Varicam or cineAlta

[KenBishops]

I am in the middle of setting up a Video Production Company and Ive been speaking to people about what equipments I might need. I want to shoot reall high end music videos for the UK market. Im working with a Camera man who works with the BBC in the UK in the interim and It seems like we would be in this together all the way, though I dont know his full capabilities as yet. Ive been strongly advised to go HD CineAlta or Varicam but opinions vary on which would be best suited for my music projects. Ive been offered a training course for my camera Guy by the prospective supplier of the cameras but knowing very little about filming im quite confused on how to proceed. Has anyone used both cameras to deduce which may be best suited for me?, Does using HD mean I can shoot high end music videos in the UK?, what other considerations will I need to implement?, are these cameras extremely complicated to familarize ie for my camera guy who currently works with the BBC in filming. Am i goin doen the right track or is this a bad investment?.

 

Your help is most appreciated.

Thank you all.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Ive been strongly advised to go HD CineAlta or Varicam but opinions vary on which would be best suited for

> my music projects.

 

I'm surprised that you have had varying opinions. The only reason you would buy the F900 in this case (and frankly you'd buy an F750 as they're cheaper and so nearly as good it's irrelevant) is if you had a client with very specific technical requirements for a 1080-line finish. Otherwise, the varicam's ability to shoot off frame rates is killer here, as music promos very often use overcranking.

 

> Has anyone used both cameras to deduce which may be best suited for me?

 

I have used the varicam several times and the F750 (practically identical to the 900) briefly. They are both, to all intents and purposes, "just another video camera", although of course the requirements on every department - from focus puller to makeup - are greater when shooting HD.

 

Personally I would most certainly buy the Varicam, especially if you are intending to do inhouse postproduction, as you can deal with DVCPRO-100 material on a reasonably inexpensive Apple Mac edit suite.

 

> Does using HD mean I can shoot high end music videos in the UK?

 

Technically speaking yes, many are done that way - although I would caution that actually finding the work is of course not that simple!

 

> are these cameras extremely complicated to familarize

 

No, but I would be cautious about using people who haven't shot this kind of production before. The style of shooting is very different to what your colleague may have done at the BBC and there's a great and changing emphasis on the visual appeal of the thing. That said, as I say the technology is really just another video camera, if a bit higher resolution, and you can apply all the usual tricks to make things a little nicer - lower the detail settings, reduce edge enhancement, set up interesting-looking gamma curves, etc. And you should, because there's much less range to grade even really good video than there is film. Competent grading is critical to video, even more than film which has a look of its own built in even if you print it flat.

 

And of course, SD delivery from an HD master does tend to look fairly good anyway!

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

This is an issue which I often have to deal with, as Music promos form a large part of my work. My first question would have to be: Why buy a camera?

 

In the UK, top end promos are shot on 35mm. Lower down the ladder, around the £30-50K region, people shoot Super 16. There is still a huge demand for film in the promo world. In my experience, any time a budget gets above about £10k, the label will be expecting you to shoot film, and you will have a hard time convincing them otherwise. It's not that s16 is better than HD, it's just that's their mindset.

 

Budgets are being squeezed all the time, and the new arrival of HDV has added yet another variable to the mix.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is with numerous different formats competing for ever-decreasing budgets, I would be very wary of saddling myself with a £50k + camera that I couldn't guarantee to keep working.

[KenBishops]

Thanks Phil. Just out of curiousity mate may I ask where your filming is based.

[KenBishops]

Thanks for your reply. In response to your question, I intend to buy the camera, so i can do all my projects inhouse. I didnt really want to bother with renting or paying huge chunks to shoot videos. A little while ago my privious partner was signed to EMI and they were paying huge chunks in the regioun of 40k for shoots, with that in consideration I decided to acquire my own camera.

 

You wrote that top end videos are shot on 35mm, is that better than HD. And lastly when I compare british music Videos to the american videos I find IMHO the brits seem behind behind and the american videos seem much sharper and crispier. A mate suggested they shooting on old technology mostly and thats part of the contributing factors to us wanting to go HD.

 

Thanks one again I really appreciate your time and advice.

