SHOT IN HDV IF YOU HAVE THE $$$

Post by **ccortez** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:20 pm

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Or you could buy a Sony HDR-FX1 HDV for $ 3,699.99 if you want to save a few bucks.

A little bit easier to afford.

Or the Z1U for $5k. (Ours came last week.) But you still don't get usable 24p. And you have to upgrade nearly every aspect of your workflow to handle the "uncompressed" images. And you're still stuck with a probably crappy tape format.

Post by **shralp** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:24 pm

A few comments here on the HDV cameras. Really, were talking apples and oranges here when comparing any video format to Super 8mm, (just like always on this forum), so I'm not going to open up a can of theoretical worms by making comments on which is "better" because this is, like always, absurdly pointless...

Anyway.

The preliminary tests that we've done with the new Sony Z1U have been pretty interesting. I've shot with both this camera and the F900 so I'm pretty comfortable making a comparison at this point. The Sony HDV camera, for $5,000, is pretty damn amazing. The ability to tweak the gamma, knee, and detail has already shown us that you can dial in some really nice looks with it. As for the 24p and 30p, as mentioned in an earlier post, yes its basically "simulated" not true 24P / 30P. The 24p is a bit weird for me, pretty juttery, and definitely not good for any sort of action. The 30p however, is a really nice look and I really like it alot. Our main concerns at this point are how the camera will render fast action when you slow mo it, (when shot at both 30p and 1080i). This is due mainly to the MPEG-2 compression and the fact that its an intra-frame GOP, (group of pictures) process and not interframe like standard compression. Also, when compared to the F900, MPEG-2 is not even going to come close if you're trying to do any sort of compositing as well. That said, two shots side by side with the low dollar and an HDCAM? C'mon, we're talking a $100,000 difference here! I'm not sayin that its looks $100,000 better but jeez, lets not try to compare the two. All I'm saying is that what you get for $5k in this camera looks DAMN good. Definitely stomps my PD-150 too...

Post by **ccortez** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:25 pm

Carlos 8mm wrote:
reflex wrote:
mattias wrote: but why would you buy it even if you won the lottery?
I doubt I'd rush out and buy an Arri 235, but an A-Minima would be incredibly tempting.
Sure!

Buying HD Digital Cameras is complete waste of money, unless you offer to rent that camera to filmmakers...
.

And/or shoot like hell with it for a year or less then sell it on ebay for whatever the going rate. That's our current plan with the Z1U, and one of the reasons we got the latest, greatest prosumer offering -- so that hopefully in a year we'll get enough for it to make it worth it.

(For the record, each of us in the group did our own DD on the subject and I recommended against buying anything.)

c.

Post by **PITIRRE** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:15 pm

Of course you rent and not buy, but with the rent of a HD pro camera you can buy a state of the art super 8 or maybe a 16mm that each one had more resolutions lines that many of the prosumer video cameras in the market.

Post by **mattias** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:06 pm

PITIRRE wrote:with the rent of a HD pro camera you can buy a state of the art super 8 or maybe a 16mm

and for the price of those you can rent a complete kit with a really good camera and lenses for several weeks. what i'm saying is that whatever camera you want to use i suggest you rent it. you'll get much more for your money and remain much more flexible in the future. if you want to own a camera for your own pleasure and to experiment or shoot home movies super 8 is great, but i strongly discourage you from investing in camera gear for the purposes of "real" filmmaking.

/matt

Post by **PITIRRE** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:10 pm

And I agree 100% with that.

Post by **Super8freakazoid24** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:10 pm

I think Robert Rodriquez had the right idea, in his book "Rebel Without A Crew," he mentions not to spend a lot of money on a camera and rather find some dude who has one and borrow it. You could probably also rent from an organization like Film Arts here in San Francisco. You have to take a class or two of course but then you can rent cams. For a DVX-100A they charge $125 per day and for an Arri 16s it's $60 a day. Pretty cheap if you ask me.

Kev

Post by **ccortez** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:35 pm

Super8freakazoid24 wrote:I think Robert Rodriquez had the right idea, in his book "Rebel Without A Crew," he mentions not to spend a lot of money on a camera and rather find some dude who has one and borrow it. You could probably also rent from an organization like Film Arts here in San Francisco. You have to take a class or two of course but then you can rent cams. For a DVX-100A they charge $125 per day and for an Arri 16s it's $60 a day. Pretty cheap if you ask me.

Kev

Yeah, it's just like RR to roll boxcars and then act like he invented dice... ;)

Post by **mattias** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:07 pm

ccortez wrote:Yeah, it's just like RR to roll boxcars and then act like he invented dice... ;)

haha, that's funny. i agree. all that is fine as long as he's trying to stir up hollywood where people have long forgotten everything about everything, but it's sad that the kids think he invented everything. i plead guilty to referring to some techniques as "el mariachi techniques" but how else will people understand? it's not like "stranger than paradise techniques" rings any bells for most people -- and now i'm sure some old fart will point me to something made in the 20's or so and tell me it's just like 30-year-olds to think jim jarmusch invented indie filmmaking... :-)

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:26 am

I'm going to get really beat up for saying this but the real reasons that so many beginning film makers want to own their own equipment are

A) They think the equipment, rather than technique, is the answer to creating a quality project

and

B) They're afraid to rent because, deep down, they know they don't have a viable plan for their film, aren't sure about how to logically approach it, and are afraid they'll run out of rental money before they finish their project. If they own their camera, then they can screw up all they want and not have to worry about getting the camera back to the rental shop on time.

