Film Stock (8 to 1 ratio) $7,500
Lab & Prep 30,000 feet x .16 = $4,800
Transfer 4 to 1 = 50 hours x $175 $8,750
Beta Stock 50 x $35 $1,750

$22,800

Now it can be done for less. But this is 75 400' rolls. I haven't check out 16mm or S16mm prices in a while.

Plus I only shot recans once on 16mm. So I'm basing this on the $100 per roll figure that someone gave.

I went back to try and find links for budget telecine outfits and turned up this -- http://www.bonolabs.com/HiDefspecials.htm

Bonolabs. If I'm reading this right, they offer a package for film stock, processing, and a 1080/24p uncompressed bestlight transfer delivered to you on a Lacie drive for $1 a foot. The site looks kind of iffy, but this is way cheaper than any other prices I've seen.

It would be silly not to. Doesn't have to be quite that expensive though -- Shannon wrote about his use of a monitor that I think cost him less than $1000.

Which can be rented
No, a standard Final Cut Pro HD system can edit it just fine, with multiple streams in realtime. And storage is no big deal, 300 gigabytes costs around $200.

You can get S16 shot, processed, and transferred to DV for a total cost of about $30/minute. So for $10,000 you'd get 330 minutes, or just under a 4:1 shooting ratio. Mind you, that's with a mediocre telecine, you're not going to get a Millennium or Spirit at that price, but if your plan is to cut the negative and make a blowup, you'll be doing your final video version from that instead of from the original camera negatives. And you'll probably spend your money on the high-quality transfer at that time.

However, these cost comparisons are pretty much meaningless, because there are so many other factors here. First, we don't even know how good the HVX picture will look! Second, you're discounting the idea that you could just sell the camera on ebay and probably recover 75% of the cost... can't do that with your negative! Third, how much post costs are you going to incur to make your master print, and how will that offset the blowup costs from blowing up HD to 35mm... and fourth, what's the likelihood you're going to be blowing it up at all?

So it's all premature. Let's let the camera hit the shelves first, then we'll do some comparisons and find out how viable an alternative to S16 it actually is.

Barry's absolutely right - we have no idea if this camera can or should take the place of 16mm. I've shot alot of 16mm and I've never seem video that looks as good but , that said , we're getting alot closer. Shooting 16mm is expensive. Man, shooting super 8 is expensive ! But if you want to shoot a 16mm narrative film , then read , first Lenny Liptons' bible " Independant Filmaking" and Rick Schmidts' "Feature Filmmaking at Used Car Prices" . You don't need to have 8 to 1 shooting ratios - sometimes you can get by with 1 to 1. You also don't need to shoot super 16. There's 3 other , cheaper alternatives. One - regular 16. Stocks' about the same but the cameras are alot cheaper. Two - Ultra 16 - same advantages but with a wide image area. Three Ultra super 8 . Ok I hear the giggles but I've seen some wetgate telecined superduper 8( that's its' nickname) that looked almost as good as reg 16. That being said , I for one own alot of film ( still and movie ) cameras that are collecting dust because digital is so cheap and easy , esp. for a one-man band. For cheap telecine equipment check out moviestuff. Then after you telecine your film , you can start a telecine company for less than 2 grand for the 16mm setup. But the sad truth is we probably won't even have this choice much longer the way things are going for Kodak. And I have absolutely no sympathy for them since they stopped selling mag-striped super 8 stock - the absolutely worst mistake they could have made for keeping filmmaking alive. Kurth

A 9:1 shooting ratio can be reduced. Especially if you plan your shots carefully.

I made a feature film on 16mm. I bought three hours of film and the rough cut of the film was 2 hrs 15 mins. I think that is a 1:1.003 ratio. :) Of course, the film would have been better if it hadn't been a serious of master shots (a la' Clerks), but... it can be done.

The benefit of video is of course the shooting ratio. You really don't care too much about it. Stopping to offload a P2 card to a hard drive is no big deal if it means you are going to get a 15:1 ratio.

