I'm starting to think again about making a feature film... script is getting in order, so I thought it would be a good idea to decide which camera I should use.

Keep in mind, that my main point of this ramble is:

WHICH CAMERA SHOULD I RENT FOR WHAT I WANT TO ACHIEVE AND WHY (IF YOU CAN). Thank you.

A year ago, the DVX-100 was the way to go for me or if I could afford it the SDX-900.

But Panasonic has the updated DVX-100B and introduced the AG-HVX200. Canon has two options that look good too and the JVC (GY-HD100U) looks awesome too.

I've been thinking of making a feature film since I was 16 and the VX-1000 came out... now the tools are getting easier and better by the day.

Basically I'm looking to get AT LEAST that 16mm film look that movies like CLERKS, BROTHERS MCMULLEN, and SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT HAD.

So that's what I'm going for. I went to film school. I would prefer to shoot on film then transfer over, but it makes so much more sense to shoot on video at this point. At least to me.

But I want that look.

My setup is for post production is

iMac G4, Final Cut Pro 4.5, external HD 120gb, and my mini-dv camera for transfer. I edited short films and a feature film on this setup.

With that in mind, I would love to shoot HD, but i don't know if that's worth bumping down. I think the highest I would go is DVC-PRO50. I could rent a deck.

It seems that the HVX-100 is the perfect camera to make a feature film at the smallest budget possible while still getting a great look. How do you think it compares to the SDX-900. It seems that it records the same format, just that the lense size and capture lense isn't as professional. Still, DVCPRO-50 or HD sounds great.

I would like it to be 24 frames per second, widescreen and if it could look like movies that Robert Rodriguez shoots on HD that would be awesome.

I was looking through this post and I founda lot of technically things. I'm looking more for nuts and bolts. It looks like I can't lose.

So I'm not looking for the best HD image possible. I'm looking for the best image possible that looks like film using a video camera. Whichever one is best, works for me.


Right now I'm leaning toward Panasonic in this order:

SDX-900
HVX-200
DVX-100B
Canon-XL H1
Canon-XL2

Considering the JVC (but I don't love JVC).

Sony doesn't seem to offer a camcera right now that does film like images, just pretty HD images for TV broadcasters.

Canon's XL series has 24 frame rate, but I think most people would pick the DVX-100B over it. Or am I wrong?

Is the Canon-XL H1 or HVX-200 HD in 24 frame rate have any chance of looking like an HD movie like say ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO or JACKPOT.

Thanks for your thoughts fellow filmmakers.

If you shoot DV, shoot with the DVX-100a or 100b. Hands down the best DV camera out there.

If you shoot HD, avoid HDV at all costs. First off, FCP 4.5 can't capture HDV, you'd have to upgrade to FCP 5. Second, HDV is prone to heavy artifacting on fast motions...so much that many networks reject any and all HDV cameras. If they look bad on the TV, picture the big screen. Currently FCP 5 supports all formats of HDV except 24P...and only the JVC offers 24P

None of the cameras you listed will look as good as the movies you mentioned. Just like an 8mm camera will not look as good as a 35MM camera, no matter how well lit. Good, but not exactly like it. Of the cameras you mentioned, the HVX-200 is the best HD camera (IMO). DVCPRO HD is a frame based codec, not a GOP based codec. The DVCPRO HD codec can be captured via firewire...BUT, with the HVX-200, no tape is involved, as the footage is recorded onto P2 cards. But again, for that you need FCP 5.0.4 and at least QT 7.0.3. Also the HVX is SERIOUSLY backordered. It will be months before they are really out there.

Many people swear by HDV...I just happen to disagree. But, with your current computer, that is the only version of HD you can handle, but you will need to get FCP 5. Unless you don't care about timecode...then you can get LumiereHD or HDVxDV to import the footage.

My advice? Research for a month or two...get to know all that is involved with the varous workflows from shooting to final delivery...then make your decision. I am blogging about my DVCPRO HD workflow at www.lfhd.net, in case you are interested.

