A major motion picture shot on a DSLR

D

DLD

Major Contributor
http://www.cnet.com/news/shoot-a-movie-on-dslr-this-australian-film-shows-how-its-done/

Plenty of big-name films like "Black Swan", "Rush" and "Drive" have used dSLRs for a part of the production, but a small handful of movies have been shot entirely on these cameras.


"Love Is Now" is an Australian film shot on the same Nikon D810 dSLRs and lenses available to everyday photographers. Anthony Jennings, the director of photography on the film, is a cinematographer with extensive experience using dSLRs on both short films and full-blown features
Click to expand...



I posted the topic on a Nikon forum but, unless the mods say otherwise, IMO this is "industry news".

Below is the official trailer that was uploaded yesterday (the film is distributed by Universal Studios, which should qualify it as "major", should it not?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sInCKfvl5D4
 
The original concept for Act of Valor, if memory serves, was that the 5D was going to be used for the ops sequences with 35mm for everything else. Over the course of the shoot that shifted around as needed. I was onboard for several days where both 35mm and the 5D's were employed.
 
On the actual topic: The trailer didn't wow me.
Don't know what qualifies as "major motion picture", but the scenes looked properly lit and the shots traditionally composed and framed,
so I guess it was a routined crew with proper tools working this.
But the image quality itself just didn't cut it for me.
That said, I liked how Upstream Color or The Raid looked, so it doesn´t always have to be Alexa or F35.
If everything is pro-level anyways, I don't get why anyone would stick a DSLR behind his Cookes or whatever glas they used.
If you need to own the camera for whatever reason, get a Blackmagic (really, any of them...).
 
If Joaquin Phoenix and Matthew McConaughey had a baby he'd look exactly like the lead actor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tye
Spartacus said:
...
But the image quality itself just didn't cut it for me.
That said, I liked how Upstream Color or The Raid looked, so it doesn´t always have to be Alexa or F35.
If everything is pro-level anyways, I don't get why anyone would stick a DSLR behind his Cookes or whatever glas they used.
If you need to own the camera for whatever reason, get a Blackmagic (really, any of them...).
Click to expand...

I didn't like the "Upstream Color" visuals but I like this (personal preference, fwiw, although I also prefer higher resolution) and I assume that D810 was used for workflow as much as its image quality. I was surprised auto focus wasn't used more often since Nikon should want that feature advertised as well.

The absence of 4K is probably due to the contract with Sony. With a more powerful processor, it could have even been an 8K camera but that won't happen until Sony's 9 series is out.

I do think that a multi-cam DSLR shoot with either manual or motion control rigs is more of a future than a single camera Alexa or Varicam but I'll defer to Charles to opine on that topic.
 
joe1946 said:
The full frame Sony A7s is in a class by itself for low light video and should be better than any Canon or Nikon DSLR for shooting a major motion picture IMHO...
Click to expand...
A7s tests much better for low light/high ISO but D810 has a superior dynamic range.
 
The film looks excellent. And of course it was shot by a crew that knows what they are doing and making it happen in the real world. True excellent work by real pros.
 
Laika shoots it's features with dslrs on small moco rigs. Stills, not video. They are major motion pictures.
 
joe1946 said:
The full frame Sony A7s is in a class by itself for low light video and should be better than any Canon or Nikon DSLR for shooting a major motion picture IMHO.
https://vimeo.com/105690274
https://vimeo.com/99893160
https://vimeo.com/107462710
https://vimeo.com/105035143
Click to expand...

Perhaps these people looked beyond the spec sheet and the hype. Perhaps they wanted a camera that had about the same rolling shutter than the 2007 Nikon D90 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue! http://andrewwonder.com/blog/entry/why-im-returning-sony-a7s

Perhaps they wanted to have natural or pleasing colours that they can grade to their liking. Not a camera that has on every website Forum thread after thread popping about how to grade to get at least a semblance of good skin tone. Perhaps if they wanted some gore movie they would have use the A7s with it green/magenta bias that makes as if people have been shot under low CRI fluorescent light https://vimeo.com/99411494. Just a small small sample below

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7145-grading-s-log2s-gamut-in-adobe/?hl=adobe
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7443-a7s-grading/
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?325472-Sony-A7S-vs-Sony-F35-the-big-vs-the-small/page2
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?327629-a7s-color-test
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326049-A7S-PicPro-Settings



So to come and say categorically that the A7s is far superior to the D810 is (lets be polite) very exaggerated. It has its fare share of shortcoming.
 
For those that did not follow the D810 it is a very capable camera with very good resolution, no moire/aliasing, very good DR and ultimately gorgeous looks as the video below. It does not have the low light of the A7s but I am not going to shoot a movie with moon light. I would have liked more test of the D810 and D750 but unfortunately nowadays it is all about hype. Just give some spec sheet and the geek will make the rest. Now it is all good to shoot with a camera at Nikon D90 in 2007, which was horrible because the camera can shoot clean 12800 ISO. The super dynamic range Slog so vaunted is only usable at 3200 ISo, so completely unusable during the day, and I am not talking about the colour science of this camera..... but but but, you can shoot clean 3200 ISO.




 
Last edited:
The a7s does have plenty of shortcomings, but I still think it tops the D810, because it has a better codec (though you'd use an external recorder for a feature film) and a bit more DR in video mode (DLD must be talking about RAW stills). Regarding color, I really like what the a7s can give you with good settings, and I think all the complaints come from people using s-gamut, which looks pretty bad unless you go for the correct LUT-based workflow (which I don't like either, that's why I went for my Flaat settings). I'm super happy with my a7s, but I think I'd be as well with a D810, so I will give you that it surely is a close fight.

Back to the main topic: did anyone see a quote for the budget of this film? (trying to put a meaning to that "major" thing in their press release)
 
Last edited:
If you are not making a film for pixel peepers, and no one does, then as long as it is professionally lit, the shots are well composed, and it's edited well, the audience will not be affected by your choice of camera as long as it hits the minimum standards, and most of the newer cameras do that. It can't look "videoy" like a soap opera or sports show, and there must be proper dynamic range, nothing blown out or going black when it shouldn't. You can compensate for a camera with limited dynamic range by doing some extra work, more lights, breaking out the ND on windows in interior daylight shots, careful composition, etc. There needs to be limited moire and aliasing, and again you can take care of some of that with composition, lighting, wardrobe choices, etc.
I think where we are at now is you CAN make a film with a lower end camera than an Alexa or Red, etc., and some extra work, and the audience won't be affected.
However, as your budget increases, it's more and more true that time equals money, and the camera becomes less and less of a factor in your budget. If you are working with A list stars and experienced and well known directors, directors of photography, and crew, and expensive locations, sets, FX, saving a few hours on set is way more valuable than saving a few dollars on your choice of camera.

I don't see anything in the trailer that would distract an average audience. If they were interested in the story, if they found the acting compelling, they wouldn't quibble with the look of this movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tye
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top