Here is a budget for a 4:1 ratio (bare bones)

9600 ft.(24 rolls) X $125 a roll = $3000
Processing at .12 a foot = $1152
Video Transfer 4 hrs x 3 = 12 hours transfer time @ $200 = $2400
(That would be for a one light)
Video stock = $500
Audio stock = $400
Shipping = $ 1000

$8452.00 Roughly. Probably very roughly. But..... sometimes you have to make do with what you have (or don't have).

As to if the camera will replace 16mm or not, I would offer this thought. The 2/3 inch 24p SD, and HD cameras have not taken its place, but rather, taken thier place as specific tools, with specific characteristics. I think the HVX will also take its own place, as an option, with its own advantages, and limitations. If 35mm did not have limitations (cost, logistics, etc) we would all shoot it all the time. If Mini DV had no limitations (compression rate, contrast, resolution, dynamic range) we would all shoot it all the time. There is no single killer camera or format, but rather, lucky for us, a wonderful range of options, that can be chosen to suit the form of each project, for every project we do is essentialy a custom job. I know I feel for me, If I had chained myself to one single thing, my career would be far behind where it is now. Will I shoot a "film" with the HVX? Well, yeah, probably, because there will be undoubtedly that situation, created in part, by the very existence of that camera. Will I use it on a project where camera and media are a miniscule part of the budget? If we're shooting HD, and I need a second or third camera, sure, just the way we use 35III's, and Eyemo's etc. to round out options on the 35mm stuff. In my opinion, this camera is a far greater "threat" to Mini DV, and SD in general, (at least in professional applications), than to any film format, if you go in for the "format competition" thing. So, Mathieu, keep us in the loop, when you make this film, let us know what you choose and the reasons, and then how it goes.
Its always a wonderful adventure. (Even the bad is fun, later)

Thank you very much for that kind remark, but as I said: I don't have any plans about making a movie with 16mm or HVX (yet of course, I'll begin film academy next year, I'm 18 now) I just asked the question on this forum to see what people's opinions where, because I asked the question myself. But thank you very much about the kind remark, maybe next year I'll experience a miracle and have a HVX and make a feature film with it, and it will be a huge hit over the whole world, and then I'll tell you how the camera was ;-)
Héhé,

best regards,
Mathieu

I think high definition video is the wave of the future. With high definition you can distribute your video in high definition because more people have HDTVs than they do 16mm projectors. However I suppose you can always have your 16mm film converted to high definition video but far too often people convert 16mm film to standard definition DVD and lose all the high resolution.

With respect, I would point out that production formats and distribution formats are entirely different things. In entertainment distribution for example, some HD options exist, but at this time SD is a must for hope of wide ranging sales on video. (not to say you can't do both, but you aren't seeing alot of maistream HD only distribution releases.) One of the hard facts about S16,
is you can have your SD now and your HD later, and that is a clear advantage. Other advantages and disadvantages of S16 are made clear in this thread as well. More movie theatres have 35mm projectors than SD TV's. More households have SD TV's than HDTV's, and so on. Just because its not this, doesn't mean it has to be that, if that makes any sense.

I'm not knocking the HD format at all, but rather trying to point out that its not just as simple as all that. Maybe if it were, TV would have killed radio long ago. ;)

I don't know for me the aspiration of the independent film maker to have his 16mm movie converted to 35mm and played at movie houses is a pipe dream. Other than the Blair Witch Project there is only a 100 to one chance that independent or amatuer movies make it the big screen. The big Holywood producers already have their big production companies and they really don't need any help from amatuers or independents. Thats why I think that it will be digital high definition that will save the day. Already independent producers are distributing high definition video usually in dual formats bundled with 2 discs one in standard definition and the other in high definition. For big producers Terminator 2 extreme high definition DVD was a very famous high definition release. Most windows Xp computers are high definition capable playback devices. Also televison broadcasting over the internet in high definition is a reality. Today anyone even a bum can set up his own high definition television broadcasting studio over the internet and broadcast high school football games and movies over the internet in high definition.
As far as high definition televisons go for anyone buying a brand new television HDTV is always the first consideration. You can get a good HDTV with a built in digital tuner starting at $550.
Also so called home theatre systems or being built by community organizations such as schools churches restuarants and bars. For schools not only can the children watch the PBS HD channel but students can videotape their games and plays in high definition. Libraries can build archives of HD material and even showcase it.
The point i'm trying to make is that digital high definition is a revolution in the making. With film the costs of production will not only kill you but editing is that much more difficult. Progressives like George Lucas know what they are talking about. People with their age old ideas will never accept the technology of high definition.

