GH1's capable of feature films yet?

matt s. said:
I've shot 3 lo budget features. the first 2 were stock dvx100A and the third was stock HMC150. Not once has anyone asked (besides a few other filmmakers) what we shot the movies on. no one cared. they got into the stories and thats all that mattered to them. yes all three films were shown in multiple theaters and they all looked great projected wether it was from dvd or on the last one we projected h.264 from a mac pro and it blew people away. to me unless you have already secured distribution and you have a decent budget (150k+) and are definitely planning on a 35mm transfer then yes shoot on the RED. if this is only your second film than personally I see that as a waste oif whatever budget you have and you should put the money you want to spend on the RED into something more useful like hiring a light and sound guys. Those 2 things will greatly improve the image from any any camera IMO. The RED isnt gonna make your movie any better and ultimately could make it a lot worse if you have never shot with one before. I would love to be able to shoot on RED some day but at this point in time we feel its better to just keep making movies with what we have available to us all the time and what we already know how to use properly.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at a 250k budget for this.
 
Azmyth said:
I guess, lets pretend we have professional lighting and crew.
Click to expand...

Well if you have a skilled crew and the resources, you can make just about anything look good. But the execution will be the tough part obviously, filmmaking isn't easy. Point being, today's cameras aren't going to make your film look bad. It will record what you put in front of it.
 
Azmyth- there's plenty of crappy Red footage,- I have even shot some myself- depends on your definition of crap. Based on your comments here, I think should worry more about crewing up and see what your director and DP want to shoot on and see if their request works for your budget. Then again, if your attempting to shoot fish in a barrel ala FTG, I dont think it matters too much what you shoot on... maybe that came out too harsh, Its more about the content than production value in that case.
 
Thanks Barry. Leave it to you to point out things I never see even after hours of searching.

Hunter-If I'm able to hire a DP and some professional crew members.. then thats exactly how I'll handle it. But this area isn't teeming with people like that, and its not likely that it will work out that way. For this first feature, I have a DP who also doubled as the director and he had a DVX100 and he suggested we shoot in HD, so I went out and bought the best HD camera I could afford at the time. I want to step it up a notch this time, by having a dedicated DP and a dedicated director, and professional lighting and techs and professional audio.
 
a really good DP/director with a GH1 will create better and more film looking footage than a bad DP with a Red One. I'm not going to name names but just look through all the films of the past year or two of dvx festivals and you will see numerous films shot on Red some of which did not look as good as their counter parts shot on other much cheaper cameras. Someone showed you that film "Dispatch" which is a great example, it won 1st place in Monster fest and was probably the most professional cinematic and filmic looking short of them all, and that fest had a Red shot film as well that didn't look as good as the Gh1 footage

However ofcourse taking equal DP's one with gh1 one with Red, the Red will have better more filmic footage. Your goal is to try to push your camera to the limit, and at its limit the GH1 can compete with the red in many circumstances, just check this out

http://vimeo.com/5981422 gh1 + red + 5dmkii --------- just keep in mind that this and ALL the footage in this thread people are posting are not even post-hack gh1. they are all crappy pre-hack footage. We haven't even seen the wave of hacked gh1 footage come in yet. I mean yes we have in dozens of landscape shots and such but there has not been many films yet done on hacked GH1 footage and there is a big difference so keep that in mind.
 
Color Grading is also Major on Hollywood films. Spend 500 000$ color grading a Gh-1 film and it's going to be hard to differentiate with a 35mm production.
 
The image quality from a hacked GH1 is certainly adequate. But in my book none of the DSLR's are very practical production cameras for a feature A cam. They are very limited and limiting in the shooting styles they can support and maintain decent image quality. The extra cost in on set time and in post to deal with their limitations more than offsets the cheap cost of the cameras. They are best used for specialty shots where a larger more capable production camera won't work. Modern cinematography styles tend to use a lot of dynamic camera movement , something the DSLR's don't do very well.
 