Sorry, but it had to be said.......

Roger

Post by **ccortez** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:37 am

MovieStuff wrote:I'm going to get really beat up for saying this but the real reasons that so many beginning film makers want to own their own equipment are

A) They think the equipment, rather than technique, is the answer to creating a quality project

and

B) They're afraid to rent because, deep down, they know they don't have a viable plan for their film, aren't sure about how to logically approach it, and are afraid they'll run out of rental money before they finish their project. If they own their camera, then they can screw up all they want and not have to worry about getting the camera back to the rental shop on time.

Sorry, but it had to be said.......

Roger

ha

i thought it was because there IS no project, but cameras sure are cool! ;)

c.

Post by **bakanosaru** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:39 pm

I thought it was to spend hours testing them in comparison to others, then debating ad infinitum about their non-stick coating,
narrow gate,
superior lens,
how much better they are than their Japanese equivalents,
and better resolution than the latest video format.

:?

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:23 pm

Seeing as the last remark was aimed at me, I guess...

Here's the real test of who's living in a misguided zone (and probably happily, don't let me burst your bubble): open your fridge or freezer and count how many boxes of film you've got. And when exactly are you shooting that project on the drawing board?

Personally, I have zero motion picture stock in my fridge as of today and only purchase film fresh when I'm going to shoot something, I own only two super 8 cameras, and even rent or borrow high end video equipment when I need it. The only reason to maybe have a stockpile of film in your fridge of more than a couple left over carts, is if you're into the sound film hobby aspect. Which is fine.

I disagree with Roger. When I think of all the great low budget films of the past that were only possible with the filmmakers owning their own small gauge equipment and shooting over a greatly extended and unpredictable schedule, it's pretty staggering. The filmmakers I've met and read about who couldn't have done it any other way makes for a pretty large list. His own Jet Benny would not have been possible if he didn't own the camera he shot it with.

What should you own or rent? Depends on your circumstances. Learning how cinematography and shooting motion picture stock really works? Ownership of a decent small guage camera with maximum manual control ends up a requirement. And you've got to use it and fail a bunch. Shooting stop motion? Then even an old pin-registered 35mm camera becomes a potentially reasonable investment when you add things up.

Besides my film in fridge comment which is the real "test" of these things, another is the determination to buy a super16 camera when you're not a working cinematographer making a good living at it. Even if you are one it's a mistake! Hahahaha -- sorry to laugh but Nigel's always ready to sell his Aaton at a drop of a hat (or $15,000). And who can blame him? He's got the experience he needs and now only needs the production to rent such a camera when he's working.

Yes, a small guage super 8 or regular 16 with full manual control is all you really do need to own so you can learn how it works. There's just no getting around that. And you only have to spend a few hundred bucks. But there is no legitimate reason to own a super16 camera and tie up 10's of thousands -- and end up renting the lenses anyways. Nor is there any legitimate reason to have a fridge full of movie film you're stockpiling for that big dream project.

Post by **paul** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:37 pm

MovieStuff wrote:
B) They're afraid to rent because, deep down, they know they don't have a viable plan for their film, aren't sure about how to logically approach it, and are afraid they'll run out of rental money before they finish their project. If they own their camera, then they can screw up all they want and not have to worry about getting the camera back to the rental shop on time.
Roger

I think this is largely correct. It doesn't make a lot of sense to rent equipment if there is no plan for a film.

Personally I would rent equipment if I was confident about my screenplay and had a good team to work with. But writing screenplays; that's what I find most difficult, but I will keep on trying an I feel I'm making progress bit by bit. For some time now I refuse to make a film without a good screenplay. It simply doesn;t make sense.

I also think it will be easier to find funding for your film if you can present a good plan to the fundgivers (or whatever they are called in english). So that way you plan will get a bigger chance to become reality. Also if you have a good plan you really believe in, your motivation to realise it will be much stronger and fruitfull.

In the coming time I plan to make a few shorts on super 8, since I feel I am still in the experimental/learning fase. When confident enought I will go for a more professional approach. it doens't make sense to spend a lot of money on experiments.

However, I would hesitate at renting a professional cam, since I would be afraid I will not know how to operate it since it is not the same as a super 8 cam. I don't know how realistic this is; if the differences can be easily overcome or not. This would be my main reaon to buy a cheap 16mm cam first before renting one.

Paul

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:15 pm

Santo wrote: I disagree with Roger. When I think of all the great low budget films of the past that were only possible with the filmmakers owning their own small gauge equipment and shooting over a greatly extended and unpredictable schedule, it's pretty staggering. The filmmakers I've met and read about who couldn't have done it any other way makes for a pretty large list. His own Jet Benny would not have been possible if he didn't own the camera he shot it with.

Jet Benny is a poor choice to counter my statement since we intended to shoot in Super 8 for the particular look and it would have been foolish to rent a super 8 camera when one could be bought for less. And, make no mistake, I had no idea what I was doing on Jet Benny so owing a camera certainly helped! Also, I did not say that my statement applied to all beginning film makers. Clearly, there are many that own their own equipment because it offers a freedom and economy that renting would not and they produce terrific results (Jet Benny is not an example of that practice, however). Just as clearly, what I wrote applies to the larger majority of beginning film makers that would run out of camera rental money before they ever exposed a frame of film through nothing but lack of intertia and indecision.

Roger[/i]