Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan may have used the 7D for some shots
- Thread starter Cory Braun
- Start date
whitehorse84
Member
awesome. I'm very interested in this whole DSLR "revolution"..
Chris Adler
Veteran
Man. Threads like this are getting so old and cliché.
People! Stop worrying about the tools and start concentrating on shooting a compelling story!
I'd rather hear about a new "well-told compelling story" revolution than constantly hearing about the "DSLR revolution". All the DSLR revolution will do is increase the number of good looking crummy stories that will inundate film festivals and distributors with piles of crap to sort through. I've noticed that both Sundance and Slamdance claim record numbers of submissions this year. I'm sure DSLR's are a major factor.
Historically well-told stories have found an audience, regardless of the tools that created them. DSLR's will do nothing to change that fact. Basic supply and demand.
And sure, I get it. Kids who have never had a girl friend can get a DSLR and this will make them BELIEVE they have the same filmmaker power to wield as Aronofsky and others. Well their wrong. The tool isn't what sets you apart from good filmmakers, and it never has been.
To me, the sure sign of a newbie who has a TON to learn about filmmaking is what they talk about. Do they talk about story and how to convey it visually, or is it about the tools they're going to shoot it with? Tools should be a topic of discussion WAY down the chain, though right now, for a lot of people here, it's the focus-- not the story.
People! Stop worrying about the tools and start concentrating on shooting a compelling story!
I'd rather hear about a new "well-told compelling story" revolution than constantly hearing about the "DSLR revolution". All the DSLR revolution will do is increase the number of good looking crummy stories that will inundate film festivals and distributors with piles of crap to sort through. I've noticed that both Sundance and Slamdance claim record numbers of submissions this year. I'm sure DSLR's are a major factor.
Historically well-told stories have found an audience, regardless of the tools that created them. DSLR's will do nothing to change that fact. Basic supply and demand.
And sure, I get it. Kids who have never had a girl friend can get a DSLR and this will make them BELIEVE they have the same filmmaker power to wield as Aronofsky and others. Well their wrong. The tool isn't what sets you apart from good filmmakers, and it never has been.
To me, the sure sign of a newbie who has a TON to learn about filmmaking is what they talk about. Do they talk about story and how to convey it visually, or is it about the tools they're going to shoot it with? Tools should be a topic of discussion WAY down the chain, though right now, for a lot of people here, it's the focus-- not the story.
Last edited:
whitehorse84
Member
I completely agree with you on this one, sorry if you took my "DSLR Revolution" comment the wrong way.. I meant it in the way that it seems like everyone is popping up and is now a "DP" and shooting these crap music videos and shorts with no real knowledge of what they're doing.
Chris Adler
Veteran
I wasn't harping on your, Whitehorse. Nothing personal at all.
I think in general we'll start to see that now that Epics are shipping, professionals will be able to shoot with those rigs in places where they were recently using DSLR's to get the shot. Same form factor but with a professional feature set, not consumer.
I think in general we'll start to see that now that Epics are shipping, professionals will be able to shoot with those rigs in places where they were recently using DSLR's to get the shot. Same form factor but with a professional feature set, not consumer.
Wait a second. I thought tools didn't matter? Which is it?
Chris Adler
Veteran
I never said that tools don't matter, did I? Please re-read.
In fact, the sentence you decided to harp (using Epic over DSLR) proves that I understand that the right tool should be used for a particular task. There may be situations where on a film feature they still feel a DSLR is the right tool.
In fact, the sentence you decided to harp (using Epic over DSLR) proves that I understand that the right tool should be used for a particular task. There may be situations where on a film feature they still feel a DSLR is the right tool.
DCTBradJohnson
Active member
I just shot a short for a film theory class that was meant to emulate the styles of Bresson and Kracauer, who privileged intrashot montage, long takes, and deep focus. I picked an HPX since we had a very limited time frame, and needed the depth and ability to get great on location sound effects (you guys know Bresson's style... if not its time to add PickPocket to your netflix cue). The first day my visual effects supervisor shows up with a t2i with the only lens he could afford, a 50mm 1.4, and acted like his feelings were hurt when I refused to look at his footage for the edit.
I think the cost of DSLR's has made all young filmmakers with any knowledge think they can go out and be a cinematographer/ cam op because of the camera. I agree its all about using the right tools for the job, and deep DOF is a very useful storytelling device to place your subject firmly in his surroundings. This is the number one problem with over shallow DOF DSLR shorts, without establishing the reality around the character, they merely isolate him from his environment and the audience never truly establishes a real connection with the subject.
