A major motion picture shot on a DSLR

Spartacus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not to be cynical, but when I read "Major Motion Picture" and then saw "Australian film," I was kind of like, ummm... yeah... it's a professionally done flick, but not what I consider a "Major Motion Picture."

It looks nice, but the story didn't hook me as something I really wanted to put in my queue.

Still I think DSLRs will continue to be empowering for indie films, but we'll always have Arri Alexas, etc. b/c if you're making a $200mil blockbuster, you can afford to rent a $200k camera.
 
zijital said:
Not to be cynical, but when I read "Major Motion Picture" and then saw "Australian film," I was kind of like, ummm... yeah... it's a professionally done flick, but not what I consider a "Major Motion Picture." ...


Still I think DSLRs will continue to be empowering for indie films, but we'll always have Arri Alexas, etc. b/c if you're making a $200mil blockbuster, you can afford to rent a $200k camera.
Click to expand...
A major studio ... so, a major motion picture (presuming it's released and distributed by Universal in the US and not just Australia/NZ) ... or close enough to be called such.

As to cameras, Peter Jackson can shoot with half a dozen of Dragons at a time but a smaller production - and pretty much everything is smaller than Peter Jackson - may not. Therein lies a choice of a half a dozen cameras with one or two operators with motion control rigs or a couple of hand held F-55's/Dragons in their stead.

FWIW, a lot of lower budgeted films of the 1930's - say, something like all the 3 Stooges shorts - were shot with 3-4 cameras and that was way before the sitcom era (the 3S directors always kept one camera on Curly because he could always go off by himself with some shtick). Nowadays, there are TV studios where the morning chat shows are done with 2-4 operators controlling 8-10 DSLR style cameras simultaneously off their monitors via joy sticks. IMO, this is where this is going but I would like to know Charles' opinion on this as well.
 
DLD said:
Nowadays, there are TV studios where the morning chat shows are done with 2-4 operators controlling 8-10 DSLR style cameras simultaneously off their monitors via joy sticks. IMO, this is where this is going but I would like to know Charles' opinion on this as well.
Click to expand...
Which ones are doing that?
 
DLD said:
A major studio ... so, a major motion picture (presuming it's released and distributed by Universal in the US and not just Australia/NZ) ... or close enough to be called such.
Click to expand...

I think this might just be a matter of opinion. There is a point where I wouldn't really call "Slumdog Millionare" a "Major Motion Picture." Yes it had Danny Boyle directing & it was written by Simon Beaufoy, but they didn't have much studio backing during production. Warner Independent only coughed up $5mil for the $15mil projected budget.

Then after the film was completed, Warner was ready to send it straight to DVD. Fox jumped in, took over distribution & netted a 50% share of the $300+ mil the movie took in at the box office.

No "Major" film production is only going to get $5mil from the studio. $5mil is a "Minor Motion Picture" or "Medium Motion Picture" at best.

If the next Iron Man is shot on a DSLR, then we're talking "Major Motion Picture," but until then I think people use that term too loosely.

DLD said:
Nowadays, there are TV studios where the morning chat shows are done with 2-4 operators controlling 8-10 DSLR style cameras simultaneously off their monitors via joy sticks.
Click to expand...

James0b57 said:
Which ones are doing that?
Click to expand...

+1. I won't believe it until I see it.

I just don't believe this because I don't know of many DSLRs that can provide a reliable clean video output. Added to that, do any DSLR's play nice with a CCU? How much does it cost to get the follow focus, servo zoom, etc. on a DSLR. And once you get all of that going, is it better than something like a HPX-255?
 
It looks like a low budget feature, not a "major motion picture". I believe that actress lives in LA now like a lot of Ozzie talent.
 
Arh....fanboyism rears it's little head again . This camera with a certain logo shoots an entire feature film with one match.....blah, blah...... and it seems to happen mostly with HDLSR owners. Why is that ?

IMO narrative film is always about light ( as well as the other disciplines ) if you don't get that, then maybe you aren't working in it.

Ps not a fan of HDLSR images but this camera appears to able to deliver a strong cinematic resolute image, Congrats to Nikon .
 
You guys realize LIKE CRAZY was shot on 7Ds, starred Anton Yelchin, and was released by major studios, right?

... Right?


