What would you do?

[Phil Maker]

I have a great ultra low budget script that I want to produce myself. I have no money. I have a $35,000 HVX package. I also have access to a great D.P. who owns his own Super 16mm package, and is willing to work for a ridiculously low rate and a back end deal. My dilemma is this: should I shoot with the HVX package I already own, or should I sell my HVX package so I can buy film and shoot with my friend's Super 16?

 

[btownproductions]

$35,000?? Just curious to know what exactly you have in this package. I know if I spent that much money on my camera I'd definitly want to use it...

 

[Bucknfl]

If you have no money how are you going afford film stock, processing, and film to tape transfer? Spend your money that you don't have on lighting, crew, and actors, and food.

 

[mjjason]

I would use the HVX. You have already invested so much into it might as well use it for what its made for. Plenty of sucessfull movies have been made with digital cameras. The camera will not be the defining factor of your film.

 

[btownproductions]

I agree with both of the above posts... Lighting plays a HUGE part in how good your film will turn out, also don't skimp on sound, it plays a big role as well. and feeding the crew and actors is always good lol

 

[Phil Maker]

The $35,000 includes lighting, sound, support and everything. If I shoot with my HVX I have no money for crew etc. If I sell it and shoot Super 16 I have money for film stock, crew, craft services etc.

 

[btownproductions]

well I guess that's kind of a tough choice... If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Go with film if thats what you can afford. But if you can get a crew that will for for free/cheap I'd try to pull that off. On the other hand, if you're selling your kit, I may be interested in taking some of it off your hands, PM me with a list of what you've got and we'll talk if you're interested

 

[David Jimerson]

Are you going to make money on this film?

If you have no money, seems kind of . . . dubious . . . to spend $35K on something that's not going to give you any return.

Yeah, every film's a risk, but . . .

 

[Phil Maker]

I've gotten a lot of work with my HVX. It's been real good to me. I hear HVX movies are flooding the film festivals right now. I think film would help me to stand out in the crowd. Plus, I can't get over how much I love the look of the Super 16 stuff.


Since everyone here is an HVX owner and lover, the reactions may be biased...

A better question might be:

All things being equal, if given the choice, would you shoot Super 16 or HVX?

 

[btownproductions]

All things being equal, if given the choice, would you shoot Super 16 or HVX?

That's a tough one... I like the HVX as far as ease of use, but it still can't look exactly the same as film will no matter what effects/adapters you use. I was close to buying a 16mm Krasnogorsk off ebay to toy around with since you can get them for around $350.

It would be a good investment since you can sell them right back for the same amount you paid, but film stock and processing is where the real cost comes in. Not too mention, you really need to know your stuff to get the lighting/exposure/focus just right, and since once you've shot your footage, you can't go back on it without a reshoot, the costs will be high unless you're really confident shooting film.

I'd still love to give it a shot though once I get some money together, I'm sure I could learn a lot through shooting on film.

 

[John Caballero]

Do some short test clip with the HVX, after all you have all the equipment needed. Take a good look at it and decide. Are you going to sell your lights and support equipment too? You think you are going to get the 35 grand back?
And remember, it is not only about the 16mm film; it is about the story, the acting and the lighting among many things. If you shoot it properly your audience won’t even notice or care if it is 1080p HVX or 16mm film. Good luck.

 

[puredrifting]

As the owner of a S16 camera and an HVX package with a Letus, I would undoubtedly sell off some of your stuff so that you can feed your crew, location fees, etc. but I would keep and shoot with your HVX.

Yes, S16 can look a bit better than the HVX but the S16 will have more depth of field than your HXV with a 35mm adapter. Film stock is expensive and so is lab unless you are shoting a very small amount of footage.

If you don't have professional ACs, or lots of film experience yourself there is also a decent chance you will mess up your film, inadvertently flash it or have a hair in the gate or something.

Exposing film correctly is much easier than the HVX in my opinion. I was doing a tabletop shoot yesterday with a tiny silver painted object and no matter what I did, I was still exceeding 100 ire on the highlights. The object was 2" long so flagging a softlight was impossible. In film, that would have been easy but with the limited dynamic range of video, it was a bear.

That said, the freedom and cost savings that you will gain by using your HVX far outweigh the slight aesthetic advantages that S16 MIGHT have (if you know what you are doing).

HVX-200 + 35mm adapter and good glass + Magic Bullet Looks = a very nice looking image. Also, if you are a nobody (commercially) making a no budget film, the aesthetic differences will ot matter one iota, only your script, performances with names and direction will make anyone even look at it.

Dan

 

[robmneilson]

This is what credit cards are for...shoot with your camera and take a cash advance to pay the crew, or keep your camera and shoot super 16 and buy the film with credit.

Selling your camera for film stock just seems stupid to me.

 

[wgzn]

This is what credit cards are for

a great example of why the american financial system is in the crapper. how's he going to pay back the credit cards if the movies a stinker?

 

[ddp]

a great example of why the american financial system is in the crapper. how's he going to pay back the credit cards if the movies a stinker?

On the other hand, what if the movie's not a stinker?


Some people are just bigger risk takers then others. It worked for Howard Hughes but that's one in a million right?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Some people are just bigger risk takers then others. It worked for Howard Hughes but that's one in a million right?

It's not really risky when you can afford to lose it.
Howard Hughes didn't have to sell his gear to feed his crew.

 

[Phil Maker]

Like I said, if we take all the selling gear ideas out of the equation, and we have a professional crew and D.P. who has shot with film for 17 years, which would you go with HVX or S16?

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Like I said, if we take all the selling gear ideas out of the equation, and we have a professional crew and D.P. who has shot with film for 17 years, which would you go with HVX or S16?

But that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Is it even an option for you to shoot on S16 without selling your gear?


Regardless - I'd say HVX.
You honestly think anyone is going to watch your film and think... "you know, if only it was shot on S16 I'd buy this and distribute it right now."
The difference between those two mediums is not going to make a bit of difference in the success of your film.
Your story, acting, directing, editing will trump it all.

If we were talking about DV vs. 35mm then obviously there is a big difference in quality to consider.
But HVX vs. S16?

Given your situation I would go with the cheaper option - HVX.

 

[wgzn]

superb point luis! and this industry [and this forum] could benefit from similar logic.

"are there any movies shot with HVX?"
"what settings did they use?"
"what NLE did they use?"

doesnt matter a hill o beans unless you have a well written script, well acted cast and a smart director. and if you have any of those - hell. you could shoot the damned thing on VHS!

 

[THoff]

The only caveat is that a S16 or HPX setup would do better in low light, which could be handy with a horror movie. Another option would be to shoot on the HVX and rent an HPX for the night scenes if you find that the HVX isn't sensitive enough.