Making a feature with an HVX
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
jake stutheit
Active member
I think most HVX enthusiasts love the HVX because of its value. No other camera offers what it does in the prosumer price range, but lets face it, most of us would use a higher quality camera if we could afford it and its workflow / accessories. I might use the HVX on a $150K feature if I thought the look of the HVX fit the story. But probably if I could afford to use a 2/3" CCD camera, or film, or a 4K camera I would.
ripupthehwy
Well-known member
Very Very Well said! The smartest comment I've read on here lately.
This goes for all those people who wanna bash the hvx saying how much better the Red camera or something else is. Horse of a different color there.]
It's also amusing how many video people on here who will never shoot a major film want the to OWN a red camera. For what? If i had a need for it i would lease it anyways. Geeze.
emotepix
Well-known member
Agree totally.
The camera, format, aspect ratio, medium (film/tape/P2/whatever) all play a part in telling a story.
Start with the story.
Write it out, copyright it.
Tell the story to people you trust.
Then get the story told, over and over, many times, listened to, refined, and retold, so the story takes on a life of its own in the people who are listening to it.
Many people don't do this and, in my opinion, they're missing out.
When your story is polished, copyright the finished version again.
Then pick people (faces, bodies, voices) to tell the story for you, or, if you need to tell it yourself, in person, so be it.
Then figure out the best possible way of presenting it visually to move an audience the most, then pick your tools to make it so.
That's why people usually rent equipment - each show, if done right, usually needs a different look with different gear.
Of course, Hollywood just packs truckloads of every imaginable type of gear, but eventually even if you do have this luxury, you will have to choose which camera, lens, film stock to pull out of those trucks and use to tell your story.
Boils down to the same thing, in the end.
Whatever you do, at least spend money on a sound recordist, listen to what your sound person has to say, pay for your supplies and expendables, including makeup and hair supplies, and feed your crew well.
And don't forget to leave at least 1/3 of your budget (and 2/3 of your overall schedule) for post. I'm not kidding.
I've edited and finished over 50 movies that were tragic losses for their producers because they just spent their last $100k or $50k on their movie and then couldn't finish.
Then some company buys the uncompleted movie for a pittance, deferred, and hires people like me to finish the movie.
Don't let that happen to you. (of course, you could just hire someone like me off the bat! LOL!!!)
Cheers
Chris
Emotion Pictures
The camera, format, aspect ratio, medium (film/tape/P2/whatever) all play a part in telling a story.
Start with the story.
Write it out, copyright it.
Tell the story to people you trust.
Then get the story told, over and over, many times, listened to, refined, and retold, so the story takes on a life of its own in the people who are listening to it.
Many people don't do this and, in my opinion, they're missing out.
When your story is polished, copyright the finished version again.
Then pick people (faces, bodies, voices) to tell the story for you, or, if you need to tell it yourself, in person, so be it.
Then figure out the best possible way of presenting it visually to move an audience the most, then pick your tools to make it so.
That's why people usually rent equipment - each show, if done right, usually needs a different look with different gear.
Of course, Hollywood just packs truckloads of every imaginable type of gear, but eventually even if you do have this luxury, you will have to choose which camera, lens, film stock to pull out of those trucks and use to tell your story.
Boils down to the same thing, in the end.
Whatever you do, at least spend money on a sound recordist, listen to what your sound person has to say, pay for your supplies and expendables, including makeup and hair supplies, and feed your crew well.
And don't forget to leave at least 1/3 of your budget (and 2/3 of your overall schedule) for post. I'm not kidding.
I've edited and finished over 50 movies that were tragic losses for their producers because they just spent their last $100k or $50k on their movie and then couldn't finish.
Then some company buys the uncompleted movie for a pittance, deferred, and hires people like me to finish the movie.
Don't let that happen to you. (of course, you could just hire someone like me off the bat! LOL!!!)
