The B I G Q.

M

mail4joeg

Well-known member
I've spent all night finally ruling OUT the hvx-200s and the Sony HDCAM EXs.

What I think I need to do is shoot my feature on the CineAlta 900 or better (rented), or the Panasonic Varicam, or better, or perhaps even 35mm. The intention is to have high quality footage that can blow up to 35mm and open on 1000 screens. This, of course, after distribution picks it up and enhances it with some high quality special effects to really sell the thing. It will have daylight, exterior scenic views with multiple cgi elements in an epic moment that will singe into people's brains. And it needs to pass for 35mm, so it's not some mockumentary shooting through a shaky camcorder type thing that they got away with in Cloverfield.

Question:

If you were going to shoot this thing, given the requirements above, which system would you use, keeping in mind the lowest cost parameter?
 
I think your ambitions are too small. Imax 3d is the only format that will prevent your feature from looking like a joke, anything less is... well... less
 
mail4joeg said:
I've spent all night finally ruling OUT the hvx-200s and the Sony HDCAM EXs.

What I think I need to do is shoot my feature on the CineAlta 900 or better (rented), or the Panasonic Varicam, or better, or perhaps even 35mm. The intention is to have high quality footage that can blow up to 35mm and open on 1000 screens. This, of course, after distribution picks it up and enhances it with some high quality special effects to really sell the thing. It will have daylight, exterior scenic views with multiple cgi elements in an epic moment that will singe into people's brains. And it needs to pass for 35mm, so it's not some mockumentary shooting through a shaky camcorder type thing that they got away with in Cloverfield.

Question:

If you were going to shoot this thing, given the requirements above, which system would you use, keeping in mind the lowest cost parameter?
Click to expand...

One word. RED. It's very cost effective. Looks great on a big screen. Easier to shoot then 35mm film (I believe) and has the monitoring advantages of video.

Matthew
 
mail4joeg said:
I've spent all night finally ruling OUT the hvx-200s and the Sony HDCAM EXs.

What I think I need to do is shoot my feature on the CineAlta 900 or better (rented), or the Panasonic Varicam, or better, or perhaps even 35mm. The intention is to have high quality footage that can blow up to 35mm and open on 1000 screens. This, of course, after distribution picks it up and enhances it with some high quality special effects to really sell the thing. It will have daylight, exterior scenic views with multiple cgi elements in an epic moment that will singe into people's brains. And it needs to pass for 35mm, so it's not some mockumentary shooting through a shaky camcorder type thing that they got away with in Cloverfield.

Question:

If you were going to shoot this thing, given the requirements above, which system would you use, keeping in mind the lowest cost parameter?
Click to expand...

What's the film's budget?
 
If you can afford 35mm and a DI, is there really a question?

A great cinematographer, some time, and a 35mm adapter could make up 90% of the difference between the HVX200 and a 35mm film cam, however.
 
If you can shoot 35, go for that.

If not, I'd look at Red - just be sure to follow the workflow all the way through then add up the cost.
 
The Roundup:

"Imax 3d is the only format..."

Comedy is not your forte.

"One word. RED."

Thanks, I'll look into it. I heard that it does up to 4k resolution? Is that what you're suggesting? Wouldn't that make post production costs go through the roof? Or perhaps some scenes at the highest format, and others at a standard HD format?

"What's the film's budget?"

Low. TBD.

"If you can shoot 35, go for that."

Probably not.

"If not, I'd look at Red - just be sure to follow the workflow all the way through then add up the cost."

Is there a webpage that goes into detail on this question?

Thanks for the informative responses.
 
mail4joeg said:
Thanks for the informative responses.
Click to expand...

Why the venom? The guy had a good point to make in that your ambition seems to be exceeding your budget, which we still don't know anything about for us to give you a recommendation. A "low" budget can be in the tens of thousands or it can be in the millions, depend on who you ask. If you can afford to rent Varicam or CineAlta and do a filmout, then you can afford to hire a competent DP and VFX artist who can make your movie looks great no matter the medium. We know nothing other than you intend your film to get pick up for a theatrical release, which is an extremely difficult feat. So give us some hard facts and not expectations.
 
