DSLR Projection

E

ericjohn

Member
Hello

I was wondering how does a footage shot with Canon t2i with sigma 30mm f1.4 lens will look on the big screen. For those who have experience with this topic, please share with us.

Thanks
 
It looks awful! It makes me want to vomit! It's the worst pile of garbage I've ever seen!


...........

I mean what kind of answer are you expecting? It depends on how you shoot. It can look great, it can look awful. And what are you comparing it to? It'll look a hell of a lot better than a DVX-100... in the right hands, of course.

But I'm willing to bet the reason you're asking is you just bought a cheap camera and want to know if you're all set to get your movie into theaters across the country. You're probably not. DSLRs can and have been used on movies projected on the big screen, many with great success... but the only time it's really successful is when the use of a DSLR was a choice, used for its strengths, rather than the only option.


If you understand the strengths and limitations of the camera, and have a really talented cinematographer, enough peripherals and accessories (how's your lens collection coming? Your one 30mm ain't gonna do it), and a fantastic post process, then it can look great. If you don't have any of those things, it will look like garbage. But if you're asking the question, you're probably not there yet.
--don't take the harsh advice personally, trying to be helpful
 
Sonofa,

Not really smooth in the etiquette and personability department huh?

See how not really answering the question and only giving your opinion of the poster doesn't really help at all? Just sounds kind of smug and jerklike huh? I mean I get it, you make movies and you're better than everyone... yadda yadda yadda... This is a closed circle... yadda yadda yadda.... Only post here if you have done it for years and know what you're talking about... yadda yadda yadda...

The guy is obviously new here (see his 7 posts) and probably to the videomaking world as a whole and asking if his dreams are even worth having... Give new people the benefit of the doubt and interject when you have something good to bring to the table.

BTW, in the words of one wise poster... Don't take my harsh advise personally, trying to be helpful.
 
Last edited:
As long as it is shot well and you avoid putting the camera in situations that highlight its short comings it will not look distractingly bad. 28 Days Later was shot in DV on an XL1. Open Water was shot on a PD150. Both had broad theatrical runs.


-Andrew
 
I saw two features shot entirely on Canon 5D from a DCP that I worked on that looked great and most people wouldn't question its origination (only the techno geeks who just have to know). A film I produced 3 years ago was shot entirely DV25 and screened digitally on a 4K projector at the Jimmy Stewart theater on the Sony Lot and other than people saying it wasn't 35mm I could have said whatever digital HD flavor and they would have not have questioned it. Because many films are heavily treated in post with looks and color correction, it is often difficult to tell anyway. As ADK says, know the limits of the camera and the format and most of the time it will look quite nice. But if the audience gets absorbed by the story and not distracted by bad sound, or camerawork (composition, focus, etc) then it won't really matter. I have to say, I am getting a little tired of all the postings that blurt out "come see my film shot on RED" (or any other camera du jour) and that's it. Nothing about subject matter, story, etc. The tools are there to support the story you want to tell, just tell your story. Same thing for NLE's. If you know how to edit to tell a story, it won't really matter. All these tools are there to make your work easier, not necessarily better.

Michael
 
MichaelP said:
I have to say, I am getting a little tired of all the postings that blurt out "come see my film shot on RED" (or any other camera du jour) and that's it. Nothing about subject matter, story, etc. The tools are there to support the story you want to tell, just tell your story. Same thing for NLE's. If you know how to edit to tell a story, it won't really matter. All these tools are there to make your work easier, not necessarily better.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
Another way I sometimes explain it to production teams I work with; "don't confuse resolution with quality, and exposure for lighting". Meaning there is so much more to an image that tells a story beyond the tech specs of a camera. I see a lot of indie films that just shoot whatever lighting is in place, and while it is "exposed" there is nothing in the lighting design to support that scene in context of the story (regardless of resolution). Everything in a well made scripted film is considered and planned for whenever possible. Composition, camera movement (tilt, pan), lighting, depth of field (shallow or not), lens choice, zoom in-out. Then the directed movement of objects within the frame, and cohesion of all these movements and choices with the performance of the actors, combined with art direction, costume design, and that's after a well written screenplay and before the entire post process where all these decisions are put together through editing, sound, VFX and other tricks to bring the audience into the story, and make them care, hate, love, scare or whatever emotion you are trying to get across in the experience. And in the words of Ernst Lubitsch: "There are a thousand ways to point a camera, but really only one."


Sometime it all comes together, sometimes most of it, but knowing what each of those elements can bring far outweighs what it was shot on, or what it was edited with.

Michael
 
adkimery said:
As long as it is shot well and you avoid putting the camera in situations that highlight its short comings it will not look distractingly bad. 28 Days Later was shot in DV on an XL1. Open Water was shot on a PD150. Both had broad theatrical runs.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

Portions were DV, like the opening near Big Ben and a few other pieces. But there's a lot of 35mm in the film from what I remember. DV isn't the large majority.

What makes up a "good image" is the subject, light, etc. With a DSLR what you'll have (if you did your job well) is a good looking image that just isn't that resolute. Beyond that, it'll look great just like any other camera. The real issue people bring up with DSLRs is rolling shutter, moire/aliasing, and the resolution. Beyond that, they can look great and projected will look great. Just make sure "great" is taken in context.
 
To the OP: I've seen footage shot on t2i projected on a large screen, and there's absolutely no technical limitation. You can shoot with the t2i, and it won't be a problem to project.

General remarks: it would be great if folks could answer the question asked, instead of getting all puffed up and droning on self-importantly about everything else except the question asked. Yeah, we get it, you're ever so wise and the world needs your every thought on every subject asked or not asked. Except, when a technical question is asked, it's useful to answer it, without straying into "and you should also eat a healthy diet and exercise". You may like hearing yourself talk, but it's rude and boring when you feel compelled to grace the world with every last thought in your head that has nothing to do with the subject. Not every question is an excuse for you to admire your own babbling. It's far more impressive and useful when you can actually answer the question without patronizing BS that talks around the subject instead of addressing itself to the subject. It's patronizing to assume the OP doesn't understand their own question - it's not for you to make that call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top