 

This is an issue which I often have to deal with, as Music promos form a large part of my work. My first question would have to be: Why buy a camera?

 

In the UK, top end promos are shot on 35mm. Lower down the ladder, around the £30-50K region, people shoot Super 16. There is still a huge demand for film in the promo world. In my experience, any time a budget gets above about £10k, the label will be expecting you to shoot film, and you will have a hard time convincing them otherwise. It's not that s16 is better than HD, it's just that's their mindset.

 

Budgets are being squeezed all the time, and the new arrival of HDV has added yet another variable to the mix.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is with numerous different formats competing for ever-decreasing budgets, I would be very wary of saddling myself with a £50k + camera that I couldn't guarantee to keep working.

[Stuart Brereton]

You wrote that top end videos are shot on 35mm, is that better than HD. And lastly when I compare british music Videos to the american videos I find IMHO the brits seem behind behind and the american videos seem much sharper and crispier

 

Most UK promos are shot on s16. A few are 35mm. If you find American videos to look sharper that because far more of them are shot on 35mm. 35mm is 'better' than HD in just about every way. It's also much more expensive.

 

As far your investment goes, let's say you spend £80k on a basic package. If you do two promos a month, two day shoot, that's 48 days a year, or £1666 a day for your camera if you average over one year. Renting a camera would probably cost you less than half that.

 

Two promos a month might not sound like much, but it's a lot of work for just two people, assuming that you can even get that much work. £40k promos do not grow on trees any more, and the competition for them is fierce.

 

I don't own a camera, but friends of mine do, and they reckon they need 2 days per WEEK, not per month to make the camera pay for itself.

 

If you can do that, then that's one less thing to worry about, but you'll still have to deal with the fact that with bigger budgets, record labels want film, not HD.

 

Sorry to sound so negative, but basing an investment on projected returns from promos is a dangerous game at the moment...

[KenBishops]

So in effect all the talk about HD e.g cineAlta/Varicam replicating the same effect of film is garbage.

 

My Understanding was that the human eye wasnt capable of discering the difference. I am not restricted by budget stuart so can I ask in your opinion the top film cameras?

 

Thank you

 

 

So in effect all the talk about HD e.g cineAlta/Varicam replicating the same effect of film is garbage.

 

My Understanding was that the human eye wasnt capable of discering the difference. I am not restricted by budget stuart so can I ask in your opinion the top film cameras?

 

Thank you

 

Most UK promos are shot on s16. A few are 35mm. If you find American videos to look sharper that because far more of them are shot on 35mm. 35mm is 'better' than HD in just about every way. It's also much more expensive.

 

As far your investment goes, let's say you spend £80k on a basic package. If you do two promos a month, two day shoot, that's 48 days a year, or £1666 a day for your camera if you average over one year. Renting a camera would probably cost you less than half that.

 

Two promos a month might not sound like much, but it's a lot of work for just two people, assuming that you can even get that much work. £40k promos do not grow on trees any more, and the competition for them is fierce.

 

I don't own a camera, but friends of mine do, and they reckon they need 2 days per WEEK, not per month to make the camera pay for itself.

 

If you can do that, then that's one less thing to worry about, but you'll still have to deal with the fact that with bigger budgets, record labels want film, not HD.

 

Sorry to sound so negative, but basing an investment on projected returns from promos is a dangerous game at the moment...

[Stuart Brereton]

So in effect all the talk about HD e.g cineAlta/Varicam replicating the same effect of film is garbage.

 

I've got to be very careful how I answer this - I don't want to start another Film vs. Video argument ;-)

 

HD cameras, like the CineAlta, in Progressive mode, well set up, and well lit, can look very similar to film. They are commonly believed to have a resolution somewhere between 16mm and 35mm, although they lack exposure latitude and color information compared to film.

 

These are not the reasons why top-flight promos use film rather than HD. That is about Prestige. Film has a notion of quality and expense about it, which even these days, when HD is making great advances, still remains.

 

As for which Film camera to buy, money no object?