Cheers
Chris
Emotion Pictures
Last edited:
My own personal take:
This might sound ridiculous, but do you have a pay production job? Or do you have total available time for that film? In my case, I have a legally bond Shooting/ directing and editing job that takes me away from my filmmaking ambitions (Government). I work in a place where I have to grant my production exclusivity and my time from 9am to 6 pm. The only time I have for my own filmmaking is weekends, and, even then, some of them I have to give my job the time for special events.
So my solution to shoot my own feature is to find a team that can be flexible in time and also, I really need to own my camera, lighting, support and audio equipment. In this scenario, I can schedule shooting only taking into account human ressources and logistic ressources.
If I had 150k for a feature, and had no Job, I would gamble and rent a Sony f950 for 2 or 3 weeks (or maybe buy a used f900?). I would rent everything. I would, however, have the script and storyboard detailed to a T, and every possible scenario covered. I would waste my money in good actors- and that's really up to you to judge their acting- and would of course leave money for proper Da Vinci color correction and Uncompressed HD editing.
One suggestion (if you know editing): For about 5k of your budget, buy a desktop with a HD-SDI capture card and a disk array that can handle the HD footage. Rent a Deck to capture all your Movies footage, and do yourself an OFFLINE cut. You would want to spend the LESS TIME possible in the Professional Post House, since it will cost you a LOT.
And if you're shooting in Europe, or in Spain, in particular, you can ask your Government to subsidise the Film Print of your Movie, if it is accepted in a Major Festival.
Anyway, with 150k, and having the work I have, I would probably buy a used F900 for the shoot. Or Maybe try out the SK2. I would most certainly invest on a talented and reliable cast, and, of course, on a Top cinematographer. I would probably buy 2 HVX's (If I was shooting action) just for the action shots for the 60p slowmo and fast motion.
PS- Of course, if you want to consider this 150k an investment for the future, everything you buy can be used in future productions. If you have a strong script, and find a nice cast, you can invest in medium range equipment (Like HPX500, P2 workflow, Steadicams, Dollys, Cranes, etc. Lights- LOTS of lights) and have a good movie, and the possibility of making more in the future, independently (and maybe establish your own production house?)
This might sound ridiculous, but do you have a pay production job? Or do you have total available time for that film? In my case, I have a legally bond Shooting/ directing and editing job that takes me away from my filmmaking ambitions (Government). I work in a place where I have to grant my production exclusivity and my time from 9am to 6 pm. The only time I have for my own filmmaking is weekends, and, even then, some of them I have to give my job the time for special events.
So my solution to shoot my own feature is to find a team that can be flexible in time and also, I really need to own my camera, lighting, support and audio equipment. In this scenario, I can schedule shooting only taking into account human ressources and logistic ressources.
If I had 150k for a feature, and had no Job, I would gamble and rent a Sony f950 for 2 or 3 weeks (or maybe buy a used f900?). I would rent everything. I would, however, have the script and storyboard detailed to a T, and every possible scenario covered. I would waste my money in good actors- and that's really up to you to judge their acting- and would of course leave money for proper Da Vinci color correction and Uncompressed HD editing.
One suggestion (if you know editing): For about 5k of your budget, buy a desktop with a HD-SDI capture card and a disk array that can handle the HD footage. Rent a Deck to capture all your Movies footage, and do yourself an OFFLINE cut. You would want to spend the LESS TIME possible in the Professional Post House, since it will cost you a LOT.
And if you're shooting in Europe, or in Spain, in particular, you can ask your Government to subsidise the Film Print of your Movie, if it is accepted in a Major Festival.
Anyway, with 150k, and having the work I have, I would probably buy a used F900 for the shoot. Or Maybe try out the SK2. I would most certainly invest on a talented and reliable cast, and, of course, on a Top cinematographer. I would probably buy 2 HVX's (If I was shooting action) just for the action shots for the 60p slowmo and fast motion.