You could also shoot with the Canon XL-H1 and record to another HD-cam deck. But that's expensive.
(And I don't know if the HVX200 or XL-H1 are the best, opinions still differ, but they are both good cams)
Most opinons untill now were that the H1 looked the sharpest, but the HVX the most filmic.

The JVC HD-100 has gotten very good reviews to, exept all the problems it had (postproduction, split screen effect,...). People say it looked very filmic.
These days reviews of the camera are getting better and better.

If you are planning a blowup, the resolution of HD will of course be a benefit in comparison with DV.

If you rent, why not a Varicam? Or is that too expensive?

Second, HDV is prone to heavy artifacting on fast motions...so much that many networks reject any and all HDV cameras.
I don't think this is true. ESPN has a show called full ride which has Sony Z1 footage mixed with Varicam footage. American Chopper is another show with HDV footage.

From a technical standpoint, others have pointed out that these artifacts just don't show up. Also, the networks typically encode their material into MPEG2 for storage on video servers or broadcast from satellite feeds. Some broadcasters compress their video a lot. The Superbowl and footage ball games tend to look pretty bad... but that seems to be ok.

2- I would go for the best value in the camera. Look at it this way:

Would you rather produce one movie that looks good, or two movies? My guess is that two movies are more likely to lead to success. If you shoot on an XL1 or DVX100, it probably won't hurt your chances too much because we know that theatrically-released films have been made on those cameras (28 days, murderball). What will hurt your chances are things like not clearing your music... and that takes money.

3- Curious: do you like the look of "broken"?
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45234

Thanks for the replies.

Glenn -- I just checked out "Broken". Its not the type of movie I would make, but the production was very impressive. However, I watched the trailer a few times (with the sound off) and just looked at the image. It's tough with all the quick cuts, but there were a lot of shoots that looked like video. That just felt a bit unfilmlike, and that's the camera. I'm not insulting Alex, I'm just saying that the DVX-100 does show some drawbacks at certain points, no matter what you do to it. It's video after all.

I really liked the look of "November" which was shoot with the DVX-100. Not a great film storywise, but it LOOKED GREAT.

Of course November's 150,000 budget to Broken's 8,000 makes sense to see a difference up on screen.

I've watched many trailers and short films online that was shoot with the DVX-100 and for 90% of the shoots it looks really good. It's just that there's always a few shots, that stand out and take me out of the film at that time on most projects. I love the way DVX-100 24p looks, but it lacks the forgiveness of film.

Currently I'm thinking that my budget is 10,000 and under. Basically what I would spend on my own without any help (besides credit cards or saving up). So that's where I'm coming from.

For that budget it seems the DVX-100B is the way to go.

But since I'm renting, and this is like 6 months from now, i'm sure the HVX-100 would be at most an extra 100 dollars per day to rent.

DVX-100 is usually 150 bucks per day to rent. So I figure the HVX should be aroun 200, 250 maybe per day.

I feel in love with the SDX900 after watching a lot of footage from it. To me that looks like 16mm. It looks great.

I recently watched CLERKS and it looks like a movie of course, but the 16mm image is full of artifacts. It's not clean. It's filmlike, but I forgot that 16mm isnt' 35mm. What I mean is, I don't find 16mm film far superior to some of the digital video options. I thought November's picture held it's own against CLERKS image. I mention CLERKS because that's the type of movie that inspired me (and 10,000 others) to realize when can make our own films. And that's the type of film that I love. Comedy.

I guess I could consider renting HD, but I figured I couldn't afford post production and would have to down covert.

Like Robert Rodriguez shooting 16mm (El Marachi image is great) and then transferring to 3/4 video, do people shoot on HD then transfer to say mini-DV to get into their final cut pro setups?

I also thought if I did shoot on HD or DVCPRO 50 I would do something like that, but would that give me the same type of results Rodriguez got?

I assume so. If I aquire footage at the highest resolution possible, even if I transfer to DV, it should be far surperior than shooting on DV to being with. Right?

