film or hvx?

SplitVision

SplitVision

Well-known member
is there any reason to shoot 35mm when you are going to be digitizing it, putting it in FC, and then outputing it onto SD DVD?

especially when you have a hvx?

please explain why or why not you would want to do this...

thanks guys...

:dankk2:
 
Well, given the same apt cinematographer with the same lighting kit, the 35mm footage should look significantly better in practically every respect than the HVX footage, even on standard-def DVD.

35mm film has much better dynamic range, and can handle highlights much better than video.

That said, well shot HVX footage will also look great on SD DVD. But if you put them next to each other, film should, by all accounts, easily beat the HVX in color, detail, sharpness, shallow depth of field, etc.

Of course, shooting 35mm film is considerably more expensive than shooting HVX.

Bottom line: If you kow how to shoot film, and can afford to use it properly without sacrificing other areas of your production budget (lights, sound equipment, food..) then 35mm is king. If you're not very comfortable with film, or the budget doesn't allow for it, HVX footage can look spectacular. Heck, DVX100 footage looks spectacular on DVD! Personally, I'd use an HVX and spend the rest on the other production values that will make it look and sound good.
 
Sure, lots of reasons. If you want the shallower-DOF or to use a specific piece of gear or you like a particular filmstock's response or you need to capture extra latitude, etc...

... but as a practical matter are you asking if a well-shot film-sourced DVD would be sharper and clearer and "better" than a comparably-well-shot HVX DVD? No, not appreciably. Not enough to justify the price difference certainly.

If DVD was your only goal, the HVX can do a fantastic job of that. Assuming a competent post house grades the footage appropriately you should be able to get the HVX footage indistinguishable from comparable 35mm footage on the final DVD (except for the DOF/depth characteristics).
 
jrv3034 said:
Of course, shooting 35mm film is considerably more expensive than shooting HVX.
Click to expand...

It also depends on whos money you are spending. Shoot two-three days with 35MM and after you transfer that film to HD tape you could have bought the HVX and a few P2 cards.
 
If your even contemplating film, then you must have a budget that can reach that far. If so, I would spend a small percentage on a test. Shoot some film, have it telecined and shoot the HVX next to it.

Do everything possible to make them both look great. Convert to DVD and compare. Keep in mind what Barry said about color grading in post. A good colorist really creates the final look.
-
Rob
 
What are you shooting? What is it for and what are your goals with the piece?

That aside, if I had a choice between 35mm and HD, I'd opt for 35 even though it means I can't rent my HVX.
 
it really depends on your budget, skill of the DP, and what you plan to do with the project.

As a professional cinematographer myself, I have my preferences, but the budget really rules all. And then there are times when I would want to spend more to shoot film, because of logistical reasons as well. Lets not forget, that the DI process is really offering us lots of choices when it comes to visual looks, and workflow. But all of this is dependant on budget.
 
Barry_Green said:
If DVD was your only goal, the HVX can do a fantastic job of that. Assuming a competent post house grades the footage appropriately you should be able to get the HVX footage indistinguishable from comparable 35mm footage on the final DVD (except for the DOF/depth characteristics).
Click to expand...

Sorry if this question is not very qualified. But somebody please could explain in what that grading process consists? Would I be able to do that job myself on my PC, burn a DVD and get the same good result?
 
Depends on your skill level as an artist. Look at Joey Lawrence's photos here on DVXUser, he's a 16-year-old kid with amazing post skills. So yes it could be done on a home computer, but it really depends on who's behind the mouse.
 
Why on earth does this question come up so much? There are a BUNCH of cameras in between the HVX and 35mm, why must it be either end of the spectrum? Why not an F950, F900, Varicam, SDX900, etc. etc. etc. all of these will look better than the HVX and some will actually rival 35mm.


ash =o)
 
^
What he said. Why exactly are you asking this question? If you actually have the finances to pull off 35mm with a professional crew, I don't know why you'd even think of an HVX (unless you just wanna work really fast). The CineAlta and Varicam are much more comparible to film if you have a film budget. It just seems that, if you're even asking this question, you probably can't afford to do 35mm.

Anyway, on an SD DVD, 35mm is going to give you a more shallow DoF though I don't think that's very important (see other threads). The big thing however is the lattitude. 35mm is going to give you at leat thee more stops to work with than the HVX200 will and handles highlights much better.
 