If you think getting your S16 to be a hit and get blown up to 35mm is a long shot, run the math on video produced projects. The ratio would be past astronomical.

Technology is evolution, not revolution. Market forces drive the business. Digital technology is helping to level the playing field, and giving access to many aspirants who would have had no chance even a few years ago. However, simply declaring a mainstream production format "dead" because its not your distribution format, and also doesn't meet your personal idea of budget, workflow, etc. is seeing things in a very provincial way, and may impede your ability to use all the technology available.
The argument can be made that HD is the perfect distribution medium for
film, because its the only video that is capable of displaying some of the resolution, and some of the dynamic range film is capable of.

The cost of film production is entirely relative to the budget. However, once again I would point out, that production and distribution formats are not the same thing. Projects that are produced in HD are not generally delivered in thier native codecs. A fast computer, and fast pipeline are viable ways to deliver HD content, but it is not currently the way the majority of audiences recieve or view content.

And by the way, I shoot plenty of Varicam and CineAlta HD, and make good money at it.
I do accept it, and I also know exactly what it is, and what it is capable of as a production format. Rejecting anything out of hand is not a progressive attitude. Lucas had many good reasons for his choices, and Star Wars cost plenty of money, so that's not the best one to hold up in the "cost of film production will kill you" category. Most film is transfered, then edited on an NLE, and then output to any format, including HD, or the negative is conformed to the NLE EDL, and prints are timed and struck at the end of that process, so thats not so different as you might think. There is also now the option of digital intermediary, and stuck in the rut old fogeys studio stooges such as the Coen Brothers, working with Roger Deakins, ASC, have done some astounding work with it.

Different production formats evolve to serve the needs of the production industry. Someone who embraces all options, and seeks to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the individual options is truly progressive. Making a format into a belief system is an "age old idea".

Tommy makes some interesting points.

Many of us on this board are anticipating the excitment of getting to use higher resolution tools such as the HVX in a similar fashion as we use miniDV currently.

However... Tommy makes some really cool points on alternative uses of HD, especially in broadcast and for private institutions. The overall improvment in video quality will have impacts way beyond just our desires to shoot on more professional formats.

All its gonna take is some kid to figure out the workflow and really demonstrate some unique approaches to media using the new technology of not only HD aquistion but the various codecs and delievery formats.

Dean,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm trying to make the point that no production format is a panacea for all needs. The future has never been brighter, and in part, because so much is available.

The film vs video thing has been hacked to death by myopic people on both "sides".

HD and HDV are not "the future". They are here now. Its been 6 or 7 years since I first shot HD. Sometimes it is the perfect choice as a production format. I think that how the distribution formats evolve will be somewhat independent of the production format. We will most likely see an increase in lower budget HD production as a result of this camera. Its probably not going to make much of a dent in 16&35mm.

I also think that we will see an increase in HD distribution, not as a result of an increase in HD production, but because Blu-ray/HD-DVD will make HD distribution formats more or less available to the average person, who spends the money for the HDTV and the player. Will the players be expensive at first?
Yes, but I remember paying $400 for my first cell phone, $190 for my first calculator, and $650 for my first CD burner. (a 2x)

If someone figures out some other cool option for distribution, that's gonna be great, because as the quality and availability of distribution formats increase, so will the need for production value in the product. This should stimulate more production, and opportunities, across the board.

