Should I rent Varicam or buy HPX500?

Mac:

I really like your pragmatic and practical viewpoint on all of this, I am right there with you. I think that RED will sell a lot of cameras based upon marketing hype and I think a lot of new low end RED users will almost immediately dump their cameras because the workflow. The P2 and SxS workflow are simple, quick and efficient. Based upon my one RED shoot I have done, the RED wokflow is a PITA.

I also agree that too many people in this business are dreamers and want to shoot everything at the highest resolution possible "just in case" their project ever makes it to the big screen. A lot of delusional people wasting a lot of storage space and bandwidth as far as I am concerned. I shot DBeta and even DVCAM/Mini DV for years that was regularly projected both digitally and for film outs on a few occasions, more than once I was in the audience to watch one of my films with over 5,000 people at national sales meetings and nobody ever complained that the picture was soft or lousy looking. Shooting 3k and above is a waste of space for 98% of users yet they will because they are convinced that their product will see the big screen.

For the other uses you describe, yes, 1080 is more than adequate. If most users put half of the time, effort and money that they put into pixel peeping into pre-pro, hiring a great crew, writing a great script, killer lighting, art direction, production design, locations, hair, makeup, talent and audio, we would see a lot more great films, videos, television, web video than we do.

Best,

Dan
 
honestly 720p is more than enough for the big screen.

at this point its difficult to project 1080p anyway. Even 720p is difficult enough. Most small cinemas where i see shorts and indie films projected are from Standard Definition DVD's because they were only able to afford, a high quality SD projector. And most of those arent native 16:9 so youre really watching letterboxed footage.
 
puredrifting said:
I think that RED will sell a lot of cameras based upon marketing hype and I think a lot of new low end RED users will almost immediately dump their cameras because the workflow.
Click to expand...

Only the same amount of people that would drop their DSLR because they don't like the option of RAW, but most people are happy shooting the highest quality JPEGS on those DSLRs.

Same with RED, you don't have to use the RAW workflow, the proxies are fine (Think RAW+JPEG option on a DSLR), and are easily edited in FCP/Premiere etc. I edited the initial web clips from Afghanistan on my Macbook with the 2k proxies while overseas, I edited the final piece off the same proxies with no CC besides white balance. It's the same as working with P2, with the added benefit of RAW versatility should you want it.

People get all tripped up in trying to as you put it "pixel peep", but it's not necessary with the RED either.

If you want to see the presentation I put together at 1080P off the proxies, or an in progress demo reel mixing XL1/HVX/HPX/RED, shoot me a PM. And I'm not saying you should shoot RED, but beware the "workflow will kill you" mentality. It's only as complicated as you require it to be.
 
Last edited:
MrGlory said:
Only the same amount of people that would drop their DSLR because they don't like the option of RAW, but most people are happy shooting the highest quality JPEGS on those DSLRs.

Same with RED, you don't have to use the RAW workflow, the proxies are fine (Think RAW+JPEG option on a DSLR), and are easily edited in FCP/Premiere etc. I edited the initial web clips from Afghanistan on my Macbook with the 2k proxies while overseas, I edited the final piece off the same proxies with no CC besides white balance. It's the same as working with P2, with the added benefit of RAW versatility should you want it.

People get all tripped up in trying to as you put it "pixel peep", but it's not necessary with the RED either.

If you want to see the presentation I put together at 1080P off the proxies, or an in progress demo reel mixing XL1/HVX/HPX/RED, shoot me a PM. And I'm not saying you should shoot RED, but beware the "workflow will kill you" mentality. It's only as complicated as you require it to be.
Click to expand...

I was only peripherally involved in the the RED post on the project I shot, my comments are based upon the feedback I received from the producer and the editors. I do have a question though, what resolution are the proxies from the RED? If they are 1080, what do you gain by shooting at 4K besides 35mm depth of field? What format are the proxies? I have heard about this workflow but I have not performed it myself. I do know that I was surprised to learn that if we wanted the 35mm depth of field, we had to shoot at 4k, that was a disappointment.