Hmmm..well Razz I think the question is more focused on whether it can be used. It might not be practical in many cases but it is doable for those who want to make it work. If I had a moderate to huge budget I’m not even sure I would consider it. That’s the point where I would want the most practical tool. But for the lot of us here I think this camera would make a great tool for making a feature film….especially once the HDMI out is fixed. IMO
 
The question of whether it "can" be done, vs. whether it "should" be done, is an eternal battle. Of course it CAN be done. We've long, long since surpassed whether a feature-length production can be shot on a consumer-priced camera. I point to "My Date With Drew" for an example of a theatrically-released feature film where the camera wasn't even bought; it was "borrowed" from Circuit City (using their 30-day no-questions-asked return policy). A GH1 would be far more suitable for creating cinematic images than a Circuit City $399 8mm camcorder, obviously.

But what Razz is pointing out is something that I've been saying for a year and a half, which is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD, or -- well, better put like this: there are many valid reasons why the other camcorders and digital cinema cameras are MORE SUITABLE to the job. Doesn't mean you CAN'T, just means that you're going to create a lot more work for yourself if you try to shoehorn in working with a product for a purpose other than that which it was designed.
 
Barry_Green said:
The question of whether it "can" be done, vs. whether it "should" be done, is an eternal battle. Of course it CAN be done. We've long, long since surpassed whether a feature-length production can be shot on a consumer-priced camera. I point to "My Date With Drew" for an example of a theatrically-released feature film where the camera wasn't even bought; it was "borrowed" from Circuit City (using their 30-day no-questions-asked return policy). A GH1 would be far more suitable for creating cinematic images than a Circuit City $399 8mm camcorder, obviously.

But what Razz is pointing out is something that I've been saying for a year and a half, which is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD, or -- well, better put like this: there are many valid reasons why the other camcorders and digital cinema cameras are MORE SUITABLE to the job. Doesn't mean you CAN'T, just means that you're going to create a lot more work for yourself if you try to shoehorn in working with a product for a purpose other than that which it was designed.
Click to expand...

And thats something for me to think about too Barry. When I started on my first feature almost a year ago, I was here doing this same thing debating cameras and such and I wound up just getting the best I could afford. I'm happy with the results, but at the same time. We had some problems from using a tool that wasn't really designed for what we were using it for, and so we had to work around them the best we could. The problem is, that even with the camera's that are "suited" for feature films, there's no perfect solution. There's issues with all of them. Some of those issues don't even relate to the technological part of the camera, but just in terms of using it, costs involved, and other aspects.

While the GH1 might not be made for film making, its small.. inexpensive, and can be operated by one person. Something like the RED, is big (once you get everything on it) expensive, and since we'd pretty much have to rent it.. we'd be limited on shooting time. Which is a big thing for us. I'm just trying to find the best option in the scope of what we'd be trying to do.

Ideally, I'd find a DP with his own gear and just pay him. My main issue with that is the same as it is with renting the red. We have to be on the money every day we shoot, in order to not waste time or money. That may be as good a reason as any to go that route, so we WILL be prepared.

It just seemed like in the long run, that buying a camera would make more sense so that we could use it whenever we wanted to. But there are downsides to that as well.
 
Azmyth said:
While the GH1 might not be made for film making, its small.. inexpensive, and can be operated by one person. Something like the RED, is big (once you get everything on it) expensive, and since we'd pretty much have to rent it.. we'd be limited on shooting time. Which is a big thing for us. I'm just trying to find the best option in the scope of what we'd be trying to do.

Ideally, I'd find a DP with his own gear and just pay him. My main issue with that is the same as it is with renting the red. We have to be on the money every day we shoot, in order to not waste time or money. That may be as good a reason as any to go that route, so we WILL be prepared.

It just seemed like in the long run, that buying a camera would make more sense so that we could use it whenever we wanted to. But there are downsides to that as well.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm all for using some gh13s for a feature so long as it serves production visually. But... I will say that this misconception about what you HAVE to have to operate a RED is s bit overblown. Yes, it's s bigger and heavier camera. But to say that you have to have some sort of large crew?

http://www.dvxfest.com/mirror/west2010/entries/The_Damage_Done-Curugon.mov

Camera crew of one and a half. Geoff grabbed lenses and filters for me. I operated, pulled focus etc etc. Our entire crew was like five or six proper?