I'm going to see if I can pre order the HVX from ZGC next week.
That being said, I don't think I'll be dumping my other cameras anytime soon. (Well...cept maybe the betacam)

Just to toss in a 'fer instance'. The Sundance winner from 2004 , PRIMER, is out on DVD. Here's a review off Amazon. I saw a clip of this, and it looked interesting. Shot on 16mm for $7,000. It's a 'small film', minimal characters and locations... Great "hook" and script... far more important than the format.


Primer won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival and has drawn repeat viewers eager to crack writer-director-star Shane Carruth's puzzler of a time-travel drama. Carruth, an engineer by training, plays inventor Aaron, whose entrepreneurial partnership with fellow brainiac Abe (David Sullivan) unexpectedly results in a process for traveling back several hours in time. The men initially use these rewind sessions to succeed in the stock market. But a dark consequence of their daily journeys--the creation of Abe and Aaron's own doubles, wreaking havoc in the timeline--eventually preoccupies them with repairing altered realities. If this sounds like a very commercial, science fiction thriller, Primer is anything but that. Shot on 16mm for $7,000, the film has a tantalizing, sealed-in logic, akin to Memento, that forces viewers to see the fantastic with a certain dispassion. One may be tempted to sit through Primer again to more fully understand its paradoxes and ethical quandaries. --Tom Keogh

Richard, the issue of the legendary "$7000 budget" raises some interesting issues, but I think it's wondering off topic for this forum so I've answered over in the totem pole area...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....86&postcount=1

Robert Rodriguez Interview
Here's an interesting quote from Robert Rodriguez in his interview on AOL:
Quote:
Question: Robert, what was the REAL cost of "El Mariachi?" Was it really 7k?

RobtRodrgz: Yes. Usually when they talk about a movie's budget for an independent film, they talk about the budget up to the point where it gets sold to a distributor. What they teach you in film school and what most filmmakers do is to make a 16mm film print and show that to distributors. A film print costs you anywhere from $20,000 on up. What I did was to edit on videotape and show the videotape to distributors. Columbia Pictures bought the film off of videotape. That's the first time a studio bought a film from videotape. So, you can save a lot of money by using today's technology and not following what everyone else does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RR's quote is confusing. The distributors bought the video version of the film because they knew he shot film and they could make a print from the original negative! Of course you don't have to make a print, but in answering that question, RR makes it sound like shooting his film, on film, was irrelevant.

Talk about biting the Kodak film hand that gave RR his opportunity, film transferred to video STILL LOOKS LIKE FILM, and then the distributors had the film negative to cut, from the quote you provided, that is not clear at all.

Alessanddro,

RR was/is a master of marketing. My point was to encourage everyone to be innovative in their thinking -- to take advantage of the current technology to produce/promote your "film".

Today, HD is the new, low-cost technology to provide relatively high-quality motion pictures. So, the question is, how do we take advantage of this technology to produce/promote our motion pictures??? Remember, more than anything else, movies are "magic"!

I would say that the comparisons between HD and Film are basically pointless since both promote different types of filmmaking.

Filmmaking with film requires much forethought in designing the production schedule, pre-scripting of dialogue and "essential" shot selection . HD, because it is cheaper to shoot per minute while recording audio (although there are hidden costs that rear their head later on), tends to promote a different style of shooting. RR has said this very thing himself.

But lets not proclaim that HD is some kind of emancipator because one can shoot more imagery for the same amount of money. HD provides an opportunity to shoot as much as one wants towards creating a final product, and that is an optimal way to make a film, but it is not the only way, and not necessarily the preferred way either.

-------------------------------------

Imagine you are in a Western and Clint Eastwood is your shooting buddy. You both pull out your weapons of choice and take aim at the enemy.

You pull out your HD gattling gun and fire several rounds and eventually down your target. Clint pulls out his six shooter and with one shot, nails his target.

You and Clint face each other and say "nice shot".

