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

Ever heard of ebay? There are used 7d's selling there every day. Here are a few examples that sold over the last few days

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-7D-Bo...wItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item25588c5124

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-7D-Bo...wItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item19b9893abb

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-7D-Bo...wItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item1c0fc57ef6


So it would cost roughly $1450. So you use it for two months and sell it for $1250 and it costs you $200. Add on the accessories you need, buy used and then sell it off when you're done and it'll cost like $500 for the whole setup and you get it for 2 months.

Also I don't know where you can get a red package for $100 a day. The cheapest i've seen is like $300. But even if you could get it for $100 a day and shot for 20 days it would still cost you an extra $1500 plus you would have to shoot it in a fraction of the time. Its definitely a better camera, but its not comparable in price to the 7d.

The other advantage to buying and then reselling is that you can sometimes break even, or even make money. For instance I bought a dvx a few years ago on ebay, used it for a year and then resold it and made $100. And a lot of the used equipment I have I could easily sell for what I paid. So ultimately that 7d package could end up costing you nothing, or you could even make money on it. I'm not saying that would definitely happen but there is always a chance, whereas once you spend the money on a rental you're never getting it back. The other thing you could do is rent out the 7d package when you're done with it and make money that way. There are a lot of options when you buy things, but renting is just throwing your money away unless you only need the equipment for a very short time.
 
Justin Bissett said:
Also I don't know where you can get a red package for $100 a day. The cheapest i've seen is like $300. But even if you could get it for $100 a day and shot for 20 days it would still cost you an extra $1500 plus you would have to shoot it in a fraction of the time. Its definitely a better camera, but its not comparable in price to the 7d.
Click to expand...

I do not get how rental costs of a RED could be compared to buying a 7D and then reselling it. Even 2-3 7Ds.

Ultimately, moviemaykr has provided very few details. The fact he is wondering whether to shoot on RED or 7D sort of tells me that the 7D will probably be sufficient.

Another example being discussed on the footage/still board:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=197247
 
Last edited:
Anything is sufficient, in the right hands.
I would not advise anyone RENT a red or a 7D without ever having to shot them,
to shoot a film.

The learning curve is so steep, I would say you need it at least 20 hours of use
before you could use it to your needs.

If I were RENTING, I would go with a traditional video camera of good quality.
They are so much easier to use to capture both good sound and video.

A DSLR or RED is a different beast.
The 7D has very few things to tell you where your sound and video is as you are recording it.
The push focus is slow.
The screen is so small, it is difficult to know when you are in or out of focus.
And you are limited to a short shooting time per take.

Don't get me wrong, once you understand the shortcomings, you can make something good.
It just takes about 20 hours getting familiar with the camera.

I shot stills professionally for about 15 years first with Nikon, then with Canon.
When I got my 7D, the video was unusable with my first test of my child.
The secound outing (in the snow) was over exposed (it looked good on the screen while shooting it, but the exposure meeter did say i was 2 stops over exposed.
With film in snow, from the old days, the meter was often tricked into thinking I was 2 stops over when in fact it wasn't (all the snow reflecting back the light).

So now, I know these things, but if I had went out and rented this for a shoot, I would be very dissatisfied.

As for stills, I still have not figured out how to get the selectable focus points using the top dial control, and at the same time getting the focus points to light up as I make the composition. I have only tried to configure that about 10 minutes though.

The point is, the 7D is a camera you need to get intimate with before it will return the results you see online.

Just my view.
 
Green Hornet said:
Anything is sufficient, in the right hands.
I would not advise anyone RENT a red or a 7D without ever having to shot them,
to shoot a film.

The learning curve is so steep, I would say you need it at least 20 hours of use
before you could use it to your needs.

If I were RENTING, I would go with a traditional video camera of good quality.
They are so much easier to use to capture both good sound and video.

A DSLR or RED is a different beast.
The 7D has very few things to tell you where your sound and video is as you are recording it.
The push focus is slow.
The screen is so small, it is difficult to know when you are in or out of focus.
And you are limited to a short shooting time per take.

Don't get me wrong, once you understand the shortcomings, you can make something good.
It just takes about 20 hours getting familiar with the camera.