I think the cost of DSLR's has made all young filmmakers with any knowledge think they can go out and be a cinematographer/ cam op because of the camera. I agree its all about using the right tools for the job, and deep DOF is a very useful storytelling device to place your subject firmly in his surroundings. This is the number one problem with over shallow DOF DSLR shorts, without establishing the reality around the character, they merely isolate him from his environment and the audience never truly establishes a real connection with the subject.
Okay I re-read it. You said tools don't matter- story does. Then you started talking about how Epics are about to begin shipping.
You mentioned that you were concerned that submissions were up at festivals and that is somehow a bad thing. I'm not sure what having/not having a girlfriend has to do with shooting movies well, but you threw that in there too. I get the feeling that the "democratization" of "filmic" looking productions has you upset. I agree that story is king- that can not be disputed- I just don't understand the vitriol for the fact that more people than ever have the opportunity to prove their talent. To me it's something to be celebrated.
The wonderful "accidental" development of DSLR video has been a revolution whether you like it or not. It's a fact.
You mentioned that you were concerned that submissions were up at festivals and that is somehow a bad thing. I'm not sure what having/not having a girlfriend has to do with shooting movies well, but you threw that in there too. I get the feeling that the "democratization" of "filmic" looking productions has you upset. I agree that story is king- that can not be disputed- I just don't understand the vitriol for the fact that more people than ever have the opportunity to prove their talent. To me it's something to be celebrated.
The wonderful "accidental" development of DSLR video has been a revolution whether you like it or not. It's a fact.
Chris Adler
Veteran
You totally misread everything I said, but at least you read it. 
I didn't ever say tools (in this case, specifically the camera) don't matter.. they should simply take a back seat to all of the elements one needs to make a film (story, cast, etc). I also never said I was concerned that festival submissions were up, either. I merely observed that they were, and I'm pretty sure we all know its because there are more DSLR's out there now. I stated an observation. You made up the "concerned" part. And maybe its just me, but the quality of films being produced now isn't any higher than it was 10 years ago. They might look nicer, but there's still just as much crap made today as there was a decade ago. Toolset doesn't define story.
And I'm with you, I totally think its great that more people are expressing themselves with film. In fact, that's the root of my whole post. My problem with DSLR's is that they seem to make people think that with a nifty Canon in their hand that they are the next Speilberg. The tool isn't what makes the filmmaker, and it never has been.
The girlfriend comment was probably petty of me and I take it back. I was trying to illustrate my perception that there are a ton of very young people calling themselves filmmakers these days because they got a DSLR for Christmas, but they don't seem to really respect the art form.
Perhaps I'm a dinosaur with old-fashioned opinions. I'm not into the youtube scene, and I hate shakycam anything.
I didn't ever say tools (in this case, specifically the camera) don't matter.. they should simply take a back seat to all of the elements one needs to make a film (story, cast, etc). I also never said I was concerned that festival submissions were up, either. I merely observed that they were, and I'm pretty sure we all know its because there are more DSLR's out there now. I stated an observation. You made up the "concerned" part. And maybe its just me, but the quality of films being produced now isn't any higher than it was 10 years ago. They might look nicer, but there's still just as much crap made today as there was a decade ago. Toolset doesn't define story.
And I'm with you, I totally think its great that more people are expressing themselves with film. In fact, that's the root of my whole post. My problem with DSLR's is that they seem to make people think that with a nifty Canon in their hand that they are the next Speilberg. The tool isn't what makes the filmmaker, and it never has been.
The girlfriend comment was probably petty of me and I take it back. I was trying to illustrate my perception that there are a ton of very young people calling themselves filmmakers these days because they got a DSLR for Christmas, but they don't seem to really respect the art form.
Perhaps I'm a dinosaur with old-fashioned opinions. I'm not into the youtube scene, and I hate shakycam anything.
Yeah that's what happens when you don't shoot right with a 7d. He didn't shoot right. Should have been reading up on how from the people on this site before picking it up for a major motion picture. I would not shoot f8 ISO rated at 1600 unless I absolutely had to. That's a bad choice and it showed. I know he was going for a deeper DOF but for crying out loud, he had an f1.4 lens. Loose the DOF and get some better images especially if it's going to be transfered to film. We've all seen great stuff shot by people on this site if done right after learning how.
I guess not "shooting it right isn't the set of words" But not shooting at setting that doesn't show off a better image and instead doing it in a way that can give you a better looking picture." There is no right way I guess. We can all do what we want.
Last edited:
@snazzy
Agree but we're on a website talking about how to use these tools so that we can create with them compelling stories. I see what you are saying though.
