Pro's and Con's of Shooting a Feature on HVX

Y

young_fast_&_scientific

Active member
Hey guys,

Just wanted to get some of your thoughts on this. I'm currently finishing up a short horror film that I'm shooting on the HVX. (Check out the 'teaser' trailer here) I'm sort of considering this (as well as my previous short works) as a dry run for a feature I'm hoping to shoot next summer. I'm very comfortable with the HVX at this point, so that's always an option. However, after thinking about the time/money/effort that we'll be putting into this thing, I started considering other options for this project. More specifically, the Red One camera.

So here's my question to you: What are the pro's and con's of shooting a feature on the HVX? On the positive side, it's cheap and easy to use. (And I already own one!) But then I start thinking about the final format...and although the chances of getting any sort of distribution that would require a 4K master of the film are slim, doesn't it seem like shooting yourself in the foot right out the gate if that option isn't available?

What does a feature shot on the HVX stand to gain? Personally, I'm hoping this project will simply be a step towards something slightly bigger.

Anyways, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Should I consider pursuing a Red One camera? Should I just shoot with the HVX?

Thanks!
 
There is a debate going on about this over at reduser.net, they even took a poll. It's a tough call, do you put the money on the screen or put the money into the Red camera? My 2 cents is if you can't make a good movie with a dvx / hvx / hpx the Red is going to be a waste of money, bad acting looks a lot worse in 4k than 720p.
 
Thanks, Chip! Original Poster should look at this thread. It's already gettin' good.
 
And just a note to the original poster of this thread, I have seen a lot of crap turned out on Red's, also seen a lot of crap on hvx's. Story telling is everything, your eyes will forgive a less than 4k image. But they do look good.
 
ChipG: Thanks for the link!

I've read through the entire thread at Reduser.net, and I think there's some interesting points made from both sides of the argument, even if it hasn't really resolved any of my concerns.

It's tough because these discussions naturally enter subjective areas like storytelling or the importance of picture quality, or the abilities of the operator/owner. It's tough to come to a purely objective, hard-lined opinion on this. Maybe that's a sign that the tech isn't as important?

I think any project that begins with this type of debate is a 'gateway' project. Something that is completed in order to make way for a bigger project down the road. The $400 film leads to the $4,000 film, and then to the $40,000 film and so on. The question is...is it worth covering my ass while making my $40,000 film 'just in case' it gets some attention? This question is pretty naive to begin with, seeing as the chances of your $40,000 film being picked up are slim to none. BUT...it's that naive attitude that has kept me moving forward!

Anyways, I guess it comes down to this:

Shoot on HVX, make it the best you can and the possible outcomes are:

1. You end up with something that you're proud of, but doesn't catch the attention of anyone in the 'industry'.

2. You end up with something you're proud of AND gets industry attention. Too bad I didn't shoot on Red!

But in the end, is the 2. outcome so bad? Afterall, maybe the $40,000 HVX film is just what you needed for the $400,000 Red film?
 
I put a lot of weight on personal experience and always make time in pre-production for running tests in order to anticipate the game day scenario. If I were in your shoes, I'd get my hands on a Red camera and spend two days shooting with both cameras. Pick shots that will showcase the strengths and weaknesses of either decision.

Go through the entire workflow with both and compare the results. My guess is that your gut will tell you right away which one to reach for when it's time to do the real thing.
 
young_fast_&_scientific said:
It's tough because these discussions naturally enter subjective areas like storytelling or the importance of picture quality, or the abilities of the operator/owner. It's tough to come to a purely objective, hard-lined opinion on this. Maybe that's a sign that the tech isn't as important?
Click to expand...

I'm no authority, but here's my bottom line: the technology should serve the content. I don't really care what the story is, but the technology should fit. Could you shoot "THE FALL" on an HVX and get similar, beautiful results?

Hell No.

That's a job for Film Stock, maybe RED. That's a big-ass maybe.

Shooting Cloverfield on an HVX200?

Hell Yes. The image serves the story, why not? So, whatever it is that you're shooting remember that the image should probably match the content. Pretty and Abstract? 35mm/RED. Gritty and Handheld? HVX200(A) and 35mm Adapter. Those are just objective thoughts.

Shoot on HVX, make it the best you can and the possible outcomes are:

1. You end up with something that you're proud of, but doesn't catch the attention of anyone in the 'industry'.

2. You end up with something you're proud of AND gets industry attention. Too bad I didn't shoot on Red!

But in the end, is the 2. outcome so bad? Afterall, maybe the $40,000 HVX film is just what you needed for the $400,000 Red film?
Click to expand...
The second scenario would never be bad, seein' as how it's very rare that it happens. I wouldn't care whether I shot it no an HVX200(A) or not. I keep sayin' A because I personally wouldn't shoot anything with an ORIGINAL HVX200 anymore. LoL.

I'll tell you what, though. I know someone that went and shot an entire short on a RED with a few primes and NO AC. I think it was a 3 Day shoot with fifteen to sixteen hour days and we all thought he died because we couldn't find him for two days after the shoot was over.

