Mouayed Zabtia
Member
Hi all, I just looking 4 some film look like setting on my HVX , I read in some where that there’s setting can make HVX look like 16mm ! is in Barrys book have that?
www.mouayed.com
www.mouayed.com
HVX look like 16mm ?
- Thread starter Mouayed Zabtia
- Start date
Mouayed Zabtia
Member
Thank all of you for repaly.
Take a look at this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=119863
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=119863
sbaileymediaman
Active member
I heard that the dvx100b looked like 16mm film before I bought it a couple of years ago. I've come to realise that you could be shooting on a top of the range hdcam sr and get footage less like film then a dvx for example.
It all depends on the camera operator and the colorist/editor.
In terms of the hvx vs dvx which performs better, i know low light isn't good with hd but what about dynamic range? Same, better worse?
I'm interested at one point in the next couple of years (or when the I can afford it!) upgrading to hd for low-budget filmmaking and this to me seems the best camera in it's price range.
It all depends on the camera operator and the colorist/editor.
In terms of the hvx vs dvx which performs better, i know low light isn't good with hd but what about dynamic range? Same, better worse?
I'm interested at one point in the next couple of years (or when the I can afford it!) upgrading to hd for low-budget filmmaking and this to me seems the best camera in it's price range.
NeverColdCall
Well-known member
Ahh but you forgot the OP's point:
HVX = $
Film = $$$$$
HVX = $
Film = $$$$$
Jacquot you are right, but I think the goal is to get the closest look to Kodak Vision 3 500T or Fuji Eterna Vivid 160.
Or why should spend manufacturers functions like Cinemode or something like that? I bougth myy HVX because of this, otherwise I could also buy a Sony or Canon.
//Cheers
Or why should spend manufacturers functions like Cinemode or something like that? I bougth myy HVX because of this, otherwise I could also buy a Sony or Canon.
//Cheers
From a technical specification, 1280x720 is very close to the relative resolution of Super16mm negative film. IEEE publishes the 100 l/p mm specification, plus or minus 10 to 30 relative lines.
I think 30p most accurately mimics the cadence of 16mm film, though you're still off a couple of stops latitude-wise.
It isn't film.
e
I think 30p most accurately mimics the cadence of 16mm film, though you're still off a couple of stops latitude-wise.
It isn't film.
e
cardmaverick
Well-known member
If your after a good digital version of 16mm, seriously consider a second hand Andromeda DVX100... My footage is typically confused for 16mm (when viewed in its highest quality, anything on the web can look like crap...).
That's because the majority of people don't know the difference. But if you teach them the difference they can learn to see it. If you shoot film (and I mean lots of it), you will know the difference --and you will know the difference between stocks. Choice of stock is based on those differences.
Look everybody, film is film and video is video. And both are good. Neither is necessarily better than the other. But both are different.
And please, it's not just about resolution and shooting charts. It's about grain, tone range, organic artifacts vs digital ones, dimension, color gamut. Film has random grain (and I mean random) in each frame. Pixels are not random. Digital records in a completely different way. It's electronic and not photo chemical. A lot of people do photo chemical finishing because of the look (and not resolution) Film and video are just different products completely. And that's okay.
There's no sense in comparing between film and video. But there is sense in comparing between digital devices, compression algorithms, and work flows. And if you want to use the "look of film" as your baseline, then fine. But film and video are different animals. And they always will be different. They have to be since they are totally different processes.
cardmaverick
Well-known member
I never said film and video were the same, I'm simply saying that if you want a look that is similar (not necessarily spot on) to 16mm, but you have to shoot digitally, then Andromeda would be a good choice.
Simple as that.
I know they are different processes, thats obvious. As for tonal range, Andromeda is pretty nice, 9.5 stops. As for compression artifacts, they just don't exist, its RAW and uncompressed.
As for replicating the look of film digitally, yes, it can be done. Is it easy? Hell no, and most people don't have the required tools (think Dalsa Origin for exampe), resources ($$$), and TALENT (insert name here, ASC) to really do it. But I firmly believe it can be done, you just don't see it very often...
As for the HVX200 looking like film... Nope. It just doesn't cut it. You need a better camera, better signal processing, better lens....etc.
