Should you use the HVX200 for the Big Screen?

Well, it depends on how big of a big screen you're talking about. I haven't run the test for edge detail acceptability on the Extreme yet, but typically the bigger you blow up, the less edge enhancement you want. Remember that at -2, you're still adding five notches of detail (-7 = off).

Like I said, it's just a guess...
 
well lets say you wanned to transfer to 35mm film, would you still use -2?
I think that the fact that you are using an adapter requieres that you add some detail there, but I dont know you tell me
 
I think that has more to do with standards than anything else. Some people said Superman Returns looked great and indistinguishable from film. Others said it clearly had digital artifacts and didn’t look at all as good as it could if it was shot on 35mm. Just standards.
 
As Lenny pointed out in another thread, perhaps the best advice is to follow the recommendations of your film transfer house.
 
Just a thought, a tangential one at that, but doesn't anyone get tired of reading threads that continually talk about whether a camera is good enough for production, in this case the big screen. Are we always going to ask how good the camera is whether it be the DVX, HVX, Red, HPX...whatever?

I realize this is a technical forum but...maybe i'm just irked. This probably isn't the place for it. I just remember things before the HVX and everyone being so proud of all the projects that came out shot on the DVX and amazed at what it is capable of. Sorry, but I digress.
 
Truth is they're all capable of doing a fine job on the big screen now. As you just said, the DVX (standard-def!) has done several big-screen films, including making pictures that were nominated for back-to-back Oscars the last two years.
 
Barry_Green said:
The HVX, when shot properly, does plenty fine on the big screen.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this appears to be a very hard sell to those in the industry. We had an opportunity to do some helicam shots as part of a movie being filmed in downtown Boston this weekend. When we told them we only flew the HVX on our helicopters they turned us down saying the needed a "higher end" 35mm camera. Very dissappointing. I thought it was finally our big break into the motion picture business. I really don't want to deal with film but I guess I'll have to if this keeps up.
 
Yep, you have to give the customer what they want. Frequently that means you have to give them what they ask for... even if you think something else might be better/cheaper/faster/whatever.
 
Thanks for all the good advice

Thanks for all the good advice

Good to know if you have a DP who is a expert using the camera and a good post house you can create a solid picture up on the big screen.

We start shooting our upcoming doc in South Beach, Miami in Feb. All going to be shot on P2 and during daylight hours. Any shooting tips when using P2?
 
boomstrikevideo said:
Unfortunately this appears to be a very hard sell to those in the industry. We had an opportunity to do some helicam shots as part of a movie being filmed in downtown Boston this weekend. When we told them we only flew the HVX on our helicopters they turned us down saying the needed a "higher end" 35mm camera. Very dissappointing. I thought it was finally our big break into the motion picture business. I really don't want to deal with film but I guess I'll have to if this keeps up.
Click to expand...

You sound like you are surprised and even indignant. But the fact of the matter and something most people choose to overlook is that the HVX200 is the rock bottom low of the low end market (along with the HD100/200/250, XL-H1, AH1 etc and all the Sony HDV stuff) Anything lower than that is already a toy (not considering SD here). You're talking about a helicopter shot and you are surprised somebody refused to use a camera belonging to the lowest end of the market for it. It's not even worth the fuel to fly the chopper for 5 minutes or the trouble of taking off IMO. Honestly, depending on the intended venue and subject matter, not even a F900 would be good enough for air shots. Because technology is so cheap nowadays and we have so much available for so little money as compared to some time ago, people seem to forget that there is still definitely a gap between equipment quality that not even all the skill in the world can bridge.
 
Last edited:
Mediacre said:
You sound like you are surprised and even indignant. But the fact of the matter and something most people choose to overlook is that the HVX200 is the rock bottom low of the low end market (along with the HD100/200/250, XL-H1, AH1 etc and all the Sony HDV stuff) Anything lower than that is already a toy (not considering SD here). You're talking about a helicopter shot and you are surprised somebody refused to use a camera belonging to the lowest end of the market for it. It's not even worth the fuel to fly the chopper for 5 minutes or the trouble of taking off IMO. Honestly, depending on the intended venue and subject matter, not even a F900 would be good enough for air shots. Because technology is so cheap nowadays and we have so much available for so little money as compared to some time ago, people seem to forget that there is still definitely a gap between equipment quality that not even all the skill in the world can bridge.
Click to expand...

