Jump to content
Ed Nyankori

Has the revolution begun?

Recommended Posts


Anybody got one yet?

 

 

There's some guys from Japan that have been conducting some tests with it. You will find some results here:

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=80

 

 

As for the revolution thing some people have been talking about, I don't think this camera will change the way people make films so drastically.

 

I think the problem is that people generally think they can make masterpieces if provided with a good piece of equipment but that's not entirely true. To me, what makes the difference is ... people.

 

When the DVX came out there was a lot of excitement in the air, it was said to be the camera that would revolutionize the film business but actually what happened was pretty much the opposite. How many films shot on this camera have become a hit ? A handful ? Not even that.

 

What happened was people started focusing on the camera and forgot to give attention to lighting, audio, blocking, and most importantly, the story.

 

So that's why the number of crappy low-budget films has skyrocketed. More and more untalented people can afford a camera like this.

 

But please don't get me wrong, I think the HVX200 is shaping up to be a great camera but I don't think it's going to be make a revolution.

 

My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hvx200 still looks like video......................period!

 

Revolution my butt!

 

There's too many details and particulars about film

that video will just never do!

 

The new StarWars was HD, and was a mistake!

 

My $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hvx200 still looks like video......................period!

 

Revolution my butt!

 

There's too many details and particulars about film

that video will just never do!

 

The new StarWars was HD, and was a mistake!

 

My $0.02.

Anyone thinking that it will replace film will be very disappointed, but it's a solid camera that gives a pretty large amount of quality for what it is. If you think of it as a Varicam-Lite, it's a pretty attractive product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hvx200 still looks like video......................period!

The new StarWars was HD, and was a mistake!

Those are some pretty broad statements. I don't think there is a "period," especially cuz I watch most of this stuff on television, not in the theater, and I think it looks great. Video is not film, and never will be. But sometimes the workflow makes better sense when purely digital (even if purely financially), and depending on the delivery method and the skill of the creators, many would be hard-pressed to tell the difference these days.

 

To my eyes, if this latest Star Wars trilogy was a mistake, it's not because of the way it was shot (well partly-- it was way too CGI, but they would've done the same thing regardless if it were on film), it's because Lucas is not a very good writer, which also reflects poorly on him when it comes to directing actors emotionally-speaking. And they were by no means even close to being the worst of the mainstream digital features of the past few years.

 

As another poster mentioned, the "films" that really bug me are the ones made with no craft that call attention to their video-ness. Still, I'd rather watch a compelling story on high-quality progressive-frame video than waste two hours on 35mm drivel. Unfortunately it doesn't happen too often, because of the mentality of how easy and cheap video is to create, thus the creators don't take it as seriously as most would with the added responsiblity due to the expense of film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the revolution thing some people have been talking about, I don't think this camera will change the way people make films so drastically.

 

The advent of 16mm had a huge impact on how films were made and who was making them. Similar to when film cameras got lighter. The changes in technique have changed the way movies are shot drastically.

 

I'm not saying the HVX200 alone will have that power, just pointing out that there is a cause/effect relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you can buy a camera that produces this quality of images for such a low price is amazing. What an opportunity to learn filmmaking! Can you imagine how long it would take to learn the basics of how your lighting design looks on screen using film? A_long_time! 24P has accelerated the learning curve of filmmaking in a way that would have taken a long, long, long time with film. I'm very appreciative of the opportunities made possible by these little cameras. Even though they don't look like film, they still look very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you can buy a camera that produces this quality of images for such a low price is amazing. What an opportunity to learn filmmaking! Can you imagine how long it would take to learn the basics of how your lighting design looks on screen using film? A_long_time! 24P has accelerated the learning curve of filmmaking in a way that would have taken a long, long, long time with film. I'm very appreciative of the opportunities made possible by these little cameras. Even though they don't look like film, they still look very good.