Matthew, I don't know anyone that shoots HD and then converts to mini-dv for post. With your current set-up you would either shoot to a hard drive or shoot to HD tape and then have a post house transfer it directly to your external hard drive.

Also, I understand the need to have that "film look" so your audience isn't distracted from your story, which can happen with poor production values. But, the truth is that the format isn't the most important thing to getting that look. I've seen HD that I thought was film and film that I thought was DV. The way you move the camera is by far the most important factor in story telling IMO. It just so happens that many filmmakers, when deciding to utilize video, always do the handheld, "realisitc" style of shooting. I don't know why this trend has taken off.

Oh, and Clerks looks like absolute crap IMO. I'm not sure why anyone would want that look. Yes, it was shot on film, but they didn't utilize the strengths of film in that movie. Also, the new 16mm stocks are way better (cleaner) than the 35mm stocks of the 80's and early 90's. However, I wouldn't even consider shooting film with your budget. I know from experience, my friend.

Have you seen "One Upon a Time in Mexico?" That's a good cinematic use of HD. But R.R. knows how to move the camera and that's huge. I got WAY too concerned about the look of my last short film and the end result is that I have a great looking, extremely film-like movie with a flat story. You can murder a good script by dropping the ball on scene direction. Do you have a good DP that you trust? That should be a given. If you're doing the one-man-crew thing, I'd advise against it. You need to delegate responsibilties so you can concentrate on directing the actors and telling the story. That's something else I learned thru trial and error.

The gear you use is important but like I said, I've seen 35mm look aweful and I've seen it look amazing. Same with HD and every other format you could throw into the mix. My cinematographer (who was featured in a Kodak Cinema article) got fooled once while watching HD footage. He totally thought it was super16. Your skills and the skills of your DP are the most important thing in optaining a film look.

From the work that I've done certainly shooting HDV and then letting the camera / VCR downscale does give excellent looking footage, however that's definately not giving you the best result that you can get from HDV. Issue I see is you're suffering all the issues assoicated with HDV cameras and loosing many of the advantages. If you're planning on shooting 16:9 then certainly the HDV cameras are a good choice but I'd suggest downscaling to 4:2:2, that does give you quite a boost in image quality, particularly if you're working in NTSC and your target is DVD.

"So I'm not looking for the best HD image possible. I'm looking for the best image possible that looks like film using a video camera. Whichever one is best, works for me."

AND fits in your budget ?

Right now I'm leaning toward Panasonic in this order:

SDX-900
HVX-200
DVX-100B
Canon-XL H1
Canon-XL2
Considering the JVC (but I don't love JVC).

you should wait for the results of the big 4 camera test that Barry and friends just did ... maybe that will help on which one they thought had film look & other oddities ?

i just saw your budget figure 10K = DVX100 or XL2 .. compare renting camera vs. buying it for the shoot and then sell at as you go into post.

does your budget include new editing system or do you use current system ? and what is that system ?

"Is the Canon-XL H1 or HVX-200 HD in 24 frame rate have any chance of looking like an HD movie like say ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO or JACKPOT. "

if viewing on a SD TV = YES
if viewing on HD monitor = maybe depending on your DP
if viewing on 35ft screen = NO

Jason--

Thanks for your posts. Full of good stuff.

I tried the R.R. one man show (well 2 man) with my last short film shot on the DVX-100. It turned out terrible. I'm the worst DP. Ever! Shakey hands Kaplan they call me.

But I did learn two good lessons.

A) I need to hire a DP and other crew members. Can't think I'm R.R.
B) Renting is better than owning.

So I got my post production setup (I can upgrade) of:

- iMac G4
- FCP PRO 4.5 HD
- External 120GB ESQUEST
- Sony one chip mini-DV camera for capturing/monitor

I could surely use a VCR and a real NTSC monitor, but I did edit a mini-DV feature film on this setup. You can always cut corners to get the job done.

With this post production setup I should be able to handle HD, SD or mini-DV right? I just will need to either rent equipment like a VCR to capture or go to a transfer house. Right? Or is HD require too many extras?

