Intercutting HVX and S16

Ted Spencer

Ted Spencer

Veteran
I'm in the early discussion stage of a feature film project to be shot on Super16, and as the owner of an HVX and a large amount of related gear, I'm curious about the possibilities of using it for some of the project. After spending a fair amount of time searching here and through Google I was unable to come up with very much in the way of first-hand accounts of people doing this, successfully or otherwise. There is much discussion however, of how similar the look is, which is of course very encouraging. But actually cutting between the two within a film is the real question.

So, for those who might have attempted it, how well did it work? What were the issues, problems, questions? How viable a worklflow solution was it (or not) for you?

Thanks in advance...
 
I shot a short a few years ago which combined mostly DV shot with a DVX and a number of shots done on film for obvious reasons.

Depending on the kinds of decisions you make in post I'm sure you can make it work. I didn't want there to be gross differences between the 2 media and I think I was pretty successful in reaching that goal. You can see the film "Soaked" @ www.o7films.com> view work > Soaked.

I don't think you'd have too much trouble intercutting HVX with S-16 - but that depends on a number of factors besides the acquisition format.
 
the apparant similarities and/ lack of distintion between the two have made me never think of shooting super 16 again. I used to shoot a ton of it, but with the HVX I believe that S16 is dead.. atleast to me. There's not enough of a seperation and thus reason for shooting it. Now if you go up to 35 or down to 8 mill.. then I see a reason as each will look dramatically different. I also remind myself of the hassel of film.. the cost.. and then the lab ordeal and the fact that I'll never go back to a film print anyway.


I'd say, save your pennies and do it on 35 or spend what you have and do it on 8. HVX and similar cams I believe are 16mm killers....
 
I'd say, save your pennies and do it on 35 or spend what you have and do it on 8. HVX and similar cams I believe are 16mm killers....[/quote]

Yes but not quite. In the film I did, I purposely stepped on the S-16 to dumb it down to DVX level. Look at modern S 16 shot with good glass transferred to HD and compare that to HVX material.

Then again there is the cost factor.
 
The director owns S16 equipment, so the film is currently planned on that. I don't think 35mm is a viable consideration at this point, but if HVX footage can intercut well, we might be able to do some things like use my Steadicam Pilot and Advanta-Jib that an S16 camera and lenses would presumably be too heavy for.

The weight limit for each of those is about 10 lbs. Am I correct in assuming that most S16 cams with lens and film weigh a good deal more than that?
 
A related question: in general, should S16, with proper film stock, be expected to be much better in low light than an HVX (without a 35mm adapter)?

I've done a few projects on S16 as an actor, so I do know a little about the results, but not from a user's standpoint.
 
in general, should S16, with proper film stock, be expected to be much better in low light than an HVX (without a 35mm adapter)?
Click to expand...
That depends on the film stock, and the lens. If you're talking about 7245 film stock, which is ISO 50, the HVX will blow that away -- the HVX is 250 to 320. But if you're talking about 800 ISO film stock, that may be a different story. 800 is the grainiest film stock, and especially so in 16mm.

I've got some stuff shot on 250-ISO 16mm, and the HVX is practically noise-free and grain-free compared to the 16mm. In general, in low light, you're probably going to get cleaner/better footage from the HVX than from 16mm.

Another complication is the lens -- if you're using a T3 lens (my CP16's lens is a Zeiss 10-100 T3), then you're giving up almost two stops of sensitivity in the low light area. The HVX's lens is f/1.6, so F2.8 would be almost two stops less sensitive -- meaning, you'd need to shoot on 1280 film stock to get the same sensitivity!

So no, in general it'll be much easier to shoot in low light on the HVX than it would on 16mm film. You'll need more light for 16mm in most circumstances.
 
As to your original question, if you're talking feature, you should at least allow for a couple of days testing. You (or your editor/director) are the only ones who can answer this question satisfactory for you...

Take a couple of 30 secs shot through the whole prosess, do yoour intercuts and grading and see if you're happy.

Gunleik
 
gunleik said:
As to your original question, if you're talking feature, you should at least allow for a couple of days testing. You (or your editor/director) are the only ones who can answer this question satisfactory for you...

Take a couple of 30 secs shot through the whole prosess, do yoour intercuts and grading and see if you're happy.

Gunleik
Click to expand...

We would absolutely do that. But at this stage, I'm just collecting notes from others on their experiences with it.
 
Barry_Green said:
So no, in general it'll be much easier to shoot in low light on the HVX than it would on 16mm film. You'll need more light for 16mm in most circumstances.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, and not what I expected. With all the discussion of the HVX's low-light liabilities, I would have thought S16 would be superior (of course I know 35mm with proper stock is *much* superior). Thanks for the info.
 