BTW, I have a D80 and D300 and I am a fairly accomplished still photographer. I never shoot RAW, I consider it a pain in the rear workflow and don't have time for all of the conversions, especially when I shoot an all day portrait session or an event. Too many images in RAW plus having to do all of those conversions is not what photography is about for me. Guess it goes back to film, I prefer to light, compose and shoot and get it right in-camera rather taking a crappy image and trying to manufacture the "right" into it with my admitedly underdeveloped Photoshop skills. Sure, I crop, reframe, vignette, clone out some bad stuff, but I am not one of these people who can do a complete image makeover in post, not would I want to be. I feel similarly with video and film, I prefer to capture a pretty good, usable image and like to leave post to do minor color correction and compositing. So transferring the RAW workflow to film and video, for me, is a sign of usually not knowing what you are doing while shooting. Sure there are exceptions, and some filmmakers need to do heavy post to realize their vision but at my low end of the game, I am not making features, don't need or want a RAW post workflow.

I am betting that a lot of other users feel the same. There is something gratifying about shooting WYSIWYG and capturing great footage rather than having to go back and assign white balance, contrast, look to every shot you shoot. I'm sure that if I shot features or music videos I would feel differently but with television and docs, there is not usually the time and budget to visually massage every shot that I shoot.

Dan
 
Indy,

Since this is going to be your first feature have you thought about an hvx200/170 with 35mm adaptor and putting the money you'll save on the screen?

Really sorry for taking your thread of topic like this but I'm not sure if a dist. or end buyer will care that much between an hvx/500/varicam. Since Red is the new buzz word that's why I suggested it earlier.
 
And really a lot of it is production perspective. What kind of crew do you have? If its minimal, the HPX 500 is the way to go IMO - 2/3" DOF control makes a big difference even if youre operating from one zoom lens. Primes are a better option if you have the $ but - Personally I would rather shoot straight through a Zoom lens on an HPX500 than mess around with a 35mm adapter and shooting through all the additional glass - fixed lens > achromat > front and back glass on the adapter > whatever screen or ground glass is being used inside the adapter> 35mm lens on the front; assuming the budget is minimal. And theres another option I would consider which is the JVCHD200 and their proprietary cine lens adapter, much less on the aforementioned glass on a 35mm adapter to worry about - see video here http://www.dvinfo.net/prohd/Media/Lenses_and_DoF.mov

The difference with Red though isnt the resolution, its more to do with getting a full s35 sensor.

These are just options mixed with opinion.
 
Here's the simple answer that makes most logical sense.

Renting costs too much. The cheap cameras don't deliver a good enough quality. So best option is to buy one of the many Varicams coming onto the market for real cheap right now, and also get the new P2 gear and use them together to make a P2 Varicam for 1/4 the price of an actual new P2 varicam, then you sell them when you finish the project for only a minor loss which amount to far less than what you would have spent renting.

Or hire someone like me that has that equipment to shoot your project for you. There are quite a few guys out there that have similar setups that cut indie deals and can save you a lot of money and hassle
 
I think ChipG's suggestion is a good one... I have a Red Rock unit for my HVX that I rarely use because it doesn't match my work style (I like to work quick and dirty) but the images are really nice.. They're soft, but soft like when you use a #1 or 2 ProMist on 35... And because the focus is so selective it actually gives the impression of being sharper than it is in the areas that are in focus.

Resolution is a big subject for discussion on these sites, and that's a good thing. However, crystal clear images are not always what you need. Most star DPs hardly ever shoot 35 without some glass in front to take the edge off. I use ProMists and SoftFX filters often on the 500 (I have the Fujinon lens) and the look is very filmic.

By the way, although I've shot several shorts in 1080p, I usually prefer the look of 720 because it's very much like super16, which I've always liked and am used to - a very tactile look. Plus, shooting 720/24pn gives me lots of room on my cards. The Varicam shows mentioned here were shot 720 (at least Facing Giants was) and frankly I thought it looked great - not my cup of tea subject-wise, but a good film.

Icarus205's suggestion is a good one too. The only problem is that people selling their Varicams probably aren't going to be selling their lenses (I wouldn't). The used Varicams aren't going to have CAC (which some people have found fault with, but I'm happy with how it works on mine) so you'll need to find a high dollar lens to take advantage of the superior image gathering capabilities. With all these 500 users looking for used lenses, that might be difficult.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I do have a question though, what resolution are the proxies from the RED? If they are 1080, what do you gain by shooting at 4K besides 35mm depth of field? What format are the proxies?
Click to expand...