Anyway, with that setup in mind, and me wanting to spend 10,000 or less of my own money (saying I don't get any help or financing) what is my best option for making a feature film that won't look like a prom video?

BUDGET= 10,000

I'm trying to understand the different workflows of shooting HD, SD and mini-DV. I get mini-DV, but are the other formats basically the same thing in regards to post production setup? What else might I be missing?

So if I do shoot a higher format than mini-DV, I can get my footage transfered to a harddrive and edit in that format using FCP 4.5. But will I be able to view HD or SD video through a standard monitor?

It's been a long time, but out of curiosity, how much do you think using 16mm would cost me if I transfered to video to edit with and make DVD copies to show around/sell.

If I can pull off a mini-DV movie for say 5,000 would the same 16mm movie cost me 15,000?

-matt

just to let you know, the statement about networks not using the Sony HDV cams are completely wrong. Food Network uses it heavily on a lot of their shows. I don't know where that statement came from, but its wrong. Just clearing up a few details

not a mac person so don't know what your system can do above DV25 format..

"If I can pull off a mini-DV movie for say 5,000 would the same 16mm movie cost me 15,000"

guessing ? how long is the project ? 90min , 2 hr ?

what kind of shooting ratio ? 3 to 1 ? 5-1? 8-1?

you buying new film stock or short ends ?

probably the best deal would be to find a DP with his own camera and get a pachage deal ..

film processing , film stock , film telecine can be a package deal at some labs.
15k might cover film , processing , telecine for apporx 5-6hrs of film.

bottom line !!! IMO forget 16mm as the cost can go out of control easy with a 15K budget ..
shoot DVX100 & put the extra $$ into actors ... you already know your system can edit project.. the camera is proven to a "out" to film .. there are many dvx's around so there will be good rental deals .. you need to be able to start & finish the movie with the budget you have as a unfinished movie is NO movie.

Murderball, 28 Days, Blair Witch are all examples of movies shot on DV or worse and have theatrical release. Considering that there are so many filmmakers trying to get their material into theaters, DV does pretty damn well.

On the other hand, you may want to think away from theatrical release for now. If you can distribute your work over the internet and get a good following for it, that's a great stepping stone towards future projects.

You definitley don't need HD resolution for online distribution.

2- Here's an interesting article from RR "10 minute film school"
http://www.exposure.co.uk/makers/minute.html

He would advise you not to shoot on film. On the other hand, the guy is multi-talented (i.e. he even edits his own blockbuster movies) and has produced about 200 film before el mariachi. So you may not exactly get his results, because he has put in a lot of work before he got famous.

3- Lots of people own a DVX100 or similar camera. If you pay them a small honorarium, that might be the same price as renting (or even less). It's just how persuasive you are in getting people interested in your project.

Matthew:
Check out the book "Digital Moviemaking" (2nd edition) by Scott Billups. Would definitely be worth your while. He compares all the DV cameras and formats out there, and also offers general moviemaking advice on all areas of the process. He also has a website, I think it is pixelmonger.com. Also consider the new JVC HD camera, I read a post here where it was the best video camera to give a film look in the poster's opinion. (but I think a 35mm adaptor was used as well) the poster also provided a link to the site where the camera was reviewed.
Good luck with your movie.

In your list the SDX-900 is the clear winner IMHO. The 2/3" CCDs will give you a better look than even 1/3" HD CCDs... a few lens options as well.


ash =o)

If I do choose the SDX-900, can you explain the workflow in post production of that, with my current set up?

I assume I can get the footage in my iMac either by renting a VCR or by getting the footage transferred to an external Harddrive.

Basically, Final Cut Pro 4.5 HD can handle any format that I throw at it, but can I actually edit HD just as easily as mini-DV? Same goes for SD.

I think I might be missing some key issues in regards to how I go from produciton to actually getting the footage edited.

I've done shoot 16mm, transfer to digibeta, edit on Avid, output to Digi/VHS for a short film.

I've done shoot mini-DV, import via mini-DV, output to DVD.

