Arguments for HVX200 over 16mm

[The Sarlacc]

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.

Do you have chronic muscle weakness? The difference is so minimal its not even worth taking this part of the discussion any further. To do would continue making your look like a fool. They are cameras. You pick them up and you put them where you need them. We are talking 16 not 35. Just because the overall rig maybe 10 lbs heavier doesnt mean its going to take me longer. And trying to move around a HVX with a mini35 setup isn't going to flinging around a little 6lb camera...you like to ignore this part...but its right there in the very first post.

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.

Like I said prior since you dont seem to read, I work on and shoot a lot lower/no budget things. I know very well having to the pain of having wear more then hat for 12-14 hours a day. And it doesn't bother me. And its same shi* whether its film or HD. No budget film usually has a 1st and a 2nd/loader. Hd usually has ONE AC do try and run around and do everything. Low budget docs on film usually have ONE or NO ACs to help.

I'll say it again...its all relative.

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.

It depends on the look and style you are trying to acheive. If you are going to try and tell say, Malcolm in the Middle, or Star Trek takes less time to shoot on Digital then they did when they shot on film you are mistaken.

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.

We are talking 16 remember. Pressure plates and loops and everything else is built into the mag. Its a matter of slapping the mag on and phasing it to the registration pin catches the perf. Oh, I'm sorry tack on another second to hit the run/stop button real quick to double check that the film is transporting just fine.

If you are lucky you should be able to get at least 4 mags. It depends on how much you have planned to shoot that day and how fast you intend to shoot it. You may be able to get away with only two mags. Mags cases arent that large for sitting and can sitting near the camera on stand by at all times.

A good loader with a tent can be in and out way under 2 minutes with 16. You only have to get the film through one side of the make. The rest can be done in light, and takes no time at all. Downloading...even faster.

Move cases out of the way? If youre smart you figure out where you are shooting in advance and try and keep your gear out of the way from the start. If you are lucky you have a cart. If you dont. You deal with it andmove some cases. A 16 package doesnt have much to it. And it not like you wont have cases to move with the HVX and Mini35...lens case. AKS. video village becomes a big part of camera now.

Hang on...Lets hear it "Its all relative"

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.

As an AC I do have a high opinion of my skills. You have to or you choke. I am by no means perfect or anywhere near the best. But I have confidence in myself and my work etchic. As a DP, I have never stated I was the fastest, or even quick for that matter. In fact I never really spoke of myself from a DP standpoint.

And if you are on a set. Shooting a narrative piece the speed of the set is going to revolve around the crew and the set up required for that scene. Doesn't matter if its 16 or digital. If you want it to look good you need to light it. Maybe its getting away with only one light. Maybe its an entire stage that needs to rigged. I did shoot a short on the HVX...We were so low no budget I was the DP, AC, Gaffer, Grip, and electric all in one. And because of those limiting factors regarding the wonderful ease of use with digital...It took me just as long to set up and light as it would have with Super16...maybe a little more, because I would have much better low end latitude with film.

"Its all relative"

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

And if I wanted to let it be known that you are ignorant. I would say, " You are Ignorant."

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.

On low budget you tend to save money. Assuming your project will never see a film print. Or a DI. Or a HD transfer.

Yes, shooting on digital can in fact save you money. But these commercials and TV shows shooting on digital are not saving that much money between camera rentals vs 16, and DI, and HD tranfers...and I'm talking about shows shooting on 2/3" cameras.

Because you NEVER see a big show like Malcolm in the Middle shoot on a HVX.

There are smaller commercials, and smaller shows that will fare very well because of the inexpensive cost of these newer and smaller digital HD cameras. And these cameras are great for them.

And perhaps you misinterpret what I have been on here saying the whole time. I wouldnt be shocked because it appears you dont so much as read posts as you do your best to give incorrect information.

I am not, and have not been talking specifically about the HVX. I have been talking about HD as a whole 2/3" cameras, Super 35 " ccd cameras. All of it. And if you reread my posts you'll find that very much to be true. because that is what the discussion progressed to, and I am sure I am to blame for that because I tend to cover HD as one broad spectrum.

But I am still telling you shooting on a HVX with a mini35 isnt going to take any less time to set up and light then if you shooting it with 16. You just save on some crew and back end costs with post.

