Can I get this look w/ my HVX + adapter?

amber

amber

Active member
hi there,

I'm a (technically challenged) director with a dp who is trying to encourage me to go to 16mm. What do you think? Please watch this filmmakers reel and look for the part, near the middlewith the little girl swinging on a swing. Look especially at how the light is coming through the trees.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3MMm3x4bj0k

Is it possible to get this same look, or nearly the same with an HVX outfitted with an adapter (i've got the Letus) and lenses (nikons). If so, which settings, etc would you reccommend?



Thank you for your feedback!
amber
 
i say yes. But only if you had an adapter, as the bokeh creates this diffusion within the highlights of the image. Or just use a white diffusion effect from magic bullet.
 
shapes of bokeh

shapes of bokeh

thanks papa!

what about this?

the shape of her bokeh is hexagonal,
would something coming from a hvx be disc or circular shaped?
 
exactly, each lens will provide a different bokeh. Most feature films use larger then life priced lenses that create a beautiful circular bokeh. But what will change the appearance for an DVX or HVX, is the GG being used along with the lens attached. stepping the camera down itself a few stops will also produce a sharper focus on the GG.
 
It is not just about DOF, with 16mm you will avoid the vertical smear that happens with every 1/3" CCD camera. If you step up to a 2/3" CCD you will be better off. You might consider a Varicam with 35mm set-up.


ash =o)
 
what is this vertical smear that you speak of? ive heard of it but never seen it myself. the only thing that bugs me are lines that become pixelated as the iamge moves.
 
If you can do film, then do film.

The experience will put you in a whole other league.

yes, you can emulate the look of film with video, but there is a whole world of other stuff that goes with shooting film.

Go for it if you can.
 
Always go with the BEST image quality you can afford. if that means shooting Film, shoot film. If you can only afford HD, then get the best HD system you can get.
 
Agreed.

Just completed a short film as DP end editor, with mixed media, tape and S16 film. Around 10 minutes of video, around 15 of straight fllm TC in the final cut.

If you look on my FCP timeline, you'll see that the taped (mixed JVC HD110 and Z1u) footage has between three and five filters/layers on it to make it look like something.

The telecine'd stuff is mostly V1 only, with the occasional CC filter in to tweak something.

The total cost of the neg, dev, and high def suite telecine in Los Angeles ran to around $1600, including a D5 master, a digiBeta SD with downconvert, and a miniDV dupe to get it into FCP. 2400ft were shot, 400ft of which was on B/W reversal.

That's the math. The other, more intangible stuff: this footage will be around for a long while. Having a film camera means film discipline, which means design, preparation, planning, art direction, lighting, testing, and not just get-there-and-pray-and-spray coverage.

This, probably more than the actual media involved, is the real difference behind the "film look".

The sense that you're making classical music and not fast food.

Since I own both video and film cameras, I can say this:

if I shoot "film discipline" with my video camera (usualy with a 35mm adaptor, matte box, filter set etc), the footage usually turns out nicer, sooner. A lot of that, paradoxically, stems from how I mount my camera. If I use a very heavy 35mm gear head on an HDV camera, the "lightness" of the image goes away and the results look more filimic. Even with a DOF adaptor, it's harder to get the film look when the video camera is being hand-held - it looks much more filmic off a Steadicam or similar.

I have shot run-and-gun wth my Aaton and it looks more like the older time documentaries than a handheld video camera of today.
Something about film's inherent quality beautifies the image, almost without having to do anything else. I'm oversimplifying here, but could go on, in detail, about this for days, believe me.

Of course, I'm referring to both media shown on a TV set. If you compare video projection with S16mm film projection, that's another animal entirely.

One final story.

As I was cutting this project, the father of my kid's playmate stopped by and took a look. He said "you know, they can make video look just like film these days".

I said sure, and then showed him a piece of taped (de-interlaced, 24p'd, grained, Magic Bullet gamma'd, I'd played with that and matched grain, everything) and then showed him a piece of filmed.

He could tell immediately. No hesitation.

***And then he said again***, "but you know, you can make video look just like film, these days..."
 
Last edited:
>Having a film camera means film discipline, which means design, preparation,
>planning, art direction, lighting, testing, and not just get-there-and-pray-and-
>spray coverage.

That's the ticket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top