A lot of use like to do both, know tech knowledge and create artistically. But I'll tell you I've seen directors who shoot their own stuff and fail because they shot it so technically bad that it actually took away from the story. If you can't hear and see your talent, then the talent can't tell your story.
Also by knowing your tools you can help tell a story in a way that they might have not thought of if they didn't realize they can do something with the tools. Like as a director I often think in lens focal lengths to help strengthen a shot in addition to the performance the actors is bringing.
So like a painter must know techniques on how to paint with his tools, imagine if the painter didn't know anything and no techniques on how to paint but had these great ideas in his head.
I personally like to hear when people post about the 7d being used in something. I find it interesting and inspiring. True that it is being used everywhere, so what's wrong if someone wants to share that. This is a 7d forum right? So lets talk DSLR's and 7ds.
Agree but we're on a website talking about how to use these tools so that we can create with them compelling stories. I see what you are saying though.
A lot of use like to do both, know tech knowledge and create artistically. But I'll tell you I've seen directors who shoot their own stuff and fail because they shot it so technically bad that it actually took away from the story. If you can't hear and see your talent, then the talent can't tell your story.
Also by knowing your tools you can help tell a story in a way that they might have not thought of if they didn't realize they can do something with the tools. Like as a director I often think in lens focal lengths to help strengthen a shot in addition to the performance the actors is bringing.
So like a painter must know techniques on how to paint with his tools, imagine if the painter didn't know anything and no techniques on how to paint but had these great ideas in his head.
I personally like to hear when people post about the 7d being used in something. I find it interesting and inspiring. True that it is being used everywhere, so what's wrong if someone wants to share that. This is a 7d forum right? So lets talk DSLR's and 7ds.
Last edited:
Chris Adler
Veteran
I agree. A filmmaker needs to understand their tools and learn to master them.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
yeah, i think the only thing holding matthew libatique back from greatness is the fact that he doesn't post on DVXUser. Maybe if he finally got around to watching some of Dave Dugdale's Learning DSLR videos he could finally win an Oscar!
C'MON, SON.
nicksnow you're missing my point. Wasn't saying he's being held back. I just said the simple fact if he was going to pick up the DSLR he might want to learn to get the best out of it.
In fact he's not held back so don't know why you are thinking that. I think his films are great. As for laughing not sure what about? I was kind of serious about him learning from peeps on here. Don't you think we all know a thing or two? Just because someone has hit it big in the business doesn't mean they are too big for forums like DVX user. Not all high and mighty. So why not learn from use or other sites. Gather all info you can get.
Look at Philip Bloom, working in the big time, but helping out all of us filmmakers from big to small teaching.
In fact he's not held back so don't know why you are thinking that. I think his films are great. As for laughing not sure what about? I was kind of serious about him learning from peeps on here. Don't you think we all know a thing or two? Just because someone has hit it big in the business doesn't mean they are too big for forums like DVX user. Not all high and mighty. So why not learn from use or other sites. Gather all info you can get.
Look at Philip Bloom, working in the big time, but helping out all of us filmmakers from big to small teaching.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I'm reading the complaints are that the 7d footage was soft but the grain matched the rest of the stock. You would have recommended a lower f stop Draven? f8 is a sweet spot on most lenses, anything less would have made things less sharp. Maybe a mark IV with higher iso capabilities would have been better?
Lenses differ in the sweet spot. I've heard though 2 stops from wide open but I've seen tests which show different. In addition to that though the high ISO is what is a killer. Would not go for film higher than 1250 but realistically I would have shot for 640 or lower.
Higher ISO capabilities are definitely not the answer. Lower = cleaner image.
1600 is not even one of the "clean" ISO's on the 7d. 1250 is. But at that high it's still not going to be really super clean.
Higher ISO capabilities are definitely not the answer. Lower = cleaner image.
1600 is not even one of the "clean" ISO's on the 7d. 1250 is. But at that high it's still not going to be really super clean.
Last edited:
Kit Hannah
Veteran
What are you guys talking about? He shot on that and did tests because it matched closely with the film grain and the look he was going for. He wasn't going for a "super clean" look. Obviously THEY were happy with it because it made it into the final product.
He knows exactly what he's doing and is doing a great job at it - producing cinematography that is even close enough to get an Oscar is no easy task and very few have earned that level of success.
And yes, this is a camera discussion, posted in a camera discussion forum. If you want to discuss specific cinematography techniques, there is a section for that too
Please folks, discuss the tar out of specific cameras, that's what this forum is here for.