I can tell from your response that you did not catch that this was a shoot requiring a remotely piloted (unmanned) helicam (i.e. chasing a car down the middle of a crowded street in downtown Boston). The units we fly are some of the largest available and even then are quite limited in the size and weight of cameras that can be carried safely. We selected the HVX as the base camera due these factors along with solid state recording in an attempt to avoid the hassel of film. Over 90% of the companies offering close in aerial services can't even carry and HVX size camera, let alone an ARRI 235 super 35mm film camera. There are only two or three companies that do and they use proprietary cameras with custom made components to reduce weight. I am not indignant, just hoping to offer the best product I can without spending serveral hundred thousand dollars in the process.
 
So i guess you can say, the HVX can do 99% of the shots. I believe in sarah landon and the panormal hour, one shot was 35mm film which was the aerial shots.
The other shots look very nice on the big screen, except a few that even the crew admit they made a mistake on the settings of the camera. You gotta serve the client's needs, and if they're anti HVX, then the war is on :violent5:
 
Personal gain motives aside, I really think that using the HVX on the remote helicam shots would have worked out just fine for the movie. A really long helicam shot is a couple of seconds. Particulary for a car chase scene, the action is so fast that the subtle differences in the HVX shots would have never been noticed by someone not intently fucused on looking for them.
 
Perhaps avoiding lens adapters altogether would be best for the big screen..
I mean it seems those adapters give a microscopic focal point which a laser surgeon would need to do the focus pulling as an actor moves around a thin space between two universes of blur behind and in front of him. SPOOKY.. sounds like a real pain when you have to film lots of stuff in little time. Ive seen so many samples where the actor has to walk into focus then stop right before he goes blurry again. God forbid if the actor sneezes he goes out of focus :D Maybe they all have to be filmed with 10,000 K lights like in the 1920's so they can close the IRIS to 18 FSTOP and keep a little more focus leverage :)
 
my expreience with the HVX says it loves light, lots of light. you'll get beautiful images then. One workaround is to shoot everything outdoors in daylight. Also day for night should be used, unless you've got some powerful lights for the night shoots. Indoors of course will be more controlled. stay at 1/48, for get 1/24 like some filmouts did, it looks bad unless its an effect. go about -2 on the sharpening.
Cine D is the best.
check your focus 3 times using the focus assistants on the hvx.

the HVX is totally doable for the big screen, in the right hands that is.
 
Here's a question:

If I wanted to shoot a project in 1080 but needed to shoot some variable frame rate shots in 720, would there be a noticable difference with a 35mm transfer and large screen projection?
 
Abaddon said:
Here's a question:

If I wanted to shoot a project in 1080 but needed to shoot some variable frame rate shots in 720, would there be a noticable difference with a 35mm transfer and large screen projection?
Click to expand...



I say yes but if for example you want to do a slow motion 720 scene that is 4-5 sec long I would say that the moment does not let you notice the difference
 
Abaddon said:
Here's a question:

If I wanted to shoot a project in 1080 but needed to shoot some variable frame rate shots in 720, would there be a noticable difference with a 35mm transfer and large screen projection?
Click to expand...

I think the effect itself would create enough of a distraction to cover the difference up. Otherwise, there is a difference, but it's not huge by any means.
 
Unfortunately this appears to be a very hard sell to those in the industry. We had an opportunity to do some helicam shots as part of a movie being filmed in downtown Boston this weekend. When we told them we only flew the HVX on our helicopters they turned us down saying the needed a "higher end" 35mm camera. Very dissappointing. I thought it was finally our big break into the motion picture business. I really don't want to deal with film but I guess I'll have to if this keeps up.
Click to expand...
That's a sad story,

By the way did they see the footage or have they rejected it when hearing about the HVX being used? If they didn't see it you should at least try to persuade them to take a look at it.

I would certainly love to see it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top