Is it possible to make a GOOD FEATURE FILM, with the 7D?

M

moviemaykr

Active member
Hello all im in the process of finishing a script of basically a one location film that mostly set at night. I'm lucky to have a lot of talent helping me that do major feature films.
My question is since the budget is low and the type of film does not have to be on 35mm, can I use say 2-3 Canon 5Ds or 7Ds, with a prime lenses? Ill have a professional jib, dolly and such so i was wondering if it can be done say instead of using the complex RED ONE camera?
 
I have definitely seen results out of this camera that look just as good as films I've seen in theatres(but I'm talking vimeo, I don't know how they would hold up on the big screen). I don't know how easy it is to get such results but I'm sure if you have the right equipment and talent, you'll definitely be able to achieve a look capable of creating a good feature film.
 
Depending on whether or not my brother gets his script finished I should be shooting a feature on the 7d and gh1 this time next week and finished 2 weeks from today. If everything goes as planned I can probably give you a pretty good idea of how everything will work for shooting a feature.
 
I've seen very good feature films done with DV camcorders and P & S digital cameras. Your script is far more important than what camera you use. Hiring a good DP and an editor is a lot more important than getting good cameras.
 
I'm shooting a feature with the 7D this spring and summer.

I think the key word here is "good". What's your definition of that word?

If you ask a writer what a good film is, he'll talk about story, if you ask a director he'll talk about visuals. An actor will talk about the acting and a producer about profit, and Average Joe off the street will define "good" or "bad" depending on his own very subjective opinion - in other words: did he like it or not?

What's Your definition?
 
moviemaykr said:
Hello all im in the process of finishing a script of basically a one location film that mostly set at night. I'm lucky to have a lot of talent helping me that do major feature films.
My question is since the budget is low and the type of film does not have to be on 35mm, can I use say 2-3 Canon 5Ds or 7Ds, with a prime lenses? Ill have a professional jib, dolly and such so i was wondering if it can be done say instead of using the complex RED ONE camera?
Click to expand...

I believe it is possible. Remember the DVX100, an SD camera even won best cinematography in sundance for "November". Now the 7D gives you HD and better DOF control!

And just to motivate you further, a "lesser" camera the D90, which doesn't give you full manual control unlike the 7D, was used by my brother to do a short which won in a film fest this week. -How much more the 7D!

Heres there D90 short in case your interested. -its a horror thriller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttef5RYYDLE
 
Yes it can.

Features have been successfully pulled off with lessor cameras

28 Days Later - Canon XL1s
Open Water - PD-170 and VX2000

To name a couple ...
 
Btw, the reason I chose the 7D over RED is that it allowed me to purchase the camera and familiarize myself with it. Otherwise I'd have had to rent a RED for the shooting but not really know how to handle it properly.

If you know your 7D I believe you can get a better looking movie than if you rent a more advanced or "better" camera you're unfamiliar with.

Plus, now I own a 7D. I can shoot movies any time I want now.

One thing I've learnt also, is that it's not only extremely important to have a really good screenplay (get someone good who can give script notes, that's important), and it's not just imporant to get good visuals. Visuals can be bad and still be good.

The important thing is that the visuals work for the story.
You shouldn't aim for "good" visuals as much as "proper" visuals, if you know what I mean.

That's something to keep in mind when shooting a feature on the 7D.
 
Is it possible to make a "GOOD FEATURE FILM"? It's possible but it's extremely rare to do so. Very few people actually accomplish it. And the particular camera they use has little to nothing to do with it.

Look up the rack of awards that The New Year Parade has won -- that was shot on a standard-def DVX100.

Look at the Oscar nominations James Longley has gotten -- those were earned for films shot on a standard-def DVX100.

If you're capable of making a good feature film, then yes it'd be possible to do it on a 7D. It'll just be a lot more work than it would be on something that's made for the job.

If you knew, for a fact, that your film was going to be GOOD -- great script, great acting, great director -- then yeah, you'd be foolish to bet all that on the convoluted hassle of shooting it on a still camera. If your film package is good, it'll attract money, and you'd use that money to hire the right crew and the right equipment to do the job right.

