Should I buy the HVX? Trying to decide on the best project workflow

A

Alon99

Member
Hi all,

Here's the situation I'm in: I recently received a $25,000 grant to direct a 7 minute comedy short that I wrote. I was originally thinking of shooting on 35mm, but I think that will stretch the budget too far. Now I'm trying to decide between buying the HVX-200 camera and shooting with it, or renting a higher-end HD unit for the shoot.

Of course, the obvious advantage of buying the HVX is that I'd have the camera for future short films, other shooting, etc. On the other hand, I want to take full advantage of this money to make the best-quality movie. Obviously the lenses etc. are better on the pro gear. The downside of the pro HD stuff is that the budget starts creeping back up with insurance, rental fees, expensive transfers, expensive online edit, etc.

Should I just buy the HVX? Is this ridiculous?

Alon
 
I only wish I was in your shoes!

I am trying to get a grant, but with no luck :(

And to answer your question....I would buy the HVX if I had the money!

MLCinema
 
I'd get the HVX just 'cause you'd own it forever. I'm sure it would pay off you you down the road as well as right now.

Where did you get your grant if dont dont mind me asking?
 
You should also consider shooting this on S16 and then finishing on 35. For the budget that you have, you might even be able to squeeze in a DI since the project is only 7 minutes TRT. High end video is great, but shooting on film has its advantages.
 
Congradulations on the grant! Your question is a tough call, I just finished shooting a horror feature on super35 for just over 30k by pulling in a number of favors and squeezing every penny til our fingers bled, but it can be done. I would say the deciding factor should be your script. If you and your DP feel that the contemporary look of HD will best serve the story, then shoot HD. If it will benifit from the classic look of film, then I wouldn't count 35 or Super 16 out. Without more info about the scope of your story (period piece, special effects, production design) it's hard to make a judgement but I would definately bring on an experienced DP to help you make the decision.

Congrats again and good luck!

Keep us posted about how it all works out...

-David C. Smith
LA / OC D.P.
 
My god I've never heard of a grant that big for a comedic short! That's incredible- It's hard enough to get a $1000 dollar grant for a feature length documentary let alone a 25K grant for a short and a 7 minute short at that! Congrats!

Hey- I was in your situation about 3 years ago (except we got less money.) We got about 15K for a dramatic 20 minute short. Through out the process of pre-prodution and production I kept a little "daily diary" of sorts which Film and Video Magazine ended up publishing.

I just ran across the magazine a couple days ago and re-read the article and man is it embarrassing. We made so many poor decisions. I mean we learned a LOT... A WHOLE LOT, but I just can't believe how much we gave up to shoot on an HD camera. I was totally obsessed with the VARICAM and the PS-Technik converter (which at the time almost nobody had heard of). I thought if I could just manage to shoot this short with that set up that everything else would work itself out! Well- I was wrong.

However, the footage did turn out amazing. We had a very talented DP/Lighting Director who was meticulous. I remember seeing the dailies for the first time on a HUGE HD monitor.... We were all just sitting there looking at the monitor and then looking at each other and then laughing out loud.... Because it looked so good. We were blown away... A Varicam in the right hands is a lethal weapon!

But so many other VERY IMPORTANT departments were starved of essential money that could've REALLY made the film much better as a WHOLE PIECE. If I could do it over again (and known what I know now)- I would've shot with two DVX-100's and a couple mini-35's. This would've freed up thousands of dollars and a lot of time.... And ultimately, I believe, would've allowed the short to grow in other areas that would've made the film stand out. Try to remember that your typical audience member is NOT obsessing over resolution, depth of field and cadence. They're usually more interested in the story and whether or not the actors are natural, or if the set/wardrobes are believable.

Now I'm NOT suggesting that you shoot Mini-DV... I'm just Using my story/situation as an example. Your project has more funding and it's half as long.... So hey, that's a BIG advantage. However, given MY NATURE, if I had 25K at the time I did my project I probably would've been inclined to attempt to justify shooting on a VIPER or HDCAM-SR (AND THAT WOULD'VE JEOPORDIZED THE REST OF THE PROJECT). I think a lot of people on this board suffer from the same "big camera disease" that I do. Don't let it get you! Especially right before you start making real decisions about your project.