I'll say it one more time because maybe you'll finally figure it out.

"Its all relative"

 

[The Sarlacc]

I will agree with booth on what he is saying in regards do the ability to trick people.

But on the case of the Z1u....if you are going to put it through that much post to look that way...Then why not shoot on a better camera, and get that look right there in camera...why trust your work entirely to post where you may not get the chance to sit in and "time."

 

[The Sarlacc]

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!!!)

The parts shot on the F900 were supposed to look the way they did. Next you are going to tell me you know the exact scenes they are varicam, and that are film. You may get a few of them correct. You may have heard it on the commentary. But the scenes on the Viper in no way looked "digital" they look and are very much mistaken for some of the scenes shot on film.

 

[Forrest Schultz]

If you are going for a really cinematic look. then shoot film.

If you want to shoot video that looks like its mimiking film, but still looks videoish. then shoot HVX

I know you'll have your opinions. i used to be all for the HVX, i thought, wow, now you can shoot hi-def at 24. film look, here i come. but ive seen too much videoish footage from the HVX to balance out the good film like footage. But it will still give you very professional results, and if shot and lit right, should look very much like it was shot on film.

 

[DavidBeier]

Do you have chronic muscle weakness? The difference is so minimal its not even worth taking this part of the discussion any further. To do would continue making your look like a fool.

Out of curiosity what have you done to warrent such a rather rude and condescending attitude? What magnificent features have you worked on to make you have such a high opinion of yourslef?

It depends on the look and style you are trying to acheive. If you are going to try and tell say, Malcolm in the Middle, or Star Trek takes less time to shoot on Digital then they did when they shot on film you are mistaken.

We're not talking about Malcom in the Middle or Star Trek. We're talking about lower budget stuff and I garuntee you that takes longer in general with 16mm than with something like the HVX.

A good loader with a tent can be in and out way under 2 minutes with 16. You only have to get the film through one side of the make. The rest can be done in light, and takes no time at all. Downloading...even faster.

Would you need a tent with an HVX200?

And I repeat, this is all totally moot consider the Firestore or Cineporter. Are you going to tell me that those are just as slow as 16mm?

Move cases out of the way? If youre smart you figure out where you are shooting in advance and try and keep your gear out of the way from the start.

If you're smart? Sorry but I've been on films with a 60 million+ budget and their still moving mags back and forth. I know we all could be as smart and effecient as you.

As an AC I do have a high opinion of my skills. You have to or you choke. I am by no means perfect or anywhere near the best. But I have confidence in myself and my work etchic.

It's one thing to have a high opinion of your skills, it's another to presume that your workflow is the same as everyone elses and, if it's not, they "don't know what they're doing."

And if I wanted to let it be known that you are ignorant. I would say, " You are Ignorant."

Aww...sticks and stones son. I don't recall claiming you called me ignorant. Are cheap insults also essential to being an AC or just another part of your charming personality?

But I am still telling you shooting on a HVX with a mini35 isnt going to take any less time to set up and light then if you shooting it with 16. You just save on some crew and back end costs with post.

And if his crew is limited the film will certainly take longer.

I'll say it one more time because maybe you'll finally figure it out.

"Its all relative"

Everything's relative. That's the same kind of cop out response as saying, "it's all opinion." In general though an HVX200 shoot will take less time than a 16mm shoot.

I'm sorry you apparently have so much self worth tied up in how fast you shoot 16mm. It's a shame you have to make things personal and regaurd those with different workflow as "not knowing what they're doing," or "ignorant."

I sincerly hope you're a more pleasent person to deal with on the set then you are online, and I hope you having something to back up this rather inflated ego you seem to have developed.

 

[DavidBeier]

The parts shot on the F900 were supposed to look the way they did. Next you are going to tell me you know the exact scenes they are varicam, and that are film. You may get a few of them correct. You may have heard it on the commentary. But the scenes on the Viper in no way looked "digital" they look and are very much mistaken for some of the scenes shot on film.

Are you just tremendously insecure? I found many scenes to look digital in Collateral. Whether they were "supposed to look that way" or not they still looked digital and off. I have no idea which scenes were shot by what but there were certainly a lot that looked simply bad to me and not like film. I'm certainly not he only one either as quite a number of other people who know nothing about cinematography have seen it. I still love the film to death but parts looked wrong to me. You don't think it looked digital. I do. Deal with it. I'm very sorry you can't seem to handle others not sharing your opinions. Perhaps you shouldn't engage in conversation for a while.

