16mm verus HVX

A

arrestthisman@comcast.net

Carbonite Member
Okay, I don't want to start any wars here. Nor an endless technical debate.

I simply wanted to make an observation, and subsequently hear others opinions as well.

I've just finished my first week shooting on my new HVX, and yesterday did tests using 1080pa. I was astonished by the results. The camera has exceeded my expectations by leaps and bounds.

I've seen a few 16mm films (super 16), and have to say that the HVX seems to look much better to me. Specifically looking at the film Thirteen (which I think was a great movie, albiet very scary for our children... another thread..), I just think the HVX plain old looks better, even without cine-like D. The latitude maybe had a small advantage, but not by much.

I used to be an avid still photographer (film), and shot film and digital up until a few years ago. I think the latitude capabilities are generally exagerated for film. Of course it depends on the setting and the film, but I have not found digital to be that far behind.

I think film has a place, it is NOT obsolete. I think it comes down to a preference, and priority. But I do not think, especially with the RED coming, it is a question of quality anymore. They look different. I know that I prefer digital for many reasons but should someone choose film, I respect that and hope they try both formats and figure out which is truely best for them.

I hope the "digital" stigma goes away for good, though.

Back to my original point. I don't think I'm alone with my personal assesment of the HVX in comparison to 16mm.

A quick anecdote: My father pushed me to go into film (I didn't resist :), which is funny because I usually associate parents wanting their kids to get a normal, stable job. My dad wanted me in a creative field. He's been a film buff since birth, and I just showed him some sample shots from my HVX. He was astounded. He thought it looked much clearer than traditional film. His preference is clairity and sharpness. Most film buffs probably prefer the more natural look of film (although the HVX does a damn good job of coming close), but I think by and large, audences do not care about the format, just demand that the quality is to a certian standard.

Obviously this is all anecdotal and generalized. I just felt the need to o'pine. Digital takes a lot of heat on professional boards, and I think it deserves all of the accolades it gets, and much more. Revolution and rhetoric aside, it is a wonderful alternative to chemical film that continues to mature to a viable and useful format. Film's had a 100 year+ jump, digital hasn't been in application for more than 15 years. It's come a long way in a short time. And I think there's never been a better time to be a filmmaker.
 
Well film is film and IMO we are not there yet. But that´s me.
If you wanna produce a little faster (or actually a lot faster) digital is it. If you have budget, skilled personnel and time you should stick to film, no doubt. But the HVX (and of course other cams as well) comes close enough to be used in many fields.
Latitude IMO is still better on film, but if taken care of blown highlights the HVX does an awesome job. But for me the DVX did not do worse in that field, although I never made a real test about that.
 
Hmm... I don't know. Obviously film is film. Again. I think it comes down to personal preference.

There is definitely a difference, but I'd just like an example--to actually see a super16 production that doesn't turn into noise soup when it hits low light. Preferably without a digital intermediate. You can run 8mm through virtualdub (hehe) and take out half the noise with a plugin. That's not really a fair comparison.

I prefer natural lighting for most situations, and I think digital has a bit of an advantage there.
 
Here's an interesting tid bit. I was listening to a report on a radio news show. It was about digital projection in theaters. The technology is totally here, but it's slow to catch on. It is the largest re-tooling of theaters since sound was added to film. They can send movies on hard drives via FedEx much cheaper than reels of film. And now there are facilities actually using broadband to download full length feature films to digital projection systems in a matter of a couple of hours, which is even faster and chapter than over night FedEx. (But don't expect theater ticket prices to drop!)

So, here's what perked my ears up; two film critics, one said the image was awesome, the other said it was digital crap. But they both agreed that they wree seeing a film made on film and to be projected on film. The translation to digital is good, but not without problems with the image characteristics. AND they both agreed that today's directors are shooting with film projectors in mind. When they decide to shoot with digital projectors in mind, they will shoot differently, and get the good, rich quality of film.

So, point is, digital is there, if you shoot knowing you're going to project digitally. If you shoot knowing you're going to film projectors, it's a whole different ball game in lighting, depth, etc.

So when more theaters adopt digital projection systems, film makers will shoot with digital projection as a target, and will change how they shoot to make it look the same as film.

Digital can in fact and does every day match the quality of film, you just have to "think different" when you plan your projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top