HVX200 or Super 16 at DVinfo.net

Matthew Overstreet · August 3rd, 2006, 11:20 AM

I'm just curious, how would this camera compare to the quality achieved with shooting super 16? This question is mainly for people who own this camera, would you choose it over film? I know the gap is closing fast.

Shane Ross · August 3rd, 2006, 03:45 PM

Given the budget I'd choose film over this camera any day of the week. Film looks so much better. I'd even choose film over the Varicam if cost wasn't the factor. The only reason I'd shoot with the HVX over film or even the Varicam are a) you have a limited budget and b) you need to shoot 'discreetly."

The HVX has trouble in low light. It just doesn't have the latitude that film does. Not even close. The Varicam does a lot better in low light. But you want to compare the HVX to film.

The workflow for film is just very expensive. You get GREAT imagry, but at a cost. Processing, telecine, dubs...all add up. With the HVX you can review footage right away, toss what you don't want...know that you have the shot (instead of relying on a video tap for playback) and can begin editing right away. And the cost is minimal (beside the cost of the camera and cards). Hard drives for archiving are darn cheap.

SO really, the best look can be achieved with film, but the HVX is for those with a budget.

Robert Lane · August 3rd, 2006, 05:40 PM

I agree with Shane 100%: Film is king - and will be for many years to come - for the best possible color and "look". No digi-cam whether it's the HVX, Cinealta or Varicam can compete with film.

If you're really, really good with lighting, composition and camera setups you can get a very "film-like" appearance from the HVX, but in no way can it be considered a film replacement. It's not even a contender.

If you have the budget and skills to shoot film, do it. If not, learn the HVX and see what it can do for you.

Mark Sasahara · August 7th, 2006, 04:04 PM

FILM, baby! FILM!

Being a film guy, I want all my video to look like film.

If there's any way to swing it, shoot S16. As mentioned, the cost is much greater, but if you know what you want, it will be worth the extra expense.

Earl Thurston · August 9th, 2006, 04:41 PM

Based on some tests I had seen, the quality was comparable, especially in terms of resolution, colour and grain/noise. But, having worked with both 16mm film and HD digital video (JVC HD100), I personally choose digital. (In fact, I have a Bolex SBM I'm planning on selling now.)

I will admit 100% that film still has some advantages, particularly regarding latitude, but the advantages of working digitally outweigh those of film, IMHO.

Ash Greyson · August 9th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Apples and Oranges... you should be asking Super16mm or Varicam/F950. The cheapest post workflow will be the Varicam and what I would recommend.

ash =o)

Antoine Fabi · August 9th, 2006, 06:00 PM

IMHO, the HVX's footage can look extremely close to Super16mm. extremely close if you shoot 1080p.

I prefer F900 and Varicam footage over S16, no doubt in my mind.

...and it costs A TON less...
...and it is 500% easier too shoot...

Rodrigo Otaviano · August 9th, 2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antoine Fabi

...and it is 500% easier too shoot...

For me it's pretty much the opposite ... lol

Brad Baxter · August 10th, 2006, 09:16 AM

check out this thread at DVXuser. I think it is now so comparable that you'd be wasting time and money to get any marginal advantages from 16mm film:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ight=16mm+test

August 3rd, 2006, 11:20 AM	#1
Matthew Overstreet Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Whitman, Massachusetts Posts: 168	HVX200 or Super 16 I'm just curious, how would this camera compare to the quality achieved with shooting super 16? This question is mainly for people who own this camera, would you choose it over film? I know the gap is closing fast.

August 3rd, 2006, 05:40 PM	#3
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	I agree with Shane 100%: Film is king - and will be for many years to come - for the best possible color and "look". No digi-cam whether it's the HVX, Cinealta or Varicam can compete with film. If you're really, really good with lighting, composition and camera setups you can get a very "film-like" appearance from the HVX, but in no way can it be considered a film replacement. It's not even a contender. If you have the budget and skills to shoot film, do it. If not, learn the HVX and see what it can do for you. __________________ Robert Lane Producer/Creator - Bike Pilots TV

August 7th, 2006, 04:04 PM	#4
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	FILM, baby! FILM! Being a film guy, I want all my video to look like film. If there's any way to swing it, shoot S16. As mentioned, the cost is much greater, but if you know what you want, it will be worth the extra expense. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

August 9th, 2006, 04:41 PM	#5
Earl Thurston Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Burnaby & Maple Ridge BC Posts: 289	Based on some tests I had seen, the quality was comparable, especially in terms of resolution, colour and grain/noise. But, having worked with both 16mm film and HD digital video (JVC HD100), I personally choose digital. (In fact, I have a Bolex SBM I'm planning on selling now.) I will admit 100% that film still has some advantages, particularly regarding latitude, but the advantages of working digitally outweigh those of film, IMHO. __________________ Earl R. Thurston, Stargate Connections Inc. Made with GY-HD100: The Container Adventures: The Rescue

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 3rd, 2006, 03:45 PM	#2
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	Given the budget I'd choose film over this camera any day of the week. Film looks so much better. I'd even choose film over the Varicam if cost wasn't the factor. The only reason I'd shoot with the HVX over film or even the Varicam are a) you have a limited budget and b) you need to shoot 'discreetly." The HVX has trouble in low light. It just doesn't have the latitude that film does. Not even close. The Varicam does a lot better in low light. But you want to compare the HVX to film. The workflow for film is just very expensive. You get GREAT imagry, but at a cost. Processing, telecine, dubs...all add up. With the HVX you can review footage right away, toss what you don't want...know that you have the shot (instead of relying on a video tap for playback) and can begin editing right away. And the cost is minimal (beside the cost of the camera and cards). Hard drives for archiving are darn cheap. SO really, the best look can be achieved with film, but the HVX is for those with a budget.

August 9th, 2006, 05:02 PM	#6
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Apples and Oranges... you should be asking Super16mm or Varicam/F950. The cheapest post workflow will be the Varicam and what I would recommend. ash =o)

August 9th, 2006, 06:00 PM	#7
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	IMHO, the HVX's footage can look extremely close to Super16mm. extremely close if you shoot 1080p. I prefer F900 and Varicam footage over S16, no doubt in my mind. ...and it costs A TON less... ...and it is 500% easier too shoot...

August 10th, 2006, 09:16 AM	#9
Brad Baxter Tourist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: United States Posts: 3	check out this thread at DVXuser. I think it is now so comparable that you'd be wasting time and money to get any marginal advantages from 16mm film: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ight=16mm+test