 

[FatBird19]

Here's my argument:
3. Faster and easier to light.

I'm going with the opposite of that statement. (even though the 8 stops of light does make it closer to film)

 

[endmarks]

I have shot both 16mm and the hvx200. As a matter of fact I have shot 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, cinealta, and the Genesis. There is no comparison between video and film resolutions. None. Sure video can look amazing, but it doesn't have the resolution of film. But it does have all the cables, try doing handheld with a genesis, or getting a cinealta in a narrow space.

Now as far as what you are doing and where it will be displayed, that is the real question.

I just recently finished shooting a pilot for Friday Night Lights. We shot in super 16 and it was a non-issue. We could have in no way shot this in video. Video is just to cumbersome for the type of handheld run and gun shooting we did. If you saw the film you know the style.

Let's face it, video has come a long way and is crucial to independent production,
But, it is not easier, better, lighter, smaller, easier to light, and all the other dialoque inserted.. It is just a tool like anything else and if you have the experience of using both film and video then you know what each is capable of. As far as the 16mm vs HVX, maybe on a video Ipod, but project that onto a large screen and you will see the difference

fwiw,

 

[J.R. Hudson]

You kid's keep playing rough like this and someone's going to start crying.

-

Please, let's cut back on the personal insults ?

-

I found Collateral to look gorgeous. The audience hasn't a clue anyways. They just want to be entertained.

-

Anyways; I'm with Overlands post

$.03...

If you line produce the pitch and the numbers (client's target budget) match up, then go 16mm if the project will benefit from it.

Conversely, don't shoehorn film production into a low-no budget constraint. The HVX or DVX represent terrific production tools for clients on a limited spend.

Consider that with a typical 16mm commercial with a 100:1 or 50:1 ratio, you're rolling 36'/minute at $.33 per foot for raw stock alone. Jump through hoops or buy short ends or repackaged and you might get RS for as little as $.25 per foot.

Add processing, best light (or more realistically a scene-by-scene) transfer, burned viewing copies and digitizing / capture and it's easy to see why many low-no commercials opt out of film production when pure digital and HD workflow is here today.

It's really simple to suggest that an inexperienced filmmaker should jump into shooting celluloid but the place to learn film workflow isn't on the client's dime. Be realistic about your capacity and your agency's budget and you'll find your own answer.

e

-

I wish we knew more about the project in question ? An educational DVD ?

S16 sounds like overkill.

 

[Glen Hatsumi]

As much as love moving pictures my background is in still photography. It is from this background that i have jumped into the crazy world of cinema, and I think it is a helpful beginning from which to draw conclusions about the digital vs. film argument. It is an argument that has been more prevelant in the still world than the cinema world as digital has been firmly planted there for awhile now. Everyday in the camera store I work at someone gets into a this discussion (usually someone heavily biased one way). It always brings us to the same conclusion. Digital and film are very different, this is shown in the way they handle light and the way they look because of their respecitve processes. This however, does not make one far superior to the other anymore. Digital has just now reached a point where it has started to transcend this discussion. It is what it is, it does not look like film but it can and does look damn good if properly handled. Eventually digital will take over if for nothing else but convience alone and it will become the new standard. Their will always be those against it, those who prefer the 'look' of film but as for the average joe attending our movies. They will come to accept the look of digital as the standard and at that point their enjoyment of the story will no longer be affected by how it looks. c-41 is not e-6 and digital is not film, everyone has a preference but I have seen beautiful photos taken with all of the above.

 

[The Sarlacc]

I have shot both 16mm and the hvx200. As a matter of fact I have shot 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, cinealta, and the Genesis. There is no comparison between video and film resolutions. None. Sure video can look amazing, but it doesn't have the resolution of film. But it does have all the cables, try doing handheld with a genesis, or getting a cinealta in a narrow space.

Now as far as what you are doing and where it will be displayed, that is the real question.

I just recently finished shooting a pilot for Friday Night Lights. We shot in super 16 and it was a non-issue. We could have in no way shot this in video. Video is just to cumbersome for the type of handheld run and gun shooting we did. If you saw the film you know the style.

