Barry_Green
Moderator
For a feature film?
Can you name one? Mike Figgis is the only one I've ever heard of doing it.
Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?
- Thread starter SaintDemure
- Start date
Can you name one? Mike Figgis is the only one I've ever heard of doing it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed entirely.
Aronofsky did it (The Wrestler) after shooting the two previous flicks on 35mm.
Here's a full feature shot on the 5DII http://vimeo.com/channels/chosenfilmworks Looks pretty good.
Araonfsky as perviously mentioned and very recently Kathyrn Bigelow for "the Hurt Locker"
Tim Joy
Veteran
I seem to recall that it was more of a budget consideration than an artistic choice. It worked for the movie regardless.
I think in general, choosing the camera you shoot a feature on should be more of a budget consideration than anything else. Unless you really need a stealth cam for stealing shots everywhere, if you had 50-100k budget, why wouldn't you shoot with the best camera that money can afford? Things are changing pretty fast, but as of now, if I had 50K for a feature, I'd shoot on RED, if it was 100K, probably go with super16 or a bigger Red package, if it was 10k or less, then of course- 7D all the way. Seems like a pretty simple choice.
Barry_Green
Moderator
For a feature film? Yes.
If you're talking about some $3,000 running-around-in-your-backyard, friends-as-actors type of thing, shot on nights and weekends over the course of six days... no, the Red would be the totally wrong tool for that, and the situation would be reversed. No way could you pull that off on a Red, nor would you want to even try, the 40-pound behemoth would prevent you from doing it.
But if we're talking about a feature film. Actors. Crew. 40+ people on set. Professional audio. Locations. Sets. An actual feature film -- then yes, shooting on the 7D instead of the Red would be paralyzing. You can't even pull focus on the 7D, for heck's sake...
And you're right, skateboard is probably too harsh. Moped might be more accurate.
A 747 will get you there in six hours. 747 = Red
A car will get you there in six days. Car = HVX/EX1 class.
A moped, maybe six weeks, and it's going to be a rough haul and a lot of pain, but cheap to buy and cheap on gas.
Yes, that's a better analogy. Skateboard was a bit much (even if two other professionals agreed with it.)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed.
Barry_Green
Moderator
My point hasn't been about how the end product "looks". It's about working with it. It's about being able to get the shot, and what hoops you have to jump through.
I already said that you'd get to your destination, whether you took a 747 or a car or a moped. The question is what can you afford and what hoops are you willing to jump through in order to pull it off on a cheaper budget.
Picture looks good but movement is cheesy sometimes because of 30p,too bad.
Especially in fighting parts.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Let's clarify something before I get pilloried again for daring suggest that a DSLR is not, in fact, descended directly from heaven:
I don't care what you shoot your movie on. As long as it gets shot, and it looks good, and it got you the look you wanted, then go right ahead. If you tell a compelling story, no distributor is really, truly going to care what you shot on either (although they will ask, as a way of gauging your budget and skill level). Audiences won't care either.
The whole discussion here was solely about workflow. Working with the product, and the limitations that are imposed when using a consumer DSLR instead of a professional digital cinema camera that was built for the sole purpose of shooting feature films.
The only place I got into the "look" was to refute a clueless producer who asserts that the 7D footage "looks better than Red" (it does not).
Use whatever you want. Use whatever's best for the story. Just recognize that some products are better than others, depending on what they're designed to do as their chief function.
If you're shooting with a two-man crew, a Red may be impossible to wrangle, whereas a DSLR with its tiny weight and tiny tripod might be ideal. If you're shooting a "real movie" (meaning, a traditional feature film with a cast and crew numbering 40+ and all the attendant support equipment etc) then the additional features of a Red or other proper digital cinema camera will be indispensable, and using a 7D in that circumstance would indeed be akin to taking a moped instead of a 747.
Regardless of the "look". Not talking about the look. Talking about using it.
I don't care what you shoot your movie on. As long as it gets shot, and it looks good, and it got you the look you wanted, then go right ahead. If you tell a compelling story, no distributor is really, truly going to care what you shot on either (although they will ask, as a way of gauging your budget and skill level). Audiences won't care either.
The whole discussion here was solely about workflow. Working with the product, and the limitations that are imposed when using a consumer DSLR instead of a professional digital cinema camera that was built for the sole purpose of shooting feature films.
The only place I got into the "look" was to refute a clueless producer who asserts that the 7D footage "looks better than Red" (it does not).
Use whatever you want. Use whatever's best for the story. Just recognize that some products are better than others, depending on what they're designed to do as their chief function.