Would you really rather never have a Clint Eastwood type as a shooting partner? Would you really prefer that all your future partners be those who only use and can only succeed with a gattling gun, in essence being a mirror of your own tendencies?

Alessandro,

I beg to differ.
This is true regardless of whether the scene is shot with film, HD, or even mini-DV. Quality filmmaking has little to do with the recording medium.

For the record, I didn't proclaim anything. If you want to stick with film -- fine, that's your choice. Many of us are interested in exploring how emerging technologies can assist us in producing/promoting our independent motion pictures.

Apparently I was still rewriting my message when you responded to it so it might not read exactly the way you originally read it.

Although digital filmmakers can make a film in exactly the same way that it is made in film, to use the exact same approach tends to minimize the advantages of HD video.

[QUOTE=Alessandro Machi] Imagine you are in a Western and Clint Eastwood is your shooting buddy. You both pull out your weapons of choice and take aim at the enemy.
You pull out your HD gattling gun and fire several rounds and eventually down your target. Clint pulls out his six shooter and with one shot, nails his target.
You and Clint face each other and say "nice shot".


But the most likely scenario outside Hollywood fantasy would be that Clint does not accomplish the task with one shot. The trouble with these fantasy analogies and the many general arguments posited against digital technology is that somehow film users are all Clint Eastwoods, all erudite, sensitive, masters of their craft, while on the other hand, those that embrace digital methodology are unprepared, vision-less weaklings who must rely on luck- of course, this is bunk.
Consider the recent masterpieces that would not have been made if it weren't for the presence of Digital means. Look at the stunning feature debuts and docs that would have been smothered at conception in the elitist world of film. One could go on forever, but in the end we'll see who rides off into the sunset and who lies in the dust.

It will be the filmmaker that is talented and has made a film that the vast majority of people (art film lovers and mainstream) think is a good movie and/or distributors think they can market.

I am a firm believer that the cream always rises to the top. Unless of course, the cream gives up before they get there.

And what you will be left with is "film" people sitting in the dust talking about how video is garbage because of whatever and "video" people sitting in the same dust talking about how affordable HD changed the world because of whatever.

Talent must prevail? I think not, history is replete with the husks of the talented, the geniuses who died in penury listening to the vacuous din of the pop culture of their day. One has to look no farther than most "Top One Hundred Movies" lists to see the atrocious relegation of talent and genius.
This is not a recent phenomenon, the Bard addressed the issues in a sonnet:


.... And right perfection wrongfully digrac'd,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue tied by authority...
...Tir'd with all these, from these I would be gone,
Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

[QUOTE=Bill Anderson]
This is the core fatalism that I have noticed about digiheads. "As long as one day film no longer exists, and HD does, than we have overcome the tyranny of film."

It's the same creepy sentiment that roils among different races. "One day, we will rule, and bla bla bla.......

Just enjoy both types of creativity, film and digital, without lusting for the day when only one form exists, as if somehow until that day comes, you are a victim of some sort.

The message I clearly made was digital filmmaking's stronger points is that one CAN make a film by breaking the common rules that exist when making a film on film. I question why anyone who has used digital will never ever make a film on film.

Instead of pointing an accusatory finger at what has been the stable, high resolution format for the last one hundred years, simply welcome the new.

My hope would be that all people don't fervently believe the more self absorbed the filmmaking process becomes, that somehow that is better than what came before, it will just be different.

As for the attempt to quash Clint Eastwood and his "magic bullet" it's funny to me how some scorn the analogy of Clint's magic bullet, yet final cut pro rode the coattails of the "magic bullet" process for several years.

I yesterday have seen Revenge of The Sith, digital projected, and I still like film more. Sometimes it was a tad soft, but I think that could have to do with the soft lightning maybe of Lucas.

I think this is a very interesting thread, but there aren't so many people who answered the original question: what would look better on the big screen, pure technical, 16mm or HD?