I shot stills professionally for about 15 years first with Nikon, then with Canon.
When I got my 7D, the video was unusable with my first test of my child.
The secound outing (in the snow) was over exposed (it looked good on the screen while shooting it, but the exposure meeter did say i was 2 stops over exposed.
With film in snow, from the old days, the meter was often tricked into thinking I was 2 stops over when in fact it wasn't (all the snow reflecting back the light).

So now, I know these things, but if I had went out and rented this for a shoot, I would be very dissatisfied.

As for stills, I still have not figured out how to get the selectable focus points using the top dial control, and at the same time getting the focus points to light up as I make the composition. I have only tried to configure that about 10 minutes though.

The point is, the 7D is a camera you need to get intimate with before it will return the results you see online.

Just my view.
Click to expand...

I have had the same problems as you. I am a Hardcore Canon DSLR guy and I have not been able to work out the Selectable focus. It just doesn't work for me for some reason. Mine is an early model(020) so it maybe defected.
As far as cinema is concerned, with the 7d you need to focus the same way you would as with a cinema cam. In other words get out the tape measure and if you don't have an external monitor don't even bother, just stay home. A shot can be ruined because you think it's in focus but it's not because when your shooting with fast glass wide open your DOF can be too shallow and the viewfinder is just too small to tell.

There are so many things you need to learn with the 7d, and missing one can screw everything up. It makes sense to just own one to practice with and rent a 2nd for your shoot.
 
The Red is a much better camera, technically, obviously. And shooting with it is easier because it's designed for shooting cinema. (Records sound properly, runs without getting hot, bigger screen, better balanced, more accessories, etc.)

However, if you shot your film with the 7D and it turned out to be great, I doubt anyone would kick it out of bed for eating crackers.

It could be distributed, wouldn't look any worse than 16 mm probably, could be cleaned up a bit for distribution if necessary.

I like the recommendation of looking at lots of bad films at a film festival. Not just for bad scripts, directing, editing etc., although there's plenty of that. Also just to see where people go wrong technically. Just because a camera has high light sensitivity and good glass, doesn't mean you don't have to light it properly. Nothing looks more amateurish than bad lighting.

To use a new analogy, I'm a private pilot, and we pilots always read the accident reports / fatalities of other stupid pilots. It's not fun to do, but by doing so we can avoid the stupid mistakes of others and not crash and burn ourselves.
 
The answer has always been yes -- if you're capable of making a good feature film, you could make it on a 7D. Or a DVX. Or an HVX. Or a GH1. or an EX1. Or a PD150. Or a 16mm camera. Or 35mm film. Or a Red.

If you're not capable of making a good feature film, a 7D won't help. Nor would a DVX, an HVX, a GH1, an EX1, a PD150, a 16mm camera, 35mm film, or a Red One.

The bigger question is: if you're capable of making a good feature film, why in the hell would you try to do it on a DSLR? :D
 
Barry_Green said:
The bigger question is: if you're capable of making a good feature film, why in the hell would you try to do it on a DSLR? :D
Click to expand...

There is much truth to this. Real filmmakers decide on a look and then go about assembling what they need to achieve that look. As has been mentioned before, with 28 Days Later, the look of an XL2 was what was wanted, not because they needed to keep equipment costs down.

If by "GOOD" you mean a film that looks similar in quality to what you see in theaters, then the Red is definitely the way to go. And while it does have a steep learning curve, perhaps your film would be served by hiring a DP (or at least an AC) who has a lot of familiarity with it.

But if you mean "GOOD" by being an enjoyable film, then take a long hard look at the script. I cannot believe how many scripts have been sent for my approval that I've been told are "good" only to read the most amateurish and frightfully boring/dumb stories that I've ever seen. Go look on YouTube. There are loads of incredibly awful videos that still have comments of "Great job!" and "Wow, that was awesome!" You need to learn to discern the people who have valuable insights and opinions from those who'll just blow smoke up your ass. Get in the habit of visualizing the film at the script stage and ask yourself one question: "If I had seen this film in the theater and then later saw the DVD at Wal-Mart, would I pay $19.99 so that I could add it in my collection?" If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then why the hell would anyone else do so?

