None of these cameras are for "Indie Filmmakers"
- Thread starter dop16mm
- Start date
Spartacus
Veteran
Don't want to state the obvious: but isn't anyone interested in the DVCpro50 recording ability of the HVX? Yes, again only to P2/HDD, but as many I'm using DVrack already, so I don't mind cables and attached laptops...
And for editing it`s all the same, granted you have a fast SD editing system.
It won't be the SDX900, but probably close enough for most projects.
This is what will really give me a production value in the near future and maybe the extra money I can charge on corporate work will make financing my HD indie feature a lot easier... You know how expensive these P2 cards are, don't you hehehe...?
And for editing it`s all the same, granted you have a fast SD editing system.
It won't be the SDX900, but probably close enough for most projects.
This is what will really give me a production value in the near future and maybe the extra money I can charge on corporate work will make financing my HD indie feature a lot easier... You know how expensive these P2 cards are, don't you hehehe...?
No problem.petelms said:
Um, yes...Spartacus said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=280534&postcount=35
I am pleased at how this thread has panned out. I wanted people get back to the fact that filmmaking is about much more than pixel count. Of course we want to be as close to hollywood standards as reasonably possible, but that has to be balanced. Buy indie mean paying for everything out of your own pocket. I realize there is a lot of work done with investor financing raised independently, but the sentiment I keep hearing on this board is the ability to go out and make a film whenever possible without constraints. Call your acting buddies and go. That is how I work. For some The HVX will fit the bill and be viable, but for many at this level the DVX will continue to be more than good enough. If I was going to raise money I would be shooting on film, 16mm at least, no digital format will do. But for gas money and peanut butter sandwhiches I've done it with Hi-8, S-VHS, 60i dv, and DVX is the best by far. No doubt the HVX will be better but I'll probably have to wait till the 'a' comes out
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
"seeing it in the theatre was like watching a movie through a frosted flake.. the resolution was WAaaaaay soft and somewhat distracting at times."
It was nearly unwatchable at times. But that said, I think the DV added some value to the film as the director wanted or as he said the reason he used DV for a different look. I wonder if it would have been as good if shot on 35mm. There was something about not being able to see things clearly that made it more scary for me. I don't think the DVX100 would have added more value in terms of picture as they used a Pal XL1 and clarity is not what the director says he was looking for. If it was he would have simply shot film.
And Blair Witch was shot with DV and 16mm for those that did not know.
"I wanted people get back to the fact that filmmaking is about much more than pixel count. "
Nice to see a film makers attitude!
It was nearly unwatchable at times. But that said, I think the DV added some value to the film as the director wanted or as he said the reason he used DV for a different look. I wonder if it would have been as good if shot on 35mm. There was something about not being able to see things clearly that made it more scary for me. I don't think the DVX100 would have added more value in terms of picture as they used a Pal XL1 and clarity is not what the director says he was looking for. If it was he would have simply shot film.
And Blair Witch was shot with DV and 16mm for those that did not know.
"I wanted people get back to the fact that filmmaking is about much more than pixel count. "
Nice to see a film makers attitude!
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
So you were the guy who ate the bark? You are a loser!
Actually it's sad to see that folks are like that. If only they could learn to be artists instead of spending all their efforts buying the latest greatest easel and brushes. Those easels will look great in your house but your walls will be empty.
Actually it's sad to see that folks are like that. If only they could learn to be artists instead of spending all their efforts buying the latest greatest easel and brushes. Those easels will look great in your house but your walls will be empty.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It's actually worse than that. Blair Witch wasn't DV, it was Hi8! They used a little $399 Hi-8 camcorder they bought at Circuit City...Walter_Graff said:
I was posting this elsewhere but from my many years of experience in making and selling films video is a great tool for those that don't have the money to shoot film, but that it still has a ways to catch up.
Yes, shooting a GREAT movie is what is going to matter. Have a great script, good actors (better yet, ones that are "names") and make it look interesting. BUT...I can tell you even if you win in that field, you may sell your project but will still not get top dollar. Example: I was selling a project to the Sci Fi channel recentley and they were very hot on the project offering a nice negative pick up deal. But when I mentioned we were shooting in HD 24P (Panasonic) he began to balk and retract the offer based on the fact that "video" is not considered professional yet.
We are still shooting on HD (a 500K budget) but they are waiting to see the project now to make sure it looks good BECAUSE of video. This is true all through the film markets. The thought is, if you are shooting video, you must not have the money to make a "real film". But, since most people on here are doing this for "fun" or for "the big dreams" as long as you don't mortgage your house, do it on what you have (DVX, XL, etc.) and just do a GREAT job. Take it to the festivals, get some notice and sell it.
I am waiting for the HVX for a couple reasons. I will probably only use it on sub 100K films that are being done experimentaly, but I like the option of HD for the future and the variable frames over the DVX so for me it's worth the money. I have a comedy that would be more risky on film or HD 24P so using the HVX will be a perfect investment.
I personally love the look of the Canon better...but the Panny seems to have the more theatrical look down.
Yes, shooting a GREAT movie is what is going to matter. Have a great script, good actors (better yet, ones that are "names") and make it look interesting. BUT...I can tell you even if you win in that field, you may sell your project but will still not get top dollar. Example: I was selling a project to the Sci Fi channel recentley and they were very hot on the project offering a nice negative pick up deal. But when I mentioned we were shooting in HD 24P (Panasonic) he began to balk and retract the offer based on the fact that "video" is not considered professional yet.
We are still shooting on HD (a 500K budget) but they are waiting to see the project now to make sure it looks good BECAUSE of video. This is true all through the film markets. The thought is, if you are shooting video, you must not have the money to make a "real film". But, since most people on here are doing this for "fun" or for "the big dreams" as long as you don't mortgage your house, do it on what you have (DVX, XL, etc.) and just do a GREAT job. Take it to the festivals, get some notice and sell it.
