HVX200 or Red

[samtheman]

Sounds silly, i know. Im debating whether to shoot my feature on the HVX200A (which i own) or pay a few hundred dollars for per day RED rental with operator.
I ask this question since i plan to play it at festivals but for the most part, distribute on DVD. Do you guys think Red is overkill for this or 1080P with the HVX, in which i havent seen on a large screen?

 

[wgzn]

man, this is like asking "should i eat fish or peanut butter?"

1. what are you shooting?
2. how much money do you have?
3. are you editing it?
4. have you ever worked with red footage?
5. is your computer system capable of working with red footage?


red or not to red has little to do with festivals. unless its the "what you shot on a red" festival or "how sharp is your image" festival.

havent seen hvx on a large screen? did you see cloverfield? i heard that a few million other people did and it seemed to go alright...
okay cheeky example - but you get my point ; )

 

[samtheman]

cloverfield, umm, which shots. Ok as far as the money, i can afford to rent the red for like 7 shooting days. I guess the part i was worried about is that the HVX doesnt use native 1080P chips which concerned me a little. As far as system specs, I just built a system with 16GB of ram and the I7 extreme edition and the best ati card available today (back ordered). So its not so much the system, just if its worth putting about $4500 on RED. The film is a full feature ok maybe shy 20 minutes, 1 hour in total with a screeplay i wrote. We auditioned people for the role and we are using professional actors who are just looking for major roles...just gotta feed them good.

 

[NC17z]

Tell me what your marketing budget is for this film and I'll tell you what you should be shooting on. A lot of people say their going to shoot a feature... and they do however, it sits on Youtube in ten minute segments or on their personal website and never gets anywhere. If in fact your going to enter this in film festivals which ones did you have in mind? Sundance, Toronto, Tribeca? Just curious. Did you ever see Four Eyed Monsters?
Shot with a DVX100 and it held up at ton festivals and did very well. The reason it did well is because Crum marketed the hell out of it. ehh... its late... Take the money and buy lights and audio and feed your crew real good... if it runs late, break out bottle. Enjoy the movie making experience... Let it be your stepping stone for bigger and better things...

 

[wgzn]

cloverfield, umm, which shots

from what i always heard, the large majority of the movie... and apparently 28 days later was shot on an SD canon XL2. so your hvx will do fine.

the part i was worried about is that the HVX doesnt use native 1080P chips which concerned me a little.

what exactly concerns you about that? and how would it hurt your project if it didnt?

just if its worth putting about $4500 on RED

that depends:
- how experienced is the operator?
- what is your feature about?
- is the extra res/depth control going to assist the story or just allow you to say "shot on red"?

and if your feature is like about 93% of the other "features" out there. in 15 years from now, that $4500 will have done WAY better if you put it into an IRA next week than into a red ; )

i AM being cynical about this because ive heard all this on this and other forums about 2000 times before. you may be sitting on the next paranormal activity or blair witch or clerks or 6th sense or whatever. i have no idea. but a lot of young would-be filmmakers out there get all caught up in brands and res and, and, and. just because they think they are supposed to. and it all doesnt mean shi* at the end of the day - UNLESS that specific technology is suited for the needs of your feature. which in this case, without knowing anything about your story. i dont think anyone could say...

BTW, have you budgeted for lights? lenses, sound, grip? shooting with a red aint just about slapping a camera on sticks and rolling...

 

[greymog]

I would say if you own the camera, then 4500 can do a lot instead of going towards a RED.

I'd use the HVX, and enjoy a good few thousand dollars worth of just incase money. The picture's part of it. I would've (in fact I did) blown my money on rig etc, these days I'd feel much better just paying my actors/crew a little extra out of whatever I have left.

I haven't shot many films of my own, worked on a bunch of stuff with people here, and I really think it's better to pay people before renting stuff. A happy crew that feels like they're getting paid a 'hot-sh*t' rate (scuse the french) will be rarin to go and will solve so many problems with enthusiasm etc etc.

Here everyone's motivation (even if they're you're friends, here its not a good idea to count on that) is getting paid, and most people work for free in order for the filmmaker to spend the money on everything else.

But then again, on the other side, here we finish to SD, and I think we'll be doing that for another 5 years still. We barely finish for projection as well, and I haven't tangled with 1080 output except for on a RED.

I like to shoot bigger for smaller, 4K for 1080 (if I have a RED), 1080 for 720, and to tell the honest truth, at times before, I would take 1080i and just work it at 50%, droppin half the image. Still big enough for 720 wide.

That said, I personally stay away from RED in particular as it's aura really draws me (if not me, then every other person in the crew) away from other matters, it's too much for me, and feels like overkill. Indeed, unless it's a 'did you shoot this on RED' festival, or you have a MAD composting challenge, I wouldn't go for it.

A compromise would be to shoot everything with a camera you own, and check out where some scenes may fall short, if compositing required, would you need that 4K res and the RAW capability? Maybe you save on a few days of Redness and spend like 2k instead of 4.5k. And then it's bonus time, or you could splurge on everything that happens after your film is done. I remember reading some posts form senior members here about really allotting some money and a bit extra for costs concerning when the film is done.

