HVX200 used for Cloverfield?

Although it's really awesome about the HVX in cloverfield, I was extremely let down by the movie. I was literally physically sick afterward because the whole thing is shot handheld and is so shaky at times you cant even tell whats going on. I understand that the point was to make it more realistic but come on, this effect could have been brought about in a different way. Or at least a less shaky way.
 
2205426422_bef5254ed1.jpg
 
Man, I wish that they would have done that at my theatre. :) I probably would have seen it anyways but it would have been nice to be warned. I wouldnt have spent $10 on a popcorn and drink. It was really good, just hard to get over the extreme shakiness.
 
AshG said:
I thought most the movie looked like crap, I saw it on a film print though. I know that was the point but it is hardly a movie to brag about what camera was used!



ash =o)
Click to expand...

You guys are nuts. From what I've read, essentially everything that wasn't an FX shot was HVX. I saw the movie digitally projected and it looked amazing. It looked so good I questioned which shots were HVX and which were F23 and Viper. The fact that I had trouble seeing the difference makes me wanna do handstands.

Seriously, the HVX blown up looks spectacular. The movie sucked and the operation and framing was excessively cockeyed - but seeing all the crystal 50 foot tall HVX footage was worth the price of admission.
 
Sorry, but as you all must admit, a HUGE budget and a few highly skilled, expensive post production companies makes all the difference on the final product and not which camera you might end up using.

http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?magazine/0712/stoo.htm~top.main_hp

"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"

The HVX appearing in a Hollywood feature might make you feel good about the purchase you made, but then there is the actual reality of it all.......:D
 
Last edited:
Jacquot said:
Sorry, but as you all must admit, a HUGE budget and a few highly skilled, expensive post production companies makes all the difference on the final product and not which camera you might end up using.
Click to expand...

You must either be a producer or a sound guy judging from your remarks...

You can't add resolution after the fact, regardless of how much money you've got.

Depending on what you're going for, which camera you use usually means everything to the final product.

Jacquot said:
The HVX appearing in a Hollywood feature might make you feel good about the purchase you made, but then there is the actual reality of it all.......:D
Click to expand...

That's crazy talk. The purchase I made was solid gold from day one, I don't need JJ Abrams to make me feel good about it. The actual reality is the HVX rocks and it's nice to see somebody with a budget finally have a little faith in it.

Jacquot said:
"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be a derogatory remark regarding the HVX? Yes, it was a camera the actors could actually hold and operate themselves. It's abilities far exceed 'consumer' status.
 
Last edited:
Jacquot said:
"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"
Click to expand...

Meaning, it was the easiest to used by an unskilled operator handheld and was easier to carry then the F23 or Viper. "Felt the most like a real consumer camera" means small enough to replicate consumer camera movements while still providing the 720 or 1080 professional look. You use a HDV camera the way the HVX would've been used there and you wouldn't get even half the results the HVX would produce.

(P.S.: I don't even own a HVX200 and I've only touched one once, in B&H.)
 
I got back from seeing this film about an hour ago and I still feel somewhat nauseous. If you thought the Shakycam in "Bourne Ultimatum" was annoying, don't even think about seeing this movie.

Regarding its use of the HVX, all I can say is that if the entire opening scene at the party was shot on an HVX exclusively, then all my concerns about its suitability to the big screen are put to rest. On the other hand, if some of it was HVX and some was Viper (or another high end camera) then it's not so clear. There were some shots that were decidedly lower rez than others in the sequence, and if only these were HVX shots, then I'd say it was merely acceptable under the circumstances. Most of the party scene shots looked just great though - plenty sharp and hi-rez, enough so that I'd never call them out as "prosumer" otherwise. I sure would love to know all the specific details there.

The blogspot article linked above does seem to imply that scenes like the party were shot entirely on the HVX. It's a fine piece of news if that's correct.
 
Last edited:
I noticed some shots in the party scene did look better than others too.
So im not sure if it all was done on hvx, but theres a good chance.

aalleexx said:
I dont know about everyone else here but I personally dont like the idea that the hvx was used to simulate the "handycam" look, I would of liked more the idea of a feature shooting hvx's to simulate regular scenes that would normally would of been shot on film :(
Click to expand...

Well the hvx was used to mix in with footage shot from viper and f23, to look the same. Thats got to mean something. I'm sure the normal audience couldn't tell the difference.

Also ask yourself, why didn't they use similar small cams from sony or canon?
They picked hxv.
 
Article said:
This mixture of cameras was the result of a compromise. "Matt Reeves really wanted to try to do as much as possible with the HVX 200," Bonvillain explains. "But it was already a bit bigger and heavier than he would have liked. His concern was that there is a feel about images from a tiny camcorder that is different from the look you get with heavier, more solid equipment. A consumer camcorder is so light, and when you pan it, there's a different feel than when you pan these bigger cameras."
Click to expand...

I don't see the article discounting the HVX as some do. He actually states he wishes it were lighter, more like a consumer camera.

As far as Post Production, there are a few techniques that can sharpen soft footage (but there are limits of course), and there are several types of printing techniques that will have an impact on what the final print looks like. IF you shoot a great film that gets accepted at a top festival, AND a distributor decides they want to distribute your film to theaters, then I would recommend you deliver your whole project still on the NLE to the distributor and let them decide how they want to go forward. Personally, I'd make 2 exports and send them via different carriers, then I'd toss my NLE in my car and drive it to them myself.

But that's just me...

Bob
 
I've seen Cloverfield, own a HVX and do Special efffects for a living. I can see why they used Higher end Cameras for the effects Plates. I'm surprised they didn't use Film for those shots.

"When you do a fast pan with the Viper or the F23 under sodium-vapor lighting, you get a triple image," the cinematographer notes. "You get the image itself and then two trails. Kevin Banks was freaking out: 'How do we cut people out of stuff when we've got three of them?' 'If we animate something to composite into the shot, we've got to duplicate the two trails!' Matt [Reeves] and I said, 'You gotta do it, man. We're shooting on the streets and we can't turn off the streetlights.' They did manage to do it, though, and they did a great job."

http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15469.shtml

Between that and the tacking hand held shots it sounds like a painful project.


"Well just fix it in Post. ......Oh wait we are post......crap"
 
Jacquot said:
"It is really small and felt the most like a real consumer camera"
Click to expand...

Ok, let's put that in perspective - these guys come from the film world, and I remember Barry Green once posting on this site, "A film camera is a big heavy big big heavy beast."

To these people an HPX500 probably feels small and consumer-like.

Look, the HVX is a GREAT camera. I love mine. Love it, love it, love it. Plugging the component output into my HDTV looks better than the compressed broadcast signal for Discovery HD. But, this is the real world. As much as I love my HVX, if I had a multi-million dollar budget, I'm not going to go with a $5,200 prosumer cam.

I love my HVX and will probably get a 2nd one sooner or later. I know it's a *great* camera and that's good enough for me. I don't expect people with millions of dollars to burn to use it.
 
Well we aren't Hollywood but we're making a feature with the HVX200:
http://www.pleasedsheep.com/bar_stewards_the_movie

And plenty of other people are. I think it's a great camera when coupled with a 35mm lens adaptor, for shooting smaller less action packed movies. That said we have VFX in a several scenes. We'll be posting it on a Davinci2k but a lot of what we've shot needs no additional sharpening and looks great on a high-end 2k monitor.

When you consider that 28 Days Later was shot on several Canon XL1s's in 576i, the HVX yields a much better image both in color and resolution.

Once we're done with this it's another HD production, then we're hoping to make the jump to 4k (fingers crossed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top