Should you use the HVX200 for the Big Screen?

jazzx said:
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...
Click to expand...

No, when we told them we weren't set up to shoot 35mm the door immediately closed and the discussions ended.

We are putting together a promo dvd now of the work that we did over the summer. The only thing you can look at currently is the music video we worked on for the Indy 500 this year. It is at:

www.brackmusic.com

Not our best work as it was a windy day and the turbulence coming over the grandstands made things bumpy. Nonetheless, as I mentioned before, these shots are so brief, small problems don't stand out much.

Cheers,
 
Well one always faces this kind of obstacles and closed minded philosophy, one way or the other, I know I did.

I've spoken with production companies that said they did not trust any kind of HD at all because once they did a project with HDCAM and somehow came out green and believed ultimately that HD is "hyped" tech.

When they saw my rather limited showreel (All with HVX) they thought it was 16mm with prime lenses...

One of the problems is a not in place workflow and for that one can also blame the camera making companies for not thoroughly persuading them. For production companies 35mm, telecine and offline then online etc. Is a proven workflow and who can blame them?

Personally I love film. But ignorance in this industry can be a big problem...

However nothing ever can get in the way of creativity and true expression, so I guess we can always survive

Cheers mate.
 
Also, try not to forget that if the movie/doc/footage your shooting is great and interesting, people won't be focusing on whether it's digital or film, they will be too caught up in what you're showing them
 
There is a lot of reasons to choose one cam over another in a given situation.

Whether the cam "holds up" in a given condition is only one of them. (To me the HVX sounds like a pracatical cam for a remote helicopter shoot...)

To me, the loss of light when adding a 35mm acdaptor on a cam that eats lights for breakfast, dinner and dessert is a good reason NOT to do that.

The money saved on camera equipment is easily eaten by light rentals...


The HVX is a nice piece of cam and I have made national TV and Cinema ads on it the last year, but the more I use it, the more I want an additional cam for some uses.

Pixelshifting (and thus low single channel rez for situations where you need to work on single channels) , Lack of HD-SDI, bas firewire contacts, fixed lense and small sensor basically sums the downsides up for me.

Run and gun and sturdiness sums up the best parts.

Before you start killing me:
I really like the cam, and it has been earning me a very good living for a year and a half by now.

still: It is not neccesarily the answer to any and all situations, even though it can give you good/usable results for quite a few...

But I tend to agree. The HVX is the rock-bottom of "pro" HD production gear. That does not make it bad. It just states that there are other and fun stuff out there, which can pull of tricks the HVX can't...



Gunleik
 
Last edited:
I don't think you'll find much serious argument here that you should use the right tool for the job, and that the HVX isn't always that tool.
 
24fps4ever said:
frekin' negativity will get you nowhere
Click to expand...

Agreed!
And in all truthfullness, the HVX has served more purposes than it should for me the last 18 months. And I'm very happy it has. But that's exactly why I don't like its limits when I see them.

For well lit closeups, you'll get anywhere (almost) with the hvx (wide open you'll even get a pretty shallow DOF if you're really tuning in -:)

But when you start to add items/people/detail in the image, you start to see the results of an upsampled image - less "real" detail, and when you start to work mainly with keying/compositing - as I have lately - those weaknesses are exaggerated as you only relate to one channel of 960x540 which is scaled to 1080p and then pushed into an anamorphic format. The images suffer from this treatment _IN GIVEN SITUATIONS_ -:)

If you don't use the cam for such applications, you won't have these problems.

As I said: I really like it.

Cheers!

Gunleik
 
well what I would like to know is if we have seen the best from the hvx yet? maybe we've already reached the edge, the end of the road with it, I wanna say yes but then a part of me says no, the fact that we add 35mm adapters to this camera means one more edge we give it, whats next? seems to me that we keep pushing the hvx to the limit, which is a good thing but can only do so much before we reach the limit.
 
killfilm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even an Arri loves and needs light !

... To me, the loss of light when adding a 35mm acdaptor on a cam that eats lights for breakfast, dinner and dessert is a good reason NOT to do that.

... But I tend to agree. The HVX is the rock-bottom of "pro" HD production gear. That does not make it bad. It just states that there are other and fun stuff out there, which can pull of tricks the HVX can't...
Click to expand...

The loss of light. :undecided

Again, let's get out our Arri's and see what kind of image we get without PROPER LIGHTING and EXPOSURE.

This ROCK BOTTOM Camera has been used at the highest levels from Munich to The Departed, Masters of Horror series and countless others.

