HVX, HDW or 35mm? Help

Landon D Parks

Landon D Parks

Active member
Hey there guys,
I got a question... I'm in the script stage of production on a feature film we will be shooting in spring, and I am kind of torn between the HVX, HDW-F900 or 35mm.

About 97% of the film is going to be shot entirely blue screen, so the 35mm route seems kind of "no-go" to me... However, the reaming 3% that will not be shot on blue screen should look good, as I want to consider theatrical distribution as a possible outlet.

My concern is that the resolution of the HVX won't hold up in the 3% that’s not blue screen. I'm not to concerned about the resolution on Blue screen, as long as keying won't be a problem. Since 95% of every blue screen frame will be CG anyway.

The main reason I want to avoid 35mm or HDW-f900 is that I don't want to have to bother with rental. I can afford to buy an HVX with accessories... But a HDW or 35mm will have to be rented.. Which means more insurance, more cost... etc. I want to make the right choice here. I don't want to shoot on a format that will limit my release options when done, but yet I don’t want to over due it.

Any advice is appreciated!

Landon Parks
New Vision Media
 
It all comes down to budget. If you've got cash and to spare, 35mm is the obvious choice. If you don't have cash and to spare, the HVX is at least approachable; why would you be entertaining either of the other choices?

And if you don't have cash but have a little, maybe wait six months and look into a Red or HDX900 or HPX2000.
 
Si-2k?

Si-2k?

Or perhaps a Silicon Imaging SI-2K. I was about to buy an HVX200 (browsing these boards for the last year or so) and at the last minute decided to go with the SI. It is way more expensive than the HVX200, but way cheaper than the 900 or 35mm.

Definitely wait for Red if you can. Then you will at least have another option to choose from, but if you must shoot in the spring, give it a look:

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/products.html

Unfortunately, unlike the Red or the HVX200, there isn't as much chatter/information about the SI-2K. I've spent the last week or more researching the SI-2K and have contacted them in the last few days to place an order.

There are other issues, but I'll leave it there for now. 720p, 1080p, 2K, 2/3" sensor. Three movies currently shooting/in post. Just thought I'd share.

Oh, I'll add that the SI-2K Mini is $12,500 USD, and the SI-2K (same as mini, but ... well, look it up) will be about $20,000 when it is released in January.
 
If this SI-2k is anything like there talking it up to be, and the images on there website display, this camera would top the HVX for a film type look. Although my feeling is that, #1 I don't care for the way the mini looks... its like a small camera head only, which is pretty ugly... Also As nice as 10 bit, RAW recording sounds, that puts you in the same boat you would have with the Viper: Filmstream, Converting it to a useable format in the NLE environment... AND you will have to down-convert that to a more standard format, such as 1080p to actually even edit it unless you a) buy a damn nice computer setup ($100,000 +) or b) offline edit. I also don't like the idea of one CMOS sensor... It can introduce artifcats into the image (Rainbow effects) that can't really be seen to well until projected on a 30' screen... At least with 3 chip design, pixel for pixel you get all 3 colors, meaning that you get a TOTAL resolution of an entire CCD, which on the HVX I don't think anyone knows... But still. With Bayer filters, you technicly get only 33.3% of the resolution of the head, because for every 3 pixels, you only get one usable, fill color pixel IMHO. In the HVX, each pixel is usable, since each pixel records all 3 colors.

Another setback to RAW format, is that if its not color corrected at all, your gonna have a time in post getting it completly corected. Which has its good sides and bad sides by itself, as has been addressed with the Viper Filmstream.

At this point, the HVX is looking like the most cost effective, tried and proven system available at this point. When the regulare SI-2k is out, that might be worth looking into a little more, but that times not here yet.

As to this "RED" camera, I keep hearing about it but everything seems shrouwded in mystery as of yet.
 
Last edited:
if you absolutely dont have the budget for renting the F900/950 then I'd go with the HVX.... I think if your story is super sick and the FX are killer "most" people wont notice the format it was shot, especially since only 3% of the film will be live action and non blue screened. If the whole thing was non-blue screen and you knew a theatrical release/blowup was imminent, I'd sway from the HVX

I'd stay away from 35mm all together, due to the rather synthetic nature of this production
 
Landon - based on your (post #4) reasoning in 1st paragrapgh -
forget RED - it is single chip CMOS ..

"you technicly get only 33.3% of the resolution of the head"
this is totally WRONG on todays digital cinema camera's ...

your 1st post already seems to have your answer = go with a HVX ..

by the way - Premiere can edit the RAW HD cineform clips from the SI camera in real time with CC applied ...
 
Actually, according to the "Red" website, the camera should be shiping by early 2007, so that camera could be an option. To be honest, I'd pay the extra few thousand for this camera over the HVX, if it's available when time comes to shootm which will be around the last of April, or first of May.
 
That early 2000 date is for reservation holders. I don't think the rest of us can expect anything before 3rd quarter 2007. That's why I'm going with the Silicon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top