SHOOTING A FEATURE with CANON 5D

StormFactory said:
I don't see how the budget make any difference. "24" and "House" are probably a few million dollars an episode and they are moving to 5D Mark II cameras.
Click to expand...

Of course budget makes a difference. Those cameras are still not primary cameras, either.

Again, why would you set out to cripple your product when it must be weighed against thousands that are probably equally hungry for the spotlight? Just to "save" a few dollars on the front end?

You're going to pay for it on the backend and on set/location, anyway...

If it's below 60K then you have to do what you have to do...
 
I really think a lot of the difference between HD and HD are moot. Lenses have an impact in storytelling; low light capabilities help to not distract the viewer, but in the end if you have a great script and competent actors you're already in an elite minority. I see a lot of film (everyone here probably does), and 90% of what comes to theatres and DVD is crap. If your vision is unique and worth people seeing, people will literally line the streets to see it.

The difference in image between the Red and 5D are pretty minimal and there isn't an audience goer who is going to care if they're interested in what's happening on the screen. Workflow is something to think about, but that's it.

The feature I'm doing right now uses everything from S16mm, 16mm, and even black and white shot on a pair of HF200s while incorporating a 7D/5D (also in black and white) for some inside Chicago el train stuff.

I think people need to throw away this notion of what camera is "best". I certainly could be shooting the black and white scenes with film or on a Red, but what for? I did the testing and found that my HF200s looked every bit as good in black and white with some touch ups in post (or they looked good enough to not warrant the out of pocket cost of film or renting the Red).

The most important thing is that you're telling a story that you can tell on your budget and that you're providing the film community with a unique vision and a profound story or experience.

In the end it's about winning awards at festivals and selling what you make to as many people as possible, but what matters more than anything is shooting, editing and printing your film -- and then doing it all over again.

If you're nervous about the camera you're using (even if it's SD), try black and white. I've found that it adds a lot of production value (ironically) to HD images, especially on the prosumer end.
 
Chamber005 said:
I really think a lot of the difference between HD and HD are moot.
Click to expand...

I think it's about future-proofing. Imagine having a project you were incredibly passionate about, but you shot it on VHS or some other low-fi format back in the 80s. How would you feel about it now? Would you still consider having made the right choice, or would you wish you had raised enough money to shoot it on a better format?
 
subtleinspiration said:
I think it's about future-proofing. Imagine having a project you were incredibly passionate about, but you shot it on VHS or some other low-fi format back in the 80s. How would you feel about it now? Would you still consider having made the right choice, or would you wish you had raised enough money to shoot it on a better format?
Click to expand...

Absolutely I would feel happy about the film that I shot using the means I had in which to shoot it. Films made by the independent producer exist in a very unique space outside the borders of traditional cinema. If you wanted to make a Hollywood movie then you should be working as a grip or something passing your script around, being a gopher, networking, trying to get that movie made. An independent feature filmmaker is independent because he/she has to be, because what they are presenting wouldn't be considered for a Hollywood production without a prominant, established director/producer backing the piece.

If you're saying that ten or twenty years from now you want people to be able to watch your film and not be put off by the media you're using, I think that's a flawed perspective especially in the age of 1080p HD 24p video coming out of DSLRs and camcorders. I'm attempting to utilize every aspect of filmmaking equipment as an aspect of the storytelling in my film, and I feel that the black and white HD images compliment the S16mm color footage, in the future or otherwise, especially with some slight post work.

Money matters in film nowadays have very little to do with whether or not a film can be made for peanuts -- it's only whether or not the director's vision can be fulfilled. And my advice is that if you have a script that cannot be made with the equipment you have available (or can afford to rent), shelf that script and write something that you can shoot.

Examples of films that can be shot on a zero budget:

Glengary Glenross
Big Kahuna
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
12 Angry Men

I'm shooting all around Chicago as well as a cabin in Michigan, an abandoned factor in Gary, forests in Indiana, several suburban homes, apartments, two office buildings, a playhouse, restaurant, and truck stop (all donated by awesome people). As I said we're using a combination of S16 and 16mm color film as well as DSLRs and camcorders -- because I knew that's what we would have at our disposal and so I wrote a script that utilized all of the locations, ability and equipment.

