you have 15,000$ or so; what do you do?

A

arrestthisman

Well-known member
No flame here, just want honest opinions:

1. HVX200 + HYDRA + (MAYBE: M2 with lens)

2. HPX500

3. SI-2k MINI

4. Save a couple more month's salary and get a basic RED setup.

Well? Thoughts? Fun speculation that means nothing in the long run?
 
It really depends what your business is. If you do news get a used 2/3´´DigiBeta camera and all networks will love your stuff. If you do indie the HVX is all you need right now (with 35mm adapter).
It also depends if you have lights, steadycam etc. I rather buy the HVX and a lot of gear around (flood-lamps, fresnel light, steadycam, mattebox, a good tripod with carbonlegs, plus plus plus). If you buy a big cam and have no tripod or light around.....won´t help you much.
 
I'd get...

HVX200
(3) 16gb P2's
(3) DVX batteries
SGproRev2 w/various Nikon or Canon lenses
A good-great shotgun mic
Ty Video 2 bag
Plenty of harddrives
Cinesaddle
16x9 .45x super fisheye
lighting equip
Matteblox HD
A good bogen tripod setup
 
With 15k, you can't even afford the camera body of an HPX500 or RED, much less all the support equipment (mikes, tripod, lenses, decks, ect).

Your best bet would be something like this:

HVX200-$5200
(3) 16 gig P2's-$2700 (will give you 2 hours of 720p24pN)
(2) DVX batters-$200 (remember, one big battery comes with the HVX200)
Kata Bag-$300
Sennheiser MKH-416 Mike-$1100
Rycote Softie-$200
K-Tek Boom Pole-$200
Cartoni Focus Tripod-$1200

That comes to about 11k for a basic setup with all pro-level equipment that'll last a long time. The other 4k should be based on your needs. How important is a Mattebox or if a Brevis or M2 adapter is really a neccesity. Or, do you really need a steady-cam. Personally, once I had the basics, I've tried to be really frugal. I'd rather save my money unless I really NEED something. I got a screw on polarizer and that's about it. Filters are great but so much can be done digtitally in CC, especially with DVCProHD, that a Mattbox isn't so big a deal. It's also not worth my money for a Brevis given the loss of light, overall softening of the image, and the fact that I really like deep focus. Honestly, if you want your stuff to look more professional, the best thing you can probably do is save your money for lighting equipment when you need it.
 
With 20,000 I'd plan out a meticulous budget for a feature. Try to use the 20K to raise more money. Distribute the budget to filmmaker friends back in Austin and hire them on as department heads for several weeks. Let them keep their department's equipment when the movie's in the can.

Throw it into some festivals and run it by a producer's rep.


I acted in a friend's movie who did something similar but they tried it with 15K. They didn't budget well (didnt even include props or set design) so naturally the budget inflated on a daily basis. I did some of the practial effects as a favor, for cheaps, but I never did find out what all the expenses brought the budget to.
 
Last edited:
Knoxworth, I apprciate the thought, but my question was really regarding what to do equipment-wise. This would be seperate from mounting a feature.

These are all good suggestions though. I think what I'm hearing is that the HVX is sufficient for almost ALL needs except for the very top.

I'd mostly be doing indie work. I guess the point is (15k was a bad figure), if you could basically afford any one of these options, which is the more popular choice and why.

Personally I don't like SI-2k's workflow, so that would be a reason to go with hydra, on the otherhand it supports 16mm lenses. soo.... that's kind of the info I'm after. Just fun speculation about legit options and what makes sense.
 
arrestthisman, gotcha. Sorry, I read your subject "what would you do?" and saw RE1000's list and your own. I figured the best way to spend the money (for my needs) would be to match up the operators with their preferred equipment. My mistake.

As for your question, the HVX is more than adequate. Again, depends on your needs. A videographer would be better off buying multiple cameras. A cinematographer would be better off saving up for lights instead.
 
DavidBeier said:
With 15k, you can't even afford the camera body of an HPX500 or RED, much less all the support equipment (mikes, tripod, lenses, decks, ect).
Click to expand...

Actually you can get a HPX500, with viewfinder and 4 16gb p2 cards for $13.5k . Its the lense that would jack your price up. These offers with the p2 cards are pretty awesome when you consider the amount of record time. This basically negates any previous issues I had with the p2 workflow for eng type shooting.

Anyway just my 2c. An HPX500 would serve you well in ANY situation. A true ENG shoulder mount camera, with all the abilities youd need for narrative (think HVX with, better latitude, better low light performance, better record times, better DOF control and then some). Its certainly got my interest.
 
