Camera choices

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
I'm almost done with my first feature film. Shot on a Canon HV40 and Canon HV30. Its turned out great, and has a ton of buzz and all sorts of steam behind it. So much so, that we may very well have some serious backing for our next film.

However, we are still going to have to maintain our weekend warrior status of filming to get it done.

Lets just say I had the budget to pay all the talent, crew, craft services, and rent lighting.

What could I do on the camera side of things to get as close to a "Hollywood" movie look as possible, without shooting on 35mm film?

Rent the RED? Buy a Canon 7d or 5D and some nice prime lenses? Rent a Varicam? I want to take this to the next level, but within our means.
 
Take a scene which you already know and have shot on a weekend and rent a Red for a weekend and use it to shoot that scene. Then edit it and look at the results. That will tell you right away what you need to know.
 
When you take a production up a notch the cost raises exponentially. It's not the camera only but also a pro crew (you don't want to put the focus or the well-being of your footage in hands of a "weekend warrior") and lighting (with the beautiful camera and pro crew you want your shots to be good to) so the extra expense for that and yet extra crew to work those lights...

Ask yourself how much realistically you can raise and then go from that number figuring out the best tools you can afford.
 
Last edited:
Azmyth said:
I'm wanting to spend the money to make my next film marketable as a theatrical release.
Click to expand...

Well, what films are playing at your local cinema? Check out their budgets. Also, check out who distributed them. If you want a theatrical release, you'll need to sell your picture to a distributor. The distributor will only want to know who's "attached".
 
Cold harsh truth from arniepix, but ... yeah. How many "weekend warrior" films do you see distributed theatrically?

Theatrical release has really nothing to do with what camera it was shot on, or even with who's attached to it; it really comes down to: will an audience pay good money to see it? And, given the choice that they could spend that exact same money to see The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Knight and Day, Despicable Me, Toy Story 3, or Avatar, why would they instead choose to spend that money on your film?

If you've got a great answer to that, then theatrical release is a possibility.

If you don't have an answer to that, then theatrical release is probably a pipe dream.

Getting closer to the crux of the matter: there have been a few (very few) "weekend warrior" projects that have gotten theatrical release. But how many of them have tried to make a "hollywood-style" film? ZERO. They instead do something totally un-hollywood. Make a list of the microbudget films that have had theatrical releases:
Birdemic: Shock and Terror
Paranormal Activity
Blair Witch Project
My Date With Drew
November
Murderball
Iraq In Fragments
Primer
Clerks
Spellbound
Open Water

Notice a consistent trend here? These films are pretty much as un-hollywood as you can get.

In other words, the secret to getting a theatrical release against hollywood-style films is NOT to try to make a micro-budget hollywood-style film. It's to make something unique, with a unique voice, something that people haven't seen before, something that Hollywood doesn't have. Did any of those films have hollywood stars? No.* Did any of them have hollywood production values? No. Did any of them have big budgets? No. Were any of them typical romantic comedies or action pictures? No. Do you know (or care) what camera they were shot on? No. Were any of them shot on any typical hollywood camera? No.*2

So, if you want to go up against Hollywood films and compete for the theatrical dollars, you'd better either:
a) have a hollywood budget and throw in all the same elements they do (cast, explosions, production value, etc) or
b) have a unique vision and a unique presentation of content that is so different and compelling that people just have to see it.


*well, "My Date With Drew" did, but not in any sort of conventional sense.
*2 many of them were DVX100; Primer and Blair Witch and Clerks were 16mm but not hollywood-class Aatons, more like old news cameras like Blair Witch's CP16/R. Open Water was a Sony VX2000 standard-def interlaced-only DV camera. Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch both used cheapo consumer cameras, Blair Witch and My Date With Drew were 8mm (maybe Hi8mm) camcorders.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all you guys.

I guess I am just wanting to move from "micro budget" (using only the crew/tools I can get at the cheapest price) to actually hiring professionals, and using higher quality gear.

I would even like to shoot like a real production, for consecutive days. The reason I am asking all these questions is because I'm about to talk to a potential investor whom may be able to do all this for us on our next film. He was extremely impressed by what we've done with so little, and all the hard work and comradery that I was able to capture in everyone on this project. He wants us to be able to make a "real" movie as he put it.

Now though, we this new DSLR craze the gap is alot less. I was looking at stuff done with the RED vs. the Canon 5D mark 2 and you almost can't tell the difference, in alot of stuff I couldn't tell the difference. The budget would def. allow to purchase one of those and several lenses on top of renting professional lighting and grip.
 
Last edited:
Azmyth said:
I agree with all you guys.

I guess I am just wanting to move from "micro budget" (using only the crew/tools I can get at the cheapest price) to actually hiring professionals, and using higher quality gear.

I would even like to shoot like a real production, for consecutive days. The reason I am asking all these questions is because I'm about to talk to a potential investor whom may be able to do all this for us on our next film. He was extremely impressed by what we've done with so little, and all the hard work and comradery that I was able to capture in everyone on this project. He wants us to be able to make a "real" movie as he put it.