It seems a weird question to ask, especially here.
It makes me think, "if you you have to ask, are you really ready to make a feature?"

"The cart before the horse" comes to mind.

You must have a bunch of money to burn or GOD is your investor, (hey it worked for Bush) , and I wish you luck with it, but if you lack even the experience to choose a medium to work on....?

You'll probably get all pissed at me for these comments, but that's exactly why you should think about it for a second. Filmmaking is probably THE hardest artform there is, and that's what attracts me to it. I can make bad movies all day long, it's pretty easy to do that, but I shoot them on something cheap because I know they're just for practice. If someone gave me a 35mm camera and all the film I wanted, and gave Soderberg, Scorcese, Spielberg... (name your fav director) a 1982 VHS camcorder, their movie would be 100 times better than mine, I'm sure of it. They are better storytellers, filmmakers, and directors than me... right now. But, I just saw some of these famous directors' early films from their college days, and I thought they kinda sucked. (ok. THX-1138 IS a classic) Their suckiness then is on par with my suckiness now, which means I might be on the right track.

Forgive me if I'm berating you, but you seem totally naive, and might reconsider the HVX, and shoot it until the P2 cards blow up. THEN you'll know what you want to shoot a feature on.


--------------------------

That was just a writing exercise. I didn't mean any of it. (except the part about THX-1138) Did it make you upset? Please vent in return, as writing exercise. You can even use it in your script if you want.

-Tim
 
Re: budget = "low"

You want answers to your equipment budget questions without giving us any idea what you have to work with? Then we get sarcastic responses?

See ya...
 
mail4joeg:

check out reduser.net Unfortunately you will probably find more questions than answers, but that is where you will find answers.

As for 4k. I'd say that if you want to do a film out, then originate on as high a quality format as you can afford. Don't forget to take in account all costs, including the final film out costs. With the red system, you can shoot in 4k, then edit in HD or SD quality proxies.

-J
 
Ted Spencer:

"Re: budget = "low"

You want answers to your equipment budget questions without giving us any idea what you have to work with? Then we get sarcastic responses?

See ya..."

There's nothing "sarcastic" in my response. Specifically, the budget will be "low." If you're referring to the juvenile sarcasm directed at me in the first response, that's hardly me to blame.

Adieu.

To reiterate -- The actual question was what is the cheapest digital film system that can pass for 35mm?

"Red" is on the table.

Seems like the most appropriate type question for this forum that I can imagine. You disagree?
 
Well, if your budget is low, then 35mm is out of the picture for you. Take a look at the cost of shooting super16, it blows up to 35mm for theatrical distribution very well.
 
"pass for 35mm"?
If RED One looked exactly like film, nobody would use film. Even on major Hollywood pictures there are issues of quality. Plenty are shot on super 16. Plenty are 35mm telecined to 2k, some are 35mm with a 4k telecine, and some originate digitally (Speed Racer and 21 stand out as recent examples).

The question you should be asking is not "will this pass for 35?" but "will the investment of an additional $x be worth the return?" There is no threshold for "quality enough".

The people that give (usually very good) free advice in this forum would be happy to give you some starting points for equipment if you gave us a budget with some numbers instead of a relative measurement.
 
ProfessorU said:
"pass for 35mm"?
If RED One looked exactly like film, nobody would use film. Even on major Hollywood pictures there are issues of quality. Plenty are shot on super 16. Plenty are 35mm telecined to 2k, some are 35mm with a 4k telecine, and some originate digitally (Speed Racer and 21 stand out as recent examples).

The question you should be asking is not "will this pass for 35?" but "will the investment of an additional $x be worth the return?" There is no threshold for "quality enough".

The people that give (usually very good) free advice in this forum would be happy to give you some starting points for equipment if you gave us a budget with some numbers instead of a relative measurement.
Click to expand...

quite true. And then there are 65mm and 70mm...
 
