16mm vs DVX100B
- Thread starter Ogrus
- Start date
escozooz
Well-known member
A short feature? Like 90 minutes?
What is your budget? If its your first feature and you are director/DP I would definitely go DVX.
If you have a DP with a good super16 package then go for it. Its a lot more money going into the film/process/transfer that could probably have gone into lighting and other "on screen" production values though.
:kali: :crybaby:
What is your budget? If its your first feature and you are director/DP I would definitely go DVX.
If you have a DP with a good super16 package then go for it. Its a lot more money going into the film/process/transfer that could probably have gone into lighting and other "on screen" production values though.
:kali: :crybaby:
Barry_Green
Moderator
A feature film is a different thing... if you have the chance to do Super16 instead of DVX, and can afford it, then Super16 is probably the better choice.
If you can't really afford it, why put yourself behind the budgetary 8-ball?
If you can't really afford it, why put yourself behind the budgetary 8-ball?
Baluardo
Well-known member
well in 16 mm you would have more freedom with lighting bcause of the wider tonal range..
..and film looks like film like nothing else
but no immediate video feedback, more things to be careful with, really more chances to mess things up if you don't have an expereinced crew.
but.. an opportunity to learn how to shoot in 16mm if you didn't before! kind of risky though..
Andrea
..and film looks like film like nothing else
but no immediate video feedback, more things to be careful with, really more chances to mess things up if you don't have an expereinced crew.
but.. an opportunity to learn how to shoot in 16mm if you didn't before! kind of risky though..
Andrea
j
Veteran
>but no immediate video feedback, more things to be careful with, really more >chances to mess things up if you don't have an expereinced crew.
That and many other reasons make shooting on film an order of magnitude more of a valuable learning experinece than shooting on video...
I don't know what the project is, but...
What has more prestige? A commercial shot on film, or shot on video?
A music video shot on film, or video?
A short shot on film or video?
Why does film have the reputation that it does?
If you have the budget to shoot on film, then by all means, do so!
Disclaimer: I just shot a music video yesterday w/ the DVX...
That and many other reasons make shooting on film an order of magnitude more of a valuable learning experinece than shooting on video...
I don't know what the project is, but...
What has more prestige? A commercial shot on film, or shot on video?
A music video shot on film, or video?
A short shot on film or video?
Why does film have the reputation that it does?
If you have the budget to shoot on film, then by all means, do so!
Disclaimer: I just shot a music video yesterday w/ the DVX...
remember, Robert Rodriguez shot Mariachi for 7'gs. Lighting is simple, get a light meter, dont over complicate it and wala! I love it how some dp's pretend lighting is so hard, I guess they dont want everyone else to know how easy it is, uh oh, competition. This industry really makes the easy hard, creating so many uneccesary jobs for the stupidest task. eg. we need someone to turn on a faucet, better get a specialist to do that. Just do it bro, dont miss the opportunity.
sonic freak
Well-known member
go for the dvx100.
it's cheaper, and you will spend more time thinking about CONTENT as opposed to how PERFECT it looks.
I just got back from the Newport Beach Film Festival, and I watched the Youth Division. Will Ferrell hosted. He stood up and talked- total funny dude. So dry.
Anyway, some of the shorts these kids shot (teenagers between 15-20 years old) were done on cameras with sound/lighting/audio so bad it wasn't even funny. The cameras they used were probably a couple hundred bucks, but my point is, they had more fire and imagination and action and cleverness than any of the other 'better looking' film shorts. When the CEO of the festival said last years' youth division had some of the best shorts of any division, i thought he was just BSing. After seeing the 2006 batch, I couldn't disagree.
good luck either way
:costumed-smiley-047
it's cheaper, and you will spend more time thinking about CONTENT as opposed to how PERFECT it looks.
I just got back from the Newport Beach Film Festival, and I watched the Youth Division. Will Ferrell hosted. He stood up and talked- total funny dude. So dry.
Anyway, some of the shorts these kids shot (teenagers between 15-20 years old) were done on cameras with sound/lighting/audio so bad it wasn't even funny. The cameras they used were probably a couple hundred bucks, but my point is, they had more fire and imagination and action and cleverness than any of the other 'better looking' film shorts. When the CEO of the festival said last years' youth division had some of the best shorts of any division, i thought he was just BSing. After seeing the 2006 batch, I couldn't disagree.
good luck either way
:costumed-smiley-047
mburgh
Active member
If I had to the chance to shoot to Super 16 or DVX, I'd shoot on DVX or better, the HVX and use the money you'd have spent on developing, syncing, and getting video dailys to get better equipment, more shooting time , and much more flexibility. Only, and I repeat, only total film technicians will know the difference. Just the quality of sound you'll get from the DVX should make the difference. Best of luck.
I was just saying to my wife this very afternoon, that I wish I would have had a DVX when I should my indie feature and tanked $18,000.00, most of which went to renting a noisy SR1, noisy mic lines, more lighting equipment than my DP ever used, and one-light video dailies edited on an Avid Media Composer for which I rented four 9 gig HDs. My home computer now has over 500 and Avid on it.
You can get things out of a DVX that you never could do in 16mm. About two weeks ago, we had a tornado warning and had to go to our local shelter. I grabbed my DVX, and off we went. I shot outside the tornado shelter as the storm flashed and whirled around us, lightening sparking the sky, illuminating shaking trees and the lights of houses going off and on as the power died and returned. I shot under the sodium lamps outside the shelter and got excellent images with shadow detail, and this at night. Never could happen with 16mm; you would have to push the film in processing at great cost, get a workprint, cut the workprint, cut the negs, time the negs, mix the sound. Money, money, money, water, water, water. I came home, fired up Avid and captured what I'd shot. Now, if only a tornado had touched down, I could have sold the tape and bought an HVX.
I was just saying to my wife this very afternoon, that I wish I would have had a DVX when I should my indie feature and tanked $18,000.00, most of which went to renting a noisy SR1, noisy mic lines, more lighting equipment than my DP ever used, and one-light video dailies edited on an Avid Media Composer for which I rented four 9 gig HDs. My home computer now has over 500 and Avid on it.
You can get things out of a DVX that you never could do in 16mm. About two weeks ago, we had a tornado warning and had to go to our local shelter. I grabbed my DVX, and off we went. I shot outside the tornado shelter as the storm flashed and whirled around us, lightening sparking the sky, illuminating shaking trees and the lights of houses going off and on as the power died and returned. I shot under the sodium lamps outside the shelter and got excellent images with shadow detail, and this at night. Never could happen with 16mm; you would have to push the film in processing at great cost, get a workprint, cut the workprint, cut the negs, time the negs, mix the sound. Money, money, money, water, water, water. I came home, fired up Avid and captured what I'd shot. Now, if only a tornado had touched down, I could have sold the tape and bought an HVX.