And if your film package can't attract any money? Well, that's when you face the Simon Cowell moment, of recognizing that maybe it really isn't very good after all. So then you have a choice -- stop what you're doing and refine it until it is good enough to attract some money to "do it right", or -- just forge ahead with what you've got and try to "prove everyone wrong." Just be aware that that works for about 1 in 10,000.

moviemaykr said:
Hello all im in the process of finishing a script of basically a one location film that mostly set at night. I'm lucky to have a lot of talent helping me that do major feature films.
My question is since the budget is low and the type of film does not have to be on 35mm, can I use say 2-3 Canon 5Ds or 7Ds, with a prime lenses? Ill have a professional jib, dolly and such so i was wondering if it can be done say instead of using the complex RED ONE camera?
Click to expand...
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Yes it can.

Features have been successfully pulled off with lessor cameras

28 Days Later - Canon XL1s
Open Water - PD-170 and VX2000

To name a couple ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, but -- I think there needs to be some perspective there. Open Water wasn't good -- the O.P. was asking about "good" films.

And 28 Days Later had an A-list team behind it, including Oscar winners Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle. They chose the XL1 specifically for the challenge of it, and most definitely not because of budget limitations. They had the freedom to choose anything they wanted to use. And they had the money behind it to do it right; they chose the XL1 for artistic reasons to make a specific look.

So -- yes, great filmmakers can make watchable or even good films on any equipment. Good films have been made on the DVX100, the Arri 16S, the Canon XL1.
 
Last edited:
Im just thinking of "Paranormal Activity"

Im just thinking of "Paranormal Activity"

In theory that film was shot on I think a Sony EX1 with no lens adapter and that blew up to the big screen with no real problems. Granted the type of film it was and limitations but most people didnt care what it was shot on and I didnt notice any pixilation and such.
There have been other films shot in a non 35 mm style like "28 days" and such that seem to do fine on the big screen so I guess it comes down to great audio and lighting then massage it a bit in post.
 
JavaExMachina said:
One thing I've learnt also, is that it's not only extremely important to have a really good screenplay (get someone good who can give script notes, that's important), and it's not just imporant to get good visuals. Visuals can be bad and still be good.

The important thing is that the visuals work for the story.
You shouldn't aim for "good" visuals as much as "proper" visuals, if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...
Brilliant, well said, and this should be tattooed on the inside of every filmmaker's eyelids so they never forget it. :D
 
Barry_Green said:
If you knew, for a fact, that your film was going to be GOOD -- great script, great acting, great director -- then yeah, you'd be foolish to bet all that on the convoluted hassle of shooting it on a still camera. If your film package is good, it'll attract money, and you'd use that money to hire the right crew and the right equipment to do the job right.

And if your film package can't attract any money? Well, that's when you face the Simon Cowell moment, of recognizing that maybe it really isn't very good after all. So then you have a choice -- stop what you're doing and refine it until it is good enough to attract some money to "do it right", or -- just forge ahead with what you've got and try to "prove everyone wrong." Just be aware that that works for about 1 in 10,000.
Click to expand...
I think you're half right. Thing is, it's not about knowing you're gonna make a good film or not. It's about convincing others.
If you haven't made a film before, it's harder to sell the same package than if you're established. Get established, and you can make whatever crap you want on any equipment you'd like.

It's true that most movies made on zero or micro or low budget are awful. Go to any comic or movie convention and find people who are self distributing stuff that would never get shown on any festival anywhere. I actually recommend picking up a few of those just to see what it looks like.
The thing though is, that if 999 movies out of 1000 are so bad they should never have gotten made - I would say 999 out of 1000 are made by people who don't know what they're doing. They don't know the craft, and they're not interested in telling stories for other people. They just have a camera and they want to make a movie for their own ego.