 

16mm: Arri SR3 Advanced shooting kit £100k ish

35mm: Arri 435 shooting kit £250k ish

 

Ultimately, if you're basing your income projection purely on promos, there is no point in buying a camera in this price range. I would love to buy myself an older Arri SR, but even at second hand prices it's hard to justify the expense for a camera that you might use twice a month. Now, if you're shooting episodic TV or a long running Doco or something, then you can get back a large part of your investment fairly quickly, otherwise rent, rent, rent, and spend the money you've saved on kit that you can use no matter what format you end up shooting on.

[KenBishops]

Appreciate your candour mate thank you so much for your time in explaining profusely the different options and suitabilities in my circumstance. Thank you.

 

I really want my own gear as my sole objective is to set up a lable at some point.

 

I guess I have to investigate this a bit more so to accertain the compatability issues i might be faced with considering the fact that there is currently so much talk at the moment about what way technology is going in the near future as you prob. know theres a lot of talk about HD thats why i opted for that initially.

 

I checked your website and im loving all the filming contained in it. It goes withoutout saying that youve got the eye. Thumbs up and thanks again.

 

I've got to be very careful how I answer this - I don't want to start another Film vs. Video argument ;-)

 

HD cameras, like the CineAlta, in Progressive mode, well set up, and well lit, can look very similar to film. They are commonly believed to have a resolution somewhere between 16mm and 35mm, although they lack exposure latitude and color information compared to film.

 

These are not the reasons why top-flight promos use film rather than HD. That is about Prestige. Film has a notion of quality and expense about it, which even these days, when HD is making great advances, still remains.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The main problem I have experienced when shooting promos on video is that if you shoot film you are forced to have a telecine session with, usually, at least some basic opportunity to grade the image. Because you do not need to telecine video, there is often an assumption that the entire process can be overlooked, or that grading can be thrown on in the last half hour by the editor. In fact I find that video needs even more careful grading than film; there's a need to pick a look at impose that on the image quite firmly, whereas you can pick a filmstock that has a certain characteristic - deep blacks, low contrast, whatever - kind of built into it, or graded into it even if you just get a one-light. Not to say that there's anything off the peg about well graded film, but video does need additional attention in that area which is so often overlooked. This doesn't have to be technologically expensive, it can be done in After Effects or Final Cut if your director is understanding about non-realtime systems, but it must BE done.

 

> Thanks Phil. Just out of curiousity mate may I ask where your filming is based.

 

London.

 

The HD or film thing, if you're talking about an SD deliverable, is a pretty fine line. The only real issue then is dynamic range, and you can light and grade round that just as you noise-reduce around film grain if you want it smooth. Human eyes that aren't conditioned to look at it will not see the difference, or find the difference objectionable. Film can look somehow richer or optionally rough and grungy in some rather nice ways; HD can look smoother without the smearing of grain-reduced film, especially if you wish to deliver HD as well (16mm to HD can look fairly rough in many circumstances).

 

My only unequivocal recommendation would be to not hire a director of photography who's only shot film, or a video cameraman who's only done news and straight documentary - it's a discipline between the two.

 

Phil

[KenBishops]

Thanks again phil. are you saying that grading is easier when shooting film? Im also based in north London. Do you currently know of any music videos in the Uk or Us that has been shot on HD? Also as im not budget restricted, would you recommend going 35m over HD is it going to be easy to get conversant with ie my camera guy. Ive been told by a forum mate that the music industry in the UK rarely accept non 35m in the top end of the market as its a trend thing. just wondered if your opinion differs on that. Appreciate all the advice, its really great and absolutly helpful feedback from you guys.

Thanks.

 

Hi,

 

The main problem I have experienced when shooting promos on video is that if you shoot film you are forced to have a telecine session with, usually, at least some basic opportunity to grade the image. Because you do not need to telecine video, there is often an assumption that the entire process can be overlooked, or that grading can be thrown on in the last half hour by the editor. In fact I find that video needs even more careful grading than film; there's a need to pick a look at impose that on the image quite firmly, whereas you can pick a filmstock that has a certain characteristic - deep blacks, low contrast, whatever - kind of built into it, or graded into it even if you just get a one-light. Not to say that there's anything off the peg about well graded film, but video does need additional attention in that area which is so often overlooked. This doesn't have to be technologically expensive, it can be done in After Effects or Final Cut if your director is understanding about non-realtime systems, but it must BE done.

