Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

[J.R. Hudson]

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.

Is it wangus ? Is it really that ovious ?

I find it to be the crust of one of the main problems in indiefilmmaking. Way too many people thinking if they shoot something on a higher format then all is good. I don't see too many obsessing on learning the langauge of film; visually or in structure. Mainly, I see crap, crap and more crap.

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.

Lord of the Rings? No way.

War of the Worlds ? I can totally see that being done on an HVX level with the right accessories.

I can name a hundred films the HVX is ready for with the right talent in place.

Tigerland
We Were Soldiers
Any Cop film from Lethal Weapon to Cop Land
Sideways
Planet Terror
Collateral (Yes, even with an HVX)
Miami Vice (Yes, even with an HVX)
Rocky 6
Children of Men
The Devil's Rejects

It's obviously my own spin on the matter; but take the right artists from the DP to the Director to the talent and any of those stories (and a hundred more) could be done in todays reality

Outfit that HVX or EX1 (allegedly) with all the goodies and it'd work.

-

The sad truth is that most aren't ready for prime time. It is those that acknowledge and accept their weaknesses and the willingness to hone that craft who will succeed.

 

[emotepix]

Interesting take. I think I agree. Certainly it could make sense given the time and budgets involved with those shows, and any decent camera that will yield a good DI. However I think that most of them would probably better be served, at that production budget range with the SI or the Red - UHD cameras.
In ours, though, i.e. in the range that used to be covered by 16mm prodctions, say $150k down to $8k or so for 90-100 minutes of dramatic production, don't you feel that the HVX/EX1 range of cameras should theoretically rule the roost?

I believe the idea is that anything more than, say, my theoretical $150k shelf is a one-off endeavor, and probably therefore better served wtih rental equipment, whereas there's a bunch of us that are doing just what your signoff line suggests - owning their own equipment and churning out relatively inexpensive little projects like crazy, to hone our craft and hopefully succeed in moving up a notch or two.

Oh, and by the way, if you own all your own gear, including post and 5.1 audio, it is theoretically possible and actually quite feasible to cook up a decent little feature film for under $10k per show. Of course, that's not including the cost of the equipment in the first place. And the quality of your writing, actors and crew that can be had for what is essentially an expenses-only production.

 

[snowleopard]

I don't see too many obsessing on learning the langauge of film; visually or in structure. Mainly, I see crap, crap and more crap.

I agree with this. It seems we're at a point where everyone who ever wanted to get into this now has a handycam and is a filmmaker. But it's not just the technical aspect, it's a huge void of acumen in story telling and character development. So many indie filmmakers obsess over gear, and then obsess over technical knowledge, and ignore putting their ass to the chair for hours and hours on end to actually write something compelling.

To spin what you wrote in another way - it didn't bother me that much that Open Water was shot on a PD150. I got used to the low quality look of the movie, mostly because overall I thought it was a well played out story. Not a 4-star Oscar winner, no, but certainly as good as much of what Hollywood shoves at me.

 

[katyam]

To keep things fair, I must say that "they" - at least some of the indie filmmakers, that is, myself included - are in fact obsessing with learning the language of film, just not on this specific forum

It's been great learning from everyone here - very educational. Thank you!

 

[J.R. Hudson]

My two new best friends.

I agree with this. It seems we're at a point where everyone who ever wanted to get into this now has a handycam and is a filmmaker. But it's not just the technical aspect, it's a huge void of acumen in story telling and character development. So many indie filmmakers obsess over gear, and then obsess over technical knowledge, and ignore putting their ass to the chair for hours and hours on end to actually write something compelling.

To spin what you wrote in another way - it didn't bother me that much that Open Water was shot on a PD150. I got used to the low quality look of the movie, mostly because overall I thought it was a well played out story. Not a 4-star Oscar winner, no, but certainly as good as much of what Hollywood shoves at me.

I could not agree with you any more. Open Water received so many pans on this forum and I think it succeeded on all levels; the story, the actors, compellingly told with the tools they used (PD150 and VX2000) and what else did it do ?

Oh yeah, got snatched up at Sundance by Lion's Gate for 2.5 Mil

To keep things fair, I must say that "they" - at least some of the indie filmmakers, that is, myself included - are in fact obsessing with learning the language of film, just not on this specific forum

It's been great learning from everyone here - very educational. Thank you!

It's all I obsess about and am constantly realizing what I do know doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

 

[TimurCivan]

Only the DP should be worried about the camera package. if the director is worried about the camera, the director is not doing his job.....

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Baaaaaaa Timur

Let us hope the director has his Janusz

 

[katyam]

It's all I obsess about and am constantly realizing what I do know doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Ditto. From the outset, I decided not to do the camera work myself, because I don't think I can learn quickly enough for my projected timeline. This being the case, I am still the one responsible for choosing the equipment because a) I am still looking for a camera person and given that it's Israel he is not likely to have his own equipment; b) I am going to be shooting really a lot of material on several connected subjects and need the equipment to be available 24/7; c) all of my work will be done in Israel and the kind of equipment that I am looking for is not readily available here for renting; d) keeping the post in mind, I need to know exactly what the camera can do so that I can gauge how much money I'll need to raise for transferring the footage to film (for example, the transfer in Iraq in Fragments was done beautifully, but it cost them a LOT).