Learn the craft and tell stories to other people than yourself and you're on your way.
 
moviemaykr said:
In theory that film was shot on I think a Sony EX1
Click to expand...
Your message title says you were thinking of "Paranormal Activity"? That film's success had *nothing* to do with the camera, or the budget, or even the story. It had to do with brilliant marketing. They could have shot that on the lowest-end cheapo HDV camera and had the same success ... oh, wait, they did. :D
 
Barry_Green said:
Your message title says you were thinking of "Paranormal Activity"? That film's success had *nothing* to do with the camera, or the budget, or even the story. It had to do with brilliant marketing. They could have shot that on the lowest-end cheapo HDV camera and had the same success ... oh, wait, they did. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah Marketing is everything these days.
Just think of the Starwars prequel trailers...
 
JavaExMachina said:
I think you're half right. Thing is, it's not about knowing you're gonna make a good film or not. It's about convincing others.
Click to expand...
Well, sort of. It's not even about "convincing" others, it's about having a package that's so convincing that you don't have to do a hard sell, it's obvious.

If you haven't made a film before, it's harder to sell the same package than if you're established. Get established, and you can make whatever crap you want on any equipment you'd like.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It took Robert Duvall years of struggling to get the money raised for "The Apostle" before he finally gave up and just wrote the check himself. And made a film good enough to earn himself at least one more Oscar nomination.

But in general, yes, if you have a tried and true business model, and you're going to "do it again", that's much easier, definitely, than someone who hasn't done it at all.

It's true that most movies made on zero or micro or low budget are awful. Go to any comic or movie convention and find people who are self distributing stuff that would never get shown on any festival anywhere. I actually recommend picking up a few of those just to see what it looks like.
The thing though is, that if 999 movies out of 1000 are so bad they should never have gotten made - I would say 999 out of 1000 are made by people who don't know what they're doing. They don't know the craft, and they're not interested in telling stories for other people. They just have a camera and they want to make a movie for their own ego.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. Get out the tattoo ink, because this sums up the issue absolutely and completely.

I recommend people who are new to this, to attend the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival (NYIIFVF). It's a "bogus" festival that will screen anything and everything that gets submitted (because their submission fee is so extremely high, over $300 last I checked). And the quality of stuff that gets submitted is so unbelievably horrid... well, you have to understand, these are films that have been rejected by every quality-based festival around, and the filmmakers are so desperate to have some recognition that they'll pay $300 to get screened. So who would pay $300 to submit a film, when reputable festivals charge $15 to $35 or so? Obviously filmmakers who can't get into the reputable festivals.

The quality is jaw-dropping.

Don't be that guy. If your film is going to be bad, learn it now, first, before shooting a frame. Fix it on paper before you ever take the next step, because if it's not brilliant on the page, it'll never be brilliant on the screen.

Learn the craft and tell stories to other people than yourself and you're on your way.
Click to expand...
JavaExMachina is my new favorite poster.
 
I think the main things to watch out for with the 7D are the aliasing and jello. Avoid those and everything else can me manipulated in post to create a good look.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yeah, but -- I think there needs to be some perspective there. Open Water wasn't good -- the O.P. was asking about "good" films.

And 28 Days Later had an A-list team behind it, including Oscar winners Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle. They chose the XL1 specifically for the challenge of it, and most definitely not because of budget limitations. They had the freedom to choose anything they wanted to use. And they had the money behind it to do it right; they chose the XL1 for artistic reasons to make a specific look.

So -- yes, great filmmakers can make watchable or even good films on any equipment. Good films have been made on the DVX100, the Arri 16S, the Canon XL1.
Click to expand...

True true on 28 Days Later; but still was done with the camera. Yes, budget and crew does not make this equal, but still ....... really does not matter why they chose the camera, they did choose it and it worked.

Open Water ?

There was not much for desire in their cinematography on that film, but I thought it entertaining.

And the box office and DVD sales might disagree w/ your assessment (see RT and Metacritic reviews)

Domestic: $30,610,863
Foreign: $24,057,091

Worldwide: $54,667,954.

Can it be done w/ the O.P.'s concern ? Sure. If everything falls into place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top