New Hvx 200/16mm reversal video up

R

Ronster

Well-known member
Hey all

here is a new video I did

1/2 hvx 1/2 film

tried the slo mo feature out on the hvx and just sort of tried seeing what it could do in low light

I actually was surpised that the hvx with headlights or only 1 light could really do a great job

I know you need light but I didn't think I would get as much out of it as I got

here is the link let me know what you think:

http://web.mac.com/companyfabric/iWeb/Site/material.html

would love some feedback good or bad

Ron
 
Nicely done. I'm surprised the blacks look that good, I mean if it was half HVX I'd be nervous about that! haha, it looks great though, I like the concept. Well done.
 
we shot revresal trix film black and white on a cp-16 old school camera with a lens that only opened to 3.1 which made things harder for us
 
Was nicely executed... like the beginning stuff in the car a lot. I have spent my time with the CP16 and what a heavy lump of a camera that is. Takes forever to thread it through the cam too... I think you could have achieved the look of the 16 with the HVX as the black and white comes off really well and a bit of CC and you'd be pretty close to what you were getting with film.. minus the cost and workflow.
 
Justyn said:
Was nicely executed... like the beginning stuff in the car a lot. I have spent my time with the CP16 and what a heavy lump of a camera that is. Takes forever to thread it through the cam too... I think you could have achieved the look of the 16 with the HVX as the black and white comes off really well and a bit of CC and you'd be pretty close to what you were getting with film.. minus the cost and workflow.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest I am so use to working with HVX and HD now that when I go to film it drives me crazy but actually seeing the difference in the footage is interesting.

You can't really get that "film look" out of video...especially not the 16mm reversal black and white as easy as you think. I mean unless you don't mind it looking fake. Which most people don't mind. That fake look always bothered me personally.

The film really stood out and I was actually shocked how good it came out and how distinctive the film was from the hvx. Perhaps the online doesn't show that clearly. But it is a very different look that I have never seen properly duplicated or rarely ever matched when you take video footage and try to emulate film.

I personally have just grown to accept and love the different look of digital. But the film does have a distinctive look

so I am going to have to strongly disagree with your comment that you could have made the video look like film.

Ronster
 
I'm shot enough film in my time to know what you can pull off and what you can't. You are shooting reversal so it's only going to look so good and I think that to the average person's eye there wouldn't be substantial difference to warrant the ordeal, however nostalgic, as loading and shooting on a CP-16. It's already processed and eventually transfered as a one light. I agree that ther'es something to film, but not something so unique that you can't approach duplicating it.
 
Yeah, I think it makes a huge difference how you are seeing something or how it's being presented because the difference between film, either 16mm or 35mm, and 720p should be pretty significant technically but sometimes it actually isn't.

I put my last music video on DVD and played it on my Samsung 40" HDTV and that footage looks about 10 times better than at least half of my DVDs of movies shot in 35mm. I guess that proves what a lousy job the studios did in transferring those movies to DVD, jeez. "Fletch," which I just watched, is the worst offender. I could easily get better quality out of a 1 CCD handycam. It's that bad. It's constantly grainy the entire movie.

It's too hard to justify shooting a music video on 35mm except "for the sake of it" when the only way to tell how much better 35mm is than 720p footage is to project on a 50 foot screen. Obviously the differences aren't as profound as they are made out to be considering the last two Star Wars prequels were 1080p and looked much better than almost anything I've seen shot on film.
 
Justyn said:
I'm shot enough film in my time to know what you can pull off and what you can't. You are shooting reversal so it's only going to look so good and I think that to the average person's eye there wouldn't be substantial difference to warrant the ordeal, however nostalgic, as loading and shooting on a CP-16. It's already processed and eventually transfered as a one light. I agree that ther'es something to film, but not something so unique that you can't approach duplicating it.
Click to expand...

Trust me I didn't shoot reversal black and white so I could load a film camera...I personally hate the mechanical aspects of film and how archaic it is. But honestly its look was different enough from the hvx that I am glad we did it. The highlights in reversal when they go still have a very pleasing look, where on video they just look kind of blah....The grain structure is so different, not to mention the latitude of reversal.

In terms of getting digital to look like new vision stocks...I agree, I would opt to shoot digital over super 16mm negative film nowadays.

In terms of getting reversal looks out of digital it always looks fake to me. Perhaps because I have an eye for it and have shot it so I know what it really looks like.