PS- Of course, if you want to consider this 150k an investment for the future, everything you buy can be used in future productions. If you have a strong script, and find a nice cast, you can invest in medium range equipment (Like HPX500, P2 workflow, Steadicams, Dollys, Cranes, etc. Lights- LOTS of lights) and have a good movie, and the possibility of making more in the future, independently (and maybe establish your own production house?)
Last edited:
Mark A. Beal
Well-known member
I'm a gearhead and salivate over equipment constantly, but in reality I don't think shooting format is going to impact marketability nearly as much as the cast and audio quality will. If I had $150K available and already owned an HVX, I'd absolutely shoot with the HVX and then use the budget to hire the most recognizeable cast possible as well as a really good sound man and a DP.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
SPZ said:
Just checking - did you mean to say you "wouldn't?"
taormina
Hates to Rent
Hey guys,
thanks for the responses. I have produced quite a bit - let's keep the answers confined to camera. The last TV pilot I shot was shot on a Sony F900 - but I am sick of renting (for various reasons).
Mark beal - good answer. I never DP and always use a good sound guy.
thanks for the responses. I have produced quite a bit - let's keep the answers confined to camera. The last TV pilot I shot was shot on a Sony F900 - but I am sick of renting (for various reasons).
Mark beal - good answer. I never DP and always use a good sound guy.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Mark A. Beal said:
That would be my reaction too, although I'm not as experienced with my HVX as some others here. I think I might still use my HVX (with some add ons I don't yet own like a 35mm adapter and lenses) even if the budget window extended way beyond that, let's say to $500K - $1 Mil. I think the money would be better spent first of all on the best actors available, including one or more "Name" ones, a great DP, and otherwise on all other expenses for crew, additional rentals, CGI, props, costumes, locations/travel, etc.
The script of course is the most important thing, and an additional expense as well if you haven't already got a killer one in your hot little hands.
Maybe I'm nuts, but I think the HVX wouldn't be as important a limiting factor at that budget level.
So...am I nuts?
:huh:
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
Mark A. Beal said:
I disagree.
Especially in this time of day where everyone has access to some form of decent to high quality medium and suddenly call themselves a filmmaker.
To be able to shoot a small project on film is now rare. And to have that visual difference truly stands out and actually gets people talking "wow they shot film."
Granted if the script is bad and the actors are terrible, it doesnt really matter what format you shoot on.
emotepix
Well-known member
Adam
Just finished a three day film shoot in S16.
Shot 45 minutes of stock, developed and transferred at a great lab here in Los Angeles.
Total cost for film, processing and TC (to D5 HD) - well under $3k.
So 450 minutes would be $30k, and that's a feature film shot at around 4:1 shooting ratio.
Not that expensive, in other words.
The look is awesome, of course, but the film's going to projection and festival competition.
If you're going to DVD only and/or plan to sell to television, then HVX is fine. Use a DOF adaptor, though. (see Jack Stanley's FrenchQuarterFeatures.com and "18 Seconds" if you haven't already seen what that combo can do).
For a small screen, it's great. Then sell the film and have the distro company pick up the DI to 35mm blowup and print costs.
If your story will more likely end up on the big screen first (even in a festival setting) then actually S16 or even 35mm may well be less expensive in the end, especially if you've produced before on film and all your people know how to budget for a low shooting ratio. People tend to spray and pray on tape. When you try to do that on film, things get really expensive really quickly.
The producer/director I shot for (and will edit for) has done this around a dozen times before, with the same cast, so I reckon our 45 minutes of film shot will result in a 20 minute long film.
i.e. the end ratio would be around 2:1. He had only one actor who hadn't shot film before (i.e. only tape), and it was very obvious by the lack of economy who that actor was.
Just finished a three day film shoot in S16.
Shot 45 minutes of stock, developed and transferred at a great lab here in Los Angeles.
Total cost for film, processing and TC (to D5 HD) - well under $3k.
So 450 minutes would be $30k, and that's a feature film shot at around 4:1 shooting ratio.
Not that expensive, in other words.