Well,you're already with 15k... Can you hold a bit more for 25k? With 25k you would have an Ideal Setup for every situation:

My list for 15 K

HVX200

Brevis+ Nikon lenses

3x16gb

2x Batteries

Ikan8000HD monitor for focus

Macbook Pro + Duel Adapter for footage dumping

Iomega Rev 70gb for Backup

Disk Raid- 2TB

Macpro 3.00 Quadcore for editing

Final Cut Studio 2

Manfrotto 503 head and Miller Legs

Seinheizer Boom Mic

Boom Pole

Basic Lighting Kit

For 25k

Everything similar, changing:

Manfrotto 516 head.

Canon 2x Lens

Anton Bauer Batteries
 
Actually you can get a HPX500, with viewfinder and 4 16gb p2 cards for $13.5k . Its the lense that would jack your price up.[/quote]

Really? The pricing site I looked at before posting had it at something like 30k. I wonder if that was including a lense package.

dont forget to get something you can dump your footage on. so maybe a cheap laptop like a refurbed powerbook.
Click to expand...

I think if you've got 3 16 gig P2 cards as several suggested, you really aren't going to need to dump when you're in 720p24pN (2 hours of footage) and even in 1080p (48 min of footage) you can probably get away with just dumping a few times and could most likely just borrow a laptop.
 
Yeah I have no complaints with the HVX, it's simply amazing... the footage is... "should've sent... a ... poet."

I think it will suit me well for a long time to come. I think Hydra would be more up my alley than the HPX500, although the HPX I think is a fine option. I'm just trying to think this all through while I have the time. I get back to work soon, and cannot think at all. My work involves removing my brain from my skull, and integrating it into some kind of odd cyborg system. Something like that ")

But yeah, HPX or Hydra. I'm very dissapointed with the RED delays, I think 4k is insane and I don't think that will really be "needed" by anyone except studios for the next ten years. Don't get me wrong I think they'll deliver eventualy, but all costs go up at 4k, too. it's not ideal. I'm not wild about th SI-2k workflow. And for f64 aesthetics, which I prefer, the deep DOF from small imagers is NOT a liability for me, it's an asset.

The funny think is, after looking at all of the samples, regardless of true quality, Panasonic consistently delivers an aesthetic that I drastically prefer to the competition. So I think I'm done thinking about this. I'll probably be a Panny fanboy for a long time.

Should I get luck enough to get a budget that calls for uber-high quality... HPX3000. Still cheaper in the long run than red's 4k. With the resolving power of 4200 x 2200 (aprox.) imagine how much makeup you'll need to make even the best looking actors even slightly good looking!
 
arrestthisman said:
With the resolving power of 4200 x 2200 (aprox.) imagine how much makeup you'll need to make even the best looking actors even slightly good looking!
Click to expand...

Thats funny. And I imagine from a raw shot, quite a bit. Even with the current HD formats I find a little too clean for my taste. Thankfully I have a few tricks that puts things the way I like them without harming the resolution.
 
ncje said:
Thats funny. And I imagine from a raw shot, quite a bit. Even with the current HD formats I find a little too clean for my taste. Thankfully I have a few tricks that puts things the way I like them without harming the resolution.
Click to expand...

No kidding. That's why I find it hard to believe when the film crowd says you need something like 16MP before you even, "come close," to the resolving power of film. I just don't buy it.

If 720p on the big screen looks, "about right," 1080p looks, "a bit sharp," and 4k looks, "like IMAX." How does that add up to film being superior? You do the math... hehe.

With that in mind you have to wonder about the whole lattitude argument.

I say to each his own, and if the budget is agnostic to any format, go with what's comfortable with you, but I feel like the digital crowd has taken quite beating from the insecure film crowd. "Can't we all just get along??!?!"

Anyway, something on topic: I appreciate all of the feed back and I'm glad to hear that the HVX can hold its own for most applications. With DV it always felt like a compromise; that said I still like DV, but let's face it, it WAS a quality hit for conveniece. I'd much rather be overkill on quality than go wanting. Sounds like I'm good with this cam for a long time to come.

I know we're not supposed to get hung up on equipment too much. Filmmaking is many things. But, money is money, and it's nice to know one's tools are not obsolete as soon as you open the box. Coming from a background in computers, I'm all too well aquainted with that.

So cheers to our favorite little cam... the little HD that could.

-alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top