My advice, is to absolutely make sure that every other dept. has what they need to do their very important jobs... So they can really add to the short. Then look at your budget and make a decision.

Also, figure out what it's going to cost to POST it and COMPLETELY finish it (add a contingency) and then freeze that money in a chunk of ICE in your grandmothers fridge before you start shooting. Also, allow for pick up days!! Cause you very well may need them.

Let us know how it goes!
Best of luck,

Michael


One more thing (as if this post isn't long enough already)- If you do BUY the HVX you should certainly SELL it when you're done shooting and then use that money towards post... although that usually ends up getting kind of laborious and perhaps not worth your time. Most definately though, you should make sure that as much of the 25K ends up being used for the PROJECT. Renting might be a better option here.
 
If they granted you the cash for the film, it's your responsibility to use that cash for the film, to give them the most product for their money. Only you can determine what format etc. suits it best, but it would seem a little sketchy to essentially keep $6,000 of it, especially because you could probably rent an HVX for much less, putting the rest of the money on the screen. The money was given to you to make the film, right? If so, it would seem that it's your fiduciary responsibility to ensure that as much of it ends up on the screen as possible.
 
Yup yup yup. It would be like a construction contractor charging someone a million dollars to build a house because he wanted a $400,000 dump truck for his business.
 
Not always. It depends on the grant. A good clue is to read the "mission statement" of the grant, which will tell you whether it is to facilitate a single project, or the ability to produce future material. Cheers.
David Jimerson said:
Yup yup yup. It would be like a construction contractor charging someone a million dollars to build a house because he wanted a $400,000 dump truck for his business.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks everyone for the replies!

First, I should mention that I wasn't talking about only using the grant money to buy the camera - I'm not out to scam anyone! I see now that my original post was a bit unclear. I'd be buying it with my own cash, and applying a reasonable amount from the grant (whatever the rental cost worked out to being) towards equipment use / wear and tear.

I was thinking along the same line as doondoon - I don't want to drop a huge chunk of money into the camera and neglect the other departments. I'm having a difficult time finding a way to make 35mm or even HD work, so I was thinking the HVX might be at the right price point. As well, there are always future projects that it could be used for.

Khmuse, I haven't looked at shooting super16 beyond the basic equipment rental and film stock prices. Everything I've seen as far as DI's go is very expensive. Unfortunately, I'm pretty new to this, so I don't have a huge network of favors that I can cash in to make this project happen! Are there any places you can recommend for doing the post-production? Any tips on keeping the cost down?

The grant is from the Canadian Film and Television Producer's Association. I'm very excited to have the opportunity, and that's why I want to make the right decision as far as the shooting format goes!

Thanks,

Alon
 
my 2 cents - rentals can get out of hand very quickly. If you buy the camera yourself, then rent it to this particular project at a fair rate (or even at a lower rate), I think that's totally legit... You could also charge the production a one time flat fee of a grand or two, regardless of how much you use the camera.

It would allow you to maximize your ability to use the camera through experimentation. Not just in shooting, but in editing, etc.

It would, of course, allow you go beyond the days you had plotted out for the shoot, if there was a need to do so. It would for a more 'quirky' type of shooting - ie - shoot when and wherever you wanted, 'cause it's your camera...

The HVX seems like it will be fantastic, even in stardard def mode. Comedy doesn't seem inherently limited to glorious 35 mm - if its funny, people will laugh. Having the option to say, record your rehersals, perhaps keeping one of them, could be very valuable; not just in catching that once in life-time joke, but also to (assumming you're using relatively unseasoned actors) let your cast get used to acting in front of a camera - which is a side benefit of the HVX - it may be ugly, but it is relatively unthreatening. Good luck!
John
 
Alon99 said:
Khmuse, I haven't looked at shooting super16 beyond the basic equipment rental and film stock prices. Everything I've seen as far as DI's go is very expensive. Unfortunately, I'm pretty new to this, so I don't have a huge network of favors that I can cash in to make this project happen! Are there any places you can recommend for doing the post-production? Any tips on keeping the cost down?
Click to expand...