I think the point is being missed about sensitivity. Vision 2 stock is clean and if its 500 ISO you can pretty much expose it at that in S-16. ISO 500 would be faster than an HVX, but that's not the point: that's not the only basis of comparison. Film has crazy lattitude in a good way compared to the HVX. Also the lens that Barry cites is ancient history as far as lenses go.

How and what film is transferred to after it is shot is yet another matter. You can transfer 35mm to VHS, super 8 to HD, and then there is the transfer machine. Are you using a Bosch FDL or a Spirit HD telecine?

All these factors come into play. To say you need more light for S 16 is sort of a false premise. If you have Superspeeds in your package they are T 1.3 , if you have Barry's old zeiss zoom its a T3.

As I said before, I think you can inter cut safely between S 16 and HVX, but the S- 16 material might have shallower depth of field.

Also 7245 was a killer stock- ISO 50 daylight- its too bad it has faded from the catalog because it had a fantastic look. contrasty, punchy and oh so yummy.
 
Like I said, it all depends. Slow lens = worse performance. You'd need Superspeeds to get comparable lens performance to the HVX's 1.6 (talking sensitivity only, not any other aspect).

Point is, someone thinking they're going to have better performance just by shooting film, well, there's a whole lot more to it than that.

And yes, 7245 was one of my favorite stocks as well.
 
Mark Smith said:
You can see the film "Soaked" @ www.o7films.com> view work > Soaked.
Click to expand...

Hey Mark - that's a really, really good short film. Super work - great everything - acting, shooting, editing, sound, music, script. Hats off, my friend.

And it did help to inform the intercutting question, but frankly I got so caught up in the film itself that I mostly forgot that that was why I went there.

Which is a really *good* thing : )

I hope it won some awards, because it deserved to. Thanks for the link, and more power to ya, my man...
 
Five words to know...tape to tape color correction. A good colorist could make the transition between the two formats almost seamless if they were both exposed correctly.

Best,

Dan
 
The film for soaked was done in an unsupervised transfer session with some notes to the colorist. No tape to tape CC was done, I did a couple of tweaks in FCP and that was it.
Stephanie, the writer director really deserves the credit for the film as it was hers- I just shot it.
 
Last edited:
Mark Smith said:
The film for soaked was done in an unsupervised transfer session with some notes to the colorist. No tape to tape CC was done, I did a couple of tweaks in FCP and that was it.
Stephanie, the writer director really deserves the credit for the film as it was hers- I just shot it.
Click to expand...

If you're still in touch with Stephanie, please convey my compliments to her as well. And I'd like to encourage anyone reading this thread to check "Soaked" out. I've watched quite a few short films recently, and this is a real standout.

What has Stephanie been working on since then? Features, one would hope...
 
puredrifting said:
Five words to know...tape to tape color correction. A good colorist could make the transition between the two formats almost seamless if they were both exposed correctly.

Best,

Dan
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll remember that phrase, and it is new to me. Can you describe exactly how it relates to film as opposed to just "tape"? On the face of it, the phrase sounds like it relates only to videotape.
 
To reiterate on the question of weight - what is the approximate weight range of typical S16 cameras including lens and film?
 
Ted Spencer said:
To reiterate on the question of weight - what is the approximate weight range of typical S16 cameras including lens and film?
Click to expand...

No offense to Barry Green, but it's clear he hasn't used film in a while. :thumbsup: He is referencing old film stocks and old cameras and old lenses. But he is definitely the HVX ambassador and expert.

Mark Smith seems to have the correct understanding of the current state of affairs and the reality of film vs video.

S16 is alive and well with new stocks from both Fuji and Kodak. And your options in transferring to video are varied and diverse. Using film is like having all of the video options rolled into one camera.

For the record, I have owned and used the HVX and also own and use S16mm cameras and lenses. It sometimes simply comes down to personal preference. Then there's ergonomics and build quality, etc. And that is truly subjective. But one big difference is budgetary, which makes video compelling for many.

As far as low light with S16 versus 35mm, (and video) it's the film stock that is the big factor. But film will give you a wider tonal range and exposure latitude than the HVX.

As far as the weight of a S16 camera and lens, there is no real approximate weight range. The Aaton A-Minima weighs 5 lbs with loaded mag and battery. The Arri 416 weighs 12 lbs with loaded mag. The Panaflex Elaine is around 17 lbs. Lenses, too are different (small primes vs heavier zooms), and then there's the mags (100' 200' 400' etc.) and batteries. Find out which specific camera build is going to be used.

Your questions might be better answered on cinematography.com where forum participants are primarily film users. Many are working DPs and some are ASC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top