Turned out he fell asleep for like two days straight and couldn't move because he was so sore. He had to hold the camera, pull focus, etc etc for HOURS on end. Only having his partner hold it for him to take small breaks.

I could have done that shoot with a fullblown HVX+35mm Adapter setup and barely broken a sweat. I would have NEVER tried it with a RED. Goes to show you that the only real limitation is the human machine. If someone wants to do something bad enough they'll do it.

That is, if you want to shoot a feature bad enough, it won't matter if you're shooting RED or HVX200 because, for the most part, they're both plenty.
 
One major thing to consider. RED will not make your film amazing.

I've seen a lot of crap put out on the RED. I've seen an F23 turn out junk. I've seen a handicam turn out amazing images.

The only reason one would look at the RED is the fact we have a 35mm native sensor. We get the 35mm DOF from a digital camera. Cool beans. Problems here are the camera is still finicky. It is a teenager. The new build is better than old ones but it still has problems. It doesn't like playback. It likes to shut down a lot. And when it does - it is a full 8 minute reboot period. It takes a while to get back and running.

I've had the camera go down before and it slows everything down. It likes to have internal memory faults. And it runs like a film camera.

That said, you need a DoP, you need an Assistant Camera, you need a second Assistant, you need a loader. There is no other way to get around it. The RED is like shooting on film. But it isn't just the RED that has these problems. The Genesis has issues as well.

The big argument here is that the image isn't comparable. And it really isn't. But if you go and rent a Varicam and plop Digiprimes on there. You would be hard-pressed to figure out the difference between RED and Varicam.

4K sounds great. It is huge. But there is a reason only major VFX shots in Hollywood films are transfered at 4K. The extra resolution is pointless at a point. And the new p2 Varicam can pull out 4:4:4 imaging. Something before only allowed in the ultra-high-end cameras.

The camera doesn't make the film. That said, you could use your HVX. Depending on how important the DOF was. Do you really need it? If you do - rent an adapter and some decent glass. Or rent an adapter and put pro-glass on there. Rent a higher end camera system - doesn't need to be the RED.

Better yet - test out several systems, and see what you like. The RED camp will slam me for saying the RED isn't the end all solution for making a film. No one cares what camera a film originated in. Aside from maybe if you shot IMAX. Most people watching can't tell a RED from a Genesis. In fact - most people can't tell Genesis from Film.

You can tell film from DV. But I would focus on production value first. What needs to happen on set to make it look good. Just because I am making a film doesn't mean I need a Genesis or a RED to make it worth anything. If it sucks - it will suck just as much on RED as it would on an HVX. If it's great. It will be just as good on RED as it is on the HVX.
 
Mattykins said:
The only reason one would look at the RED is the fact we have a 35mm native sensor. We get the 35mm DOF from a digital camera. Cool beans. Problems here are the camera is still finicky. It is a teenager. The new build is better than old ones but it still has problems. It doesn't like playback. It likes to shut down a lot. And when it does - it is a full 8 minute reboot period. It takes a while to get back and running.
Click to expand...

I've had the camera go down before and it slows everything down. It likes to have internal memory faults. And it runs like a film camera. [/quote]

Not all RED cameras are made or cared for the same. You won't catch one of our cameras doing any of that, and we shoot for hours on end.

That said, you need a DoP, you need an Assistant Camera, you need a second Assistant, you need a loader. There is no other way to get around it. The RED is like shooting on film. But it isn't just the RED that has these problems. The Genesis has issues as well.
Click to expand...

You need a loader... if you don't have a RED DRIVE. Entire days without ever tapping the footage.

The big argument here is that the image isn't comparable. And it really isn't. But if you go and rent a Varicam and plop Digiprimes on there. You would be hard-pressed to figure out the difference between RED and Varicam.
Click to expand...

Shooter: Would pick it up in a heartbeat
Average Person: Would see a difference but not enough to care, probably.

Better yet - test out several systems, and see what you like. The RED camp will slam me for saying the RED isn't the end all solution for making a film. No one cares what camera a film originated in. Aside from maybe if you shot IMAX. Most people watching can't tell a RED from a Genesis. In fact - most people can't tell Genesis from Film.
Click to expand...

Nobody's going to slam anyone for that statement. The thread that ChipG posted is proof that even RED owners are smart enough to know that RED isn't the end all.

You can tell film from DV. But I would focus on production value first. What needs to happen on set to make it look good. Just because I am making a film doesn't mean I need a Genesis or a RED to make it worth anything. If it sucks - it will suck just as much on RED as it would on an HVX. If it's great. It will be just as good on RED as it is on the HVX.
Click to expand...

A bad movie will be a bad movie shot with any camera. But, chances are it'll be a bit more "watchable" with a better camera. lol. At least that's what I think.

I'll sooner turn off a bad movie with a crap image versus a bad movie with a really great image.
 
I must admit, I've seen some Red footage that has been pretty awful due to some bad lighting. I'm confident in my skills, but I'm not 100% confident that using a Red will automatically equal mind-blowing images. Even some of the better Red demo reels I've seen have been occasionally inconsistent in terms of quality. User error I guess.