Let's face it, video has come a long way and is crucial to independent production,
But, it is not easier, better, lighter, smaller, easier to light, and all the other dialoque inserted.. It is just a tool like anything else and if you have the experience of using both film and video then you know what each is capable of. As far as the 16mm vs HVX, maybe on a video Ipod, but project that onto a large screen and you will see the difference

fwiw,

Thank you. You have summed up very nicely the exact point I was trying to make.

It is everything I have been attempting to debate this entire time.

 

[The Sarlacc]

Out of curiosity what have you done to warrent such a rather rude and condescending attitude? What magnificent features have you worked on to make you have such a high opinion of yourslef?
We're not talking about Malcom in the Middle or Star Trek. We're talking about lower budget stuff and I garuntee you that takes longer in general with 16mm than with something like the HVX.
Would you need a tent with an HVX200?
And I repeat, this is all totally moot consider the Firestore or Cineporter. Are you going to tell me that those are just as slow as 16mm?
If you're smart? Sorry but I've been on films with a 60 million+ budget and their still moving mags back and forth. I know we all could be as smart and effecient as you.
It's one thing to have a high opinion of your skills, it's another to presume that your workflow is the same as everyone elses and, if it's not, they "don't know what they're doing."
Aww...sticks and stones son. I don't recall claiming you called me ignorant. Are cheap insults also essential to being an AC or just another part of your charming personality?
And if his crew is limited the film will certainly take longer.
Everything's relative. That's the same kind of cop out response as saying, "it's all opinion." In general though an HVX200 shoot will take less time than a 16mm shoot.
I'm sorry you apparently have so much self worth tied up in how fast you shoot 16mm. It's a shame you have to make things personal and regaurd those with different workflow as "not knowing what they're doing," or "ignorant."
I sincerly hope you're a more pleasent person to deal with on the set then you are online, and I hope you having something to back up this rather inflated ego you seem to have developed.

You are really a very petty person. And I find it quite sad.

I state my case and you try change finite points in your arguement that have clearly been made already, you just can't accept it.

You back track, you try and turn the debate off on to a tangent. You call me a moron under the guise of "if I wanted to say" And try to flip it back to me when I use the same right back at you.

You try and point me out to be a condescending and holier then thou individual. Which is really not the case, and I have stated it time and time again.

You can try and make me look like as vile a person as you want on this bored.

The fact is you are very sad, and I am done playing into your petty little games. You can clearly dish, but you sure as hell can't take it.

It is quite clear to me you speak out of your ass...and quite frankly I can't stand your breath anymore. I have nothing more to say to you other then good day.

I have said my piece which was summed up again, and in a very articulate manner by Mr. endmarks. And I am know I am 100% correct in what I am saying no matter how in-eloquent my writing my be.

 

[The Sarlacc]

I found Collateral to look gorgeous. The audience hasn't a clue anyways. They just want to be entertained.

I agree. I found it be one of the best shot films of the year. It had a look that was not suited to the story, but took an identity all its own.

As yes the public is clueless...which always makes things harder on us in the long run sadly.

S16 sounds like overkill.

Most likely. But the initial post was very vague. The argument that ended up being presented was that of...if the client wants to shoot film and has the money for it, then why not go for it. Sure, you if you dont have the experience...learning while on a clients dime is not the place to educate yourself, but again we didnt even know if had shot film before or not at that point.

It was all speculation until he came back and said he only gets the job if he shoots on his HVX, because 16 means it would go to someone else...even I started building up sales pitch.

Anyway, the point has been beaten to death, and the horse is a bloody stump.

And I have been up for over 24 hours post shooting last night. Time to recharge...

 

[darwinandpaine]

Okay. Well, I'm glad we finally resolved this one.

 

[brianluce]

Originally Posted by DavidBeier
3. Faster and easier to light.

.
the lighting thing is a bit more subjective but I think many would argue that video can be a bit easier to light. Finally, once again subjective perhaps, the technology feels more transparent and lets you spend less time fiddling with things and more time focusing on what counts.

I'm no DP, AC, CEO or SOB but I've worked with plenty of the aforementioned, and I've always heard video is trickier to light cuz of the ratios and lack of latitude.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Thank you Sarlacc for keeping it going even after I requested you both stop.