fish_antlers
Member
to the point, ScoobyDoo2 did have a 7 city block long remote control helicopter camera shot, shitty film or not....
Should you use the HVX200 for the Big Screen?
- Thread starter pekar1876
- Start date
madhorizons
Active member
The quality of these films has nothing to do with the equipment and/or choices of equipment IMO. You're looking at screenwriting, directorial, etc issues (and Ruben Studdard). The camera teams did what they were told with the equipment that was provided/brought based on what the producers, et al wanted.
I also think that cutting in HD would of been a bad idea. There would certainly be extra steps involved in post-production that would of eaten up time & bandwidth (i think....i've never tried to mix the film & HD together...this statement is based off of presumptions that there would be gamma & color correcting to be done to match them)...which in a CG-laden production like SD2, post-production is already heavy.
boomstrikevideo
Active member
The film I mentioned earlier was given a quote for the shot from another source using a 35mm helicam and choked on it. We offered a lower cost alternative and they declined.
Our helicopters can carry a 20 lb. camera payload so if 35mm film is required to play the game, then so be it. I just have a lot to learn about film. The smarter option would be to partner with someone who already does. My expertise is primarily that of pilot/designer/mechanic.
Being the naive soul I am, I had thought that film was slowly on it's way out due to the editing inefficiencies. Looks like I was dead wrong.
We stay plenty busy with the HVX helicams and we haven't had a single complaint with anthing we have shot so far. I love doing music videos with it. But I must admit my goal from the beginning has always been the big leagues.
fish_antlers
Member
taormina
Hates to Rent
To be honest, if I had the kind of budgets most movies have, I'd probably shoot everything on film, and if I didn't, it would be shot on high end HD such as F23/HPX3000/RED/Genesis.
I don't think I'd be screwing around with the cameras and equipment I have now.
The challenge currently is to make it look like I shot using all that high end stuff with the budget I have.
I don't think I'd be screwing around with the cameras and equipment I have now.
The challenge currently is to make it look like I shot using all that high end stuff with the budget I have.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
That's the trick, ain't it?
I think with *very* thorough preparation and the right ancillary gear we can do pretty darn well at it...
taormina
Hates to Rent
fish_antlers
Member
agreed!
You can't just totally put film in the "Big Leagues" category. Define the Big Leagues????
HD aquisition is getting bigger and bigger all the time. Think back to like 10 years ago when professional photogs said "There's no way a digital camera will ever replace a 35mm film camera". What a load of crap, that time has well passed and these idiots making these statements back then are now shooting with the lastest 15 megapixel cameras that are so far more advanced than the best 35mm SLR ever was. Well folks I have to tell you that this will happen with 35mm movie production before you all know it. Digital cinema is here already and will only get better and Super HiDef projection theatres will appear befor you know it as well.
I love going to the cinema's and watching a movie with all the warmth and color of 35mm film but,,,,,,,,,you can't deny technology and as the old saying goes, older generations cannot simply adapt to change and this is where the majority of Holywood lies.
HD aquisition is getting bigger and bigger all the time. Think back to like 10 years ago when professional photogs said "There's no way a digital camera will ever replace a 35mm film camera". What a load of crap, that time has well passed and these idiots making these statements back then are now shooting with the lastest 15 megapixel cameras that are so far more advanced than the best 35mm SLR ever was. Well folks I have to tell you that this will happen with 35mm movie production before you all know it. Digital cinema is here already and will only get better and Super HiDef projection theatres will appear befor you know it as well.
I love going to the cinema's and watching a movie with all the warmth and color of 35mm film but,,,,,,,,,you can't deny technology and as the old saying goes, older generations cannot simply adapt to change and this is where the majority of Holywood lies.
mark.burton
Well-known member
I'm on a feature at the moment that was shot entirely 35mm 3perf. During post we found we needed another establisher shot from a tall building looking down to street level and could not get a 35mm kit and crew up in time, so we sent a DP with an HVX200.
He shot 720pN, no lens adapter. He was able to shoot tons of options and we got exactly what we needed in the end. We've since taken the shot into an iQ, blown it up to 2K and done two test grade and film outs along side some 35mm 3perf material. Looks spot on, you would never know anything was different!