Here's the reality of our production: I will be directing and dp'ing, and most likely, operating. This is probably not the ideal situation for shooting with the Red. Especially considering I have almost two years experience with the HVX that would have to be applied to a brand new technology in a short period of time. Maybe sticking to the familiarity of the HVX would be the best bet? Sure the Reduser.net message boards (and probably even DVXuser) could pick apart the blown out highlights and the noise in the blacks...but the average audience might still enjoy it.
 
young_fast_&_scientific said:
I must admit, I've seen some Red footage that has been pretty awful due to some bad lighting. I'm confident in my skills, but I'm not 100% confident that using a Red will automatically equal mind-blowing images. Even some of the better Red demo reels I've seen have been occasionally inconsistent in terms of quality. User error I guess.

Here's the reality of our production: I will be directing and dp'ing, and most likely, operating. This is probably not the ideal situation for shooting with the Red. Especially considering I have almost two years experience with the HVX that would have to be applied to a brand new technology in a short period of time. Maybe sticking to the familiarity of the HVX would be the best bet? Sure the Reduser.net message boards (and probably even DVXuser) could pick apart the blown out highlights and the noise in the blacks...but the average audience might still enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I've shot some terrible footage on plenty of cameras myself. :D I'm not so confident but I have fun.

I think, more importantly, you should probably be looking to not direct and DP at the same time. That smells like a bad deal altogether. Why are you doing both jobs?
 
Kholi: Ultimately I'm looking to expand my skills and portfolio in both of these areas. I know how typically self-indulgent the director/dp combination can sound (with reason), but we've got a pretty good thing going on with our small crew right now, and my confidence is growing in both fields at this level. I'm hoping to continue to challenge myself with these self-financed projects.

You can judge for yourself. Any advice from the folks on this board is greatly appreciated:

http://vimeo.com/2088140

http://norwegianfilmcommittee.org/en/media.html
 
Not even from the self-indulgent standpoint. You're talkin' about shootin' a feature on a budget and doing both jobs WILL eat away at so many other things, your time is just one of them. I'm sure you're confident that you can direct lighting and action at the same time and get 100 percent out of both... the reality is that people learn how to do these jobs for a reason: you can't realistically give 100 percent to two jobs at one time as a human being.

Unless you're a super computer, that's a different story.
 
Which is why I'm glad to have the opportunity to experiment with both now. Hopefully I'll be in a position someday where I can be doing one or the other as a profession. (Although, funny enough, I am doing both at the same time now as a profession. :P) I would love to collaborate with a great cinematographer at some point. Hopefully it's not too far down the road.
 
Needless to say, your decision hinges on many many factors... but:

Personally, I think that when picking the HVX/RED or any other choices in a medium, the two most important things to me are 1. Aesthetic. 2. pragmatism.

With aesthetics, I don't know if I buy the, "what's best for the project," argument. I think that applies more to highly stylized films, or particularly more commercial, less personal projects. This is part of the larger question of whether you want to get into the business of film, or if it is more of an art to you. It seems that smaller, personal projects benefit from what aesthetic YOU enjoy. Or if you view the available options as a compromise, what look can you live with? I'm a Lynch fan, and think about Eraserhead and INLAND EMPIRE, and think that it's less about the project. If Eraserhead was shot on DV, by Lynch, I think it would be similar, it would have the same voice. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not science, so opinion and experience is all we have. That said, I don't have as much experience as many guys here, and you will get a great diversity of opinion.

The second thing, with pragmatism, is what will get the job done? You could take the same project RED or HVX; with RED if you have to spend double the resources (not necessarily money, but maybe time) to get a usable image, and it takes time away from direction of the actors, or maybe it's as simple as positioning a shot, being OK with it, finding a better one, but if the camera is less mobile, or focus is harder to pull, you may think twice. Mobility is important. On the flip side, if you're the type where more freedom may create a frantic atmosphere, maybe it's better to have a slower workflow.

From everything I've seen, distribution should be unaffected by the format. As Barry says, we've already reached, "good enough." A person very close to me had his film in theaters and sweeping festivals, including Toronto, reviewed by Roger Ebert, the whole nine yards. The guy didn't know NTSC from PAL, and it was shot on a PD-150 without an external mic. It was picked up by Miramax just the same.

Choose your own priorities, and follow them closely. There is no formula for success.
 
Very interesting conversation ya'll are having over here....

One thing I recently realized is that lighting and composition matter a heck of a lot more than shooting format... we shot a feature with HVX/SGPro/Nikons earlier this year, and people have been surprised when we've told them what we shot on... some have thought RED, some VARICAM, etc. no one guessed HVX. Do I notice differences? Yes, and I know shooting RED we would have had a bit of a cleaner image, etc. but the film still looks gorgeous, and works...

We'll be shooting RED for our next project, if nothing else it's easier to light for RED because it doesn't need nearly as much light and it responds a lot more like film to light... but I think a well lit HVX feature can be as good as anything out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top