And again, really the most powerful realiztion here is wgzn's, as several of those million people probably dunno what the film was shot on.

In end, I personally wouldn't go red, but regardless the fact that you own your HVX can be skillfully used to shave some cost of your RED budget.

Try mixing both and see how you feel. Can you get your hands on RED footage? I can email you some r3d's (good ones and crap ones, yes it's possible to have a bad r3d as well) in like 3-4 hours as internet is slow here and we have daily power-outs.

My advantage with RED is the high rez and the RAW workflow. I don't know how well the HVX handles highlights, that would be the thing I've been looking out for in digital cams recently.

 

[wgzn]

another WAY off topic thought about your available funds. about 20 years ago my uncle had a few $grand-ish of discretionary funds laying around. and he was presented with two options:

1. buy a ski boat. who doesnt love a ski boat?!?! fun for the whole family!
2. invest it. ground level in this new computer start up in austin. i think the guys name was michael something... dell, maybe?

today, that rusted out ski boat sits in the driveway of his $70,000 home. had he invested in dell. hed have been sitting on millions.

point of my story is - put your money where it will do the best work for you ; )

 

[Corine]

I was trying to find out what camera they were using on 28 days later - I notice that it is mentioned on this form that the canon XL2 was used but how do you really find out?

 

[wgzn]

i just got this from wikipedia (take that at whatever value you choose to):

28 Days Later features scenes set in normally bustling parts of London such as Westminster Bridge, Piccadilly Circus, Horse Guards Parade and Oxford Street. In order to depict these locations as desolate, the film crew closed off sections of street for minutes at a time, usually in early morning to minimize disruption. Portions of the film were shot on a Canon XL1 digital video camera.[2] DV cameras are much smaller and more manoeuvrable than traditional film cameras, which would have been impractical on such brief shoots.

man. can you imagine? shutting down a major metro area and showing up with an XL1 on some velbon sticks? that would be surreal...

so we may need to verify the cloverfield thing for specific details as well. either way. rest assured your hvx will hold up more than fine.
unless youre shooting say... blade runner and you have no budget for lights ; )

 

[wgzn]

also wiki on the subject of cloverfield:

The casting process was carried out in secret, with no script being sent out to candidates. With production estimated to have a budget of $30 million, filming began in mid-June 2007 in New York.[8] One cast member indicated that the film would look like it cost $150 million, despite producers not casting recognizable and expensive actors.[5] Filmmakers used the Panasonic HVX200 for most of the interior scenes, and the Sony CineAlta F23 high-definition video camera to film nearly all of the New York exterior scenes.[14] Filming took place on Coney Island, with scenes shot at Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park and the B&B Carousel.[15] Some interior shots were filmed on a soundstage at Downey, California, Bloomingdale's in the movie was actually filmed in an emptied Robinsons-May store that was under reconstruction in Arcadia, California, and the outside scenes of Sephora and the electronics store were filmed in Downtown Los Angeles.[16]

 

[Barry_Green]

I was trying to find out what camera they were using on 28 days later - I notice that it is mentioned on this form that the canon XL2 was used but how do you really find out?

There was an article on it with Anthony Dod Mantle, in American Cinematographer.

It was the Canon XL1. Not the XL1s, not the XL2, the original XL1. They used PAL XL1 cameras in "frame mode".

 

[ChipG]

Keep post $ in mind with a Red, are you going to be able to edit it and color correct it yourself or will you have to hire someone to do that?

 

[samtheman]

No insults taken, constructive critisism is good. I already invested in an audio kit (702 recorder, boom, 416T Mic, a mixer and very fast editing system (16 GB Ram, I7 Extreme, fast ATI card). I purchased a DP lighting kit. I left the cam last, since as you know the choices are many.
I had auditions for three weeks before choosing the actors/actresses (non-union). I got them all to sign forms, even the crew.

I know the internet is full of FUD about cameras, lenses etc.

I just didnt want to cut it cheap by using an inferior camera. I was worried more about future proofing too. I know that 2k or 4k monitors are a ways from overtaking the market, but its good to be safe too.

What overtook me the most is that the HVX doesnt really use native 1080P chips, VS say some of the cameras available. I dont wanna get RED just to say we used a RED, just the dynamic range and resolution are amazing.

Im still contemplating, thinking about 720P, but you guys know as well as me that its kind of going old school.

 

[Barry_Green]

man. can you imagine? shutting down a major metro area and showing up with an XL1 on some velbon sticks? that would be surreal...

Actually it was eight XL1 cameras. Don't know if they were on Velbon tripods(!) but they had Canon EC and EJ prime lenses. No mini35 adapter, just direct-connected to some HD primes.

I think they only got to shut down the streets for like five minutes at a time, so they had lots of cameras everywhere so they could get a good variety of shots in those five minutes.

 

[Donald Gregory]

You're probably better off putting that money into other parts of the production, hands down. From hiring a good producer, to costumes, so say, renting a crane for a day, to marketing, etc...