Thank you Barry. This guy was really born with a gift. How lucky, that he learned to use it that early.

The stills seem to be manipulated with Photoshop. What software ist suitable for MAC and PC based grading?

By the way, AshG: I think it ist interesting and reasonable to compare the results of a HVX or even a DVX with 35mm because it´s a great challenge to achieve good results with such a limited equipment and compare them to the reference - which of course is 35mm. I´s fascinating how close we already get under certain circumstances. Everybody who learns these skills now within a few years will be able to equal or to surpass 35mm with a low budget equipment.
 
My point wasnt about comparing, it was about price. The only way you will come remotely close to equalling or surpassing 35mm with be with 2k/4k cameras and loads of talent.

You can record a CD on your home computer now and have it sound pretty close to big label productions but so what? You need to have exceptional talent that people respond to in a grass roots way OR have a massive marketing push behind you.



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
You can record a CD on your home computer now and have it sound pretty close to big label productions but so what? You need to have exceptional talent that people respond to in a grass roots way OR have a massive marketing push behind you.
Click to expand...
IMO that´s what it´s almost all about with DVX, HVX or even RED. In the music business there is a vivid, creative and sometimes even economically successful underground for decades now. If movie production would have only the 10th part of that ease of production and distribution we see over there it would already be a revolution. If you want to become a millionaire, of course, you better look for another job or a different approach to moviemaking. (Well, IF they give to somebody 20.000.000 bucks to make a movie I happily congratulate him, I´m not a fundamentalist :))
 
iMHO

iMHO

It's very hip to dismiss this debate, but I think it remains very important. Yes, you are comparing apples to oranges, but some people like apples better than oranges, and they both have different nutrients; what is better for people on a daily basis? I don't know, but I refuse to accept that there is a single topic of debate that has no meaning if it interests one or more people....

That said...

It's not very fair to the HVX to compare it to 35mm. 16mm or even s16mm would be more apt. It is important to consider ALL factors when making a comparison from anything digital to film. (Barry Green is the expert/God here on that.)

I'm a bottom-line guy. And I cannot for the life of me justify the extreme expense, limitations, and cumbersome workflow of film for whatever gain in "quality" it provides.

It all has to do with the end game. What is the audience going to see? Accordning to my facts, while grain is a more "pleasing" type of artifact for an audience (due to everyone being used to it) the interpolation mechanisms of the visual portion of the brain have an easier time assimilating pixels to form an image.

Dynamic range is also an issue. Film beats digital on the highlights, but for low end blacks, many digital cameras have an advantage over film. I like shooting in natural and low light, so digital conforms to my needs perfectly.

My last bit of pontification is this: Most people compare digital footage STRAIGHT off a camera, or maybe lightly color corrected, versus film that has been color timed in a lab ad nasuem for perfection for that particular stock. That is not a fair comparison. I've been working with progressive video for 8 years now and the digital equivalent of "lab processing" is the most important component (assuming you shot competant video) of digital photography (motion and still).

I have yet to see a digital film that really takes advantage of the amazing things video can do visually. (Except Sin City.) It CAN be made to have the same impact, quality, and overall experience of film; you just need to work at it very hard, and not subscribe to the notion that video means "easier."

And in the end isn't that what really matters?
 
IMO - in general ... 35mm telecined ( rank) to DVCproHD is going to look better then HDV 200 when viewed on SD/HD TV ..

35mm is the format everything is compared against - that is why everybody want to ask how is this camera compared to 35mm ....

the hand size HD camera's are the BEST bang for your $$$ - usually those asking can't afford to shoot 35mm ... whatever camera you choose is the BEST camera for your project ...
 
If you have a project that can justify budget and workflow for 35mm and you have a DP that knows how to shoot it and gaffer that knows lighting, then you should shoot 35mm. Sure you can make a great standard definition DVD with HVX footage, but what if you want to make an HD DVD in a couple of years, or even an HD conform for broadcast? You can go back to the film and it will have plenty of resolution to spare for something like that, whereas the limitations of compressed DVCProHD from the 1/3" chip HVX will start showing themselves at that point.

Several have commented that Varicam or Cinealta would be a better comparison to 35mm than the HVX and that's true. But I've watched a lot of HD content in the last few months and still nothing looks as good as a 35mm feature or documentary retransferred and color graded. Not Varicam, not Cinealta and certainly not HVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top