BTW: Please keep discussing, it's a very interesting read :-) I just noticed that when I started the question many people told it wasn't so very important which recording format you choose if you have a good story, actors, lightning,...
I know that, but I was curious to what would look the best on the big screen, just curious.
Most said S16mm if I'm correct.

Best regards,


Ow, and ps: another question: what could you deliver with the HDX200 in combination with a Mini35?

And another off topic question, but maybe it's better to post that in the HD forum, sorry if it's stupid: are there many differences between the Varicam and the Cinealta, and exept for bigger chips, are there other differences between that and the HDX?
Well, I know there are many, but what actually? Interchangeble lens system... and?

Sorry if this is way too off-topic, got more curious ;-)

I recently had the chance to do a visual comparison of formats. Our short film "After Twilight" screened in LA at the Raleigh Studios, Chaplain Theatre last week, as part of the Texas Film Commission Filmmakers Showcase. Of the eight shorts selected, One was shot in 35mm (ours) One shot in HD, One was a digital composite of old found footage, all the rest were shot in 16 and Super 16.

They were all burned to a beta tape and projected on a large screen in a nice theatre.

The HD did NOT look as good as the Super 16 or 16mm films. It was decidedly different.

How much that is attributed to the inherent skills of the production team,or the transfer process I can't say.( I suspect much of it was) But when it came up on screen, it was obviously not film. A nice piece, by the way, but the image was not as good as film.


I also got a chance to go to Parmount's camera department and talk to the guy there. He said that most of the sitcoms are moving to digital, but the episodics are staying with film. He said Kelsey Grammer's new sitcom was picked up, and that Grammer INSISTED it be shot on film.

I also got to handle one of the cameras that shot "The Ten Commandments"... cool mojo.

I think ultimately digital will take over most of the workflow in television, and high end effects films. But I don't think film will ever 'dissappear'. Different tools from the toolbox for different jobs.

1. It depends on what HD? F950? FX1? It depends what 16 mm? What film speed? DI? To make simple: If someone is buying under 10.000 USD camera and is not experienced filmmaker, just forget 16 mm. As to HD, can get superb results with F950, with sharpness (not resolution) of 70 mm, and you can get OK results with FX1 and slightly better with HDX.

2. You'll get film-type DOF. That is important. Picture will look more artistic, more pleasing, if you know what you doing.

3. CineAlta will look better on large theater screen, on HDTV Varicam may look better. Pro cameras will have better DOF, sharper lenses, more sound channels, better adjustments. better low light performance, etc.

Radek

[QUOTE=Bill Anderson]Talent must prevail? I think not, history is replete with the husks of the talented, the geniuses who died in penury listening to the vacuous din of the pop culture of their day. One has to look no farther than most "Top One Hundred Movies" lists to see the atrocious relegation of talent and genius.[Quote=Bill Anderson]

So there are hundreds of films out there like Pulp Fiction, Night of the Living Dead, Memento and Do the Right Thing that haven't seen the light of day?

Where are they? I have spent hundreds on underground horror DVDs, I really don't see the next George Romero or Clive Barker.

I have sat through a hundred films at various film festivals and markets and ended up watching hundreds of bad movies. Two of which I am responsible for making.

I find it hard to believe that distributors are passing up on films that were made by talented people that could make them money. Or festival attendees have a grand conspiracy to suppress films that are of excellent quality.

And top One Hundred lists doesn't prove anything. George Romero will never make a top one hundred list, but a lot of people know who he is. Same with Cronenberg, Barker, the Farrell Brothers......

I have seen too many bad films shot on 35mm, Super 16mm, 16mm, Super 8mm, HD, Betacam and Mini DV to believe that the format has anything to do with whether the film gets distributed or not. Talent and something that could be market easily to make a quick buck are what I think matters.

Thank you.

If one can survive the low budget filmmaking process and actually shoot film, I think the odds are higher for distribution than video, not because film is better, but because there is more dilution of content among mini-dv projects, meaning it's easier to attempt a mini-dv project, no matter how it turns out.

