J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I see; thanks for clarifying
I have to agree; those with both sides working have a benefit !
I have to agree; those with both sides working have a benefit !
Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?
- Thread starter katyam
- Start date
- Status
taormina
Hates to Rent
I'm directing my first feature next year. I wrote the script. It took me about two months to write it, and about a year to rewrite it. Then i started buying gear and filming shorts. I am currently debating on whether to trade in my hvx for an HPX, because even though I direct and have a great DP, I still want the absolute best for my project, and since it's all my gear, money, story - you name it - it all has to be perfect.
So I for one get myself into the nitty gritty of all the details and I do not leave it to my DP. When I've made the short list, I confer with him.
Interestingly, he's shot enough with the HVX that he's said it's just fine for my project. I'm not sold on it's low light performance, so I'm still thinking about it.
Maybe it's just me, but I need to know about everything pertaining to my project. I bought all the lights in my 3 ton HMI / tungsten package, bought my HVX, LEX, lenses, bought my dolly, bought my gels, bought my grip truck.....I can't let anyone take the blame for poor decisions on my first big project.
It sounds like micromanaging, but it's not. As a parent of 3 kids, it's kind of like having a baby. You need to care and feed it.
Going back to where we started, I need to know all the technical issues on the cams and welcome these debates.
So I for one get myself into the nitty gritty of all the details and I do not leave it to my DP. When I've made the short list, I confer with him.
Interestingly, he's shot enough with the HVX that he's said it's just fine for my project. I'm not sold on it's low light performance, so I'm still thinking about it.
Maybe it's just me, but I need to know about everything pertaining to my project. I bought all the lights in my 3 ton HMI / tungsten package, bought my HVX, LEX, lenses, bought my dolly, bought my gels, bought my grip truck.....I can't let anyone take the blame for poor decisions on my first big project.
It sounds like micromanaging, but it's not. As a parent of 3 kids, it's kind of like having a baby. You need to care and feed it.
Going back to where we started, I need to know all the technical issues on the cams and welcome these debates.
Thought that everyone might be interested in this:
http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2006/11/quiet-miracle-james-longleys-iraq-in.html
http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2006/11/quiet-miracle-james-longleys-iraq-in.html
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Awesome article mico !
My sentiments exactly.
My sentiments exactly.
ripupthehwy
Well-known member
Yes, but aren't you talking CMOS chips here, as opposed to CCD's ? That's like comparing apples to oranges. Videography magazine just did an article where they tested a demo of the Sony camera and said the low light is the same as the HVX 200.
A Sony rep at the NAB told me that CMOS chips are not as good in low light. I imagine that's why the Sony cam is 1/2 chiips, to make it comparable to Panny's 1/3 CCD's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Rich
Stevet
Veteran
LOL..
Now that's funny.
I've been around the HVX200 and a slew of other 1/3" cams, The EX1 is at least 1.5 to 2 stops faster. Heck, the EX1 has already been noted to be 1.5 stops faster than it's expensive cousin, the F350. And this info comes right from the users that own the F350.
Now that's funny.
I've been around the HVX200 and a slew of other 1/3" cams, The EX1 is at least 1.5 to 2 stops faster. Heck, the EX1 has already been noted to be 1.5 stops faster than it's expensive cousin, the F350. And this info comes right from the users that own the F350.
NO WAY its 320. the HVX is a 320. the DVX was about a 640 @ 24p, and a 800 at 60i. The EX is at LEAST a ISO 800 if not 1000..... Which is AMAZING.
lambchops99
Member
Everyone forgot to mention SOUND!
haha....
Doesn't matter how good your pics are...if you have S*** sound you can kiss your Oscar goodbye haha.
GET A GOOD SOUNDO for your productions!!!
haha....
Doesn't matter how good your pics are...if you have S*** sound you can kiss your Oscar goodbye haha.