As independent producers we as writers have to always, always, always be aware of every penny and nickle available before the words hit the page. I see absolutely no reason to write a scene at this point in my career that I cannot afford to shoot myself. I can't imagine a more epic waste of my creative efforts. If I want to write something I can't afford to shoot, I'll make a comic book.

But as for future proofing -- worrying about the future does nothing but stop us from moving forward in the now. If you look back on something ten years from now and cringe, congratulations, you've progressed as a filmmaker and producer! Have a drink and then get back to the set.
 
Kholi said:
Of course budget makes a difference. Those cameras are still not primary cameras, either.

Again, why would you set out to cripple your product when it must be weighed against thousands that are probably equally hungry for the spotlight? Just to "save" a few dollars on the front end?

You're going to pay for it on the backend and on set/location, anyway...

If it's below 60K then you have to do what you have to do...
Click to expand...
What if its 59,999.98 :)
 
Let's step a little further back. What about when the DVX100 was the only option? People were producing solid indie films with that. And then the HVX200 came out and people were doing the same. If the RED One didn't exist, I don't think that people would even hesitate to shooting feature length indie films on the 5D.

Let's also talk about workflow. What if you don't have a computer that can handle 4k footage? Then you have to budget new computer hardware.

The 5D is a very viable option for indie filmmakers. Yes the RED One has more to offer, but more may not always be best.
 
Kholi said:
Of course budget makes a difference. Those cameras are still not primary cameras, either.

Again, why would you set out to cripple your product when it must be weighed against thousands that are probably equally hungry for the spotlight? Just to "save" a few dollars on the front end?

You're going to pay for it on the backend and on set/location, anyway...

If it's below 60K then you have to do what you have to do...
Click to expand...

Were on the same page with this Kholi......

IMHO if it was 60K, I would still by a RED and just hold off payment on half that through solid contracts to pay at a later set date; and get the RED for production. Sell it and pay off the remaining balanced owed to whomever was contractually agreed to receive a later payment. The RED is so worth it if you decide to go that route. Reselling it for 5 to 10% off is gonna translate to a very cheap rental bargain to the production. In the end, do what works for you, just from a producers POV, it's a better avenue to go the RED.




Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://SumeriusChronicles.com/
http://TheOrbisTerrarum.com/
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
 
Last edited:
Seems like everybody loves RED. I do too but if I can lower what format I'm shooting that includes manpower and technical support, all the package that includes that decision will be a big difference if we do decide to shoot in a HDSLR format. I can dedicate more on prod design, actors, more budget for post.

In the end of the day, I have seen some great indie movies that has been shot with the DVX100. Format is secondary to story. This is just my point of view. PEACE
 
Ultimately, it depends on budget and what kind of grief you're willing to go through to get the money to do it right. If I have a project I'm passionate about, and can get the money, I'm shooting on 35mm, no question. However, if money's tight, then I start going down the camera trail looking for what will give me the best image at the right price.
 
Man... coming from someone who has shot/directed multimillion $$ features on 35, theatrical docs on super 16, and incorporated super 8 in both formats for blowup, and endless video from Hi8 on up I'll tell you... I think this thread is somewhat insane.

Seriously... what sort of film are we setting out to make? What percentage of indie-features (out of the thousands that get made every year) see a theater, or even a legit finish on 35 for an end product? I'd bet my butt it ain't too many.

I've been asked by students for years to draw a line between film and video, and my answer has always been the same.... shoot on what you can afford!! If you can afford 35, shoot it... 16... shoot it... At the end of the day, we are in the business of telling stories, period. Cavemen wrote on walls, Shakespeare used quill... Orsen Wells shot B&W... you get the idea.