But please by all means show me what video you have shot that looks like super8mm film or 16mm reversal film. I would love to see it. I have seen features with 80 million dollars not pull it off so if you have I would love to see it.

ronster
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah, I think it makes a huge difference how you are seeing something or how it's being presented because the difference between film, either 16mm or 35mm, and 720p should be pretty significant technically but sometimes it actually isn't.

I put my last music video on DVD and played it on my Samsung 40" HDTV and that footage looks about 10 times better than at least half of my DVDs of movies shot in 35mm. I guess that proves what a lousy job the studios did in transferring those movies to DVD, jeez. "Fletch," which I just watched, is the worst offender. I could easily get better quality out of a 1 CCD handycam. It's that bad. It's constantly grainy the entire movie.

It's too hard to justify shooting a music video on 35mm except "for the sake of it" when the only way to tell how much better 35mm is than 720p footage is to project on a 50 foot screen. Obviously the differences aren't as profound as they are made out to be considering the last two Star Wars prequels were 1080p and looked much better than almost anything I've seen shot on film.
Click to expand...

ok where do we start with this:

I think your closing statement says it all....."Obviously the differences aren't as profound as they are made out to be considering the last two Star Wars prequels were 1080p and looked much better than almost anything I've seen shot on film"

Watch the first 3 star wars triology on dvd, and pay close attention to Empire Strikes Back. Pull out that dvd and put in "Revenge of the Sith" if you can't see the clear quality difference of film over digital than that is interesting because to me it is like night and day. The best looking stuff is still on Film. Digital is gaining ground but Film still has digital beat. On an indie level digital is the way to go no doubt.

Also the statement about Fletch. Take the original prestine print of "Fletch" Transfer it to Blue Ray then play that on your 720p projector and be prepared to be blown away. Don't be fooled if you watch it on a crappy dvd that hasn't been properly transfered to play on HD. The actual Negative of Fletch can be brought in what ever resolution they want and mastered properly. They just haven't done it yet. So right now yes your 1 chip video may look better, but not when something if properly mastered to play on the new HD systems.

Come on man think before you drink.

Ronster
 
Last edited:
First I'd like to say that you did a great job on the music video.

Now with regards to the difference between film and 24p video, I still think that film looks different than video. However the gap is definitely closing. Just the fact that they cut together so well gives evidence to that. if you wouldn't have said up front that this was a combination of HVX and film, I don't think I would have noticed.
It used to drive me crazy when people cut film and interlaced video together, and I swore I would never shoot anything but film. But I have obviously changed my mind as I sold my film package a few years ago and bought a DVX and then HVX.
At any rate I still think they look different, but they also work well together. Your video demonstrates that. Good job.
Seamus+
 
Film has so much more latitude - video is basically limited to 10-bit. Film is analog, but it can be argued that it is comparable to something like 36 bit. In the telecine process you can grab so much more range of exposure and color, it would boggle your mind.

Also, in reference to the SW prequels - they look like dogshit IMO. Next time you're in a theater watching a film that was shot on FILM, notice how sharp it is. SW was fuzzy IMO - it wasn't 28 days later, but it was still fuzzy with little gradation between lows and highlights. Compare a grab from 35 scanned in at 4k with the 720p native from your HVX. Film will blow it out of the water.
 
I won't argue the difference bewteen HD and 35mm because I've never shot 35mm and have no idea the strengths and weaknesses.

I will say this; in a low-budget environment someone with some skill with digital can often make it look as good as or better than 16mm if they aren't as experienced with 16mm or don't have the resources. I've got two stories to illustrate my point:

The first takes place two years ago. It was my film school's film festival and there were a bunch of movies that were shot B&W 16mm on CP16s as well as my movie that was shot entirely with a DVX100 and had both B&W as well as color sections. My film ended up winning the fesitival and, afterwards, a guy went up to me and asked, "what kind of film stock were you using cause it looked way nicer than all the others? Also, how much did the color film cost you?" I smiled and I told him that it was all DVX. The funny thing was, the second I said this he went into a long spiel about how film would always be 100 times better than digital and how he could always tell the difference (even though, just a minute ago, he demonstrated he couldn't). Now, the films weren't show on a HUGE screen (medium sized projection at best) and everyone was students after all however, there were some very nicely done 16mm stuff including one by a guy who is now working pro and had been a pro photographer for years.