GET A GOOD SOUNDO for your productions!!!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Hudsonview
Member
Mico dropped a link to Steven Boone writing about "Iraq In Fragments". Here is a piece of an interview Boone recently did with controversial critic Armond White, and which is very pertinent to this thread:
SB: [...] but what I’m saying is, the technology is right there—
AW: The technology has always been there. That’s part of my problem with the enthusiasm so-called critics have with video. “Wow, now everybody has access. It’s all democratized now.” Nonsense. The same thing was said about 8mm forty, fifty years ago. “Now anybody can make movies. We don’t have to have to hold 200 pound Mitchell cameras. You can get this little Bolex and hold it in your hand.” That didn’t mean you were going to get radical visions from everywhere.
SB: What it suggests to me is that radical visions from people who would otherwise not have been bothered because of the mountain you’d have to climb to get a film completed, the translators you’d have to employ, would no longer be an issue, and you’d take camera in hand. Super 8, Pixelvision, Hi-8—all that stuff was nice, but it was low-resolution and if you put them up against a 35mm projection, audience prejudices would discount these other media. Now we have these new cameras that, if you know how to light and compose and expose, your image is going to be free of those subliminal triggers that provoke an audience to dismiss a film as “not film.” All that stuff goes away.
AW: Well, you say “audience prejudice.” I say “audience preference,” because the screen is not a level playing field. And Americans are very fortunate to have had Hollywood, to have experienced--to know-- how great photography can be. So don't give me no bullshi*. I know what great photography is. I don't want to see somebody scrambling with their camera and trying to do things modestly. I've seen Joseph August and Gordon Willis. I don't want anything less.
SB: Right, but--
AW: That's not prejudice, that's preference.
SB: Well, let me get a little more specific about it. Gordon Willis could have taken a consumer Sony Hi-8 camera and lit something the way that he lit... The Landlord-- which was amazing, the use of shadows, underexposure, soft lighting. All that stuff would not register on something that was finished on, say, Hi-8. The technology now has moved to where that kind of work can be rendered effectively. That's all I'm saying, not that this is great because amateurs like Joe Blow can just push the button and get something amazing. It's going to look as horrible as anything else. But if you do the kind of work that Gordon Willis does, it's going to be translated effectively when its transferred over to a presentation medium that most people are used to-- 35mm, HD... So I'm waiting for those Gordon Willises from the ghetto and everywhere to emerge.
AW: As you wait, I suggest that you not hold your breath. But I'm not waiting. I don't want to wait.
--------------------
Read the complete interview here:
http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-world-that-has-darjeeling-limited.html
SB: [...] but what I’m saying is, the technology is right there—
AW: The technology has always been there. That’s part of my problem with the enthusiasm so-called critics have with video. “Wow, now everybody has access. It’s all democratized now.” Nonsense. The same thing was said about 8mm forty, fifty years ago. “Now anybody can make movies. We don’t have to have to hold 200 pound Mitchell cameras. You can get this little Bolex and hold it in your hand.” That didn’t mean you were going to get radical visions from everywhere.
SB: What it suggests to me is that radical visions from people who would otherwise not have been bothered because of the mountain you’d have to climb to get a film completed, the translators you’d have to employ, would no longer be an issue, and you’d take camera in hand. Super 8, Pixelvision, Hi-8—all that stuff was nice, but it was low-resolution and if you put them up against a 35mm projection, audience prejudices would discount these other media. Now we have these new cameras that, if you know how to light and compose and expose, your image is going to be free of those subliminal triggers that provoke an audience to dismiss a film as “not film.” All that stuff goes away.
AW: Well, you say “audience prejudice.” I say “audience preference,” because the screen is not a level playing field. And Americans are very fortunate to have had Hollywood, to have experienced--to know-- how great photography can be. So don't give me no bullshi*. I know what great photography is. I don't want to see somebody scrambling with their camera and trying to do things modestly. I've seen Joseph August and Gordon Willis. I don't want anything less.
SB: Right, but--
AW: That's not prejudice, that's preference.
SB: Well, let me get a little more specific about it. Gordon Willis could have taken a consumer Sony Hi-8 camera and lit something the way that he lit... The Landlord-- which was amazing, the use of shadows, underexposure, soft lighting. All that stuff would not register on something that was finished on, say, Hi-8. The technology now has moved to where that kind of work can be rendered effectively. That's all I'm saying, not that this is great because amateurs like Joe Blow can just push the button and get something amazing. It's going to look as horrible as anything else. But if you do the kind of work that Gordon Willis does, it's going to be translated effectively when its transferred over to a presentation medium that most people are used to-- 35mm, HD... So I'm waiting for those Gordon Willises from the ghetto and everywhere to emerge.