And two of them were dedicated to lights and camera. Guess who those two were?

Geoff and myself.

The only thing it really comes down to is how well your connected to what you want to shoot with and how well your team knows it.
 
1st off, I saw a hacked gh1 playing into a $70,000 Panasonic digital 2k projector at 10,000 lumen on a real movie theater screen and everyone was BLOWN away including myself. I sat in the middle about 2 screen lengths away and watched that little Saturday with the dogs edit I had put together after applying the hack as well as a few other clips. It looked like a movie... I didn't see artifacts.. even on the wide shots. I am sure had I gone right up to the screen I could have seen some... but I did not from the middle seat in the middle of the theater. It was fantastic.

So... getting that out of the way, the benefits of using a GH1 for your film are clear:

You can buy it for cheap, get a few lenses and you OWN the stuff to make visual images of comparable quality to the big guys for a fraction of the price. There ARE limitations.. you can't whip pan your GH1 around.. so you need to have another cam like the hvx170 for action shots with a lot of camera movement.

The obvious benefit to this is that you have all the time in the world to play with the camera on your own and sort of pre visualize your movie.

The route I am going to go is to shoot with two GH1s owned and (hacked) and a rented hpx170 for a few stunt scenes with very fast shakey hand held camera movement.

I already own about $10,000 in pro sound gear as I freelance as a sound mixer / boom op, so that's covered. I have some basic lowel light kits - so my money is going to go into:

a> hiring a DP experienced with getting the best images out of dslrs, and paying a minimal price to him but a reasonable price... also getting some true follow focus wheels and ect and real mounts for the camera.. tracks.. ect. I can get great images and have a really good eye... but technically I really don't know what the hell I am doing and would rather explain what i want to a dp who knows immediately... "ah we would be best served by using the 50mm prime on this".
My brain thinks in story, acting, actions and images... it doesn't think in terms of lenses, yet I have played enough to be able to get almost any image I see in a comic book or a movie with the kit lens or the 20mm pancake and a lot of tinkering. Again I know what I want and since I am in it, I would rather have a strong dp that I have a good line of communication with. I don't like DPs who are ONLY into the image and aren't getting the 'feeling' of the movie either. I think it's better to have amazing actors and get the whole damn scene in a wide shot than a fancy shmancy dp spending all this time on an amazing image. I appreciate both and would like a nice balance of course - but to me the story and acting takes precedence over the beauty of the shot most of the time except in certain cases like an establishing shot ect.

b> paying a sound mixer boom op.. a minimal fee since I won't need equipment, but a decent fee. Don't F&^CK with sound it's more important than picture in all seriousness.

c> a gaffer / lighting guy who will bring a shi*e load of lights for only $150 a day

d> a make up girl

e> food for the cast crew

f> paying the actors at least something... yeah.. I know.. it sucks that actors are last on the list of payment concerns but I am writing / acting / directing this so i play the main character and there are some side parts but it's a short so nothing insane. The truth is, you can find some hungry talent in the acting field because they need to be seen so badly. A sound guy doesn't need a reel.. he is like a plumber... he knows what he is doing or he doesn't. Sound is the foundation of the house that no one talks about but it holds up the whole house.. same with a movie... no one talks about how clear the dialog was but if it' not there the movie falls apart. Sound is most important, then second is the DP - in terms of the TECHNICAL side. Of course story and your actors are the most important thing artistically. The greatest sound and DP can't save a shi*ty script and bad actors.

I have been on quite a few shoots with the red camera where I have been the sound engineer, and to tell you honestly, I would not pay to rent a red unless I personally knew the dp and a LOT of his work and he was doing the post himself as well. Too many rich kids with reds who don't know wtf they are doing and think they are DPs.

$1200/day for just the red with a DP? Suck me... I'll get the entire crew for less than that and have comparable images.

