Hollywood Celebrity Canon DSLR Users

Status
Not open for further replies.
PastePotPete said:
Bottom line, for guys like these a RED camera is an impulse buy. A 7D to them is so inexpensive it might as well be free. Given the current limitations they would only use the DSLRs in situations where they needed it for a very specific purpose, like in a lower budget shoot where there's not a lot of room for even a RED(the plane cockpits in Lucas's Red Tails).

The 7D/t2i are terrific cameras at a price that evens out the playing field a bit, but let's not go overboard. You can get great footage out of them but realistically given a sizeable budget(ie over $500,000) NO ONE would shoot an entire feature with one unless there were some compelling advantage(ie space, weight) to do so.
Click to expand...


Ron Howard Dint Think So.. A red Would HAve worked Well in this Situation But they USed a 7d
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=202006
 
Jay Rodriguez said:
Although, a small indie production can certainly justify going the DSLR route, especially one of my productions lol.
Click to expand...

exactly- a 75million dollar warner brothers super hero production, probably not. But the sub $100,000K indie production, very possible.
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't think he's been said to be using them. Only reference I know of that's been made to Tarantino was that he sat in with Lucas when Philip Bloom's footage was shown at Skywalker Ranch, and is said to have been impressed.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I read that article but wasn't entirely convinced... QT is resolutely old school, I can't see him using digital video unless film ceases to exist. I mean we're talking about a guy who filled condoms with fake blood for half of the fights in Kill Bill.
 
dominichicks said:
Ah yes, I read that article but wasn't entirely convinced... QT is resolutely old school, I can't see him using digital video unless film ceases to exist. I mean we're talking about a guy who filled condoms with fake blood for half of the fights in Kill Bill.
Click to expand...

If the same footage was shot on film and top of the line digital cameras and Tarantino was quizzed on which was digital & which was film, I doubt even he could tell the difference between film & digital.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's a safe bet; I think those of us with DSLRs are living proof, because if you told someone five years ago that we'd be using these things they'd have stared at you like you were crazy.
Click to expand...
I bought my first camcorder soon after my son was born, only because my digicam shot crappy 320x240. Coming from an IT world, not from a movie world, seeing a still camera doing video was not earth-shattering for me. What was earth-shattering is 15-second limitation per video segment. SmartMedia cards were not fast enough for realtime video recording, so the camera buffered 15 seconds, then stopped and dumped the buffer onto the card for another half a minute or so. Now I see people pissed about 12-minute or even 30-minute limitation on a DSLR. Pfft!
 
Ha...no wonder you're Cranky!! :)

But you are right...and truth is...no matter how good it gets people will still find something to complain about.
 
jess3a3 said:
If the same footage was shot on film and top of the line digital cameras and Tarantino was quizzed on which was digital & which was film, I doubt even he could tell the difference between film & digital.
Click to expand...
The issue is that he's philosophically opposed to digital cinema. He doesn't care whether or not the results are the same. That's the general stance of nearly all supporters of film these days. For them, the physical celluloid medium makes all the difference.
 
ydgmdlu said:
The issue is that he's philosophically opposed to digital cinema. He doesn't care whether or not the results are the same. That's the general stance of nearly all supporters of film these days. For them, the physical celluloid medium makes all the difference.
Click to expand...
Actually for a good part of them, it doesn't make any difference :-) The content rules.
 
Huh?? Um...whether or not you like the production value of that type of show I still wouldn't call that low budget. Many major players on there (in front of and behind the camera). The set...not low budget. Network television etc. I'd say the cheapest thing by far was the camera used...

The biggest difference to me is the medium....Network Television vs. Movie Theater distribution.
 
Wyclef Jean Music Video (credit Naxtbrother)
http://www.gossipcenter.com/wyclef-jean/wyclef-jeans-plea-haiti-relief-427606

wyclef-jean-011610-6.jpg
 
Edweirdo said:
how do you know that? Many of us who have shot on film see the current generation of DSLR as utilizing the same workflow- minus the lab and telecine. Only 12 minuntes? A 400' film mag gets you roughly the same. Get an XLR pre-amp or shoot dual system for better audio, and dust off the clapper. Plus you have imeediate review and don't have to wait for dailies.

To say you can't shoot an entire film with an HDSLR is pretty short sited- since its not a video camera you just have to adjust your workflow.
Click to expand...

All those advantages apply to RED, and once Epic is released there will be no reason to use a DSLR for an entire (major) production.

jess3a3 said:
Actually indie feature films have already been shot on 7D's - the question is will Hollywood films be shot on DSLR in the near future? The RED has great picture quality, but when it first came out it was only used as backup B- camera or a VFX Camera. After a few years of testing, they made Hollywood films with the camera. New cameras always goes through a testing phase before its used as a primary camera.
Click to expand...

Since the title of this thread is "hollywood celebrity..." I was just commenting on major productions. Indie films I agree with you.
 
Ethan Lane said:
All those advantages apply to RED, and once Epic is released there will be no reason to use a DSLR for an entire (major) production.



Since the title of this thread is "hollywood celebrity..." I was just commenting on major productions. Indie films I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Like that indie no-budget series "24":

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top