 

> Thanks Phil. Just out of curiousity mate may I ask where your filming is based.

 

London.

 

The HD or film thing, if you're talking about an SD deliverable, is a pretty fine line. The only real issue then is dynamic range, and you can light and grade round that just as you noise-reduce around film grain if you want it smooth. Human eyes that aren't conditioned to look at it will not see the difference, or find the difference objectionable. Film can look somehow richer or optionally rough and grungy in some rather nice ways; HD can look smoother without the smearing of grain-reduced film, especially if you wish to deliver HD as well (16mm to HD can look fairly rough in many circumstances).

 

My only unequivocal recommendation would be to not hire a director of photography who's only shot film, or a video cameraman who's only done news and straight documentary - it's a discipline between the two.

 

Phil

[Phil Rhodes]

> are you saying that grading is easier when shooting film?

 

Not at all. There may, in some circumstances, be more range to play with; when shooting HD you generally want to have something of the final characteristics of the image recorded on set, whereas with film you might just decide to shoot it fairly flat and style it up later. But it's not going to be specifically more challenging to do one or the other.

 

> Do you currently know of any music videos in the Uk or Us that has been shot on HD?

 

Only what I've done. Actually I've had SD stuff play MTV, so it's not like it's even an HD only thing.

 

> Also as im not budget restricted, would you recommend going 35m over HD is it going to be easy to get

> conversant with ie my camera guy.

 

It's not going to be particularly easy to get a video camera person acquainted with film, just as it isn't particularly easy to get a film camera person acquainted with video (speaking as someone who's been involved with both). What I don't quite get is that your budget statements - you will eventually be budget limited if you intend this to be a business not a charity; while Mr. Brereton is correct in that the cachet of 35mm is unbeatable, there are precious few outfits around who can afford to do it. The running costs of film, particularly 35mm, are swingeing, and you obviously need to be turning a profit somewhere.

 

It is easier to take this sort of stance with HD as once you own the equipment it costs very little to use it, if you're willing to overlook servicing the debt, which gives you a lot more flexibility in the sort of work you do; I would be confiden that there's much more work out there that can afford HD than can afford 35, and if you are a new company it is unrealistic to expect to land the very big jobs immediately, no matter how good you are.

 

I would not recommend owning 35mm equipment in any case; there's such a huge variety of it, and it's all so horrendously expensive, that you're going to be in for a seven figure sum before you can really call yourself comprehensively equipped. Let the rental houses deal with it.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

would you recommend going 35m over HD

 

In this country the competition is between 16mm and HD. They are much closer in terms of both quality and costs.

 

Ive been told by a forum mate that the music industry in the UK rarely accept non 35m in the top end of the market as its a trend thing. just wondered if your opinion differs on that. Appreciate all the advice, its really great and absolutly helpful feedback from you guys.

Thanks.

 

Although it's true that there are 35mm promos made in this country, it's a very small group of artists who have the budget for it, certainly not enough to build a business around.

 

If you're talking about larger budget promos (£20k+) then it's going to be either 16mm or HD. They both have their advantages, but film is preferred for its' cachet. But, as I've said, they are both huge investments if you want to own the kit, and I don't believe that promos will provide you with enough regular work to make the risk worth taking.

 

If you're determined to buy, then you need to figure out other ways of keeping the camera working, so you're not totally reliant on a rather fickle market.

[KenBishops]

Is it also costly to run 16mm ie almost as costly as running 35mm and in comparism to HD. And can they both be easily manipulated during Editing, on a MAC or would I need somthing like an AVID adrenaline. My supplier has given me a quote for an AVID, May I ask, what do I gain from using avid instead of MAC stuff lkie Final cut etc? Can the two be compared.

 

Always most indebted to u Guys.

 

In this country the competition is between 16mm and HD. They are much closer in terms of both quality and costs.

Although it's true that there are 35mm promos made in this country, it's a very small group of artists who have the budget for it, certainly not enough to build a business around.

 

If you're talking about larger budget promos (£20k+) then it's going to be either 16mm or HD. They both have their advantages, but film is preferred for its' cachet. But, as I've said, they are both huge investments if you want to own the kit, and I don't believe that promos will provide you with enough regular work to make the risk worth taking.