Are there other cameras in the HVX league that can pull tricks ? Yes, but they look like **** compared to the HVX.

gunleik said:
But when you start to add items/people/detail in the image, you start to see the results of an upsampled image - less "real" detail, and when you start to work mainly with keying/compositing - as I have lately - those weaknesses are exaggerated as you only relate to one channel of 960x540 which is scaled to 1080p and then pushed into an anamorphic format. The images suffer from this treatment _IN GIVEN SITUATIONS_ -:)

If you don't use the cam for such applications, you won't have these problems.
Click to expand...

You ever seen a 35mm piece of film up close ? Ever it in the front row at the movie theatre ? Even Kodak Vision looks like crap from that distance.

The beauty of film is the grain and colors that create the illusion of what you are seeing. Like an Oil Painting almost. Up close, it's blotches and strokes of colors and shapes but stand back and a whole world comes to life. Your mind perceives and puts together the information for you (These lack of details).

To much detail is a killer in filmmaking and I think too many obssess over this. Frankly, the other cameras in the HVX range are too sharp for my tatses.

keynstring said:
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.
Click to expand...

I totally am there digressing with you. Of course the HVX is more than capable. The format question has been proven time and again.

Are we shooting Lord of the Rings with the HVX ? No no no

But there are hundreds of films that could have been shot with the HVX.

As always, with all things being equal; the right DP, Director, Accessories, Lighting, etc
 
Hi John Seems like we sort of agree, but... -:) 35mm negs (not distributed copies) hold a ton of color/contrast information for the post dudes to work with. That's sorta why it holds so well. If you want 35mm DOF, it is simpler and often cheaper just to use a cam with a 35mm focal plane and 35mm/PL mounts. AND you lose less light that way. If you need to make composites/keys, you need rather higher detail/chroma precission on these recordings, than what is neccesary for the final copy. Even if the delivery is a 4:2:0 SD - DVD, a 4:4:4 10-bit image is an easier (workflow-vise) startingpoint. As to formats: There are two trends. One where one uses deliveryformats (like mpeg2/h.264) as recording formats, one which goes more in the direction of a digital-negative aquisition. Formats like DVCPRO-HD end up somewhere in-between. AVC-Intra seems to have more of the digital negative philosophy... I just say that for some workflows it might be easier (and actually che3aper) to choose one over the other. Not that you cannot possibly manage if you choose the HVX for all route. My 2c Cheers! Gunleik
 
gunleik said:
Agreed!
And in all truthfullness, the HVX has served more purposes than it should for me the last 18 months. And I'm very happy it has. But that's exactly why I don't like its limits when I see them.

For well lit closeups, you'll get anywhere (almost) with the hvx (wide open you'll even get a pretty shallow DOF if you're really tuning in -:)

But when you start to add items/people/detail in the image, you start to see the results of an upsampled image - less "real" detail, and when you start to work mainly with keying/compositing - as I have lately - those weaknesses are exaggerated as you only relate to one channel of 960x540 which is scaled to 1080p and then pushed into an anamorphic format. The images suffer from this treatment _IN GIVEN SITUATIONS_ -:)

If you don't use the cam for such applications, you won't have these problems.

As I said: I really like it.

Cheers!

Gunleik
Click to expand...
Think of it this way.

The US military uses the M998 HMMWV (Hum-vee) for much of its general-purpose transportation needs. The HMMWV is built to specifications needed by the military.

There's a civilian version of the vehicle, the Hummer. The Hummer is, by civilian standards, a rugged vehicle capable of doing a lot of things a typical car, or even SUV, couldn't do. Much more than any civilian really needs to do. And it's expensive.

While the Hummer can outperform most standard civilian vehicles in things like off-road capabilities, and durability, it would not be sufficient for the needs of the military for many reasons. It's not meant to be, and it doesn't cost near as much.

The HVX is a bit like a Hummer in this scenario. Certainly, it's quite fit for professional use, and also heavily used by hobbyists and other "civilians." But there are things it just can't do, and was never meant to do.

In the same way that you'd find the limits of a Hummer pretty quickly if you tried to use it for military purposes, you'll also find the limits of the HVX if you try to put it to super-heavy-duty production purposes. That's why whole classes of camera exist above it.
 
RyanEsta said:
Also, try not to forget that if the movie/doc/footage your shooting is great and interesting, people won't be focusing on whether it's digital or film, they will be too caught up in what you're showing them
Click to expand...


I agree with you, you can get a bit lost thinking about which camera to use. But we do intend on selling our doc to a TV company so it does have to be of a certain quality. Shot some P2 doc test footage yesterday in daylight in LA and it looked great full screen.
 
boomstrikevideo said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, (first of all.. my first post here.. hi everyone - couldnt resist) I need to tell you that film making is generally a very expensive venture. People have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in equipment and investments. If you want to attract real film business, you'll need to be able to support basic film cameras and address their needs.