So you're asking what the best bang for your buck is, regardless of budget?

I would probably say Red1 or 16mm.

Of course, Red Scarlet isn't out yet...
 
mail4joeg said:
I've spent all night finally ruling OUT the hvx-200s and the Sony HDCAM EXs.

What I think I need to do is shoot my feature on the CineAlta 900 or better (rented), or the Panasonic Varicam, or better, or perhaps even 35mm. The intention is to have high quality footage that can blow up to 35mm and open on 1000 screens. This, of course, after distribution picks it up and enhances it with some high quality special effects to really sell the thing. It will have daylight, exterior scenic views with multiple cgi elements in an epic moment that will singe into people's brains. And it needs to pass for 35mm, so it's not some mockumentary shooting through a shaky camcorder type thing that they got away with in Cloverfield.

Question:

If you were going to shoot this thing, given the requirements above, which system would you use, keeping in mind the lowest cost parameter?
Click to expand...

If you think this is a tough crowd just post something similar to this over on reduser and those folks will rip you a new one. In all fairness, your op was disrespectful and borderline trollish.

best of luck with your epic.
JohnG
 
I think your forgetting that there are people on this web site who have worked in this industry worldwide for well over a decade or 2. Studied (degrees and short courses), research constantly and gained tremendous amounts of experience. All to be able to make films, tell stories, create, how ever you want to put it, by use of their craft and knowledge. Yet there are others who have the syndrome of a condition all to common to many inexperienced film makers known as the: "I've watched enough movies I know how to make them". (I don't know the full Latin name...)

This is no criticism of you or your film making experience but when such a question comes up it is easily associated with that way of thinking. Simply because there are to many variables in your question to be answered with a simple post. Some people may take offense to the fact that others who receive free advice. Try to trivialize or depreciate all the advice giver's experience, knowledge and efforts that went into gaining them. By suggesting that the efforts were frivolous seeing as all they needed to do was post a question or 2 on DVXuser and VIOLA!!!

Don't get me wrong I am a strong believer in sharing knowledge and will continue to ask for and give as accurate advise as possible. But to put things into perspective the last feature I shot was a "low budget". Currently in post I am not at liberty to give any details except that it was shot on location in Sydney Australia using a P2 system. I had introduced the DP who was predominantly used to 35mm or Varicams (on the lower budget projects) to P2. He was very happy using them on this film yet both units on his next project another "low budget" feature will be shot on RED1. As I said to many variables.

If you don't understand what I mean by to many variables refer back t the first paragraph of this post...

P.S
Sorry for the psychoanalysis guys.
 
Hey Coldpizza I belive the full Latin word is ( Ignoramus ) which means


ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘we do not know’ (in legal use ‘we take no notice of it’ ), from ignorare (see ignore ). The modern sense may derive from the name of a character in George Ruggle's Ignoramus (1615), a satirical comedy exposing lawyers' ignorance.


USAGE NOTE ignoramus
Until 1934 in England, if a grand jury considered the evidence of an alleged crime insufficient to prosecute, it would endorse the bill ignoramus, meaning literally “we do not know” or “we know nothing of this.” Long before, though, the word ignoramus had come to mean, by extension, “an ignorant person.” In 1615, George Ruggle wrote a play called Ignoramus, about a lawyer who knew nothing about the law; this fictional lawyer soon gave his name to all manner of know-nothings, whether lawyers or nonlawyers. The modern nonlegal meaning appears most frequently—e.g.: “There's no surprise—or challenge—in watching a sycophantic, misogynistic ignoramus like Burdette win out over the self-effacing, truth-loving Hutchinson.” ( Chicago Tribune; Aug. 5, 1997.)
The plural is ignoramuses. The form ignorami is a pseudo-learned blunder, since in Latin ignoramus is a verb and not one of the Latin nouns ending in -us. — BG

The difference between stupidity and ignorance is that ignorance can be cured! We all suffer from this once and awhile and then we take action or suffer the consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top