After you feel that you have a script that is actually enjoyable, that people would sit down for 2 hours and watch and not feel that the time was stolen from them, then begin your budgeting process. If you truly feel that your film is going to be something special, then why half-ass it? Raise the money you need to get it done right enough. All films have to cut corners somewhere, but there's cutting corners and then there's not even having enough money to do anything at all. Don't be that if you think your film is worth the effort to go raise the dough.

Finally, surround yourself with good artists. And here's a hint: the better artists will cost you money at some point. Decide on what that is worth to you.

And finally, pay yourself something. No sense having to stay home and not being able to join your film on the festival circuit because you put all the money in the film and then had to take on three jobs to support yourself out of the financial hole the movie put you in.

Of course, that's if you want to make a "GOOD" film. If you want to make a typical YouTube video, then get all your friends and assorted free Craigslisters together with your HV30 and go shoot a script that got one small little re-write and'll garner a couple of hundred views with a "Good job!" and "Wow, that was amazing" from your polite friends and family and the occasional weirdo who has no taste. :happy:
 
subtleinspiration said:
There is much truth to this. Real filmmakers decide on a look and then go about assembling what they need to achieve that look. As has been mentioned before, with 28 Days Later, the look of an XL2 was what was wanted, not because they needed to keep equipment costs down.

If by "GOOD" you mean a film that looks similar in quality to what you see in theaters, then the Red is definitely the way to go. And while it does have a steep learning curve, perhaps your film would be served by hiring a DP (or at least an AC) who has a lot of familiarity with it.

But if you mean "GOOD" by being an enjoyable film, then take a long hard look at the script. I cannot believe how many scripts have been sent for my approval that I've been told are "good" only to read the most amateurish and frightfully boring/dumb stories that I've ever seen. Go look on YouTube. There are loads of incredibly awful videos that still have comments of "Great job!" and "Wow, that was awesome!" You need to learn to discern the people who have valuable insights and opinions from those who'll just blow smoke up your ass. Get in the habit of visualizing the film at the script stage and ask yourself one question: "If I had seen this film in the theater and then later saw the DVD at Wal-Mart, would I pay $19.99 so that I could add it in my collection?" If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then why the hell would anyone else do so?

After you feel that you have a script that is actually enjoyable, that people would sit down for 2 hours and watch and not feel that the time was stolen from them, then begin your budgeting process. If you truly feel that your film is going to be something special, then why half-ass it? Raise the money you need to get it done right enough. All films have to cut corners somewhere, but there's cutting corners and then there's not even having enough money to do anything at all. Don't be that if you think your film is worth the effort to go raise the dough.

Finally, surround yourself with good artists. And here's a hint: the better artists will cost you money at some point. Decide on what that is worth to you.

And finally, pay yourself something. No sense having to stay home and not being able to join your film on the festival circuit because you put all the money in the film and then had to take on three jobs to support yourself out of the financial hole the movie put you in.

Of course, that's if you want to make a "GOOD" film. If you want to make a typical YouTube video, then get all your friends and assorted free Craigslisters together with your HV30 and go shoot a script that got one small little re-write and'll garner a couple of hundred views with a "Good job!" and "Wow, that was amazing" from your polite friends and family and the occasional weirdo who has no taste. :happy:
Click to expand...

Have I seen you post here before!?!?!?!? Can I be your friend!?!?!?
 
Barry_Green said:
The bigger question is: if you're capable of making a good feature film, why in the hell would you try to do it on a DSLR? :D
Click to expand...

The answer to that is that you can't know for sure if you are going to be able to make a good feature film without making a feature film. When people set out to make a feature they don't expect it to be crap but 99% of the time it is crap. There is no formula for making a good film which is why we see films with some of the most talented writers, directors, and actors turn out awful. There is no way of knowing how the film will turn out, but you have to hope that with your talent, the talent of your cast and crew and hard work you will be able to make a good film.

So since there is no way of knowing how your film will turn out why spend lots of money on shooting with the best camera when in the end that is such a small part of the film. So long as the image isn't distracting and doesn't pull you out of the film who cares what camera it is shot on. A camera like the 7d gives a very acceptable image that will not pull you out of the film, but will let you tell your story on a shoestring budget. If you took a movie like 500 Days of Summer and shot it the exact same way but used the 7d instead of 35mm it wouldn't be any less of a film, but would be much cheaper to produce. If you have the money of course you should use the better camera, but if you don't the 7d will allow you to tell the story without being a distraction to the viewer.