OK, its just one shot and there's no talent in the shot, but I reckon we'll use it again for a few other inserts we need. I heard they also used one on The Departed to grab an insert or two - was that the case?
He shot 720pN, no lens adapter. He was able to shoot tons of options and we got exactly what we needed in the end. We've since taken the shot into an iQ, blown it up to 2K and done two test grade and film outs along side some 35mm 3perf material. Looks spot on, you would never know anything was different!
OK, its just one shot and there's no talent in the shot, but I reckon we'll use it again for a few other inserts we need. I heard they also used one on The Departed to grab an insert or two - was that the case?
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Thanks for posting that! Music to the ears of HVX owners like me everywhere I'm sure.
It sounds as if one of the fundamental HVX rules was followed, intentionally or otherwise, which is: use it how it wants to be used (primarily with adequate light), not how you wish it could be.
More proof that used properly, even at 720p, an HVX can hold its own just fine in the "real world".
It sounds as if one of the fundamental HVX rules was followed, intentionally or otherwise, which is: use it how it wants to be used (primarily with adequate light), not how you wish it could be.
More proof that used properly, even at 720p, an HVX can hold its own just fine in the "real world".
boomstrikevideo
Active member
While I agree 100%, some dynasties take much longer to die off than others. I sort of see Holywood's grip on film as something along the lines of the Zhou Chinese dynasty (800 years or so). :smile: I am very torn between staying with the HVX or fitting an modified Arriflex 235 to the helicam for film work.
May also be music to the ears of EX1 owners
May also be music to the ears of EX1 owners
I'm a lurking EX1 owner planning on useing it for 3 features. I totally agree with this thread. I just think the under $10K camera of choice will be the Sony EX1... Far better picture and native 1080p.:love4:
May also be music to the ears of EX1 owners
I'm a lurking EX1 owner planning on useing it for 3 features. I totally agree with this thread. I just think the under $10K camera of choice will be the Sony EX1... Far better picture and native 1080p.:love4:
Phil Maker
Well-known member
FAR better picture?? Have you read Barry's post?
Barry_Green
Moderator
In still shots the EX1 does deliver a noticeably sharper picture with less grain. That's not in dispute.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, that's not what I meant. It can make great looking video, it excels at stills, interviews, etc., I was saying that the only areas where I noticed issues in motion is where the potential issues come up depending on what you're shooting. Some scenes will have no effect and you'll get solid super-sharp noiseless images, on some you may see the impact of the rolling shutter or the codec or whatever the detail-softening thing is.
But lots of people won't consider that. They'll just look at the posted grabs on the internet and say "wow, this one looks better than that one." No doubt, in stills the EX1 will look sharper and more detailed with less noise.
I'm just responding to the notion that I said the EX1 doesn't produce "better" video than the HVX does. It does produce sharper imagery with less noise and it does better when you're talking about the looking-through-the-window HD look, certainly. What I reject is the notion that just because it's sharper it always "looks better", there are many times and circumstances where an HVX will look better too.
But lots of people won't consider that. They'll just look at the posted grabs on the internet and say "wow, this one looks better than that one." No doubt, in stills the EX1 will look sharper and more detailed with less noise.
I'm just responding to the notion that I said the EX1 doesn't produce "better" video than the HVX does. It does produce sharper imagery with less noise and it does better when you're talking about the looking-through-the-window HD look, certainly. What I reject is the notion that just because it's sharper it always "looks better", there are many times and circumstances where an HVX will look better too.
Last edited:
You guys, THE NINES was helmed on SD cams. I believe Pana SDX900's and even a smaller SD camera and it's headed toward Big Screens. John August details his experience working on it and Mike Curtis over at HDforIndies.com was the guy that consulted in part of the process.
If SD is good enough for Big Screen, why isn't the HVX?
If SD is good enough for Big Screen, why isn't the HVX?
Last edited:
aravance
Well-known member
Actually, saying that THE NINES was helmed on SD cams isn't entirely accurate. The film has different movements (a.k.a parts) and each movement uses a different format.
Part Two was the only part of the movie that was shot in Standard Definition. The rest of the movie was shot on 3-perf 35mm and Super-16.
If you don't believe me...
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/the-nines-as-planned
...straight from the horses mouth.