Ehh... I don't think learning lighting with video is significantly different from film. The lighting classes at my school are all taught on film, and you've got to wait a week to get your results back, but it's not that bad. I think you're really exaggerating what these can do- they won't make you a better filmmaker, and they won't speed up the learning process aside from saving you film-related costs and time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you can buy a camera that produces this quality of images for such a low price is amazing. What an opportunity to learn filmmaking! Can you imagine how long it would take to learn the basics of how your lighting design looks on screen using film? A_long_time! 24P has accelerated the learning curve of filmmaking in a way that would have taken a long, long, long time with film. I'm very appreciative of the opportunities made possible by these little cameras. Even though they don't look like film, they still look very good.

 

 

So people couldn't learn to light and move a camera with any other video camera thus far? Come on, people! It's a camera, not a freakin' answer to all your problems. It will not cast, schedule, and light your movie for you; it will not direct your actors to award-winning performances; it will not make your film a shu-in to Sundance; it won't even hold a microphone boom for you. I can promise you that it will take nice footage, just like any of a bunch of cameras- film and video, standard def and HD- available. It will do nothing more. Why is this camera such a big deal, other than another bunch of amateur film-makers can now think they're on the cutting edge and will make it because they're now shooting HD video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how there is so much discussion every time a new video camera comes out. :blink:

 

From the Gl2 to the XL2 to the Pansonics, everyone and his mother seem to have one, yet where are the films? Remember, there is a reason why people who make movies are called "filmmakers" and not videomakers. Once again, these companies hype their little products to the masses to make a quick profit. I say, for FILMMAKING, if you can't afford 35mm then shoot 16mm, and if you can't afford that shoot 8mm, until you can upgrade.

 

I have owned an XL2, and have worked with a few HDV cameras (which are nothing more than super super video!), I find them only good for documentaries, video training, weddings, and sports coverage. Compared to video, learning film is nothing short of beautiful, though the learning curve can be steep, but it is well worth it. How can an entire HVX200 that costs nearly 6K compete with a cine zoom lense from Zeiss or Arri that can cost close to 20K, and that's just for S16mm. Think about it guys.

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you students expect to find work shooting film? Who will pay you for those skills?

 

I bet you could find people willing to hire you more often as a video shooter. You may have to wait a while before shooting film pays your bills.

 

See where I'm coming from?

 

Try building a living sometime, it's not as easy as getting student loans. (Not trying to be condescending here, just a general note about how difficult it can be to establish yourself, that's all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you students expect to find work shooting film? Who will pay you for those skills?

 

I bet you could find people willing to hire you more often as a video shooter. You may have to wait a while before shooting film pays your bills.

 

See where I'm coming from?

 

Try building a living sometime, it's not as easy as getting student loans. (Not trying to be condescending here, just a general note about how difficult it can be to establish yourself, that's all).

 

 

Hey Brian, I agree with you but ... here's my point: maybe there's gonna be a revolution in terms of the number of people making films or learning how to make them (and then I'm with you on that) but in my opinion that doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna see better or more creative films (the revolution I was talking about)

 

I still think what makes the difference is people, the story, the intellectual side of the process. That's what's going to motivate people into watching more films and eventually change the industry. Pretty much like what happened in 1969 with "Easy Rider".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you students expect to find work shooting film? Who will pay you for those skills?

 

I bet you could find people willing to hire you more often as a video shooter. You may have to wait a while before shooting film pays your bills.

 

See where I'm coming from?

 

Try building a living sometime, it's not as easy as getting student loans. (Not trying to be condescending here, just a general note about how difficult it can be to establish yourself, that's all).

 

Hey Brian,

 

My point was not about making a living as a camera shooter. I was only talking about the larger goal of becoming a filmmaker. I've been down the video path for filmmaking after listening to all the crazy advice, and it's been a costly mistake for me personally. So my focus is the long run. You may shoot video to make a living, but keep your eyes set on film, until video one day matches it, complete with accessories and lenses.

 

As far as I am concerned, I fund my projects and shoots from working in a different field, simply because shooting video will not cut it. I spend my time to make the resources available to learn film.