I also feel that it's important for the director to have a clue as to what the equipment is capable of. Nothing worse than a clueless person on the set, especially if she is in charge. But I spend only about 10% of my time on equipment research and purchasing. The rest goes where it needs to go - research, story development, interviews, and writing.

 

[yoclay]

I have never retained anything I have learned on a purely technical or theoretical level. The true answer to this question of which camera, is driven by your subject matter and your point of view. True technique is always discovered in the course of pursuing your vision. The technical capacities of each of these cameras are fairly well delineated, so given the nature of what your project is, what is it telling you is a priority? For instance if low light is a dominating element and you want to go hand held what might that be telling you? It seems to me that you already know the answer. Best of luck.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL

I'm the same way

I still ask the most 'rudiment camera tech details' on set.

 

[katyam]

Thank you You are right, I already know the answer, from reading the responses to this thread as well as other threads on this forum and DIVinfo. It was also very helpful to see the footage from EX1 and HVX and compare the two - the feel of EX1, at least from what I can judge so far, is closer to what I want to achieve in the film. I was originally planning to get an HVX and had a whole equipment package written out to be purchased at B&H, but low light is a huge issue for me, and with EX1 coming out the hope of resolving it adequately grew brighter

 

[katyam]

same here. After shooting a promo for my film in Israel I got a feel for the bare minimum that I need to know to be an asset instead of a liability on the set. I also need to be really involved in forming the visual structure of the film and have been reading and watching movies non-stop, to formulate what it is that I really want to achieve. Luckily, most of the locales that that I am going to film are within easy reach, so often I just go there and wander around, trying to find the best spots to shoot from. It's been lots of fun so far, but also lots and lots of hard work.

 

[Barry_Green]

I still ask the most 'rudiment camera tech details' on set.

Or sometimes he just hands the camera to me and says "do it." :thumbsup:

 

[tnle2]

Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.

I think people should remember there is a distinction between "image quality" and "content quality." These two often get mixed up. Content quality is obviously based on the sum of a lot of factors including the photography, writing, talent, etc.

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.

The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.

 

[Barry_Green]

Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.

Yes, excellent point. And I also like to point out that not everyone here (on the forum) is even interested in making cinema at all; we have plenty of news and event and sports and wedding shooters too.

The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.

All good points. I think some of us are just giving a knee-jerk reaction to the "which is better" posts that come up all the time, frequently from people who really don't know one way or the other what is "better" or why it should be better. But yes, for those who know what to look for, the discussion of relative performance remains highly relevant.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Or sometimes he just hands the camera to me and says "do it." :thumbsup:

I did think of you when I wrote that. :lipsrseal :cheesy:

Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.

I think people should remember there is a distinction between "image quality" and "content quality." These two often get mixed up. Content quality is obviously based on the sum of a lot of factors including the photography, writing, talent, etc.

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.

The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.

Good points Tim. I can't argue with that.

 

[katyam]

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.

I would argue that it's also extremely important for a director to have a working understanding of these inherent technical traits so that she can communicate to her DOP the look that she wants to achieve in terms more specific than "I'd like this scene to look airy, beautiful and mysterious."

 

[tnle2]

I would argue that it's also extremely important for a director to have a working understanding of these inherent technical traits so that she can communicate to her DOP the look that she wants to achieve in terms more specific than "I'd like this scene to look airy, beautiful and mysterious."

And I would agree with you The more knowledgeable someone is about anything and everything, the more capable they are. Some big-time directors are very hands-on and even operate their own cameras or Steadicams. But on very big projects this is not practical so the work has to be delegated to people who specialize in each area.

This is what I like so much about imaging: it takes technical skills AND creative (artistic) skills. Those two skills require both sides of the brain, yet most people tend to be one side or the other. So us camera nuts are rare people indeed

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Mmmmmmmmm

Maybe

What good's making a pretty picture if one doesn't know what to do with it ?

Maybe can you define IMAGING ?

I think most can learn exposure, focus, etc but are you referring to something else; something deeper beyond camera techs ?

I think a DP should not only know the camera like his baby, but how to light.

But what about frame compostion ? What about composing beyond that with blocking, Mis-en-scene, continuity, coverage ?

Is that the director or DP ? Both usually, right ?

 

[tnle2]

Imaging for media is pretty much still and motion picture photography. Photography boils down to two essential elements: the camera and light (natural or artificial).

Technical skills one would need: know how to physically operate the camera, how to operate camera support equipment, focus, exposure, white balance (color temperature of natural and artificial light), filtration, lens characteristics, lighting equipment (what kind of lights to use, where to place them and what light modifiers to add to achieve a certain exposure), special needs for VFX, etc.

Of course, on a big-time production the DOP probably doesn't operate the camera.

Creative skills: composition, blocking (camera placement, focal length selection, etc.), lighting equipment (same as above but this time to achieve the desired look), location selection, time of day selection, "vision," etc.

Clearly there will be some overlap between the DOP and the director. Sometimes the DOP is only responsible for the lightning and the look of the film and the director does the blocking. Sometimes the DOP does it all and the director focuses on the talents' performances. Or sometimes there is no DOP and the director does it all, etc.