I personally own an HVX-200, and a 5DMKii... I was seriously considering a 35 adaptor for the HVX to shoot a micro-budget feature, but when I saw some 5D footage, I was sold instantly. This camera, for the cost, and the results afforded is beyond imagination as a low budget filmmaking tool. Yes it has it's limitations, but please, let's not compare it a camera setup that costs 20 times more, or better still to cameras that don't yet exist. Let's also not compare it to film, because it's not film. It's really not even a video camera, it's it's own medium, that has a specific look and feel and has limitations.

Now lets get our facts straight... a million dollar feature is no where near a micro budget film (unless you want to remake Ben Hur).... in my mind, micro budget is under 25k.... I've seen hungry crews shoot 16 on ends for under 50k, it can be done (with greater limitations than a 5D will ever give you); I've seen crews shoot a 35 feature for under a 100k... it can be done.

What the 5D (and other DSLR's) offer is the greatest quality, for the cheapest buck, paired with choices for lenses, which a thoughtful director can choose to create a visual narrative to go along with the story being told. You barely need a crew, because you dont need a ton of light to get a shot.

I am planning on a real micro-budget feature, and the only reason in the world I would even contemplate it is because of the results I can get with this camera. I've owned an HVX for over two years now, and didn't think that camera was up to the task (too slow), and with and adaptor on it, it's even slower ! Under 200ASA, with terrible low-loght artifacts and grain.

I say... if you've got a story, and some money (which these days is damn hard -near impossible- to come by); GO SHOOT!! The lessons you'll learn along the way will more than make up for the difference of visual quality...

Sadly, besides people like us, a very small amount of people even pay attention to the technical elements that go into a film... they don't care what it was shot on, they only care if they like the story being told.

my. 02c
 
wilbah said:
Man... coming from someone who has shot/directed multimillion $$ features on 35, theatrical docs on super 16, and incorporated super 8 in both formats for blowup, and endless video from Hi8 on up I'll tell you... I think this thread is somewhat insane.

Seriously... what sort of film are we setting out to make? What percentage of indie-features (out of the thousands that get made every year) see a theater, or even a legit finish on 35 for an end product? I'd bet my butt it ain't too many.

I've been asked by students for years to draw a line between film and video, and my answer has always been the same.... shoot on what you can afford!! If you can afford 35, shoot it... 16... shoot it... At the end of the day, we are in the business of telling stories, period. Cavemen wrote on walls, Shakespeare used quill... Orsen Wells shot B&W... you get the idea.

I personally own an HVX-200, and a 5DMKii... I was seriously considering a 35 adaptor for the HVX to shoot a micro-budget feature, but when I saw some 5D footage, I was sold instantly. This camera, for the cost, and the results afforded is beyond imagination as a low budget filmmaking tool. Yes it has it's limitations, but please, let's not compare it a camera setup that costs 20 times more, or better still to cameras that don't yet exist. Let's also not compare it to film, because it's not film. It's really not even a video camera, it's it's own medium, that has a specific look and feel and has limitations.

Now lets get our facts straight... a million dollar feature is no where near a micro budget film (unless you want to remake Ben Hur).... in my mind, micro budget is under 25k.... I've seen hungry crews shoot 16 on ends for under 50k, it can be done (with greater limitations than a 5D will ever give you); I've seen crews shoot a 35 feature for under a 100k... it can be done.

What the 5D (and other DSLR's) offer is the greatest quality, for the cheapest buck, paired with choices for lenses, which a thoughtful director can choose to create a visual narrative to go along with the story being told. You barely need a crew, because you dont need a ton of light to get a shot.

I am planning on a real micro-budget feature, and the only reason in the world I would even contemplate it is because of the results I can get with this camera. I've owned an HVX for over two years now, and didn't think that camera was up to the task (too slow), and with and adaptor on it, it's even slower ! Under 200ASA, with terrible low-loght artifacts and grain.

I say... if you've got a story, and some money (which these days is damn hard -near impossible- to come by); GO SHOOT!! The lessons you'll learn along the way will more than make up for the difference of visual quality...

Sadly, besides people like us, a very small amount of people even pay attention to the technical elements that go into a film... they don't care what it was shot on, they only care if they like the story being told.

my. 02c
Click to expand...