The next story comes from a few nights ago. I was back in town and went to my old school (graduated two years ago) because a close friend was graduating and had his movie showcased in the film-festival. Another friend also had a film which was shot on both Super 16mm and HVX200. Watching the movie, there were only two locations. One in a basement which was for most of the room and one in a bedroom in which the main character was "dreaming" the basement stuff. The bedroom stuff was far more detailed, looked better exposed (less clipping), and just had a more pleasant image. It was really night and day. I went to the guy afterwards and asked, "how come you only shot the Super 16mm in the bedroom shots? It looked so much better than the rest and was a little jarring." He turned to me and said, "that was actually the HVX200 stuff." I was totally floored because this was projected on a pretty big area and I was positive the Super 16mm would run rings around anything digital even if the DP wasn't a pro (and, to be fair, he wasn't bad).

What I'm coming to is this: I'll let the people with money argue over 35mm vs HD. I don't have those kind of resources. On the other hand, because I've studied both film and digital and learned to love many of the pros of digital so much, I'll say flat out that I'll never shoot 16mm again. Not while I have my HVX200. The only thing that makes me even consider Super 16mm is the lattitude which I admit I do miss (I used to get 10 1/2 stops from my 16mm but only get about 8 1/2 from the HVX).
 
DavidBeier said:
I won't argue the difference bewteen HD and 35mm because I've never shot 35mm and have no idea the strengths and weaknesses.

I will say this; in a low-budget environment someone with some skill with digital can often make it look as good as or better than 16mm if they aren't as experienced with 16mm or don't have the resources. I've got two stories to illustrate my point:

The first takes place two years ago. It was my film school's film festival and there were a bunch of movies that were shot B&W 16mm on CP16s as well as my movie that was shot entirely with a DVX100 and had both B&W as well as color sections. My film ended up winning the fesitival and, afterwards, a guy went up to me and asked, "what kind of film stock were you using cause it looked way nicer than all the others? Also, how much did the color film cost you?" I smiled and I told him that it was all DVX. The funny thing was, the second I said this he went into a long spiel about how film would always be 100 times better than digital and how he could always tell the difference (even though, just a minute ago, he demonstrated he couldn't). Now, the films weren't show on a HUGE screen (medium sized projection at best) and everyone was students after all however, there were some very nicely done 16mm stuff including one by a guy who is now working pro and had been a pro photographer for years.

The next story comes from a few nights ago. I was back in town and went to my old school (graduated two years ago) because a close friend was graduating and had his movie showcased in the film-festival. Another friend also had a film which was shot on both Super 16mm and HVX200. Watching the movie, there were only two locations. One in a basement which was for most of the room and one in a bedroom in which the main character was "dreaming" the basement stuff. The bedroom stuff was far more detailed, looked better exposed (less clipping), and just had a more pleasant image. It was really night and day. I went to the guy afterwards and asked, "how come you only shot the Super 16mm in the bedroom shots? It looked so much better than the rest and was a little jarring." He turned to me and said, "that was actually the HVX200 stuff." I was totally floored because this was projected on a pretty big area and I was positive the Super 16mm would run rings around anything digital even if the DP wasn't a pro (and, to be fair, he wasn't bad).

What I'm coming to is this: I'll let the people with money argue over 35mm vs HD. I don't have those kind of resources. On the other hand, because I've studied both film and digital and learned to love many of the pros of digital so much, I'll say flat out that I'll never shoot 16mm again. Not while I have my HVX200. The only thing that makes me even consider Super 16mm is the lattitude which I admit I do miss (I used to get 10 1/2 stops from my 16mm but only get about 8 1/2 from the HVX).
Click to expand...

David,

I think what you are saying here is pretty accurate and I actually agree with you. I personally would not shoot super 16mm negative anymore with all the digital formats out there...even the prosumer ones like HVX are pretty close to the super16mm negative stocks.

Now I have shot super 35mm and I will tell you straight up it is considerably better than HVX but the Genesis is getting pretty darn close, but Film still looks better in a different way, to me

Now in terms of shooting REVERSAL 16mm black and white or color. HVX doesn't look like it and when it is made to try to emulate this very contrasty, grainy, low lattitutude (about 3 to 4 stop) film stock it just doesn't do it right for me.

This is where the argument is coming from on this particular video on my end. Its not does HVX look as good or similiar to 16mm Negative. I actually think it does look similiar. But it does not look like REVERSAL FILM, and I don't like it when people put filters on to try to give it that grainy, high contrast look. That said a lot of people do it, I personally don't like it. So I shot REVERSAL 16mm black and white for that look that I don't feel video can get, not without a ton of work in post

Ronster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top