When we shot ScoobyDoo2 we used a remote helicopter rig to film the mystery machine chase sequence... sorry but any HD cameras were out of the question. If you approached the production and told them they had to run an HD camera because your helicopter couldnt fly with a real film camera, they'd have told you to pound sand because they're making a feature film, not an infomercial.

It's great that a camera like the 200 has come along and put this technology in people's hands (although often I wish it wouldnt do 60 frames so I can stop being tortured by everyone and their uncle shooting 60 frames! It's getting boring), but sometimes companies simply (and I know this might sound strange to you) want to spend a lot of money, and have it look like they spent a lot of money.

Sure, often we can get by lighting scenes with little or no light... if you're experienced enough you can do far more with nothing on film shoot than anyone can ever imagine, but usually that's not what the producers or the production companies want.

If I tell someone to build me a $1,000,000 house because I want a million dollar house, and the contractor comes back and hands me $500,000 when he's done, I'd be pissed off because if I wanted a $500,000 house I'd have asked him to build me one.

Hope this makes sense... if not you need to spend some time working on a film set!

To the person who said the 200 "loves light" ... well... we shoot all of the 2nd unit for CW's "Reaper" (tuesdays 9pm) on the 200 and use as little light as possible. Wide open...

-cheers and thanks for a great forum! Entertaining reading!
 
Last edited:
Every big film Ive worked on is always trying to cut corners and save money. And I've worked on a few 35mm features featuring two or three a-listers. I think the motivation for film is to give a sense of credibility to the feature.

A writer I know (who is also an A-lister) said to me once...."If you're doing a feature the choices are 35mm or a panavision genesis" I don't know how correct that is, but I do know that as far as credibility goes, they need to convince themselves they're on a real shoot - it's not about the quality.

You and I know there are many other alternatives - F900s, F950s, Vipers, etc.

This forum is mainly for owner / operators of the gear listed. I don't think anyone here believes Spielberg will choose the HVX200 based on it's merits.

But that notion raises another interesting point.....after seeing the reckless expenditure on big budget films (over $20M) firsthand, it begs the question:

"Should we spend all the money because we can?"

Do unionized layers of bureaucracy, transportation captains, craft service carts rolling by every 5 minutes, four 2nd 2nd ADs, three cameras, ten thousand amps of generator power, and 3 a-listers add to the quality of the film?

Or does all that bullshit just keep a bunch of people busy because the only way they know how to shoot is BIG?

The end result is a bunch of uninspired, recycled and overlit movies whose sole purpose is to generate revenue for a mega corporation. Remakes of remakes just to fill pockets. Like ScoobyDoo2!!!!!!!

I'm as capitalist as the next guy, but come on. I watch alot of movies, and 95% of them just plain suck.

But they do cost a ton, which keeps someone employed, I suppose.
 
fish_antlers said:
If I tell someone to build me a $1,000,000 house because I want a million dollar house, and the contractor comes back and hands me $500,000 when he's done, I'd be pissed off because if I wanted a $500,000 house I'd have asked him to build me one.
Click to expand...
Anyone wanting to play in the "big leagues" should read that statement until it sinks in. Great point.

To the person who said the 200 "loves light" ... well... we shoot all of the 2nd unit for CW's "Reaper" (tuesdays 9pm) on the 200 and use as little light as possible. Wide open...
Click to expand...
Send me some details so I can add it to the "who's using the HVX" thread. Welcome to the forum!
 
thanks Barry... I know that what I'm saying might not make sense to the average person, but there's often little logic in film making...

taormina.. I agree .. however more often than while some productions appear to be saving money by pinching pennies, they're hemorrhaging the pennies in other areas... usually it's a ll a giant pile of money in the end, and I can assure you that the goal is to spend all the money allotted... i
 
fish_antlers said:
When we shot ScoobyDoo2 we used a remote helicopter rig to film the mystery machine chase sequence... sorry but any HD cameras were out of the question. If you approached the production and told them they had to run an HD camera because your helicopter couldnt fly with a real film camera, they'd have told you to pound sand because they're making a feature film, not an infomercial.
Click to expand...

I've seen infomercials that were better than Scooby Doo 2.
 
Speilberg has stated he'll never ever shoot on Digital,,,, George Lucas does Star Wars on the CineAlta which is what the F900 and 950 are based on. Arguments over semantics I say.
Ohh and Scooby DOO 1 and 2 were both **** films
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top