16 mm or HD?

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Pete Wilie

Mathieu,


My remark was indeed a "joking remark", tongue-in-cheek, as I tried to indicated with the "<bg>" tag, which means "big grin". This is just one reason we need the similies turned on in this forum. No matter how serious the subject there's always room for humor.

Best Regards,
Pete

Sorry then :-) Didn't realise it. Well, I suspected it, but... no I just fell for it ;-)

Originally Posted by Michael Summers

... do you realize what forum you have chose to post this in? you will get a biased answer anyway because everyone here is here because they want dv info!

me? 16mm in a heartbeat.

Indeed, I doubted where I would put it, I even thought to put it in Filmlook forum, or Open DV discussion, but ultimately I placed it here.

[Rob Lohman]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

Yes, that's it!
I know the word in Dutch, but sometimes it's hard to find the english one. Thanks!

What is the Dutch word? I only know the English one. Heh.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

What is the Dutch word? I only know the English one. Heh.

For Rob:
Zal dom klinken, maar 'omkeerfilm'. Of positieffilm. Of diafilm. Maar het was laat toen ik het typte, en ik kon écht niet op het woord komen :-)

[Rob Lohman]

Thanks Mathieu! It indeed sounds "stupid", as with a lot of english word
being translated into Dutch like "wagen terugloop met regel overslag". I
always have to laugh at some of the subtitles in TV shows like Star Trek.
Oh well... back to our regular programming!

[Richard Alvarez]

Okay Rob, clue us in... Does that translate to "Wagon Train in Outer Space"???

[Rob Lohman]

No, it is a literal translation of "carriage return and line feed". But yours was pretty close *grin*

[Jason Brunner]

Originally Posted by Evan C. King

I agree with you on all your points but 1 Jason. Digital is way quicker to light and set up than film.

My experience, on both films and TV spots, has been precisly opposite. And I am known for my speed, and have shot both formats for a long time. Most DP's I know would also agree, given that situations are the same.

I once had the president of a large production company ask me why film shoots were so big and messy and complicated. I told him that big messy complicated shoots tended to shoot film, because they were not interested in compromising the image after all that work. Its important not to confuse dilletanting with workflow.

Film is usually more expensive than video. That is also my experience over years and several thousand TV spots.

The thing about it is if you are low budget, then shooting film is a huge part of the budget, and when we choose it in that situation, it is because most of the time thats the best way to put what money there is in a place where it makes the most difference, and thats the end product, the screen.

On projects with reasonable budgets, the decision to shoot video is often
pushed by people in the middle or higher up, so they can put more margin thier own pocket. Not all the time, but a great deal of the time. Thats an unfortunate fact, but these are business people, and thats the way most of them think. Most of the people pushing any format, on a professional level, film included, have there own agenda, and sometimes money is the agenda. Sometimes its about having enough money to do the project at all, and sometimes its about rat holing forty grand for a new car. Sometimes its in the middle of those two extremes.
One of the reasons Im so excited about the HVX is that it promises to add a better production quality to the projects that must currently be shot MiniDV.

My question is how to bill the camera. Can I reasonably bill more for shooting
HD than SD when its the same camera? Do I charge somewhere in the middle for whatever codec? Or more for HD because of the additional workload on memory and machines?

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Jason Brunner

My question is how to bill the camera. Can I reasonably bill more for shooting
HD than SD when its the same camera? Do I charge somewhere in the middle for whatever codec? Or more for HD because of the additional workload on memory and machines?

I think you should, not because of the camera, but indeed because it's much more horsepower to edit than regular SD. That's my opinion though.
More work to edit - better picture quality-bigger price tag.
Not to rip people off, but else nobody would want SD anymore. While, for most weddings, it's more about a souvenir then resolution and so on.

[Pete Wilie]

I don't see how it is possible for S16 to cost less than HD, since S16 requires expensive film processing that HD does not. Also S16 requires that you record sound separately, adding cost for acquisition and post production.

But I especially want to address the cost of HD using the HVX100. This should cost quite a bit less than HD used to cost:

1. Cheaper camera (to buy or rent)
2. Doesn't require expensive HD decks
3. Simpler workflow

[Pete Wilie]

Here's a great explanation of the HVX100 workflow:

Originally Posted by Barry Green

But the camera itself can transfer the contents of a P2 card onto any cheap USB2 hard disk (including the ipod). So you shoot to the card for a while, and then between takes you plug in your USB drive and offload it. Using that method you could store about 8 hours of 720/24p footage for under $200. You could use your ipod to store DVCPRO-HD data. You could edit directly from the ipod or from the cheap USB2 hard disk. You could deliver that hard disk to the producer at the end of the shoot, rather than handing over a box of undigitized tapes.

[Michael Struthers]

The hvx will of course be cheaper than shooting super16mm. But it will not look as good, if you are trying to go to film out.

It will probably look fine for TV, albeit with the video look.

[Michael Struthers]

When you say "HD" I think of the Varicam or the Sony 950.

Consumer's haven't yet seen what 1/3" chip DVCPROHD looks like.

[Pete Wilie]

I submit that the HVX100 may look different from S16, but as to whether it will look better or worse is a matter of opinion. :-)

As so many have mentioned so many times, the content will be far more compelling than the media.

If the objective is to get to a distribution deal for minimal costs, then the HVX may be an excellent option. Shooting with the HVX will provide a high quality (much, much higher than the best DV camera) product that will be an excellent vehicle to promote your motion picture.

[Michael Struthers]

To get a "distribution" deal, a star is probably more important that what you are shooting on.

[Marco Leavitt]

When I said that it wouldn't be cheaper to shoot with the HVX100 right now, I was referring to the extra equipment you would need. For one thing, won't you absolutely have to have an HD monitor on the set? There's also the P2 cards and the editing and storage equipment, which is likely to be far beyond what practically anybody owns right now. As I wrote before, you could theoretically shoot a Super 16 feature for under $10,000, at least for the film stock, processing, and telecine. It's not hard envision spending that much on a DVCPRO HD workflow, although I have to confess that I only have a vague idea what it would cost. Anybody know? The latest issue of DV Magazine has an article on HDV workflows, and it's pretty daunting. Obviously, once you're all set up it would be far cheaper than Super 16 to shoot future projects.