I am waiting for the HVX for a couple reasons. I will probably only use it on sub 100K films that are being done experimentaly, but I like the option of HD for the future and the variable frames over the DVX so for me it's worth the money. I have a comedy that would be more risky on film or HD 24P so using the HVX will be a perfect investment.
I personally love the look of the Canon better...but the Panny seems to have the more theatrical look down.
pmark23
Veteran
"28 Days Later" is an excellent film to bring up.
I was initially surprised at how "video-y" it looked, but I almost immediately forgot about it and enjoyed the movie (okay, I'm a sucker for zombie films.)
I think the reason for its success is that A) the story is good, B) it was well shot, and C) it was well directed -- in fact directed as if it was shot on film rather than a cheesy DV camera. You can see that the director payed a lot of attention blocking everything out and figuring out the best camera position to tell the story.
In the end the format mattered little. Personally I think the choice of video was brilliant, because it reminded me of all the Dr. Who I watched as a kid (where everything except the rare outdoor scenes were shot on video.)
I was initially surprised at how "video-y" it looked, but I almost immediately forgot about it and enjoyed the movie (okay, I'm a sucker for zombie films.)
I think the reason for its success is that A) the story is good, B) it was well shot, and C) it was well directed -- in fact directed as if it was shot on film rather than a cheesy DV camera. You can see that the director payed a lot of attention blocking everything out and figuring out the best camera position to tell the story.
In the end the format mattered little. Personally I think the choice of video was brilliant, because it reminded me of all the Dr. Who I watched as a kid (where everything except the rare outdoor scenes were shot on video.)
I should clarify I like the physical look of Canon with shoulder mount but think that the panny has more film-friendly features.....
My point about video films is not that they can't be great and make millions...but that they are still in their infancy and even when good, will still be assumed to be "low budget" (unless Lucas, et al are making them) and will get smaller offers.
I personally like 28 Days and thought the look was pretty good but I hated the look of Open Water. But our cameras and equipment are getting better and better and I am sure in time this will change into more acceptance.
My point about video films is not that they can't be great and make millions...but that they are still in their infancy and even when good, will still be assumed to be "low budget" (unless Lucas, et al are making them) and will get smaller offers.
I personally like 28 Days and thought the look was pretty good but I hated the look of Open Water. But our cameras and equipment are getting better and better and I am sure in time this will change into more acceptance.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
SquidLips said:
Well, I guess that's the difference between having Danny Boyle and 8 million dollars to work with vs. First time filmmakers and 130,000 dollars to work with.
No doubt 28 Days later looked better... that extra $7,870,000 buys a lot of experience, gear and time.
So true mini Chewbacca.... But my point is still the same is:
Most people here don't even have 130K to work with so the Open Water example fits nicely for this group.
28 Days, even with all that money, still looked like video (meaning you can see the difference in medium.....which is fine, just not the norm yet) and though it showed a movie can be good and make a lot of money with an XL 1, the business of filmmaking is still very biased towards film for narrative features. At the last market, I would hear it all the time: The sellers with video films were getting bad deals or no deals. Period. No matter how good/bad the film was. The problem is, more and more people are able to make films which opens the door to a lot of amateur films and most of them are shot on video.
What then happens is video is associated with no budget amateurs. I stated in time it will change as more professionals like Sodeburgh and others shoot GOOD films this way...it will become less of an issue.
Most people here don't even have 130K to work with so the Open Water example fits nicely for this group.
28 Days, even with all that money, still looked like video (meaning you can see the difference in medium.....which is fine, just not the norm yet) and though it showed a movie can be good and make a lot of money with an XL 1, the business of filmmaking is still very biased towards film for narrative features. At the last market, I would hear it all the time: The sellers with video films were getting bad deals or no deals. Period. No matter how good/bad the film was. The problem is, more and more people are able to make films which opens the door to a lot of amateur films and most of them are shot on video.
What then happens is video is associated with no budget amateurs. I stated in time it will change as more professionals like Sodeburgh and others shoot GOOD films this way...it will become less of an issue.
Padmapriya
Member
Guys....what about the ressolution with DVC-PRO 50/25? Wouldn't it be better than SD and not as good as HD. Wouldn't it give a better resolution for blowing it to 35mm?
Good post...logical.....raises many questions.....
Good post...logical.....raises many questions.....
Luis Caffesse
Admin
"Most people here don't even have 130K to work with so the Open Water example fits nicely for this group."
Good point.
I guess that's the blessing and the curse of video right now....
You hold up 28 days later as the best that DV can look, and it still may not be good enough for some.... so we see that as a negative.
Meanwhile I read interviews with Rodriguez,and his excitement comes from the fact that (as he puts it) "video looks as bad as it's ever going to look right now"
No matter what the medium is, we will have good and bad movies.
Make the medium more accessible, and the number of bad movies is bound to go up because the number of movies being made goes up overall.
It's a shame that buyers get tired and jaded... (not that I blame them) I can only imagine how many good films are out there that we'll never get to see or even hear about.
Good point.
I guess that's the blessing and the curse of video right now....
You hold up 28 days later as the best that DV can look, and it still may not be good enough for some.... so we see that as a negative.
Meanwhile I read interviews with Rodriguez,and his excitement comes from the fact that (as he puts it) "video looks as bad as it's ever going to look right now"
No matter what the medium is, we will have good and bad movies.
Make the medium more accessible, and the number of bad movies is bound to go up because the number of movies being made goes up overall.
It's a shame that buyers get tired and jaded... (not that I blame them) I can only imagine how many good films are out there that we'll never get to see or even hear about.