 

My experience with the video world is that you will be competing with legions of people who claim they're videographers or indies, or god knows what, because they have a video camera!

 

While in the short run, for purpose of making a living, you are right, in the long run it may be harmful. Time and time again, I've noticed from the DPs who work around my area, those with film experience or background (and I don't mean just shooting film) consistently get good jobs, whether it's a decent indie or a hollywood film being shot in the area.

 

Also remember, film doesn't just entail shooting a camera. There are the operators, the assistants, the loaders, etc. So, if you are a beginner, learning how to load Aatons and Arricams may get you some decent work after all.

 

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a total self-promotion-whore (too late!), but this exact subject and the attitudes surrounding it is what my last short was about, which you can see HERE. Bonus points for being able to identify the shooting format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may shoot video to make a living, but keep your eyes set on film, until video one day matches it, complete with accessories and lenses.

Of course! The way I see it, the skills are transferable.

 

So, if you are a beginner, learning how to load Aatons and Arricams may get you some decent work after all.

At least in my area -- there is one Local 600 A.C. who doesn't get any work as it is. There just isn't any available for the younger players unless you create demand for it by offering something unique.

 

But, thank you for replying. I always enjoy reading these message boards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh complete Bla Bla Bla Bla. For one, the camera won't be hitting US hands until a few weeks most likely.

 

Number two, sure the camera CAN still look totally video-ish. But just wait until it's in the hands of somebody who is going for a dream. This camera will generate some gorgeous imagery, especially with people striving for perfection. The footage you saw is run and gun with auto modes utilized, and the guy is totally fine with just capturing the moment is very cool for supplying the footage.

 

Always gotta be someone to rain on the parade, for sure. Boo on you. Cholly Ha HA HA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really got a chance to work in the film world. Life happened and I found myself workling for a network sudio as a lighting technician then as a gaffer for field productions. Im now getting a call here and a call there as dp for brodcast video shoots. Im happy with that considering Im 4 years out of school with a family (far far away from LA or NY). Ive had some success with the DVX and have a feature thats been picked up coming out (shot on the dvx - I came in late in the year long shoot as DP but will recieve additional photography credit). My point is the dvx gave me access to filmmaking success and I plan to build on it with the HVX. Furthermore if there is one statement I remember from my FILM Theory textbook was the statement to the effect of: film will fail to be an artform until the cost of producing it is as cheap as pen and paper. Before anyone states the obvious I think it was meant to imply that in the 1920s film production costs prohibited 99% of the dreamers from weighing in....That has changed and it will continue to...

 

I think the members of this board who use the term "NEVER" probablyuse the word "LOVE" to generously as well. Do you really think 100 - 200 years from now film will still be the standard. I just dont see it. Im in my thirties and think every oscar for best feature will go to one shot on film in my lifetime but not my daughter's. Film isn't an old technology and do you really think todays viewers could tolerate the stocks and lenses of the 40s. I think they would say it looks "not quite right". I think the viewers in the future will be more comfortable with the emerging technologies of today than us image snobs safely pissing in the wind on this board.

 

My wife is a sophisticated person my father and brother phDs and they cant tell the difference from HD and film much less dv and film. They pay more attention to the story, sometimes the lighting (bless their hearts), and the overall affect of the film. Im pretty sure they represent the majority better than we do. They afterall dont like watching movies with me.

 

 

 

BTW I got a call from our local video store SHOWCASE and they have a demo cam but nothing for sale yet. The feedback I got was all positive including words like amazing and shocking. He suggested the vertrical smear wasnt apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you can buy a camera that produces this quality of images for such a low price is amazing. What an opportunity to learn filmmaking! Can you imagine how long it would take to learn the basics of how your lighting design looks on screen using film? A_long_time! 24P has accelerated the learning curve of filmmaking in a way that would have taken a long, long, long time with film. I'm very appreciative of the opportunities made possible by these little cameras. Even though they don't look like film, they still look very good.

