Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's obvious that the "user" and not the "camera" is what makes the film. Why must this be empasized over and over again? People who insist on repeating this mantra must think they are all knowing sages ... or something.

Imagine if the film 300 was shot on a sony PD-150.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the technology does matter.

And yes, I know, no amount of technology can make up for sheer talent.
 
It's both.

If it weren't technology AND talent then painters wouldn't go to such great lengths to formulate such prized paints nor would they trouble themselves so much with finding the most precise implement to apply their precious paints.

This is the same with this collaborative most highly technical art of film making. Digital or otherwise.


There are two simple truths in this regard.

1. No amount of technology, however advanced or perfected, will compensate for the lack talent on the part of writer, actor, director, cinematographer...

2. The absence of "the perfect" technology will not impede a talented and masterful artist from producing "the perfect" piece of art.
 
sodotoguwangus said:
It's obvious that the "user" and not the "camera" is what makes the film. Why must this be empasized over and over again? People who insist on repeating this mantra must think they are all knowing sages ... or something.
Click to expand...

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
 
Agreed, yes. But this used to be far more important three or four years ago, when the question was high-def interlaced vs. standard-def 24p vs. film, etc.

It's not such a big deal now. I wager you could shoot something on a $1,000 HV20 that could make for a sharp-looking film transfer, certainly sharper than anything anyone would have gotten from a 1/2" BetaSP UVW100 from 15 years ago. The market has changed. The tools are closer than they were, and the point of "good enough" has been passed in many ways.

I'm a gear head. I am a proponent of "better is better, and we like better because it's better." But recently we've been swamped with gear lust on these boards, so we're just trying to bring a little perspective as well as pointing out that the threshhold of "good enough" has been met. A $3,000 XHA1 will produce images that are "good enough" that nobody's going to be clawing their eyes out in the theater (unlike the XL1, when I was seriously bothered by how out-of-focus the whole "28 Days Later" experience was.) Now we have a massive-budget Best Picture Oscar-winning film using an HVX200 for an insert shot and intercutting seamlessly and nobody even noticed?

We're at "good enough." Spazzing over a few pixels here and there isn't going to do anything for a "cinema look", y'knowhutImean?
 
I couldn't be more in agreement that it's the carpenter and not the hammer. Content and talent will always trump technology.

While I prefer to read about the more aesthic aspects of the craft, this is largely a technology focused user group (DVXUSER) - I'm not sure why people are surprised that camera specs and technical critiques are so prevalent.


dmc
 
Last edited:
Great post there Barry. Agree with you 1000% about "good enough" being passed in many ways and an excess of gear lust of late.
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed, yes. But this used to be far more important three or four years ago, when the question was high-def interlaced vs. standard-def 24p vs. film, etc.

It's not such a big deal now. I wager you could shoot something on a $1,000 HV20 that could make for a sharp-looking film transfer, certainly sharper than anything anyone would have gotten from a 1/2" BetaSP UVW100 from 15 years ago. The market has changed. The tools are closer than they were, and the point of "good enough" has been passed in many ways.

I'm a gear head. I am a proponent of "better is better, and we like better because it's better." But recently we've been swamped with gear lust on these boards, so we're just trying to bring a little perspective as well as pointing out that the threshhold of "good enough" has been met. A $3,000 XHA1 will produce images that are "good enough" that nobody's going to be clawing their eyes out in the theater (unlike the XL1, when I was seriously bothered by how out-of-focus the whole "28 Days Later" experience was.) Now we have a massive-budget Best Picture Oscar-winning film using an HVX200 for an insert shot and intercutting seamlessly and nobody even noticed?

We're at "good enough." Spazzing over a few pixels here and there isn't going to do anything for a "cinema look", y'knowhutImean?
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
I think gear lust is sometimes a mask for insecurity. When people don't know how to write, or light, or tell a story with the tools in front of them, it's easier to say the next best thing will make me a better filmmaker instead of spending the time each night to write or shooting all the time to improve skills.
 
