Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barry_Green said:
Not a good example. Collateral looked weird because they used the shutter off, which makes it far more "smeary" than it otherwise would look. Nothing to do with DOF, it's because at 1/24 there's way too much motion blur, and that's what would make it look weird.
Click to expand...

Good point. But, it's an example nonetheless. But, as Sarlacc pointed out, it was probably the second unit work that was noticed (F900). I didn't aim the example at DOF, it was aimed at the 'weird' look.

I'll try to harder to get my point across clearly, next time. xD
 
By the by, I'm not against digital. I just locked down an HVX for my own project next weekend.

>=D I can't wait to hook that thing back up to the Apple 30" HD. Mmmmmmmm
 
Kholi said:
Good point. But, it's an example nonetheless. But, as Sarlacc pointed out, it was probably the second unit work that was noticed (F900). I didn't aim the example at DOF, it was aimed at the 'weird' look.

I'll try to harder to get my point across clearly, next time. xD
Click to expand...

F900 wasn't 2nd unit work ;)

They shot all 3 formats....sometimes all at once during a scene. :)
 
Kholi said:
By the by, I'm not against digital. I just locked down an HVX for my own project next weekend.

>=D I can't wait to hook that thing back up to the Apple 30" HD. Mmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

I'm not against digital either. I embrace it very much.

I even gave the guy good points to make to get the job.
 
The Sarlacc said:
F900 wasn't 2nd unit work ;)

They shot all 3 formats....sometimes all at once during a scene. :)
Click to expand...


Oooooohhhhh I thought F900 was 2nd unit stuff. Weirdness.

Goes to show you how some people know, and others just think they know. =DDDD Thanks for correcting me.

Edit: Oh, there was a third f900 for second-unit work. That's what I had read. I actually didn't know it was used throughout the movie. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Oooooohhhhh I thought F900 was 2nd unit stuff. Weirdness.

Goes to show you how some people know, and others just think they know. =DDDD Thanks for correcting me.

Edit: Oh, there was a third f900 for second-unit work. That's what I had read. I actually didn't know it was used throughout the movie. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah...Mann is basically nuts...
 
The Sarlacc said:
Yeah...Mann is basically nuts...
Click to expand...

Is he still doing Transformers: The Movie?

--------

For the thread starter: Darwin made a good selling point. Sell them on benefits, not negatives of 16mm. Also, do not sell them initially on savings until you've actually gone through and listed the benefits of shooting with the HVX. The savings is just icing on the cake, and you don't want to talk yourself out of more money for production or for personal bankings as well.

But, that's all standard sells techniques. Good Lux.
 
Kholi said:
I always mix those two up. Michael Mann, Michael Bay.
Click to expand...

Mann is no auteur perhaps, but he really doesn't deserve comparison with Bay.

For The Insider alone, Mann deserves a few graceful praises. :)
 
Mirezzi said:
Mann is no auteur perhaps, but he really doesn't deserve comparison with Bay.

For The Insider alone, Mann deserves a few graceful praises. :)
Click to expand...

LOL. No I didn't mean career wise, I meant name wise.

I just always get the Michael's and their credits mixed up.
 
You're trying to compare moving around a 6 pound camera versus a 15 pound camera. And really there is no time saved. And when you factor in a mini35 adapter you are most likely talking about the same time to build up the HVX as you would to build up a 16 camera. High physics.....you are stretching here. We are talking about light weight cameras not 50lb built up 35 cameras...which still dont take that long to build up if you know what youre doing. And lets say we are talking about 35. Big f-cking deal, its going to take me a few extra seconds to lift the weight of the camera and move it...I dont know about you, but I, like most other ACs/Cameramen, have no problems properly lifting a built 35 package on a 2575 head on Ronfords. Keep reaching though.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about building the thing. I don't imply that guys will have "trouble" lifting it either. Simply that it takes longer. You have a heavier camera and thus will need a heavier tripod to support it. (probably more/heavier sand bags too) You don't lift a 5 pound wieght the same way you lift a 15 pound one. The difference isn't huge but it's there and it builds up.