 

If you're determined to buy, then you need to figure out other ways of keeping the camera working, so you're not totally reliant on a rather fickle market.

 

 

Is it also costly to run 16mm ie almost as costly as running 35mm and in comparism to HD. And can they both be easily manipulated during Editing, on a MAC or would I need somthing like an AVID adrenaline. My supplier has given me a quote for an AVID, May I ask, what do I gain from using avid instead of MAC stuff lkie Final cut etc? Can the two be compared and Which would be easier for me to use with less hassles/barriers?

 

Always most indebted to u Guys.

 

In this country the competition is between 16mm and HD. They are much closer in terms of both quality and costs.

Although it's true that there are 35mm promos made in this country, it's a very small group of artists who have the budget for it, certainly not enough to build a business around.

 

If you're talking about larger budget promos (£20k+) then it's going to be either 16mm or HD. They both have their advantages, but film is preferred for its' cachet. But, as I've said, they are both huge investments if you want to own the kit, and I don't believe that promos will provide you with enough regular work to make the risk worth taking.

 

If you're determined to buy, then you need to figure out other ways of keeping the camera working, so you're not totally reliant on a rather fickle market.

[Stuart Brereton]

Ballpark figures for shooting 16mm:

 

Camera hire £500 a day (although there are ALWAYS deals to be had)

 

Stock £90.00 per 400' roll (11 minutes running time @ 25fps)

 

Processing £0.12 per foot

 

Telecine £250 - £750 per hour depending on location, machine and facility.

 

Say you shoot a promo in one day, with 6 rolls of stock, and Telecine in a cheaper facility 3 hrs @ £300ph

 

Camera £500

Stock £540

Processing £288

Telecine £900

 

Total £2228.00

 

For HD:

 

Camera £800 per day (again there are always deals)

Stock £45.00 per 40 min tape

Downconversions to SD £150.00 pr hour

Grade and Colour Correction £250 - £750 per hour

 

The same promo on HD

 

Camera £800

Stock £90

Downconversion £250

Grade £600

 

Total £1740

 

There's a lot that could be wrong with these figures, but they're close enough to get some idea.

[KenBishops]

Thanks Stuart I am more than likely going to aquire the Camera though, As I am looking more Long term and at 2 grand a promo say I do 2 promos a month I would av payed for the Camera just before the third year. Thats my view anyway. Are you familiar with Avid mate and stuff like Final cut?

Cheers

 

Ballpark figures for shooting 16mm:

 

Camera hire £500 a day (although there are ALWAYS deals to be had)

 

Stock £90.00 per 400' roll (11 minutes running time @ 25fps)

 

Processing £0.12 per foot

 

Telecine £250 - £750 per hour depending on location, machine and facility.

 

Say you shoot a promo in one day, with 6 rolls of stock, and Telecine in a cheaper facility 3 hrs @ £300ph

 

Camera £500

Stock £540

Processing £288

Telecine £900

 

Total £2228.00

 

For HD:

 

Camera £800 per day (again there are always deals)

Stock £45.00 per 40 min tape

Downconversions to SD £150.00 pr hour

Grade and Colour Correction £250 - £750 per hour

 

The same promo on HD

 

Camera £800

Stock £90

Downconversion £250

Grade £600

 

Total £1740

 

There's a lot that could be wrong with these figures, but they're close enough to get some idea.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I would hesitate to transfer at any place in London that was willing to do it for £300 an hour, you'd have to be willing to do it at 3am or something with one of their decidedly third-line colourists.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

Deals differ, but I often get transfers done during the day at a very reputable post house in Soho, with a real colorist, not a runner, for less than £300 per hour. Obviously they don't do this for everyone, but that's the whole point of a deal - it's whatever you can negotiate.

[Stephen Williams]

I would not recommend owning 35mm equipment in any case; there's such a huge variety of it, and it's all so horrendously expensive, that you're going to be in for a seven figure sum before you can really call yourself comprehensively equipped. Let the rental houses deal with it.