But I've, obviously if you've read this post, I've never shoot on HD or SD and don't know if I'm grasping the process.

Basically all the formats confuse me. The HVX-200 appears to be able to shoot HD, SD, mini-DV... how does it do that? I mean how can it be able to be HD quality one minute, then with a slip of the switch mini-DV? To me that sounds like a VCR/TV combo. Not as good as a dedicated device IMO. Can I really shoot HD footage on the HVX-200 that is in the same ballpark as George Lucas?

So in theory should the HVX-200 have better footage than the SDX-900? I assume not because of the lenses... but HD vs SD...

I currently think the SDX-900 is the best overall choice. It's 500 bucks per day to rent which seems pretty good considering.

I feel most comfortable with shooting with the DVX-100B as I understand how to use that camera through completion, however, I've never made a feature film. There will be so many things I have to learn while doing. That you don't know until you do it.

I'm just trying to determine the best choice for me. But I will for sure find a DP that knows more than me and can make whichever camera I choose, the right one.

Maybe you could wait untill the RED cam comes up :-D

If you really want to go big with it, I'd go with a camera that is native 16:9...Meaning the XL2 or the HD100 (I would imagine the HVX too). I'd stay away from the DVX for that reason.

A couple points I haven't seen posted yet.

Many rental shops have a 3 day rental week. Therefore, a DVX would be $450 per week, an Varicam $1500. If Matthew was budgeting for a 5 day week, he would have budgeted approx. $750 for camera, which might bring him closer to a true HD camera. In the least, it closes the gap.

Make sure that you research your post shop for dumping down the HD footage to make sure the HD VTR isn't tied into an Inferno suite or something similar. That difference can cost several hundred dollars additional in the dupe cost. A shop that I've used in the past charges $500 per an hour vs $100 for DV dupes, because of the infrastructure built around the HD VTR.

Since you are using FCP, you might CONSIDER using Graeme Nattress' film tools. He has a tool called GNicer that will interpolate the footage back to 4:2:2, and another that will scale it up to 1440p. You can then crop it to 1920x1080p. Process intensive, and I'm not sure of the output, but it may be worth some tests if you can borrow a camera for a day. He offers free watermarked copies of these tools for evaluation.

Invest in lighting. A camera does not a great image make. A good camera will maximize a well lit scene, but it won't save a badly lit scene. I learned this the hard way.

Also, make sure that whatever camera you use provides you with immediate feedback, ie tapes you can review, or a DV output to record dupes from. I shot a project on Betacam five years ago, and it is mostly unusable because:
1. It was lit poorly and looks like bad industrial video.
2. I did not have immediate feedback to correct bad shots before wrapping.

earlier you mentioned that you'll be getting a good DP who'll be able to make the camera you choose work which a good DP will be able to do, but why not let the DP help you choose the camera?

Well I want to have some idea of which camera and format I'm going for before finding a DP as that is a big deal in finding which DP to hire... some only have experience with mini-DV... since I'm a newbie, I wouldn't want to get someone to shoot HD if they have only used the DVX-100... I think a good thing would be to bring someone with lots more experience to the table to help me out during the shoot.

But I think it's up to me to have some idea of which format I want before beginning the DP search.

I'm just doing pre pre production research. It's early in the game.

But that was a fair point, I just disagree.

Question --

Do you think it's better for a first time director to use a camera and technology that is "proven" as opposed to jumping on board with the new technology that might be better, however, might prove a hassle for a person with limited experience and money to throw at the problem?

In short -- Maybe using the DVX-100 series is best, because it will get the job done and all NLE editors work with it... there are lots of questions about HDV that I still don't know, the HVX-200 is still a mystery to me, HD as well.

Maybe the "best" choice is the one I know how to use.

To try to answer your question, in theory it shouldn't be a concern for a director, but then you are more of a producer/director/editor on this, so you should perhaps focus on your edit workflow when considering formats, as well as what you ultimately want to do with your film (i.e. distribution). For a project that will mostly be seen on the web and on DVD for the next couple of years, no reason why the DVX100 wouldn't serve you well (and the SDX900 will serve you fantastically). If you want to protect for the future, HD in one form or another might be worth the extra hassles now.