 

I bought my Auricon for ~$400. It shoots 16mm, with an optical sound track, and gets results far better than HDV. I'm a year out of high school, and I'm well on the way to learning the curve of filmmaking with film. If you aren't serious enough to find a deal with 16mm equipment, then you probably don't have the tenacity to put together a serious short film, with ANY equipment. The logistics involved in making a dramatic film are tremendous, and I don't care what you're using. The camera is the smallest of many challenges involved in the filmmaking process.

 

Regards.

 

Karl Borowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Do you really think 100 - 200 years from now film will still be the standard. I just dont see it. Im in my thirties and think every oscar for best feature will go to one shot on film in my lifetime but not my daughter's. ...

In 100 - 200 years time I think there's at least a 50% chance China, India or one or more Islamic nations -- not the US, the EU, or the "West" -- will wield the greatest influence over which motion picture technologies are most frequently used for production and distribution.

 

I have no idea if these nations do or will prefer film or video technology, but given the near-total social, political and economic change which would accompany such a complete shift, I think it's a pretty safe bet that trying to "project" 100- 200 years into the future of motion picture technology is impossible. Do you know what China wants? Neither do I.

 

So, for now, shoot video, shoot film, learn how to light, direct, write, act, edit and so forth -- and be happy. In 100 - 200 years, the format you use now will be the fairly insignificant.

 

But with one huge exception: We already know that good ol' film has much better archival characteristics compared to video and digital technologies. So, if you want your work "to last" 100- 200 years, either shoot on film, or transfer your video to film as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, people! It's a camera, not a freakin' answer to all your problems. It will not cast, schedule, and light your movie for you.

Actually, that's pretty much the reason we're all digging the HVX so much. Maybe you haven't seen the production model yet?

 

IMG_0217.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 100 - 200 years time I think there's at least a 50% chance China, India or one or more Islamic nations -- not the US, the EU, or the "West" -- will wield the greatest influence over which motion picture technologies are most frequently used for production and distribution.

 

I have no idea if these nations do or will prefer film or video technology, but given the near-total social, political and economic change which would accompany such a complete shift, I think it's a pretty safe bet that trying to "project" 100- 200 years into the future of motion picture technology is impossible. Do you know what China wants? Neither do I.

 

So, for now, shoot video, shoot film, learn how to light, direct, write, act, edit and so forth -- and be happy. In 100 - 200 years, the format you use now will be the fairly insignificant.

 

But with one huge exception: We already know that good ol' film has much better archival characteristics compared to video and digital technologies. So, if you want your work "to last" 100- 200 years, either shoot on film, or transfer your video to film as soon as possible.

 

Firstly I don't understand why India and China are bundled with Islamic countries. Secondly I fail to see how it wont be a western economic choice over whether film survives or not- at the end of the day it will be Kodak and to a lesser extent Fuji's economic forcasts that decide whether or not film carries on getting supported (anyone shot on Agfa recentl?). Do I know what China wants? Do you mean politically or economically? They are the fastest growing economy and are heavily invested in technology (the fact they bought IBM gives that away), so I'd have thought they'd be more likely to invest in digital technology than reserecting film. As for Islamic countries, I fail to see how Turkey's relationship to film usage is related to Iran's for example. Finally the archival myth, this is complete nonsense, based on the fact that everyone has a few zip discs and no way to read the media! If film was such a great archival medium why would we spend millions every year digitally restoring old film? Whilst I agree there are problems with digital storage data in itself does not detiriorate- it is not organic so how can it? Don't get me wrong I'm not a death to film guy, but lets have some perspective.

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If film was such a great archival medium why would we spend millions every year digitally restoring old film?

 

Keith

 

Hi,

 

Producers in the past wanted to save money too!

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Tai Audio



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Glidecam



    FJS International



    Serious Gear



    Just Cinema Gear



    Visual Products



    The Original Slider



    Ritter Battery



    Paralinx LLC



    Wooden Camera



    Rig Wheels Passport



    G-Force Grips


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...