Lets say 10,000 mini-dv projects are offered to distributors and they purchase 100 of them, and lets say 1,000 Super 16 projects are offered to distributors and 50 are purchased by distributors.

Both mini-dv and super-8 16mm advocates can claim victory. Super-16 can claim victory because percentage-wise 5 times as many Super-16mm projects were purchased by distributors as was shot on mini-dv, but mini-dv advocates can claim victory because overall twice as many mini-dv projects were sold as compared to Super-16mm.

I just use those figures without any actual data back-up to illustrate that nowadays, any set of numbers can pretty much be used by either side to make their point.

I think the healthiest scenario is to be flexible enough as a filmmaker to not be shy to use either method.

I did some tests prior to shooting a feature called "The Perfect Sleep" last winter, which was slated to shoot on HDCAM (Cinealta) and deliver on 35mm. Since the director and I wanted a 2:40 aspect ratio, I needed to see for myself what that crop would look like after the film out to anamorphic (compared to a 1:85 "flat" film out). I was happy with the results, but we wanted to fight for film origination with a "poor man's DI" aka transfer to HDCAM for color correction then film out.

We looked at some Super 16mm footage that had gone through this process onto HDCAM and HDCAM SR then filmed out. I was surprised to see how much grain was present during this process--I would have expected a bit less. Even though it certainly had the film "look", it wasn't a clear win over the HD footage, which looked sharper and cleaner, for better or worse. The 35mm material we also screened was the obvious winner, but that format was unquestionably beyond our budget.

Charles,

Do you recall which S16 stocks you tested?

That's exactly. HD gives 70 mm sharpness and 16 mm resolution.

Radek

To this I'd add "Use a good sound person." Really. Occasionally iffy photography will be forgiven much more readily than badly recorded sound.

Richard:

We actually didn't shoot the 16mm footage--the film-out house had it from another project that had gone through their post process. They weren't able to tell me what stock was used, but it was a day exterior, so it is reasonable to assume that it wasn't over 200 ASA. I don't think it was 7245 though.

I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but the comparision I've been losing sleep over is HVX vs. Cinealta (or Varicam for ease). I'm going to be shooting a feature this winter on a 100k budget, and while I know nobody not fully aware of the production could answer the question of what camera to use, I'm really not sure what would make the most sense. We'd like to position ourselves that if needed we could do a decent film blow-up, and I'm wondering if the 1/3" chips of the HVX are simply not large enough to compete with the Cinealta. While, it would cost slightly more to rent a package then buy the HVX, I'm focused on making this movie the best it possibly can be. Any suggestions?

Since nobody's seen the image from the HVX, it's a bit hard to say but empirically, a 2/3" camera will win out over a 1/3" camera every time. It's just a smoother image. Especially if you are able to use the Digiprimes with that 2/3" camera.

What does that mean?

Rather than inadvertently hide your question in this topic, it seems like everyone, including yourself would be better served if your question were presented as a new topic.

---------------------------

I would never rely on a test in which one doesn't know the film stock of origination, how and who shot it, and under what conditions.

Also, Film Transfer facilities themselves vary in quality.

----------------------------

Jeff,

Interesting article in the newest Videography magazine about an indy shoot with digital workflow. Some good advice in there. Of course, it was a 'low budget' 1.5 million flick, but good advice nonetheless.

Alessandro, I'll assume this statement is directed towards my post. I agree, I wouldn't want to rely on a test like this; but I wasn't looking to rely on it, it was a preliminary comparison. The grain pattern was pretty consistent with most Super16mm releases I have seen (including those that I consider to be quite good, such as Leaving Las Vegas and The Station Agent). In comparison to HD originated material, the grain really popped.

Certainly transfer facilities vary. The house in question was iO Film in North Hollywood, and after extensive discussions and viewing of their demo material I decided to go with them for the filmout of "The Perfect Sleep" as I felt they not only provided a quality product but had excellent customer service. My associate Jim Muro who had "Crash" DI'd there had a good experience also.