As far as hiring your DP, you are probably better off working with someone who has shot with more formats than miniDV under any circumstances, they will likely bring more to the table. Very few DP's have had much real production time with all of the various HD cameras out there since they just keep coming, but a good one who understands digital imaging will be able to shoot beautiful stuff with a camera virtually out of the box, as what counts more is what goes in front of the camera (lighting, composition, camera movement etc). So it's good to have an idea of what format you want to shoot in because of your post workflow, but realize that the best DP you can hire may well have a different idea on this and you could actually end up fighting against something that may ultimately benefit your project.

"If you shoot HD, avoid HDV at all costs."


I'm confused. What is the difference between HD and HDV?


I've up on most of the cameras out there, but can someone tell me about DVC-Pro, both SD and HD? How is it compared to the high-end cameras like Beta SP, DigiBeta, Varicam, CineAlta, SDX 900, etc.

Just finished watching "Session 9," an indie that came out a few years ago. Looked like film, but having read about it being done on a low budget I wondered if it may have been HD. I did a search, and it was shot on the Sony CineAlta. Looked just like film.

My understanding is this.

HDV IS NOT HD. They just have the same pixel size.

So HD and HDV can be 720 or 1080, but HDV compresses the image to get it onto a mini-DV tape... the color isn't as good...

So it's a better image than normal mini-DV, but not as good as true HD.

Session 9 by Brad Anderson was shoot on HD. Looks really nice. Check out RR Once Upon a Time in Mexico for the best HD image I've seen to date on a movie...

Shane's Stock Answer #34:

Many many people buy HDV cameras thinking that they are getting an HD camera. This is not the case, for HDV is not HD. It has the same dimensions of HD, 1440x1080i, but it is HIGHLY compressed MPEG-2, and suffers from bad artifacts when fast action is being filmed. Plus it has a 4:2:0 colorspace.

Is HDV an improvement over miniDV? No. It increases resolution and at the same time, increases compression, so, pixel for pixel you have worse quality, but you do have a lot more pixels. Resolution in itself does not = picture quality. You could blow up VHS to HD resolution, but the quality would be terrible, even though it has a high resolution.

HDV is NOT considered a pro format and is at best a high end home movie camera.

If you want to read up on HD, go to www.hdforindies.com.

HD is defined by the pixel count, not by the compression. It's more accurate to say that HDV is not HDCAM, or DCPROHD, but then again those aren't uncompressed 4:4:4 HD either, so perhaps they should be discredited as well.

I would argue that the resolution vs compression argument is a case-by-case basis--I think given many types of scenes HDV will be seen as an improvement over DV, much in the same way that DVD's are seen as an improvement over VHS. Certainly there are situations where the compression scheme may falter but given a much sharper image overall, it looks pretty good. As we are now regularly watching moving images on the web, on digital satellite and cable etc that receive even higher rates of compression than HDV and are thus receiving daily blasts of artifacting, I believe that it is becoming more acceptable in the tradeoff for increased resolution.

As far as what is a "pro" format or not--those days seem to be long gone, once the "pros" starting shooting features on Mini-DV 10 years ago. Perhaps once the features that are currently being shot on HDV make it to the big screen (and after one of them becomes a smash hit and/or has a great look), HDV will gain some credibility. "Session 9" was indeed a great win for HD (shot by a friend of mine and I did some Steadicam on it) but if you look at it closely you can see plenty of motion artifacting, probably due to the 1st generation F900 and the filmout technology available at the time.

Obviously it is a good idea to shoot on the best medium/least compression one can afford, but it's a better idea just to get out there and shoot--and don't take anyone's word (including mine) as gospel, do tests for yourself and again--hire a great DP and see what they have to say about it!

A lot of the stuff on cable is highly compressed, as the companies tend to store the video on video servers for playback. And it seems that people don't object to this.