Could very well be. But I think a lot of it was also based in the reality that the newer tools really did offer something that was missing before. Component digital recording with lossless capture (VX1000) was a nice big step. 24P progressive video at an affordable price point, and quality audio (DVX) was a huge step. High-def 24p (HD100). Native 16x9, 24p and high def, even variable frame rates and cine gammas -- well, we're there. That's where we needed to get to, and that's where we're at. We can even get there (HD 24p 16:9) at $600 (HV20)!

But now every manufacturer offers an adequate digital cine tool, so it's not even like we should be thinking about waiting for "the next great thing", we've got more than enough (again, witnessed by a lowly PD150 being enough to get an Oscar nod for SuperSize Me!)

In other words, it absolutely isn't the tools that's holding anyone back now. We enjoy talking about them and seeing what's new and whatnot, but objectively speaking every one of them is good enough for the purpose that most of our DVXUsers want to put them to. We're no longer talking about a major difference of kind anymore, now it's largely a matter of degree.
 
Both talent and tools matter. Once you reach a certain level of skill/knowledge you will be hindered by low-end equipment. Higher end cameras just don't produce better images/sound, they also provide expansive functionality and speed up the film/videomaking process.

Cases in point:

Consumer cameras do not offer XLR inputs
Consumer cameras do not offer manual audio control (for the most part)
Consumer cameras are often not very ergonomical (those palm sized cameras come into mind)
Manual white balance is not always possible with consumer cameras
Consumer cameras do not have professional quality lenses and therefore lack a lot of the features of a professional image. Great color rendition, contrast, coating, and resolution come to mind. Not to mention easy manual focusing.

I'm missing a lot of things but I hope you get the point. Equipment level is equally important as skill level. But the content of what your audio/video devices is what people will ultimately care about. The series "Planet Earth" was a perfect combination of excellent content, camera operator skills/creativity and high end equipment. And the result was just marvelous! They wouldn't have shot that on a Hi8 camera!

A few of the award winning movies used prosumer equipment to achieve a certain aesthetic but a lot of them (especially the documentaries) more than likely would have used much better equipment had they had the budget. I know I would...if you have the cash, why not?

People are more likely to take your work seriously (and get your project distribution) if the technical qualities of your project are up to snuff. Actors will take your film more seriously. Clients will respect a high end camera (I dare you to show up to big corporate job with a handycam). In this field we call Communcations, it is easy to communicate (i.e. keep a captive audience) when the sound and picture are pretty!

Having cheaper equipment isn't an excuse for poor filmmaking but it sure does make a difference or we all wouldn't invest our money into costlier equipment.
 
Barry, what was the Oscar winning Best Picture film that used an HVX in a scene?

Sorry for my ignorance.
 
Rob Legato, visual fx supervisor for the film, has described it before. It's a shot of Di Caprio's character, wearing a hoodie (it's a stand-in, actually) and holding a picture frame.
 
I agree with what people have been saying, although I would like to suggest that poor image quality is much more acceptable in a documentary than in a narrative. A notable exception is 28 Days Later, as I think someone said, was shot on the XL-1. However, in this case, the images quality was used as a aesthetic effect, and was not distracting, but enhanced what the filmmakers were going for.

But try shooting Lord of the Rings or War of the Worlds on a DVX and blowing it up to 35, and IMHO, even non-film people would have a problem with it. Basically, documentaries can get away with a lot. At least, when it's footage from the field. For interviews there is no excuse for lousy lighting and composition. Just my two cents.
 
thinking out loud (long but on topic)

thinking out loud (long but on topic)

I agree with all the above.
And the topic of this thread is a better cinema experience for the buck.

I'm in a position of transition at the moment, from HDV cameras through camera X to a Red, eventually. So I'm not a filmmaker 101.

I don't have the business volume to buy a Red yet. I don't like the present wait for rentals. I do like owning my own camera. I have two 35mm cameras, an Aaton S16 camera, a Scoopic. I use them when budget permits.

That having been said, the HDVs I have (a Sony FX7 and HC1) are going out and something is coming in to my inventory. Mainly we're using my partner's JVC 100 as our A camera at the moment. It's okay, but obviously won't meet HD delivery (broadcast) requirements.