It wasn't a major, though, but just saying... this isn't the first of its kind, at all.
 
Some could calculate days of shooting on one of these, the daily rental of a Red or Arri, and then it comes to like what, 1 or 2% of the total budget? There's no reason to use anything but top of the line cameras on a "major" production. The screenplay alone costs more than the camera rental probably. Why would you pay that much for a screen play, then shoot on a DSLR? Makes no sense.

[h=3]Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines[edit][/h]
  • Story rights (Carolco and Gale Anne Hurd): $19.5 million
  • Screenplay: $5.2 million
    • John D. Brancato & Michael Ferris: $1 million
  • Director (Jonathan Mostow): $5 million
  • Producers: $10 million
  • Cast: $35 million
    • Arnold Schwarzenegger: $29.25 million + 20% gross profits
    • Arnold's perks: $1.5 million
    • Rest of principal cast: $3.85 million
    • Extras: $450,000
  • Production costs: $58 million
  • Post-production costs: $4 million
  • Visual effects: $20 million
  • Music: $2 million
  • Other costs: $33.6 million
Total: $187.3 million[SUP][7][/SUP]
[h=3]Spider-Man 2[edit][/h]
  • Story rights: $20 million
  • Screenplay: $10 million
  • Producers: $15 million
  • Director (Sam Raimi): $10 million
  • Cast: $30 million
  • Production costs: $45 million
  • Visual effects: $65 million
  • Music: $5 million
Total: $200 million[SUP][8][/SUP]
 
DLD said:
FWIW, a lot of lower budgeted films of the 1930's - say, something like all the 3 Stooges shorts - were shot with 3-4 cameras and that was way before the sitcom era (the 3S directors always kept one camera on Curly because he could always go off by himself with some shtick). Nowadays, there are TV studios where the morning chat shows are done with 2-4 operators controlling 8-10 DSLR style cameras simultaneously off their monitors via joy sticks. IMO, this is where this is going but I would like to know Charles' opinion on this as well.
Click to expand...

I can't make any comment on what is going on in the broadcast sector because I don't work in that. For feature films, there may be a few environments where shooting narrative portions with a slew of cameras might make sense (an improv-based project for instance) but in general this sort of thing is the realm of action scenes, stunts and pyro. I've worked on days where we had up to 8 manned cameras. DSLR's on larger shows tend to fall into the domain of an extra camera that can be slung into a remote spot as a non-operated angle or in specialized rigs like body mounts, in other words taking advantage of the small size and weight. I bought an A7S with that in mind and have yet to use it on set.

There was that era where DSLR's were flavor of the month and there were plenty of higher-budget projects that used them because it was new and interesting. Things have settled down for the most part and now there would have to be a seriously compelling reason to shoot a feature with a DSLR outside of budget. The day will come when a DSLR can produce an image as good as an Alexa--but by then the Alexa will itself be a different camera, so the bar will keep moving.
 
CharlesPapert said:
... There was that era where DSLR's were flavor of the month and there were plenty of higher-budget projects that used them because it was new and interesting. Things have settled down for the most part and now there would have to be a seriously compelling reason to shoot a feature with a DSLR outside of budget. The day will come when a DSLR can produce an image as good as an Alexa--but by then the Alexa will itself be a different camera, so the bar will keep moving.
Click to expand...
Right. I made a similar point in the Samsung thread.

However - let's say you're the head honcho of a "1-camera" sitcom (rather than a live audience type) and you have 2-3 frequently used sets (or one large set where a vast portion of action takes place). Avoiding names like DSLR or Alexa, would you choose :

a) motion control rigs with 8-10-15 cams capable of shooting simultaneously with 3-5 human operators;

or

b) 8-10-15 human operators, each with a cam a la live rock concert (off Wikipedia, for "AC/DC, Live at River Plate", David Mallet used 32 cams)

or

c) typical 1-4 cams with a camera person on each, employing multiple resets.

The idea in theory is to combine the production speed of a 4-camera show with the feel and look of a 1-camera production.

How far off am I?
 
James0b57 said:
Thanks, it was London Live.

http://www.londonlive.co.uk/tv you can see a dslr behind a teleprompter on one of their web banner images.
Click to expand...

