EX-1, HPX3700 or super 16 for 10 minute short film, Advice needed.

W

white89er

New member
Hey all,

I am currently in pre-production for a 10 minute short film that is being shot in Australia. I am looking for advice on what format to shoot. Available to me free of charge is the Sony EX-1, HPX3700 and a super 16 camera (would have to pay for stock, processing etc.). All gear (tripods, dolly's, steady cams) are free as well.

The majority of the film will take place on open country roads and relatively bright environments. We are working on a 10k budget which can reach up to 13k if needed. The film does compromise of a young girl and a dog, which im aware will effect our shooting ratio quite a bit.

If we were to shoot film we would have to budget 6k out of the budget, not leaving much money for production design and post (sound, grade etc.). However if we shoot on the digital cameras, the image will not be such a high a caliber. But we would have ample cash for all other areas. Another thing to take into account is our director of photography has not shot film before.

Would love some advice on what you would do in such a situation and any other advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers
 
I would use the HPX3700. What a great situation! All that gear free for you.

The HPX3700 can shoot in 10-bit AVC-Intra, and I would take full advantage of it. With 10 bits, you have a greater degree of grading in post, to make it look like film.
 
However if we shoot on the digital cameras, the image will not be such a high a caliber
Click to expand...
uh, ok. if you say so...

unless you have some particular reason to NEED to shoot on film, and considering your "dp" has no experience with film. i think film would be a pretty dumb decision.

i say hpx all the way. the 3700 is one the better cameras you'll find short of the red. im certain it will be "high a caliber" enough for you
 
An HPX3700? Definitely go with that...just go look at Planet Earth for a reason why. Completely blows the EX1 away, and 16mm may have some benefits (although I'm willing to bet the HPX3700's image is at least as good in almost every way), but not at that cut to the budget. HPX3700 all the way.
 
The HPX3700 is a beautiful camera. The DRS function is amazing. If those choices were presented to me it would be 3700 all the way.
 
Shoot film if you can truly afford it. If you're shooting in hi key environments, nothing can match the way the highlights extend and roll off in film. The vision3 stocks even take it a step further, as they are designed for better highlight protection and extended latitude. Even an inexperienced DP can f*ck up pretty bad (one or two stops off) and get good negs for telecine.

BUT:

A ten minute film is pretty long, and you're accurate in that the film and telecine will probably cost you about $6-$7K. You really have to wonder whether putting half of your budget for a short in film costs is really wise. Unfortunately, as almost always the case when directors/producers discuss this with me, its always the added $$$ that kills their desire to shoot chemical.

With a limited $10K budget I would shoot with the HPX3700 or 2700, and get additional grippage to help modify your highlights, soften the harsh sun, and bring up your shadow ares where you need to see detail. The added grippage is more money, but nothing near what film would cost you.

Maybe its just me, but I've shot with the 2700 and it seemed to have about a stop more latitude than the RED. RED only has about 8 stops in tungsten balanced light, and quite noisy.

lotsaluck.
 
Last edited:
With myself having no experience with film, yet, I would go with the 3700. EX1/3 and the new pwm's are toys compared to the mighty HPX3700....just a different league. Need slow mo option, the 2700 will be good option. If you need even more uncompressed signal you could always do 4:4:4 with the 3700 to an external recorder. Film might have som advantages over the 3700, but also the added cost and no experience of the DP I would go with the Hpx.


Ofcourse there's always the RED option, but haven't used that for any projects myself so I cant comment on that based on experience. But I know of at least one film in Norway recently which went with the 3700 and not RED due to the cmos issues that might show in handheld action shooting.​
 
Maybe use that 6000 to rent a high quality cinema camera like Red One. Would that be an option? Get the best of both worlds.

Sami
 
If you are deciding between the EX-1 and the HPX-3700, the choice would be clear for the multi-thousand dollar HPX-3700 camera!

Seems like a no brainer for a $10,000 budget. Since when does $10,000 come with an expectation of the best in the industry? The HPX-3700 should be more than enough camera unless this was a typo for the HPX-370?
 
i it's a straight story 3700 if it's a poetic story or a story with VO or a "message" - 16mm. The visual purposefulness of shooting on film (with all its struggles) would make a more honest film.
 
Essami said:
Maybe use that 6000 to rent a high quality cinema camera like Red One. Would that be an option? Get the best of both worlds.

Sami
Click to expand...

The camera should only be a small part of the production budget. The camera doesn't 'make' a good production, its what you put in front of the camera in the way of story, acting and production design. Why would he spend one penny more on a camera when he has access to two great cameras for free.

I wouldn't go 16mm due to the associated costs. Pick either of the other two and put your money into the best script, actors, crew, costumes, props that you can afford.l
 
Well, maybe I am biased, having come from shooting film, but if I had to chose between shooting Super 16mm film over HD, I would chose to shot film. Especially since you would be shooting in bright exteriors. I have rarely been pleased with the look of digitally shot exteriors. Modern motion picture color negative film stocks are still superior in handling high light detail which would be a consideration for bright exteriors. However, there are other considerations. First, do you have a DP that is experienced shooting film? Also, the secret to keeping a film shoot on a low budget is shooting ratio. With the money you say you have a shooting ratio of up to 10:1, for a 10 minute short, shot on film, could be do-able. However, going over 10:1 could kill you. Having a dog as a major character in the film just makes trying to realistically calculate a shooting ratio a crap shoot, which if you do not get right, may mean the difference between finishing your film, or not. With that unknown variable, I would have to say, with the given parameters, that shooting on HD would be the smartest choice.
 
Exactly. A dog, a kid and a DP not experienced with film, as the OP said, will lead to numerous retakes.

Plus, while David G.Smith may have a bias towards film hundreds of major motion pictures have now been shot on digital. I think most digital shooters would say proper lighting is essential no matter what, but film is considered to have more dynamic range.
 
Everything I've seen from the 3700 has been superb. Forget film, and spend your $6k on the rest of the production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top