When I get to the level where I can spend that money, I still probably won't shoot on the red.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Now, I'm all for using some gh13s for a feature so long as it serves production visually. But... I will say that this misconception about what you HAVE to have to operate a RED is s bit overblown. Yes, it's s bigger and heavier camera. But to say that you have to have some sort of large crew?

http://www.dvxfest.com/mirror/west2010/entries/The_Damage_Done-Curugon.mov

Camera crew of one and a half. Geoff grabbed lenses and filters for me. I operated, pulled focus etc etc. Our entire crew was like five or six proper?

And two of them were dedicated to lights and camera. Guess who those two were?

Geoff and myself.

The only thing it really comes down to is how well your connected to what you want to shoot with and how well your team knows it.
Click to expand...

thanks for clearing that up. I've seen mostly pictures and videos with 3 and 4 people operating it so I just assumed.

Still though, the cost issues and not being able to film whenever we want to is an issue that I still have to consider. I don't think I would consider renting a camera unless I could shoot straight consecutive days, and I'm not sure I will be able to yet.
 
Blackout said:
The benefits of using a GH1 for your film are clear:

You can buy it for cheap, get a few lenses and you OWN the stuff to make visual images of comparable quality to the big guys for a fraction of the price. There ARE limitations.. you can't whip pan your GH1 around.. so you need to have another cam like the hvx170 for action shots with a lot of camera movement.

The obvious benefit to this is that you have all the time in the world to play with the camera on your own and sort of pre visualize your movie.

The route I am going to go is to shoot with two GH1s owned and (hacked) and a rented hpx170 for a few stunt scenes with very fast shakey hand held camera movement.

I already own about $10,000 in pro sound gear as I freelance as a sound mixer / boom op, so that's covered. I have some basic lowel light kits - so my money is going to go into:

a> hiring a DP experienced with getting the best images out of dslrs, and paying a minimal price to him but a reasonable price... also getting some true follow focus wheels and ect and real mounts for the camera.. tracks.. ect

b> paying a sound mixer boom op.. a minimal fee since I won't need equipment, but a decent fee. Don't F&^CK with sound it's more important than picture in all seriousness.

c> a gaffer / lighting guy who will bring a shi*e load of lights for only $150 a day

d> a make up girl

e> food for the cast crew

f> paying the actors at least something... yeah.. I know.. it sucks that actors are last on the list of payment concerns but I am writing / acting / directing this so i play the main character and there are some side parts but it's a short so nothing insane. The truth is, you can find some hungry talent in the acting field because they need to be seen so badly. A sound guy doesn't need a reel.. he is like a plumber... he knows what he is doing or he doesn't. Sound is the foundation of the house that no one talks about but it holds up the whole house.. same with a movie... no one talks about how clear the dialog was but if it' not there the movie falls apart. Sound is most important, then second is the DP - in terms of the TECHNICAL side. Of course story and your actors are the most important thing artistically. The greatest sound and DP can't save a shi*ty script and bad actors.

I have been on quite a few shoots with the red camera where I have been the sound engineer, and to tell you honestly, I would not pay to rent a red unless I personally knew the dp and a LOT of his work and he was doing the post himself as well. Too many rich kids with reds who don't know wtf they are doing and think they are DPs.

$1200/day for just the red with a DP? Suck me... I'll get the entire crew for less than that and have comparable images.

When I get to the level where I can spend that money, I still probably won't shoot on the red.
Click to expand...

So, with the DSLR's what is considered quick pans?
 
Quick pan meaning a 'whip' pan. Say a POV of a person looking around nervous. You can't pull that stuff off to well with a GH1 or 7D or 5D because of all the jello. I have a scene after a car accident where the camera 'whips' to the right then frantically looks around in POV of the main character for an object in the car... did some tests and not liking what it looks like on any of the above mentioned cameras. I could... slow it down... but I don't want to.. it doesn't serve the feeling that I want. Which is the pov of a person frantically looking for something, you move your head around very fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top