AW: As you wait, I suggest that you not hold your breath. But I'm not waiting. I don't want to wait.
--------------------
Read the complete interview here:
http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-world-that-has-darjeeling-limited.html
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Thanks for that Hudsonview
Great read.
Great read.
Hudsonview
Member
James Gray, dir. of "We Own The Night", recently weighed in:
SCOPE: What, as an alleged (or accused) “classicist” is your stance on DV?
GRAY: The thing about movies, of course, is that they’re a technical medium as well as an artistic one, so you can never exclude technology from the debate—it’s absurd to sound apologetic if you say, “Can I ask a technical question?” But—and I hate to say this—I think the question of DV or not-DV is one of the least interesting discussions and debates that there is. I don’t think format is the real problem with movies. The problem with movies is not the delivery device of the medium, not the way they look, not even the way they’re distributed, really. The problem with movies is the movies. The problem with movies is the content. The problem with movies is laziness, narrative laziness. So we can talk about the digital revolution forever, but it will never address what is really ailing the culture, which is that they don’t care about storytelling.
SCOPE: So is DV not even an option for you?
GRAY: I’d use it, but the thing is it’s not there yet. I mean, with Harris, you’re talking about the best cinematographer working today, and even he couldn’t get it exactly right. It was close, and it was great, but it took a lot out of him. It gave him a hell of a lot of trouble and a hell of a lot of heartache and it didn’t save them any money. This whole discussion about film or DV is kind of moot, in a way, because the system will determine it for you—like I said, the stock that The Yards was shot on no longer exists. But it is strange the way things are appraised, because if you said, “This new format came along and it’s got a better contrast ratio than digital and it’s got better resolution than digital,” —well, that’s film. If everybody were shooting digital and film came along, everybody would want to shoot film. So my own view is why shoot with something that’s not as good? I’ll do it when I have to, but until then why bother?
SCOPE: What, as an alleged (or accused) “classicist” is your stance on DV?
GRAY: The thing about movies, of course, is that they’re a technical medium as well as an artistic one, so you can never exclude technology from the debate—it’s absurd to sound apologetic if you say, “Can I ask a technical question?” But—and I hate to say this—I think the question of DV or not-DV is one of the least interesting discussions and debates that there is. I don’t think format is the real problem with movies. The problem with movies is not the delivery device of the medium, not the way they look, not even the way they’re distributed, really. The problem with movies is the movies. The problem with movies is the content. The problem with movies is laziness, narrative laziness. So we can talk about the digital revolution forever, but it will never address what is really ailing the culture, which is that they don’t care about storytelling.
SCOPE: So is DV not even an option for you?
GRAY: I’d use it, but the thing is it’s not there yet. I mean, with Harris, you’re talking about the best cinematographer working today, and even he couldn’t get it exactly right. It was close, and it was great, but it took a lot out of him. It gave him a hell of a lot of trouble and a hell of a lot of heartache and it didn’t save them any money. This whole discussion about film or DV is kind of moot, in a way, because the system will determine it for you—like I said, the stock that The Yards was shot on no longer exists. But it is strange the way things are appraised, because if you said, “This new format came along and it’s got a better contrast ratio than digital and it’s got better resolution than digital,” —well, that’s film. If everybody were shooting digital and film came along, everybody would want to shoot film. So my own view is why shoot with something that’s not as good? I’ll do it when I have to, but until then why bother?
When he refers to Harris Savides, what film does he reference him using DV?
Hudsonview
Member
That would be "Zodiac", ffaf07.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
If I had the money and knowhow....35mm film would be a no brainer for me. DV, HDV, RED, XDCAM, w/e are all alternatives but I think it comes down to personal preference. It's no different than the annoying Mac vs. PC debates I read. I've seen great footage from all kinds of formats, and in contrast crappy footage from them as well. Its who is behind the camera that counts, always does and always will.
- Kyle
- Kyle
- Status