I am LA based, so most of my contacts wouldn't be all that applicable for you. Do you have a shooting ratio forcast yet? That can make a large difference when it comes to stock and lab costs (and number of production days). For film projects, I would try to increase the number of rehearsals and be really careful who is cast so that you don't end up with a bunch of 10 take scenes. Also, work really closesly with the editor before preparing your shot lists and decide in advance what coverage you will need. This too can save a good deal of money (in a lot of areas) when compared to shooting every bit of coverage that you "might" need.

Yeah, DIs can be expensive, but with a 7 minute project, it might be within the budget; but not knowing what your other departments (and above the line costs might be) its hard to really make any specific suggestions.

Talk to the labs in advance and see if you can work out a package deal if you steer more work in their direction. Everything is negotiable so don't just look at the published costs and take that as your end costs.

I hope you have a great producer for a project like this. Its small enough that everything will count and yet big enough that you will have a lot of choices to make.

Best of luck!
 
Thanks for the clarification. If you're talking about you buying the cam from your own funds, and the film being made from the budget, and part of that budget going towards camera rental, then it may be appropriate to pay that rental to yourself. It's probably still an ethically gray area, but it may be appropriate. As D and G said, it depends on how the grant was written and what the specific purpose for it was.

As long as you could clearly document that you charged the production a rate at least as low as the next-lowest-bidder would (and it'd probably be a good idea to actually go out and get some bids) then you should be ethically safe.

Furthermore, with that as a consideration, shooting on the HVX could be the most cost-effective way to go. It really depends on the nature of the project, what you intend to do with it, how it's going to be distributed, etc. To be as above-board as possible, I'd say you should determine which format suits the project the best, given its budget, regardless of any other consideration (and shooting a 7-minute short on 35mm on a budget of $25,000 is not at all unreasonable! Using short ends and a camera from a co-op like Film Arts Foundation, and using non-profit-status discounts, you should easily be able to shoot on 35mm for $50/minute. At a 10:1 shooting ratio that puts your budget for film/processing/transfer at maybe $3500.)

The question to explore is: would shooting on 35mm be a wise way to spend $3500 of your budget, or would the HVX (at a presumed rental rate of under $500) be a more cost-efficient way to go, while still delivering the production value your project requires.
 
DI is an acronym for a Digital Intermediate, but I do like your "Drill Instructor" comment. That is certainly something that a lots of sets could stand to have around.
 
script and light rule over resolution IMO.
a good DP can make it happen. i personally would prefer the HVX, because you can instantly check your shot and make adjustments, roughedit on set etc, which might save you time and money in the long run. i didn ´t see the cam yet, but if is "just" a DVX with 1080p resolution it should give you a convincing film.

on the other hand: 35mm is 35mm. there is no fooling around that fact. if you want a certain look you might "have to" shoot 35mm. i guess the decision is totally in the DPs hands as to what the look will be.
 
brianluce said:
so DI is a "digital intermediate." okay got it, thanks for the info.

p.s. what's a digital intermediate?
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I guess you were looking for a bit more of an explanation. A DI is a process where the original film is scanned into a digital foramt (usually either a 2k or 4k resolution) and processed as a digital project until it is finally output back to film for final delivery (answer print). This allows the editor and mostly the colorist access to all the tool sets that are currently part of the digital palette. Think of it as a film that begins (is shot on) and ends (is finished on) on film but spends the middle of its life as a digital project (hence the name, Digital Intermediate).

Hope this helps explain it better.
 
David Jimerson said:
Yup yup yup. It would be like a construction contractor charging someone a million dollars to build a house because he wanted a $400,000 dump truck for his business.
Click to expand...


World-class anology. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top