You also have things that are transmitted over satellite and have even more compression artifacts... the Superbowl and other football games are really good examples of this.

This is for normal analog transmission.

2- In my opinion, that stuff about HDV having terrible motion artifacts is just FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). The bittrate is high enough that you don't get motion artifacts, although you still get mosquito noise and things like that. MPEG2 is a very efficient compression scheme, so HDV stands up well against DVCPRO HD.

But honestly, I think we're losing track of what's important here. Quit being gear sluts and shoot your movie already! At the end of the day, the technical stuff isn't very important (i.e. why there is heavy compression on broadcasted material, why Final Fantasy and Godzilla weren't very good movies even though they cost millions of dollars).

But honestly, I think we're losing track of what's important here. Quit being gear sluts and shoot your movie already! At the end of the day, the technical stuff isn't very important (i.e. why there is heavy compression on broadcasted material, why Final Fantasy and Godzilla weren't very good movies even though they cost millions of dollars).

Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny post, but isn't this whole forum based on the fact that the people who come to it are all "gear sluts".

I never lose the fact that I'm pretty sure what some filmmakers can do with VHS will rival what some can do with 35mm.

Yes, having all the cool toys ALONE won't get it done.

But, we are here to talk about the toys and learn what they can do.

And while I work on other things (like writing scripts, saving money) it's fun to discuss this topics.

I love being a slut, but I prefer the term "consumer whore".

Thank you one and all for the education on HD vs. HDV.

Charles: Session 9 was shot on a F900? Is this the camera also known as the Varicam? I read that the movie was shot on a CineAlta. Or is that and the F900 the same thing?
What has your DP friend done since then?
When you say "film out technology" is that the same as transferring tape to film for theatrical release?
Finally, when shooting a feature like this with an HD camera, what does the camera crew consist of? DP, operator, focus puller, and who else? Was a video tech/engineer on site to assist?

Although I am a big proponent of movies shot on HD, unfortunately from what I've read is that most distributors want to hear that an indie movie was shot on 35mm, unless there are "names" in front of the camera. But when one cannot get "names," then being shot on video instead of film can hinder a movie's chances for distribution, for the most part, with exceptions.

In terms of cameras, F900 is a Sony Camera and the format it records in is CineAlta. The Varicam is from Panasonic and uses DVCProHD as its format.

"from what I've read is that most distributors want to hear that an indie movie was shot on 35mm,"

most distributors don't know a hit movie from a looser . they tend to follow with what was a hit in the past.. very few distributors are leaders. remember when they rattle off 35mm , known actors etc that is the top of their WISH list ... bottom line for distribuotr is can they make $$$ off a project. if they think they can make $$$ it doesn't matter what it was shot on .. if they don't think they can make $$$ then 70mm/35mm isn't going to make any difference = they ain't buying it ...
in the film business you've got to walk your own walk and talk your own talk = make YOUR film !!! get it out there with the means you have ...

Thank you one and all for the education on HD vs. HDV.

Charles: Session 9 was shot on a F900? Is this the camera also known as the Varicam? I read that the movie was shot on a CineAlta. Or is that and the F900 the same thing?

Looks like Andrew has taken care of this one nicely.

What has your DP friend done since then?

Uta Briesewitz--check her out on IMDB.

When you say "film out technology" is that the same as transferring tape to film for theatrical release?

Yes. This process continues to evolve; I did a filmout about 5 years ago that was primitive by today's standards, visually speaking.

Finally, when shooting a feature like this with an HD camera, what does the camera crew consist of? DP, operator, focus puller, and who else? Was a video tech/engineer on site to assist?

There wasn't a tech on "Session 9" that I can remember, and every shoot has it's own staffing. To the list you describe I'd generally add a 2nd assistant. Unfortunately a lot of non-union shows eliminate the operator position which is more important than ever with HD; I had to work this way last year on an HD feature and I really missed having an operator.

Thanks Andrew for clarifying cameras, and thanks Charles for answering my questions. Thanks Don for your observations about distribution, which I agree with, and for your inspiring last line.