If you're shooting with a two-man crew, a Red may be impossible to wrangle, whereas a DSLR with its tiny weight and tiny tripod might be ideal. If you're shooting a "real movie" (meaning, a traditional feature film with a cast and crew numbering 40+ and all the attendant support equipment etc) then the additional features of a Red or other proper digital cinema camera will be indispensable, and using a 7D in that circumstance would indeed be akin to taking a moped instead of a 747.
Regardless of the "look". Not talking about the look. Talking about using it.
But if you would have budget of 20 million $ and shoot on this ipod cam then it would look like no budget or very very low budget film ,no matter how good DP is.Look is important ,i cant agree that you can shoot on whatever you have.
Audiences do care what you shoot on,just check comments on motion pictures like "public enemies" or "streets of blood".They might not know on what camera you shoot this but they know that it doesnt look like film.
--
Ive got a question, Barry what was your first camcorder? VHS ? Why You didnt shoot with that to this day,if audiences dont care,distrubutors too ?Why DVX and HVX ? If you say that it doesnt matter.I think You keep forgetting about your early days when you started and your first films on vhs.Its important what you shoot on.
Audiences do care what you shoot on,just check comments on motion pictures like "public enemies" or "streets of blood".They might not know on what camera you shoot this but they know that it doesnt look like film.
--
Ive got a question, Barry what was your first camcorder? VHS ? Why You didnt shoot with that to this day,if audiences dont care,distrubutors too ?Why DVX and HVX ? If you say that it doesnt matter.I think You keep forgetting about your early days when you started and your first films on vhs.Its important what you shoot on.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
I said "if it looks good and tells a compelling story" then they won't care what it was shot on.
Obviously quality matters, we wouldn't have much to talk about here if quality didn't matter.
But there are things that matter a lot more than ultimate image quality -- such as having compelling content. So under that assertion, I would far rather watch "Bat Fight" shot on an iphone (or whatever it was shot on) than "Fireproof" which was shot on either the VariCam or HDCAM. I only made it about 8 minutes into that thing before I just couldn't take it anymore.
Quality matters, and better is always better. Anyone disputing that would be foolish. Just as foolish as anyone who asserts that better quality imaging is the only thing that matters.
Obviously quality matters, we wouldn't have much to talk about here if quality didn't matter.
But there are things that matter a lot more than ultimate image quality -- such as having compelling content. So under that assertion, I would far rather watch "Bat Fight" shot on an iphone (or whatever it was shot on) than "Fireproof" which was shot on either the VariCam or HDCAM. I only made it about 8 minutes into that thing before I just couldn't take it anymore.
Quality matters, and better is always better. Anyone disputing that would be foolish. Just as foolish as anyone who asserts that better quality imaging is the only thing that matters.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
Ha ha..that was hilarious... He got clobbered right as i was getting sick of that song.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's the point. Fireproof looks fantastic, it looks like a "movie" -- but it's unwatchable. The acting and dialogue are simply too horrible to be believed. I almost thought George Lucas must have directed it.
On the other hand, Bat Fight was highly entertaining and has gone viral.
What you shot something on is one of the least important questions to answer.
So shoot on what makes sense for the project. Crank 2 was shot on Canon HDV and AVCHD cameras. That was the right choice for them, given the amount of coverage they wanted and the very unique stylized vision they had in mind. The technology created a new type of shooting.
Figgis shot Time Code on DSR500 standard-def DVCAM cameras. Why? Because it was the only way he could make that particular movie. It wasn't about image quality, it was about portability, battery life, and a tape format that gave him two hours of recording time (when the prevailing professional tape formats maxxed out at 30 minutes). The technology created a new type of shooting.
So if your unique circumstances dictate that a DSLR is the best choice for your project, because somehow your project will benefit from whatever unique characteristics the DSLR has, then by all means, go ahead and use it.
Now, if you're doing a conventional narrative, something that existing movie cameras and digital cine cameras excel at, and you're deciding to purposely do it on a lesser-capable product "just because" -- well, that's being foolish. You should obviously use the most appropriate product for the job, and if there are multiple types available, you should use the best of that type of product.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Then you missed the whole point. Try again, and pay special attention to the lyrics.
just elaborating on what barry mentioned that it all depends on the content and the production value of the film. For example if the film is set in a cafe with only two characters talking most of the time something like "before sunset" then a 7D would do just but if the story involves a lot of different times of the day and settings then 7d would fall short of its mark. I do agree that the happy middle ground is a combinations of cameras. Even a very popular film like Slumdog the director decided to use 35mm for the Extreme Closeup's and SI-2k for all the run and gun kind of situations. it all depends on the content, medium of distribution and budget in that order.
-krish
-krish