So - an HVX? Or an EX1?

I don't do documentaries or reality to film look.
I think that "films" like 28 days, Starship Troopers II, and the like, are unwatchable.
In other words, even with the best actors and production values, the look of the program itself ended up detracting from my suspension of disbelief and my investment in the story. I walked out of that Jamie Fox / Tom Cruise movie about an assassin and a cab driver at night (can't recall the name) and asked for my money back.

However, I loved films like 405 the movie, or 28 seconds (both short film look shows made with tape acquisition). So I'm a believer, mainly if a 35mm DOF box is used. It's the look itself that counts, for me. The difference between a picture and an image. Latitude and the grey scale, in short.

So. Given that:
I know my way around cameras and lenses, and
I know my way around production, and actors, and
I really want to spend more time on the set working with performances, lighting, mood and the like, and also
more time in post working on nuances of picture and audio and less time on film- looking the show (and yes, I pretty much every film look plug in and technique handled, it's what I do as a day job), and
yes, I'll be using a 35mm DOF box with the video camera anyway, and
yes, I do know between long GOPs, macro blocking and the like, and 4:2:0/4:2:2 color spaces (and
no, I don't really like to work tethered to an Apple cart, even though the DOF box is a pain in itself), but will use one for green screen and the like,

yes, I know what wavelet compression is, but a camera in the sub $10k area is the step I want to take next. When I have more than $20k to spend on acquisition package I use my Aaton and spend that money on film and lab.

so...
there's the firewire out cameras ( that I have already and don't make the HD grade thus far)
and the serial out camera (that I'd like to get).

Which leaves me with what?
Canon XLH1, G1, Sony V1, JVC 250??, and maybe the HDMI out cameras??

And also, of course, the HVX200...

I've been a Leica guy from way back and believe in the lens, although I built my DOF box after I sold the DVXs so couldn't comment on the quality of a DVX + Zeiss/Nikon or Lomo combination. Also - bokeh, bokeh, bokeh. So much so that I'm seriously considering putting a Leica M or R mount on my DOF box.

I've had three DVXs (one with Andromeda - loved the picture but couldn't hang with the tether) and loved the look of them. Lack of latitude and compression artifacts have been a pain tough, but that was just HDV and video in general, I believe.

Unfortunately I've posted quite a few P2 shows that have been nightmares because production didn't spend money on the assistant doing the media management and backup. I've actually lost out on a feature film project because about a third of the dailies was loaded onto a single HDD that crashed on location before they backed it up - and they weren't prepared for the eventuality (actors left), and had to abandon the shoot.

Most people in Hollywood post look at a P2 show and ask about media management, first thing. And that's a really good example of that we've been talking about in this thread - it's not the quality of the toys, but the quality of the players.

and the EX1 - SxS of course. Same deal as the P2 - media management is the key here. So no shooting without a lead assist who knows what they're doing, or without sufficient time or cards to do it myself. I love Fujinon lenses, run them on my large format stills cameras. Like the fact that Sony went for expanded latitude. And of course this camera is a later generation and so has better (newer) bells and whistles.

Mostly I prefer the better (sharper, more pixels) focusing system. I've been tagged with out of focus end product that went undetected pretty much all the way through post before being noticed on a big screen premiere. And that I attribute directly to editing in a computer (in low res). The show originated in 35mm, BTW. So focus, back focus and the like is huge for me, so much so that I now use a video projector that puts a wall sized image up behind my Avid when I'm cutting a feature film, just to remind me.

My own stories tend to be middle to low key love stories, or sci fi stories. Very little high key stuff. Mostly augmented practical light, but of course some lit sets. Quite a bit of integration with VFX, match moving, digital mattes and the like. Filtration like crazy on actresses, but none of it so's you'd notice.

Cameras on boom, jib, Magiqcam mostly, very little pure hand held stuff. Client monitors and film style video village on the larger shoots, but only a 7" for focus and flip if I can help it.

So - given all of the above - pundits, please - your preferred sub $10k serious video camera for indie film look production?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top