Camerabation- the camera envy discussion thread.

squig

squig

Veteran
I don't know about the rest of you but after almost 5 years listening to people jerk off about cameras (part of that time moderating the jerk offs @ cinema5D) I'm kinda over it. Call me crazy but I just wanna make cool films!

It amazes me how people can piss away all their money on a Scarlet and not have enough left to pay for some decent actors and not have the skills to get a good image from the Scarlet!

I'm currently in the process of testing cameras for my first feature which I'm going to crowdfund. I own all my own gear, rental is prohibitively expensive in Australia especially if you camerabate as much as I do. My budget for the film is around $80,000 and I'm selling off some gear I'm not using to fund the purchase of new gear for the film. I don't give a crap about 4k acquisition or RAW workflows, I just want to engage my audience. I don't like hulking big cameras and I prefer to work solo or with a very small crew which I think helps to create a better creative environment for me and the actors to work in.

I've been playing with DSLRs since the D90 came out and I've shot some really nice stuff but the 35mm look that I've been striving for has eluded me (until today). I'm not going to say what I shot this on but I will say that I think I've found the look I want and I didn't have to mortgage my house for it (my landlord wouldn't be into it). So now I'm going to try to stop camerabating and get on with making my film and ignore all the wankers who go on and on about "high-end" but couldn't shoot a rabbit if it was tied to a pole.

Peace out.

 
Maybe its just me but I'm missing what is so special about that shot that would start people guessing about what camera its on. Looks like standard DSLR stuff with a vintage lens to me. I'm going to guess either the N5200 or N7100 as you have been going on about those a lot lately.
 
Camera envy is & always has been pointless .....its refreshing to see changing attitudes towards camera's after the fanboy-ism of the DLSR period ....as those former owners becoming more professional, move on or drop out.
 
Last edited:
RatLabProductions said:
Maybe its just me but I'm missing what is so special about that shot that would start people guessing about what camera its on. Looks like standard DSLR stuff with a vintage lens to me. I'm going to guess either the N5200 or N7100 as you have been going on about those a lot lately.
Click to expand...

You must be a high end camerabator, stop looking at pixels and start looking at life. I could tell you it's special because the noise pattern is very film-like @ 1600 ISO, it's resolving 850 horizontal lines (enough for a sharp 35mm like picture with anamorphic glass), the rolling shutter is about 15-16ms (preliminary figures), the colours are very nice, dynamic range is good, and it didn't cost the bank, but that's not it. What's special about the shot and the camera is it's not contrived, when I point it at something it brings my filmmaking vision to life and that's not something you can calculate in megapixels.

And no it's not a Nikon.

Indeed Mike.
 
Last edited:
squig said:
And no it's not a Nikon.
Click to expand...

GH2, GH3, or a Canon DSLR?

Hey, I had to give it a try.

I hear you though. I've been looking at cameras and lenses again lately, especially with NAB going on lately. I'm happy that cameras like the Blackmagic 4K Production Camera are in the near future, even though I can't afford to deal with 4K (the data), nor do I need 4K. I've also gotten tired of feeling like I have to always achieve some mythical image where people will ask me "was that shot on film?"... as it just seems like as close as we get with DSLRs or Scarlets or whatnot, digital is still gonna have a slightly different look than celluloid. I noticed that as more high end shows and movies switch to digital, that the coveted "film" look is fading a bit. Oh well, not the end of the world. I just started watching House of Cards on Netflix. I love the look of the show, but it is also a bit clinical, and digital. It is shot on a Red camera. There doesn't seem to be much grain. It works for the show though. I'm not gonna lose sleep over these things anymore.

I happen to think both looks are good and depending on the material, and can work well if the people behind the camera know how to use the gear. The best digital stuff looks close enough anyways, and most viewers aren't worried about it either way. Although I sill like the film look, I have to be realistic about it. If I want my stuff to look exactly like film, I should shoot on film, which I can't afford... so hello HD DSLR. In the end there are a ton of other factors (story, acting, sound, etc.) to worry about. Getting fixated on just the camera part is like a painter getting tripped up over the fact that they can't afford the best oil paints when they start out.
 
squig said:
You must be a high end camerabator, stop looking at pixels and start looking at life. I could tell you it's special because the noise pattern is very film-like @ 1600 ISO, it's resolving 850 horizontal lines (enough for a sharp 35mm like picture with anamorphic glass), the rolling shutter is about 15-16ms (preliminary figures), the colours are very nice, dynamic range is good, and it didn't cost the bank, but that's not it. What's special about the shot and the camera is it's not contrived, when I point it at something it brings my filmmaking vision to life and that's not something you can calculate in megapixels.
Click to expand...

I am the furthest thing from a pixel peeper which is why I said I see nothing special one way or the other. The only thing that makes that footage interesting at all is that it captures a special moment for you and your family. Special for you but not for others.

For someone chastising people pixel peeping you post a video and want people to guess which camera? really? Your accusing other peoples footage of being contrived but yours isn't and its because of some camera that has given you a look your discovered that day? I really don't get what your trying to do here.
 
...I plan on seeing Shane Carruth's "UpStream Color" on the big screen later this week, which won at Sundance 2013 ( for sound ) and was shot with a GH2 camera.

Between the GH2/GH3 cameras and the new BlackMagic Pocket Camera, I don't think camera budget is preventing anyone from making their Indie feature these days.
 
RatLabProductions said:
I am the furthest thing from a pixel peeper which is why I said I see nothing special one way or the other. The only thing that makes that footage interesting at all is that it captures a special moment for you and your family. Special for you but not for others.

For someone chastising people pixel peeping you post a video and want people to guess which camera? really? Your accusing other peoples footage of being contrived but yours isn't and its because of some camera that has given you a look your discovered that day? I really don't get what your trying to do here.
Click to expand...

^ What Ratlab said in both posts.

I feel like I'm being "bated", (I mean baited) by posting in this thread, but here goes. You bash the guy for pixel peeping then go on about rolling shutters, scan lines and DR.

If you found the perfect camera at a nice price point, rock on and make your film.

best thought so far:
..its refreshing to see changing attitudes towards camera's after the fanboy-ism of the DLSR period ....as those former owners becoming more professional, move on or drop out.
Click to expand...

Time to get back to work.
 
squig said:
... ignore all the wankers who go on and on about "high-end" but couldn't shoot a rabbit if it was tied to a pole.
Click to expand...

What rabbit, where???!!!


8651882003_d11726d295.jpg
 
Your talent goes in and out of focus. You might want a deeper DoF.

Audiences haven't cared about the camera since David Lynch shot Inland Empire on the Sony PD 150, an SD camera.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460829/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Most of 28 Days Later is shot on a Canon XL-1S. That was in 2002.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Monsters is HD, but it's shot on a Sony PMW-EX3. Hardly the latest greatest camera touted by the indie film community. it doesn't even have interchangeable lenses.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Crank 2 was shot on:
Canon HF10
Canon XH-A1
Sony PMW-EX1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1121931/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec



The "look", the IQ whatever you want to call it of video has been good enough for audiences a long, long time now. As long as it doesnt' look like Days of our Lives or General Hospital from the 90's (and HFR kinda does), audiences don't care.

Most people would rather see something very entertaining with a video look, than crap with a film look. It's relatively easy to do the film look, or at least enough for most audiences. It's hard not to make crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top