Has anyone used a DSLR to make a movie?

Snapper123 said:
I'm just waiting for the first film shot entirely on DSLR (not just quick 3 second angles here and there) to be distributed in major theaters. A better question is to ask wether there have been any films shot at 720P that have been distributed in major theaters - these things are great for television, Youtube, and DVD releases, but I think the mainstream theater question is still one that has not been answered through experience. For example, there's 14 billion Red films that have been shown in major theaters, so we trust 4K.
Click to expand...

Dude, what is WITH you!?

You are so hell-bent on giving DSLRs a bad name, you'd think one murdered a relative in their sleep! Your arguments don't even make sense half the time! What's with all this baseless hatred?

And what does 720p have to do with anything?!
And for the record, it wasn't even a few years ago that indie film festivals had DVX footage in standard resolution up on those giant screens- resolution clearly isn't everything.
 
You are incorrect, and you are the one that doesn't make sense. I'm not sure that any indie festivals have been held cinemas such as Carmike, and I doubt a indie festival would have a screen as large as the ones that 4K films are regularly shown on ~ even Sundance has screens small enough to purposely accomodate 720P productions. No ones talking about local film festivals, some of us have the dedication and talent to the point we want to use a tool that would at least qualify with major film companies like Lionsgate and others. And beyond that, for the more qualified of us, we also know that DSLR's output a quality roughly akin to 720p or less, but there are indeed some DSLR/L Lens fanatics that would argue otherwise. Combine that with how we have to crop the ratio, the resolution gets even weaker. Someone mentioned this on another thread, but I'm sure there's a reason Carmike doesn't pop a 720P DVD to project the latest blockbuster.

And personally, I credit Canon with stealing $2,000 from me, which is a big amount for my lifestyle. And at the end of the day, I think DSLR's are amazing tools for internet and even television purposes, but when it comes to a medium like the the theater, where the more artistic of us judge even things like noise, blockage, and clarity, I just expected way more out of DSLR's even beyond the resolution. For my style of filmmaking, I require something a bit more akin to what I get from the photographs of a DSLR. It's not even really the resolution's fault, it's just that saying 720P is an easy way of encompassing everything wrong with a DSLR, as most DV cams aren't much better.

But the truth is that I'm eager to see as anyone how well 720p landscape shots, shots that are already extremely sacrificed by the DSLR technology, hold up on a the screens that are just short of IMAX. I wish Tiny Furniture or Crazy would come to my city tommorow so that I could know the truth beyond any scientific specifications, but we only have mainstream IMAX-ish theaters here. No old single-screen 15-footers to be found here.
 
Snapper123 said:
You are incorrect, and you are the one that doesn't make sense. I'm not sure that any indie festivals have been held cinemas such as Carmike, and I doubt a indie festival would have a screen as large as the ones that 4K films are regularly shown on ~ even Sundance has screens small enough to purposely accomodate 720P productions. No ones talking about local film festivals, some of us have the dedication and talent to the point we want to use a tool that would at least qualify with major film companies like Lionsgate and others. And beyond that, for the more qualified of us, we also know that DSLR's output a quality roughly akin to 720p or less, but there are indeed some DSLR/L Lens fanatics that would argue otherwise. Combine that with how we have to crop the ratio, the resolution gets even weaker. Someone mentioned this on another thread, but I'm sure there's a reason Carmike doesn't pop a 720P DVD to project the latest blockbuster.

And personally, I credit Canon with stealing $2,000 from me, which is a big amount for my lifestyle. And at the end of the day, I think DSLR's are amazing tools for internet and even television purposes, but when it comes to a medium like the the theater, where the more artistic of us judge even things like noise, blockage, and clarity, I just expected way more out of DSLR's even beyond the resolution. For my style of filmmaking, I require something a bit more akin to what I get from the photographs of a DSLR. It's not even really the resolution's fault, it's just that saying 720P is an easy way of encompassing everything wrong with a DSLR, as most DV cams aren't much better.

But the truth is that I'm eager to see as anyone how well 720p landscape shots, shots that are already extremely sacrificed by the DSLR technology, hold up on a the screens that are just short of IMAX. I wish Tiny Furniture or Crazy would come to my city tommorow so that I could know the truth beyond any scientific specifications, but we only have mainstream IMAX-ish theaters here. No old single-screen 15-footers to be found here.
Click to expand...

ROFL! You are a classic, man.

How many film festivals have you been to, exactly?
How about all the festivals that rent out regular theaters and play on regular sized cinema screens? There's a whole thread here on the forum about folks comparing DSLR footage with other content for the big screen. And a lot of them talk about the good ol' days of DVX footage appearing up there, and no one seemed to care that the resolution was lower. Lately, the quality of low budget indie films have improved dramatically, and a lot of folks say the DSLR revolution responsible for that. So, no, that's not what is stopping your feature from hitting the big screen.

You seem to talk yourself up a lot, that you're a big shot artist with eyes more fine tuned to detail, and your shots require more than you have available from a DSLR. Then you go on to say that Canon stole $2k from you.

Please. That's chump change in the world of video equipment. Just a measly 35mm adapter for a full sized camera like a EX1 or HPX300 would cost about that. Before DSLR video, it was expected to pay between $5k-$10k for an entry level professional camera. And that is also considered inferior to film. Think about that for a minute.
 
