little myopic, but not off topic.... that might make a nice little jingle.


To Monte, I do agree with your first sentance, but you seem to be a bit angry at people who like the technical side of filmmaking.

Film is, after all, a very technically oriented medium. Technology has a constant effect of changing the way films are made, and sometimes the content within them. Kubrick declined to make AI in 92' because the technology wasn't there yet, and he wanted a robot as the actual actor. S-berg took it over and used an Osment unit (I'm convinced he IS a robot), and CGI.

If you prefer to err on the side of content, fine, but there are those of us who not only enjoy the technical aspects of film, but believe better tools make better movies (of course with a competant crew); and I not believe we deserve to be criticised for it.
 
Oh no, I was a bit annoyed as I had been dealing with a group of students earlier that were saying things like:

Well monte you shot that on film

and I was like No i didn't thats a mini dv 24p cam


and theyre like WELL WE NEED THAT, because it's not a fair comparison

and I'm like, You're holding the same camera, right there in your hand! *pointing to DVX*

Plus, you guys have been using it for weeks, I dont even own a camera, I shot that stuff on my first run with the damn thing!


Ugh god, I feel like everybody just wants to push a button and have everything done for them, filmmaking is a process not a ****ing plugin, ya know what I mean?







EDIT:


I love the technical side, thats how I got into film, BUT sometimes people need to look at the bigger picture, you can make great stuff with both cams, the technology is there. It's pretty cut and dry - obviously if money were no object then the red would be the obvious choice, just hire somebody to deal with all the footage and then online it at 4k - Correct in a davinci suite etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
RED is not going to replace the HVX, but it is going to replace HVX+35mm adaptor rigs.
 
What a ... different statement. Care to elaborate on how you see that happening? If RED isn't even going to replace the HVX? An HVX + Adapter + Lense Kit is still much much much less than just a RED package. So the statement leaves me behind.
 
I think JP means, it's not going to replace the HVX, but it might, or it will in every situation, or none. :)

To Monte,

hey many I dig it. film students can be... yeah. A friend of my dads does construction for the MOWs in Vancouver, and his quote is that everytime he has to deal with a film student he wants to kill himself... or more likely quit.

At any rate, I hear ya. I'm big on techs myself, but I was born infront of a comp so it's only natural. I kid not. I had a computer in my room @ 2 and learned the basics of basic @ 3. An old TI comp. I still have it. l33t. But I can see how it can tilt your field of view a bit.

In film everything needs your attention, not just matters of digital importance. I think, though because this board is centered around a specific camera, discussion tends to lean on technical issues/discusson. I hang out in the directing forum to balance it out. I don't post though, because I still have way too much to learn.

Man, though, the Push-Button artists piss me off so much. I REALLY feel you on that one. Most of my crew buddies went to film school and don't seem to know jack **** about ANYTHING except little anecdotes their professors taught them about hitchcock, and that citizen kane is the best movie ever made. ....

And EVERYONE with a brain already knows that Biodome is the greatest piece of cinema to grace the silver screen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top