The look is awesome, of course, but the film's going to projection and festival competition.
If you're going to DVD only and/or plan to sell to television, then HVX is fine. Use a DOF adaptor, though. (see Jack Stanley's FrenchQuarterFeatures.com and "18 Seconds" if you haven't already seen what that combo can do).
For a small screen, it's great. Then sell the film and have the distro company pick up the DI to 35mm blowup and print costs.
If your story will more likely end up on the big screen first (even in a festival setting) then actually S16 or even 35mm may well be less expensive in the end, especially if you've produced before on film and all your people know how to budget for a low shooting ratio. People tend to spray and pray on tape. When you try to do that on film, things get really expensive really quickly.
The producer/director I shot for (and will edit for) has done this around a dozen times before, with the same cast, so I reckon our 45 minutes of film shot will result in a 20 minute long film.
i.e. the end ratio would be around 2:1. He had only one actor who hadn't shot film before (i.e. only tape), and it was very obvious by the lack of economy who that actor was.
Last edited:
ozduc
Well-known member
Even if you were able to shoot at a ratio of 4:1 (which is tight) on S16, in my opinion on a budget of $150k, that $30k needed for filmstock and lab costs would be FAR better spent on a "NAME ACTOR". When you take your movie to market, one of the first questions asked will be "Who is in it?". You will get much better production value and be able to afford a name actor by shooting with your HVX. This in turn will help you to sell the movie, more so than being able to say "hey I shot it on film".
Mark A. Beal
Well-known member
The Sarlacc said:
That's my point. Virtually everyone can now get their hands on cameras capable of creating at least acceptable images, not everyone can assemble a good cast, and fewer still can acquire recognizable talent. Mind you, I am a camera man and love good equipment, but I also think actors trump photography and gear should make up a small percentage of your overall budget. In this case in particular, where the film is meant to have a gritty feel to start with, I think the HVX will do the trick.
siniarch
Veteran
Taormina,
I agree with most of the post here. I think shooting on film would be great, but for a low budget it really puts a stretch on things.
I just finished reading the book "From Reel to Deal" and if you are embarking on this 150k venture, its a must read. (I mean it) Though it was written before the HVX and other affordable cameras came out it really gives you a good idea of cost. Though you probably already know some of this.
As for the HVX, get a 35mm adapter. I saw a short film by Andrew Oh (can't think of his user name here) that was shot with the HVX and the Redrock M2 adapter. From what I understand, it was screened at Universal Studios and the Execs and camera people attending the screening were shocked when they were told it wasn't film after they had seen the whole thing.
But like the book explains, your film is worth nothing. (film being either in the can or on Digital format) But if your Film gets turned into a Movie then its worth ALOT. (by movie meaning a film that is showned in American theathers and people pay to see) In order to turn your film into a Movie, you will need a distribution company to pick up your film. And like OZDUC mentioned, the first question they are going to ask is, "WHO IS IN IT?"
So get a great script (without it everything else you do will suck) Get some name actor attached to it. And make your film.
emotepix- not to be personal or anything, but according to the book I just read S16 doesn't make sense, because you will still have to transfer to 35mm. so the 10-15k you could save on S16 you will have to pay 20-30k to transfer to 35mm later. So unless its a requirement for your film festival, you are probably better off going to 35 from the get go.
disclaimer: listen to me, read one book and now I'm an expert. hahahah. I'm no expert, and if anything I say is wrong please correct me guys. I'm here to learn.
I agree with most of the post here. I think shooting on film would be great, but for a low budget it really puts a stretch on things.
I just finished reading the book "From Reel to Deal" and if you are embarking on this 150k venture, its a must read. (I mean it) Though it was written before the HVX and other affordable cameras came out it really gives you a good idea of cost. Though you probably already know some of this.
As for the HVX, get a 35mm adapter. I saw a short film by Andrew Oh (can't think of his user name here) that was shot with the HVX and the Redrock M2 adapter. From what I understand, it was screened at Universal Studios and the Execs and camera people attending the screening were shocked when they were told it wasn't film after they had seen the whole thing.