 

[hvxer]

hmm, I am waiting for Barry to have a bad day, flip out and reiterate that it doesn't make a difference what camera you use if your story is crap

 

[samtheman]

hmm, I am waiting for Barry to have a bad day, flip out and reiterate that it doesn't make a difference what camera you use if your story is crap

Of course story is king, but you still gotta think about your output media; whether its only going on DVD, you tube or a large screen (film festivals). Its good to know the technical issues involved (dynamic range, resolution, color, noise, smear etc.)

Of course, its not about just the tools you use, but if you got crappy tools, then that wont help either. I shot productions using HI-8 that got people raving, but if i want my product to (hopefully) end up in a distributors hands, then the master better be good. really good. So, it does matter what you use and how you use it.

 

[Barry_Green]

hmm, I am waiting for Barry to have a bad day, flip out and reiterate that it doesn't make a difference what camera you use if your story is crap

There are two competing factors here:
1) Higher quality is almost always more desirable than lesser quality
2) But only if it's warranted by the story

Meaning -- let's look at MonsterFest, for example.

The winning film was shot on a GH1. Second place was on a 7D. Third place was a Red One. Two SLRs beat out a $40,000-ish Red One package for the title.

In fact, since we know the results for the panelist vote for the top 13 films, let's look at how those fared:
1st - GH1 ($1500)
2nd - 7D ($1700)
3rd - Red One ($40,000 guess)
4th - Canon HV20 ($600)
5th - HPX300 ($8,000)
5th HPX3700 ($85,000 guess for cam+lens)
7th HVX200 ($5300)
8th Canon HFS-10, ($1000)
9th DVX100A - ($1500 standard-def!)
10th HVX200 ($5300)
10th GH1 ($1500)
12th HVX200 ($5300)
13th Red One ($40,000 guess)

Okay, so what does that tell you? How did a standard-def DVX100, a Canon consumer HFS-10, a couple of HVXs, and a GH1 consumer SLR beat out a Red One?

How did a Canon HV20 beat out an HPX3700 and a Red One?

How did a GH1 beat out *everything* that was entered, including the $85,000 HPX3700 package and two Red Ones?

Because once we hit a level of "good enough", it really isn't about the camera anymore. And when did we hit that level? A good argument could be made that the DVX was the tipping point, since multiple theatrical motion pictures shot on the DVX have had nationwide releases. Anything more than a DVX could be argued to be "details".

On the other hand, I have five HD cameras in addition to my DVX100B for many good reasons. Better is better. But let me put it loudly and clearly -- if you're not delivering festival-winning quality, and you're using a DVX or better, the one thing I can absolutely guarantee you is -- it isn't your camera's fault. If you're at least using an HV20 with a lens adapter, or a GH1/7D SLR, or an HVX or whatever -- you're in the game, as far as having what it takes (24p and shallow DOF) to compete.

Those cameras can't do everything the big cameras can do; a GH1 can't squeeze the pimples on the butt of a Red One or an HPX3700. But in the right hands, a GH1 can make a film that audiences (and panelists of festival directors) prefer over those that were made on Red Ones and an HPX3700. We just saw it happen.

Would I rather shoot a film on the Red One or HPX3700 instead of the GH1? DUH. Obviously -- for a thousand different reasons. Would I rather use an HVX instead of a DVX? Of course -- for at least a hundred different reasons.

Use the right camera for the job -- each one has capabilities, and some have capabilities that the others don't. If you don't need more than an HV20 or 7D or GH1 can do, then go shoot on those.

But if you think that having shot on a 7D, or a 5D, or a GH1, or a Red One, or an HPX3700, or a Genesis, or a Viper, or an F35, is going to make any difference in how successful your film is commercially, or "holding up on the big screen," or any of that -- you're just plain wrong. Barking up the wrong tree.

Sorry to be the one to break it to folks, but wearing Air Jordans will not get you into the NBA, and shooting on a Red won't get you a theatrical feature film release (it won't even guarantee you a win in a DVXFest).

So -- when facing the question "should I upgrade to a better camera?" I say the answer revolves around "well, what's the weakest link in your chain?" In other words, where else could that money be spent? Do you already have a bulletproof script that has won top awards at at least one national screenwriting festival? If not, maybe you should put some money into the script, rather than into the camera. Or, if you've got the script, how about your cast? Are you using friends, family, and local theater actors? Perhaps you should pony up some money and get some real actors. Who's directing -- do they know what they're doing? If not, spend some money on some classes, spend some time on some internship, and make a few short films and win a DVXFest before you try to take on a feature.

If you have a script you wrote yourself, that your mom says she likes... and you're directing it yourself because hey, you've watched a lot of movies and you just KNOW you can do better... and your friends from school all say they'll act, and for the older roles you're just gonna put some baby powder in their hair to make 'em look older... then, no -- sorry, you should NOT spend the money to upgrade the camera on that shoot to be on a Red One.

If, on the other hand, you've got an award-winning screenplay, you've directed several short films that have won top awards at multiple festivals, you have a cast of experienced film actors and even have lured in some actors with some name recognition, and you're planning on shooting on an HV20 or a 7D -- hell yes, I'd spend some money in that case to upgrade the camera!

 

[dcloud]

well said. my sentiments exactly

 

[David Saraceno]

what barry said