Rodreguiz is a filmmaker on an entriely different level then most. He does everything himself and pushes hard for it. He is NOT a good example because does everything his own way. He does not follow the traditional form of filmmaking. He is an innovator.
Click to expand...

Most of us without a huge budget have to take on more than one job on a set. We may not do everything but we don't live in the supposed ideal circumstances you seem to think exist in most shoots.

Honestly, I simply don't know where you're getting much of this stuff. Has anyone else here shot both 16mm and HVX200 and really thinks that the 16mm stuff will go just as fast with just as few people? Since the DVX100 came out, I've gotten to see so many examples of how much faster shooting goes with DV. These are guys who have been trained in film and who did it competantly and the time cut down is quite signifigant.

Yeah whoopity do...It took you 5 seconds to swap a P2 card, and it takes you 7 seconds to swap a 16 mag and hit the phase button. Damn man, you sure got me beat.
Click to expand...

How many mags you got on hand? I've seen professional crews take quite a bit longer than 7 seconds to put a new mag on but I guess you're simply the speediest AC around. There's also the neccesity to have someone threading new mags and putting the old ones in cans. And, of course, there's the need to move the cases out of the way whenever they're in the shot. Unless you also have some special 16mm mag cases that someone are just as small and light as P2 cards. Not to mention the fact that a Firestore or later Cineporter makes all this moot as you'll get at the very least a full hour of recording time.

I've been on 5 man crews shooting full scenes on 16 with no problems. How do you think docs that shoot on film get made? you think they have 40 people of support with them? Again, it comes down to knowing what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Apparently you "know what you're doing" far more than anyone most of us have ever met. How do I think small crew films on 16mm get made? Slower than they would on the HVX200. Since the DVX100 came out, I've seen so many people who had previously shot 16mm raving about how much faster things go. These guys worked with 16mm and "knew what they were doing." I don't think they are grand master cinematographers but they're no worse than the average guy you'd have on your shoot. It's clear you have a very high opinion of your skills. I'd love to see this fantastic speed you work at but from what I've seen, 16mm is going to take longer. Period.

You're right. I'm a total moron, and I obviously don't know anything about film or video. (this is sarcasm by the way.)
Click to expand...

If wanted to call you a moron, I'd write the words, "You are a MORON." Glad we're clear on that.

DV does offer a more flexible work flow...at a cost. You make sacrifices for it. There are projects suited to digital and projects suited to film...its all about what does the story or product call for...but at the same time if a client WANTS to shoot film you will hear no argument from me. It is still superior.
Click to expand...

Of course there are sacrifices to digital (lattitude being my biggest gripe). There are sacrifices to film to. Is 16mm superior? In some ways yes in some know. It's not nearly as clear cut as you make it. Image quality yes but not in cost and workflow. It's no different that the choise one makes between 16mm and 35mm.
 
As for Collateral, I personally didn't think it looked that great. It looked VERY digital to me, especially on the big screen. However, as Barry already illuded to, they were making the HD camera do things that film could never do. As Mann says in his commentary, a film camera could have never produced a viewible image with such little light. They made the choice to go with HD and they had to sacrifice some quality (what do you know? Perhaps digital is easier to light in some cases than film!!!)
 
I liked the look of Collateral for the simple fact that, like Crash, it was so unorthodox, unconventional, and challenging because of it. The antiseptic gloss of traditional Hollywood films, replete with 3 point lighting in the most conspicuous of locations, makes me nauseous to be frank.

That's not to say I found either of the aforementioned films worth a ****, mind you, but I enjoyed their unusual look.
 
Kholi said:
Why would you strongly disagree on that?

I can tell you why I believe that they'll notice it as weird looking:

Whether video advocates want to believe it or not, an audience CAN tell when DOF is missing. it's not something they can describe correctly, probably, but it's something they're used to seeing and the "all sharp and in focus" of video that the HVX still has will be noticed.