But like the book explains, your film is worth nothing. (film being either in the can or on Digital format) But if your Film gets turned into a Movie then its worth ALOT. (by movie meaning a film that is showned in American theathers and people pay to see) In order to turn your film into a Movie, you will need a distribution company to pick up your film. And like OZDUC mentioned, the first question they are going to ask is, "WHO IS IN IT?"
So get a great script (without it everything else you do will suck) Get some name actor attached to it. And make your film.
emotepix- not to be personal or anything, but according to the book I just read S16 doesn't make sense, because you will still have to transfer to 35mm. so the 10-15k you could save on S16 you will have to pay 20-30k to transfer to 35mm later. So unless its a requirement for your film festival, you are probably better off going to 35 from the get go.
disclaimer: listen to me, read one book and now I'm an expert. hahahah. I'm no expert, and if anything I say is wrong please correct me guys. I'm here to learn.
emotepix
Well-known member
Absolutely right.
The thing is, the name actors all are looking for, and will compete to be in, the hottest stories that show their acting abilities off.
So ultimately, as far as that is concerned, we're back to the same thing - in a story movie, the story is king.
However, we're meant to be talking cameras here, not production.
So I presented an option to shoot on film.
Actually, I'd do the whole thing HVX/DOFbox myself, given the chance. Just put a big matte box with a french flag on the front, and hang 7" monitors and a FF off of it and nobody will care.
Actors and clients usually don't react too well to small cameras in general, but with the gubbins attached, they'll be fine.
The reason? Unlimited takes. Less tension as far as the shooting ratio goes, more time to get things right. Instant lighting feedback. On the set editing, making sure you have every shot before you strike a set or leave a location.
Personally, if I were shooting it myself, that's the way I would go (and am going).
Professionally, I'd spend the $100k setting up a real movie package, and then sell the developed package to my (funded) production entity for $300k. High risk? High yield.
The thing is, the name actors all are looking for, and will compete to be in, the hottest stories that show their acting abilities off.
So ultimately, as far as that is concerned, we're back to the same thing - in a story movie, the story is king.
However, we're meant to be talking cameras here, not production.
So I presented an option to shoot on film.
Actually, I'd do the whole thing HVX/DOFbox myself, given the chance. Just put a big matte box with a french flag on the front, and hang 7" monitors and a FF off of it and nobody will care.
Actors and clients usually don't react too well to small cameras in general, but with the gubbins attached, they'll be fine.
The reason? Unlimited takes. Less tension as far as the shooting ratio goes, more time to get things right. Instant lighting feedback. On the set editing, making sure you have every shot before you strike a set or leave a location.
Personally, if I were shooting it myself, that's the way I would go (and am going).
Professionally, I'd spend the $100k setting up a real movie package, and then sell the developed package to my (funded) production entity for $300k. High risk? High yield.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
emotepix said:
Lost here... please explain...
emotepix
Well-known member
siniarch said:
Hi Taormina,
Thanks for your comment.
In general, you're right.
However, in this case, the film was shot to intercut with some 16;9 HD stuff.
The project will be screened HD projection and if it is sold then the distro company will pick up the blowup or DI costs, same as with HD.
But S16 looks much nicer than HD when it comes to that stage.
For those of you who want to take that point up, just think: 64k bits per screen, 4k lines per screen, 2k bits per image, 1080x960 pixels per image...
Now think luma and chroma information stored in organic suspension at the resolution levels of individual chemical molecules (emulsion).
How many lines of resolution would that be, now?
Point is, in 10 years' time, when our kids use 4k on their gameboy watches, the state of the art will still be able to get something more out of the film negatives.
That's what was important to the producer.
Of course, he's not making stuff that's easy consumption, pre-digested, watch it once and dispose, change the channel and watch something else, newer = better, either.
And I've been doing this professionally since 1975, and I'm still learning too!