In the words of Larry Blackman from the 80's funk group Cameo...Word Up.
 
wilbah said:
Sadly, besides people like us, a very small amount of people even pay attention to the technical elements that go into a film... they don't care what it was shot on, they only care if they like the story being told.

my. 02c
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with that one wilbah...

Of course it is possible to shoot a feature on a 5D. You can shoot it on a flip if you wanted. Shoot on what is acceptable by the budget, director, the financiers, audience as long as it DOES NOT take away from the story.

It makes me laugh when I see posts that only talk about picture quality of DSLRs vs RED, film, ect.... Wow we're impressed that you've spent some time googling...

Think about this, will capturing on a RED/Film vs a DSLR add that much to the story? In most cases no (unless if its high action/CGI Michael Bay fest). With the money you saved by shooting on multiple DSLR you can add to the value of the story/picture with real talent, more locations, better post, ect ect... Stop getting hung up on if DSLR is an acceptable format. I'd take a great story with amazing performances over a slightly better "looking" movie any day and so will the audience. Also shooting on a RED/Film or any professional camera is nothing like shooting on a DSLR or a prosumer camera. You're going to need a larger crew, more experienced DP, more media storage, more expensive support systems, higher end editing rig, it's a ripple effect, it's just not as simple as if you can afford the camera.
 
Think about this, will capturing on a RED/Film vs a DSLR add that much to the story? In most cases no (unless if its high action/CGI Michael Bay fest).
Click to expand...

Why it should add anything to the story ? It adds to QUALITY.And sets peoples mind and they know "ah its a movie" if you shoot with RED or DSLR and you have good DP + sound guy.
Or "ah its some cheap home video wannabe movie" if you think that camera not matters and you shoot with handycam.
 
Last edited:
I just wrapped a 12 day feature on a 5D, and I absolutely loved it, and I found our shooting style to be fast, and completely liberating for the talent. A large part of the film takes place in an apartment, which was lit with christmas lights, soft practicals and the occasional china ball. The script had scenes that were 4-6 pages, many of them, and our rig, and lighting style, allowed us to do the whole scene through several times, with trips through rooms back and forth without cutting or resetting any light gags for the scenes. It also allowed us to shoot in candle light, one lamp situations, etc. etc. that wouldn't be possible on film. I love film, but this movie wouldn't be doable on film with this budget (<10k)

the 5D also allowed us to steal shots, but that's pretty obvious and been stated before. It also makes the crew following the actors small, the onset crew very small, and scales down the whole production. You're shooting SD cards so you don't have to worry about rolling out or spending too much money on film.

The look of the film is great too. The shallow depth of field can become a problem, so you have to know what you're getting into. Not every shot needs to be at 1.4, nor should it be. If you have issues with focus just use the 7D or light things up and stop down. The lack of setup times for lighting and rig let us do 10 pages a day with more coverage than I'm used to as a director, and allowed the talent much more room to act and improve and move. One scene, that ended up being our favorite scene in the film, took place at 4:00 before the sun went down. We shot it without blocking camera and got a 5 page scene done and covered in about a half an hour. I loved my experience with the 5D, and if you have a script with long scenes I highly recommend shooting on it or the Red or the 7D or whatever, and just shooting. It's almost like theatre. That being said, the film is a drama. I wouldn't probably shoot an action film or a comedy on it, but an indie drama the camera is perfect.
 
bwwd said:
Why it should add anything to the story ? It adds to QUALITY.And sets peoples mind and they know "ah its a movie" if you shoot with RED or DSLR and you have good DP + sound guy.
Or "ah its some cheap home video wannabe movie" if you think that camera not matters and you shoot with handycam.
Click to expand...

If DSLR footage can trick experienced DP's into thinking it was shot on RED/Film then the footage shouldn't have much trouble convincing an audience into saying "ah its a movie". I didn't say a camera doesn't matter. The difference in quality between DSLR and RED/Film doesn't in many cases except for CGI/Action scenes.

If I was producing a picture I'd invest in the DP more than the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top