The other advantage to shooting on a dslr is the size. You can shoot in locations you otherwise wouldn't be able to shoot in. I'm in no way trying to say the 7d or any dslr are better cameras than a red or a 35mm camera, but there are definitely advantages to shooting a feature on them.
 
Finally, surround yourself with good artists. And here's a hint: the better artists will cost you money at some point. Decide on what that is worth to you.

And finally, pay yourself something. No sense having to stay home and not being able to join your film on the festival circuit because you put all the money in the film and then had to take on three jobs to support yourself out of the financial hole the movie put you in.

This is why I choose to use the 7D on low budget projects.

As a cinematographer the most affordable tool that allows me to create an image that I personally find to be pleasing, and is "good enough" for distribution is the tool that I will always use.

If a micro-budget movie has $2500 set aside for a ten day shoot as their TOTAL camera budget, then why should I as an artist and laborer allow them to spend their total camera budget on a camera rental, and then work for free, and also find AC's who are either desperate enough or green enough to slave away under me for free so that the producers and directors can make their passion project.

I'd rather pocket the $2500 (rent, food, credit card bills anyone?) and use my 7D that has already paid for itself to make an acceptable festival circuit or small scale distribution movie.

So - to reiterate what has been said 1000 times before:

Is the 7D TECHNICALLY capable of making a watchable movie:
100% yes in my eyes.

Is the 7D AESTHETICALLY capable of making a watchable movie:
That's up to a cinematographer, director and producer to decide together.

Of course this is a camera-centric forum. We are obsessed with cameras and technology so we have a somewhat myopic view of cameras and what they can do.

If you were to travel back in time to 1990 or even 2000 with a DVD (or HDCAM SR or digibeta tape) of a movie shot with a 7D that was nicely produced and had a good story would even the most technically savvy people question the quality if you told them you made the film for less than $XX,000? If you avoided rolling shutter artifacts, I'm pretty sure the aliasing would go undetected unless you have a rainbow zebra disco party from shooting a brick wall at f11 in full sunlight.

That being said, until the 2/3" scarlet, S35 Scarlet, a nikon, canon, panasonic or sony large chip video/stills camera with intelligent downsampling and higher bit depth comes out the 7D will continue to be my weapon of choice for small and micro-budget filming.

That's why I dumped $4000 on a 7D with a permanent hard front PL mount!:kali:
 
Thanks so much guys for all your thoughts and info. Truth be told I already have a budget and favors from friends that work in the feature film biz in all depts, and at the highest level, which Im very thankful for. Yes one of the benefits of living in Los Angeles and working in the biz for a while is you meet and become friends with some very talented people who all want to help our friends succeed.

My partners and I have always wanted to own what we shoot and have come up with a concept and script that is coming along very nicely. The film we will put together, will by no means be amateurish or shot unprofessionally. We have access to all kinds of amazing film equipment and we have written the script to fit our needs and budget without sacrificing quality.

We also dont have a time limit so after the initial bulk of the shooting we will be able to tweak it here and there. I started this thread because I have access to Red cameras but the more we were talking about this and the more footage I saw from the 5D and 7D, that was lit extremely well and great composition, I started to think about entertaining the thought of having less stress and less rentals for a Red kit complete and more about getting 2 great DSLRs and with a great set of prime lenses.

We all know that the story is most important, we should all remember as well as cinematographers there is nothing worse than a blown-out image, bad composition or lighting and stunts or effects that come off cheesy. Those things can really ruin a film that some believe are really good. There is a lot of crap out on the internet that still makes it to dvd somehow, but I do believe if this is what you truly want to do then watch great films and learn from the best. Too many people dont do their research and really breakdown why scenes look great and made you feel a certain way.
There is nothing wrong with molding your film with a certain look, feel or style of shots like a major film or director you admire. Its already be done a ton of times but somewhere along the way you find your style and thats what makes you!
 
Not only do I think a good feature can be shot on a 7d, but less hassle than the red or a film camera. Also you gain some low light capability that more expensive cams may not give. I think for more drama than action narratives the 7d will do fine. A great lens collection is a must though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top