 

Phil

 

 

Hi,

 

35mm cameras don't have to cost a fortune, if you dont mind using 25-75 year old equipment! I own 3 cameras, I don't make any money with them, they just about cover their costs. The most expensive with 7 Zeiss Superspeeds was $12,000!

 

 

I can confirm Stuarts figures, For shooting 35mm add £1500 to the 16mm cost.

 

Stephen

 

Ballpark figures for shooting 16mm:

 

Camera hire £500 a day (although there are ALWAYS deals to be had)

 

Stock £90.00 per 400' roll (11 minutes running time @ 25fps)

 

Processing £0.12 per foot

 

Telecine £250 - £750 per hour depending on location, machine and facility.

 

Say you shoot a promo in one day, with 6 rolls of stock, and Telecine in a cheaper facility 3 hrs @ £300ph

 

Camera £500

Stock £540

Processing £288

Telecine £900

 

Total £2228.00

 

For HD:

 

Camera £800 per day (again there are always deals)

Stock £45.00 per 40 min tape

Downconversions to SD £150.00 pr hour

Grade and Colour Correction £250 - £750 per hour

 

The same promo on HD

 

Camera £800

Stock £90

Downconversion £250

Grade £600

 

Total £1740

 

There's a lot that could be wrong with these figures, but they're close enough to get some idea.

[Phil Rhodes]

Okay, yes, fine, but if you want to be equipped to do whatever a fickle music video director wants, you're going to want a 435 at least, sets of spherical and anamorphic primes, every grip toy in the world, mags and steadimags, it's neverending.

 

At least you can put together a basic HD kit and there is the opportunity to use it just as that. 35 really is the circus coming to town, not really something I'd expect a startup company to want to get involved in just from a complexity point of view, let alone the cost.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

Okay, yes, fine, but if you want to be equipped to do whatever a fickle music video director wants, you're going to want a 435 at least, sets of spherical and anamorphic primes, every grip toy in the world, mags and steadimags, it's neverending.

 

At least you can put together a basic HD kit and there is the opportunity to use it just as that. 35 really is the circus coming to town, not really something I'd expect a startup company to want to get involved in just from a complexity point of view, let alone the cost.

 

Phil

 

If you want to be equipped for that fickle director, you're going to need those lenses and all that grip equipment regardless of what format you shoot. There is no reason why a 35mm kit has to be any more complex than an HD kit. An Arri IIIC with a couple of mags and a decent zoom is no more complicated and just as capable as a basic HD kit.

 

Let's not have this turn into another Film vs Video debate. The question at hand was whether either format was a suitable investment for a startup company.

[KenBishops]

Great informative feedback from all you lot out there its so helpful to have you here, Thank you!

Im in talks with my cameraman, and partners at the moment as to what approach to adopt in this case though im leaning towards the HD at the moment as it appears you can cut straight through all the telecine stuff which makes it less complicated and saves time indeed. I am also considering running costs when I eventually purchase the Camera as it seems HD is way way cheaper to run.

 

If you want to be equipped for that fickle director, you're going to need those lenses and all that grip equipment regardless of what format you shoot. There is no reason why a 35mm kit has to be any more complex than an HD kit. An Arri IIIC with a couple of mags and a decent zoom is no more complicated and just as capable as a basic HD kit.

 

Let's not have this turn into another Film vs Video debate. The question at hand was whether either format was a suitable investment for a startup company.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> it appears you can cut straight through all the telecine stuff

 

Yes and no. You have no processing to do, and you don't have to go out of house for telecine (though you may still be well advised to for the grade). Whatever you do, if you take heed of one thing from this, remember that video still needs a proper supervised grading session!

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

I am also considering running costs when I eventually purchase the Camera as it seems HD is way way cheaper to run.

 

Hi,

 

In tape v film cost yes.

 

Just remember the payback needs to be 3 years with video equipment. I know a DP who owned a 435 for nearly 10 years, he earned several times its cost in rentals, then sold it for 2/3 of its original cost!

 

Cheers

 

Stephen

[Stuart Brereton]

Whatever you do, if you take heed of one thing from this, remember that video still needs a proper supervised grading session!

 

I'll second that! HD is not some magic format that always looks fantastic straight out of the camera! All programmes need grading, particularly promos.