Here is more info.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/09/...-london-live-studios-a-unique-cinematic-look/
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/london_live_to_use_nikon_dslrs1/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d4-d800-dslrs-used-exclusively-by-london-live-25773

Neat stuff. I'd be interested to know the price tag on that setup vs the "usual" robocams found in news rooms all over.
 
DLD said:
However - let's say you're the head honcho of a "1-camera" sitcom (rather than a live audience type) and you have 2-3 frequently used sets (or one large set where a vast portion of action takes place). Avoiding names like DSLR or Alexa, would you choose :

a) motion control rigs with 8-10-15 cams capable of shooting simultaneously with 3-5 human operators;

or

b) 8-10-15 human operators, each with a cam a la live rock concert (off Wikipedia, for "AC/DC, Live at River Plate", David Mallet used 32 cams)

or

c) typical 1-4 cams with a camera person on each, employing multiple resets.

The idea in theory is to combine the production speed of a 4-camera show with the feel and look of a 1-camera production.

How far off am I?
Click to expand...

Well, c) would be the standard answer, I'm trying to wrap my head around the other possibilities. I typically work with 2 cameras and sometimes 3 but that's about as far as one can generally stretch it if you are looking to maintain, as you said, the look and feel of single camera. Beyond that you are getting into the realm of multi-camera sitcom and that requires a different approach. You need space for the cameras, so the sets are three-wall at most, the lighting has to be entirely off the grid from above, and the cameras are all relatively distant from the action so they don't photograph each other.

That last part is really the key. You can't really start adding "high and wides" without having to pull the other cameras way back, and you can't place cameras into the set in "privileged" positions to catch details like underneath a coffee table because all the shots start to get compromised to one degree or another. Generally the goal of using multiple cameras is to save time, and if you have to spend that time figuring out the scheme, there's no time savings. And the more cameras, the more general the lighting has to be which further removes the project from the single-camera look. When I am asked to cross-shoot a conversation between two characters, it will usually take me at least as long to light if than if we did it one side at a time, but the advantage comes in the edit.

The oft-quoted example of an efficient single-camera show is Modern Family. They employ two cameras and cross-shoot everything from either side, and get through their days extremely quickly. The look of the show is partially dictated by this approach (mockumentary-ish).
 
On the term "Major motion picture" -- I think the term is being used incorrectly here. Distribution by a major studio doesn't make for a "major motion picture" -- if it did, then any film distributed by the major studios would be a "major motion picture" -- and that would include no-dollar camcorder-shot pictures like Dogme95 films, or things like Ed Burns' The Brothers McMullen, or Clerks, or the independently-produced Napoleon Dynamite, or "El Mariachi". All of those had distribution through major companies, even though they were all no-name, low-budget productions.

A major motion picture, by industry definition, is one that's funded and developed through the studio system, funded by the major studios, produced by the major studios, and distributed by the major studios. It's just what the word means. "Independent" films, by comparison, are those funded other than by the major studios, *regardless* of their budget (so that means that Robert Duvall shelling out $5 million to make "The Apostle" is just as much an "independent film" as Ed Burns' $27,000 "The Brothers McMullen" or Robert Rodriguez' $8,000 "El Mariachi".) Pluto Nash, on the other hand, while being a total financial disaster, was also a major motion picture.

The Avengers is a major motion picture. The Hunger Games is a major motion picture. Avatar was a major motion picture. Not just because their budgets were big (although that's pretty much guaranteed when the major studios develop a project) but inherently because of how they were developed and financed, regardless of the budget.

If Universal or 20th Century Fox were to pick up Faith Granger's "Deuce of Spades" for national distribution, that wouldn't translate it into becoming a major motion picture. It would still be a "no-budget" film.
 
It costs (here in the EU) less than 4k for a 7 day week to rent an ALEXA. An AMIRA is half that amount, which by doing 12bits 4444, is even more than enough for smaller movies.

Camera costs are essentially negligible these days when working professionally. Not just for movies, but even for the average 200k tv commercial. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use anything other than an ALEXA. Tried, tested, reliable and best looking pictures.

That said, Nikon has a hit home ground with the D810. It rivals last years Hasselblads for fashion/landscape/commercial, and allows anybody with no budget (but plenty of time) to produce a perfectly capable broadcast tv commercial for peanuts.

Canon on the other hand, has self-destructed his own DSLR+video market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top