Snapper123 said:
You are incorrect, and you are the one that doesn't make sense. I'm not sure that any indie festivals have been held cinemas such as Carmike, and I doubt a indie festival would have a screen as large as the ones that 4K films are regularly shown on ~ even Sundance has screens small enough to purposely accomodate 720P productions. No ones talking about local film festivals, some of us have the dedication and talent to the point we want to use a tool that would at least qualify with major film companies like Lionsgate and others. And beyond that, for the more qualified of us, we also know that DSLR's output a quality roughly akin to 720p or less, but there are indeed some DSLR/L Lens fanatics that would argue otherwise. Combine that with how we have to crop the ratio, the resolution gets even weaker. Someone mentioned this on another thread, but I'm sure there's a reason Carmike doesn't pop a 720P DVD to project the latest blockbuster.

And personally, I credit Canon with stealing $2,000 from me, which is a big amount for my lifestyle. And at the end of the day, I think DSLR's are amazing tools for internet and even television purposes, but when it comes to a medium like the the theater, where the more artistic of us judge even things like noise, blockage, and clarity, I just expected way more out of DSLR's even beyond the resolution. For my style of filmmaking, I require something a bit more akin to what I get from the photographs of a DSLR. It's not even really the resolution's fault, it's just that saying 720P is an easy way of encompassing everything wrong with a DSLR, as most DV cams aren't much better.

But the truth is that I'm eager to see as anyone how well 720p landscape shots, shots that are already extremely sacrificed by the DSLR technology, hold up on a the screens that are just short of IMAX. I wish Tiny Furniture or Crazy would come to my city tommorow so that I could know the truth beyond any scientific specifications, but we only have mainstream IMAX-ish theaters here. No old single-screen 15-footers to be found here.
Click to expand...

An interesting thing I saw the other day on Bloom's website with both Bloom and Laforet in agreement and I'm paraphrasing -they both said that a lot of the issues they were used to seeing with the DLSRs - compression atrifacts and such - disappeared on the big screen (strange as that sounds) Bloom said he was really worried about showing his work that way to Lucas because on his monitors he was used to all this "stuff" being on the screen, but he said it cleaned up pretty well. Of course the lower resolution won't be fixed, but it's pretty interesting.
I do feel for you, buying something that does not live up to the Hype - I just tell myself they were designed for stills and anything else is just icing.
 
Snapper123...you don't hang out at the Red forum mostly do you (not that it's a bad thing)? Since when is 720p not good enough? Why do you knock DSLRs when there were many films over the years that were shot on cameras that don't even give as good a picture (I'm not talking about bokeh, bokeh, bokeh)? You know.....4k is not the video messiah.
 
Reminding everyone that courtesy and cool heads are part of what we aim for, around here. Let's back off on the snark, now.
 
Let's return to civility and an exchange if ideas, not of personal comments.

We are discussing DSLR in movie making here, not each other.

thanks
 
Ian-T said:
You know.....4k is not the video messiah.
Click to expand...

>:] It is for me! Muahaha. I'm just kidding.

Thursday, I'm FINALLY going to shoot with a GH-2 + PL mount on my feature, it's B-Camera to RED MX and I hope it performs well enough to snag some extra shots. But, I know what it is and I know what it isn't...

while 4.5K lets me reframe as if I shot a ton of coverage (which I know damned well I didn't), the GH-2 will get the small coverage that I need from a different angle and I believe once graded, it'll be plenty enough for a large screen demonstration.

Snapper, I understand your plight with DSLRism, definitely. However, if you're worried about 2K being taken from you then you may want to re-evaluate the position on owning gear at all. Use the money to rent next time, or try to accept the tool for what it is and move beyond it.

This is coming from one of the biggest gear whores around here... turned do-er in the last year.

DSLRS are good enough to realize most visions, especially the amateur.
 
So I found out that the camera they used for that film was a CANON 5D MKii body with an Canon L lens. Anyone have any experience in using that camera for a film
shoot?
 
Foster Kane said:
So I found out that the camera they used for that film was a CANON 5D MKii body with an Canon L lens. Anyone have any experience in using that camera for a film
shoot?
Click to expand...

There's a whole subsection of the forum dedicated to shooting movies with the 5D.

Currently, the 5D is the most expensive option of the video DSLRs (I think, right?), however the image quality of the cheaper Canons are pretty much identical.
The real draw (and thereby extra price) of the 5D is in the fact that its a full-frame sensor, which means you get to record the widest range of your lens. The cheaper Canons (7D, T2i, 60D, etc) as well as the GH2 shoot with a cropped sensor, which means the sensor is pulling data from a smaller portion of the lens, thereby making it more "zoomed in".
In other words, a 50mm is more like an 85mm. 28mm is more like 35mm, and so on. But the quality and experience filming with all of the Canon options are mostly the same.
 
And a whole of people prefer shooting movies with a 7d or 60D because the sensor is practically the same size as Super 35mm film (adapted with a PL lens mount - the sensor isn't the whole story) .
 
Thank you everyone for your opinions. It has been very helpful and I am asking questions at the other sub forums.

I know that it is ideal to have a sound man but if you are unable to do that, what type of audio system would you recommend?
I have already have a rode videomic.
 
Foster Kane said:
Thank you everyone for your opinions. It has been very helpful and I am asking questions at the other sub forums.

I know that it is ideal to have a sound man but if you are unable to do that, what type of audio system would you recommend?
I have already have a rode videomic.
Click to expand...

I would look into the Tascam and Zoom portables and see what each model offers. I'd also add that the 60d IMO is Canon's best out of the box camera for video - articulating screen, audio level controls, less overheating.
 
Foster Kane said:
Cool. So it can be done.
I heard that the DSLR can't be used for long periods of time since it shuts down. What is the work around for that issue?
Click to expand...

Get a Panasonic GH2 and you won't need a workaround. Your shot length will be limited by how much space you have on your SD card -- and not by your camera (unless you live in the EU, of course ;-))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top