[Apologies for taking this subject off topic]

They are 4 quicktime "pointer" files recorded each time you start/stop. They are full/half/quarter/eighth resolutions, so the resolution is dependent on whether you shoot 4k/2k, as all they do is reference the full RED file when you open them or place them in a Final Cut Timeline. The only real issue when doing this is that if/when you color correct, you're not color correcting the "Finest" details, but similar as I mentioned to shooting JPEG vs. RAW, I am like you, I've never shot RAW either, so I only CC when absolutely necessary, and whether or not you need to, you'll always have the ability to edit/CC the RAW RED footage at any time.

No doubt hard drive space should be a concern, but it's cheap as far as features are budgeted normally.

Our RED has been used on over 30 music videos and or/commercials here in Nashville over the past year, some with huge budgets, others with small. As I mentioned before, the workflow is need-dependent.

Again, I love the HPX, I would take it and the Canon HJ22ex7.6 and I could do just about anything I could ever want. But in the end it's always client/budget/end product dependent.
 
I guess I need to clarify. I want to know if an hpx500 project (shown on the big screen) would be of sufficient quality to look like a "real" movie, or would the lack of resolution make it look like "almost" a real movie?
 
Interesting question, this will confuse you even more, sorry. I saw a doc that was shot on a dvx100 on a theater big screen and it looked great! It was called Iraq in Fragments. It also won an oscar. Story telling is everything. I have also seen hvx with a 35mm adapter shot in 720p that looked really good on the big screen.

No video camera will give you the real movie look your going for, only 35mm film will.

I have seen so many people go into thier first feature worrying about the big screen. You'll probably be more successfull if you put the money on the screen and worry about straight to dvd distribution which is also getting harder with thousands of indie movies being made every year.

I was watching an indie movie dvd last week shot on an hvx200 with a letus 35mm adapter and actually forgot I was watching an indie film that was shot on an hvx because the story was good, the acting was good, the music fit it very well etc.

I can assure you no distributor is going to care if it was shot on an hvx, hpx or varicam.
 
ChipG said:
I was watching an indie movie dvd last week shot on an hvx200 with a letus 35mm adapter and actually forgot I was watching an indie film that was shot on an hvx because the story was good, the acting was good, the music fit it very well etc.
Click to expand...


Which film Chip? I wanna see!

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Which film Chip? I wanna see!

Dan
Click to expand...

Let me email them and ask if it's ok for me to mention it, I'm one of the few people that have seen it so far and I don't want to violate thier privacy. I told them I would get it to some distributors I know for them.
 
Watch NOVEMBER, shot by Nancy Schreiber on a DVX100.. I saw it in a theater and was really amazed... Did it look like 35? No, but the look fit the story (and it won best cinematography at Sundance in '04). It has been discussed often here, read some old posts.

Or watch ONCE, shot on two of the little HDV Sony's (I don't know those numbers)... It looks like super16 in the theater, and again, the look fits the story (and it won an Oscar for music last year).

If you want to make a scenery intensive film like a traditional western, no, I wouldn't use the 500, or any of the cameras discussed here. But personal stories are a different matter. And sometimes a "low budget/indie" look is desirable. Good cinematography is about creating images that support the story... How well do you suppose BLAIR WITCH PROJECT would have done if it had been shot in 35?

One story that always amuses me is the cinematography of BREAKING THE WAVES.. They shot that in Super35 (on a Moviecam I think) and then degraded the image in post to make it look like more like super16... As a matter of fact, it doesn't look as good as NOVEMBER - and they lugged that monster Moviecam around all those months - go figure...

Point is, use the camera and the format that fits the story you want to tell..
 
Who was that suggestion aimed at? I hope not me, because I've done it - three times (although it wasn't from HD, it was super16 and Digital Beta). The last time was ten years ago with BEYOND BARBED WIRE, and it cost nearly $50,000 for the transfer, check print and release prints... Somehow I don't think anyone who is worried about the cost of P2 cards is going to be pleased when they step into the reel (pun intended) world.
 
Still, no one has directly answered the question. Will an HPX500 production look high enough quality on the big screen to be considered a "real" movie. I have seen super16 (looked blurry) and hvx (looked pale and dim) on the big screen and I want to know if the 500 will look better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top