In regards to motion in video, even during motion controled segments, I'd noticed that footage (this was with a mini35/Zeiss 1.3 combo) still retained an electronic radiance that just seemed odd. While it still looked VERY good (i watch the DVD version over and over just to see what the DVX and Mini35 can really do), it's still video, and it just feels weird. I let my girlfriend and friends view the same image, and while they said it looked really good... they all said "it's got a weird look..", they all agreed that it went well with the content.

During rehearsal, my cast and I had gotten into a small discussion about films that they'd seen lately. One of them brought up "Collateral", which we all know had been filmed on a high class hi-def digital camera (Viper). He went on to say "I liked the movie, but it looked weird at times."... and it made me laugh. "That's because it was digital, not film.", and his response was priceless. "Oh! I didn't know that! Well damn, digital is getting better, but it's not there yet.".

The audience knows. That's why content is king when you don't have money to shoot on film. Trust me... film is the medium of choice for a reason. You just can't beat organic , at the moment.
Click to expand...
I disagreed the first time and I'll disagree again. I didn't disagree that film is better. I disagreed that the audience would watch a film shot digitally and see it as 'weird looking'. Collateral does look weird, but I think that's what they were going for.

I was there when our colorist of choice has shown well-shot Varicam footage, cc'd on a Davinci2k, to industry professionals. I'm talking people who'll argue the difference between sound being mastered in 16 or 24 bit (which has been recorded in 16 originally). I'm talking industry professionals who have worked with Francis Ford Coppola and David Fincher, and they thought it was 35mm.

Now if Varicam footage can do that, I'm pretty sure the Viper can.

I've also seen Z1 footage post-produced to the point that not one person on the planet would know it was originated on the Sony Z1 - for the absolute better. It looked great and like it had been originated on celluloid. See it for yourself when the Funland television series DVD arrives from the BBC. It's not a bad dark little drama too.

Now are we talking about raw footage out of the camera can't look as good as such and such? Of cc'ing on an Apple Mac in someone study? Or are we talking about when we throw a heck of a lot of post production at it? Because I've seen what can be done with Z1 footage, and I'm pretty sure HVX footage shot with a good DP, cc'd at a high level will look a heck of a lot better.

But again, if the budget was there I'd still rather shoot film for resolution and color space - shoot the footage as clean as possible, and degrade in post if necessary.
 
I'd love to see the z1 footage you're talking about.

Either way, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. I'm simply going by replies I hear, personally, to these kinds of things. You're probably right, the audience can't tell the different between a digital movie and a film movie.
 
I'm not saying all audiences, but the people it should be fooling is the layman not the industry professionals - that's just a bonus.

For me it depends how...

It's shot.

Treated in the post-process.

How savvy the audience is.

And to see the Z1 footage - I hadn't seen anything like it when I saw it. I honestly thought it had been shot on s16mm. I don't know if it's coming to the US, but here is the UK DVD (unreleased as yet, but it's been aired on UK television) http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/852137/Funland/Product.html
 
booth said:
I'm not saying all audiences, but the people it should be fooling is the layman not the industry professionals - that's just a bonus.

For me it depends how...

It's shot.

Treated in the post-process.

How savvy the audience is.

And to see the Z1 footage - I hadn't seen anything like it when I saw it. I honestly thought it had been shot on s16mm. I don't know if it's coming to the US, but here is the UK DVD (unreleased as yet, but it's been aired on UK television) http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/852137/Funland/Product.html
Click to expand...

I know, I'm not speaking about industry professionals or anything close to it. I'm speaking of regular audience members. I guess it doesn't matter if your content rules the screen.
 
Funland...

12261.jpg


Shot on a Z1 (with some digi-beta inserts here and there in the first few episodes) and graded on a Davinci2k. Note that the version I saw was coming out of the Davinci at full 2k resolution on a razor sharp monitor and the DVD version is of course compressed to SD mpeg2.

In my opinion a much better example of how the Z1 can be pushed than that feature trailer that everyone gets excited over.

More about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/funland/http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/imagedump/12261.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top