Now though, we this new DSLR craze the gap is alot less. I was looking at stuff done with the RED vs. the Canon 5D mark 2 and you almost can't tell the difference, in alot of stuff I couldn't tell the difference. The budget would def. allow to purchase one of those and several lenses on top of renting professional lighting and grip.
Click to expand...

It looks like you are reading the words but not understanding the meaning... For a film to be high end you can't simply use high end tools to shoot it, you also need to put high end content* in front of those tools.

* meaning 2 fireworks going off in front of your DSLR won't make it look like beaches of Normandy in "Saving Private Ryan." But even if taken lightly, your barely decent actor won't have the same impact as a pro.
 
One thing a lot of people don't realize is the effort in making a 5D image look good or the limitations you have to work with really detract from the creative process. I use a 7D because I can afford it. If I also have an HV30 and an HF200 (well I just sold the HF200 today).

I have been in talks for a few projects with investors and producers. While I absolutely love the Red One results, it too has issues you have to be aware of in terms of hardware to actually edit the results and the converting from their format to whatever you want to use. It's not that it isn't doable, it's just, there are SO MANY variables.

If I were to get funding TODAY for doing one of our more expensive films, I would personally rent a RED with an MX sensor. That said, there are MANY other cameras that also work great in the Pro digital realm that I am sure a lot of other people here can recommend. When I look at gear, I look at what can make my life easier so I can focus on the talent (which has been pointed out) and directing and not be futzing with making technology work that isn't doing well.

With the current crop of DSLRs, there is usually the problem of audio capture, many of them have automatic gain issues. There is the problem of focus pulling, not as easy. There is the fact of lens design, ie breathing and or focus through zoom. If you are doing any keying, with my Canon the macroblocking of the H264 really makes it hard for some scenes to seperate like hair from the background. VERY tough.

I know that is a lot of negativity there towards DSLR, I just want to make sure that in reading this, you go off and start reading more about what you will deal with. Especially Moire, Aliasing and Jello. These are all WAY worse than the HV30 say on the 7D. WAY WORSE.

I am a weekend warrior cinematographer as well. I'd like to do it full time, but haven't hit that point yet. The other big thing too is that with Panasonic, Sony and Red saying they will have new cameras out by the end of the year (Scarlet, and yes, I understand the believe it when I see it feeling), right now for me I just cannot invest in anything more than my 7D. I am really intrigued by the AF100 and the Scarlet S35 (although the S35 is slated for next year).
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
It looks like you are reading the words but not understanding the meaning... For a film to be high end you can't simply use high end tools to shoot it, you also need to put high end content* in front of those tools.

* meaning 2 fireworks going off in front of your DSLR won't make it look like beaches of Normandy in "Saving Private Ryan." But even if taken lightly, your barely decent actor won't have the same impact as a pro.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase.

I will have the budget to move up in EVERY aspect of the film production. From the crew, to the lighting, to the camera, to the sound, to the talent, to the craft services.. everything. Now, my question refers only to one section of that, the camera. If I am going to be going all out on everything else, why can't I shoot on a nice camera? Hmm?

A few months ago you were telling me it was impossible to shoot a feature with no budget, without paying actors, and without renting a grip truck and all the other stuff you said. I've done that, and now that I'm trying to do it the "right" way as you say.. thats wrong too?

which is it.
 
grimepoch said:
One thing a lot of people don't realize is the effort in making a 5D image look good or the limitations you have to work with really detract from the creative process. I use a 7D because I can afford it. If I also have an HV30 and an HF200 (well I just sold the HF200 today).

I have been in talks for a few projects with investors and producers. While I absolutely love the Red One results, it too has issues you have to be aware of in terms of hardware to actually edit the results and the converting from their format to whatever you want to use. It's not that it isn't doable, it's just, there are SO MANY variables.

If I were to get funding TODAY for doing one of our more expensive films, I would personally rent a RED with an MX sensor. That said, there are MANY other cameras that also work great in the Pro digital realm that I am sure a lot of other people here can recommend. When I look at gear, I look at what can make my life easier so I can focus on the talent (which has been pointed out) and directing and not be futzing with making technology work that isn't doing well.

With the current crop of DSLRs, there is usually the problem of audio capture, many of them have automatic gain issues. There is the problem of focus pulling, not as easy. There is the fact of lens design, ie breathing and or focus through zoom. If you are doing any keying, with my Canon the macroblocking of the H264 really makes it hard for some scenes to seperate like hair from the background. VERY tough.

I know that is a lot of negativity there towards DSLR, I just want to make sure that in reading this, you go off and start reading more about what you will deal with. Especially Moire, Aliasing and Jello. These are all WAY worse than the HV30 say on the 7D. WAY WORSE.

I am a weekend warrior cinematographer as well. I'd like to do it full time, but haven't hit that point yet. The other big thing too is that with Panasonic, Sony and Red saying they will have new cameras out by the end of the year (Scarlet, and yes, I understand the believe it when I see it feeling), right now for me I just cannot invest in anything more than my 7D. I am really intrigued by the AF100 and the Scarlet S35 (although the S35 is slated for next year).
Click to expand...

Thanks, that was actually helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top