Simple as that.
I know they are different processes, thats obvious. As for tonal range, Andromeda is pretty nice, 9.5 stops. As for compression artifacts, they just don't exist, its RAW and uncompressed.
As for replicating the look of film digitally, yes, it can be done. Is it easy? Hell no, and most people don't have the required tools (think Dalsa Origin for exampe), resources ($$$), and TALENT (insert name here, ASC) to really do it. But I firmly believe it can be done, you just don't see it very often...
As for the HVX200 looking like film... Nope. It just doesn't cut it. You need a better camera, better signal processing, better lens....etc.
Last edited:
i'm gonna have to disagree that the hvx dont look like film, audiences members of my project which had its blacks crushed a little and a bluish mood was given to it believed it was a high end film shoot! and i was barely trying either.
its not just the tools, and so many times its said. its the user too
its not just the tools, and so many times its said. its the user too
Barry_Green
Moderator
In the right hands, using the right techniques, the HVX can make footage that would look exactly as if it had originated on film.
Exactly? With a film finished photo-chemically (cut and glue; no telecine) and projected? Don't believe so, Mr. Fields.
Film is film video is video. Why can't it ever be left at that? They are different, that's all. Not better or worse, just different. Why do videographers keep getting their knickers knotted up over this quasi "film-look?" And with such extra effort and expense. You're shooting video not film. We all got used to MP3 audio files and we'll get used to video. Paradigms do shift. I'm happy looking at good video, too.
I guess I'm dense. But the last time I saw a film load it sure looked different than a P2 card.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)Just because a guy in China can make a pair of shoes look like a pair of French Mephistos doesn't make them Mephisto shoes.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)Barry_Green
Moderator
Nobody said that it'd be the original. I only said that it'd be indistinguishable. :thumbsup:
(of course, this also depends on factors such as how the footage is presented, etc...)
(of course, this also depends on factors such as how the footage is presented, etc...)
The "as if" part is the clincher. "It was as if he were Superman and he jumped over the bridge."
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)The HVX makes great video, absolutely no question about it. And in some very careful circumstances may produce video "as if it had" originated on film. But it didn't.
I guess that's my (redundant and now getting pretty tedious) point. Let's maybe drop this constant comparison and instead say "wow, that's fantastic video" or "wow, that's fantastic film." In the end, it makes video always seem like it's in the shadow of a bigger brother who, in reality, doesn't exist.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Have you ever tried vice versa?
If you play a tape or a DVD of a 35mm film a bit faster (and I live in a PAL country - so let´s say 35 instead of the 25 frames per second) all the 35mm magic is gone and it looks exactly like shot on a cheap homevideo camera.
That always puzzeled me. I mean the light, setup, lens, DOF, grading and all we try to do to get that film look is still the same.
So the motion seems to make a big difference. And belive me, shooting video in 25p doesn`t cut it. Thou it`s damn close to 24 it still looks like video.
I´m thinking about that since years but never came up with a solution.
I shot in 24p - still looks video, I shot in 30p played back at different framerates on the timeline - closer but still video. I think it´s a combination of shutterspeed, framerate and DOF (letting alone latitude wich can not be replicated as long you have no Adromeda or something like that). Resolution means nothing in that case (as long as you don`t want to blow it up un a cinema screen) - that´s the only thing I learned.
Frank
If you play a tape or a DVD of a 35mm film a bit faster (and I live in a PAL country - so let´s say 35 instead of the 25 frames per second) all the 35mm magic is gone and it looks exactly like shot on a cheap homevideo camera.
That always puzzeled me. I mean the light, setup, lens, DOF, grading and all we try to do to get that film look is still the same.
So the motion seems to make a big difference. And belive me, shooting video in 25p doesn`t cut it. Thou it`s damn close to 24 it still looks like video.
I´m thinking about that since years but never came up with a solution.
I shot in 24p - still looks video, I shot in 30p played back at different framerates on the timeline - closer but still video. I think it´s a combination of shutterspeed, framerate and DOF (letting alone latitude wich can not be replicated as long you have no Adromeda or something like that). Resolution means nothing in that case (as long as you don`t want to blow it up un a cinema screen) - that´s the only thing I learned.
Frank