If ya'll really feel that way, then why are you wasting your precious time on a forum devoted to an awful camera? I just don't get it. Let's start a poll and see who comes closest to the moment when 'the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form.'
Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?
- Thread starter SaintDemure
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Surely that moment is when you can do it entirely by yourself. Until then, if you need others' help and you need to pay them, then the business aspects continue to play a leading role, which is why workflow and workability become more and more important the higher up the budget ladder you go.
Screenwriting, novel writing, painting, photography, sculpting, those are all "art forms" because no business aspects are necessary, you can do all of those yourself, on your own time, with no restrictions. Filmmaking requires the cooperation of (and, if using professionals, a payroll for) dozens of employees and contractors.
ryansheffer
Well-known member
Srboraa. I can't wait to show you the footage we got from an awful codec. Know your camera and you can get great things from it.
We could have shot RED but chose 5d/7d because we could get clean imagery up to 1250 ISO if exposed properly. We lit multiple wide night exteriors with 6 small lights max. And for those of you who don't think that 1250 ISO holds up, just wait until next week when I am cleared to start showing footage. I will show you some incredible 1250 ISO footage.
Think of these cameras as a different film stock. You choose them because they offer the best option given your set of limitations and circumstances. There is no right camera for all situations, and these cameras are certainly not only stepping stones.
We could have shot RED but chose 5d/7d because we could get clean imagery up to 1250 ISO if exposed properly. We lit multiple wide night exteriors with 6 small lights max. And for those of you who don't think that 1250 ISO holds up, just wait until next week when I am cleared to start showing footage. I will show you some incredible 1250 ISO footage.
Think of these cameras as a different film stock. You choose them because they offer the best option given your set of limitations and circumstances. There is no right camera for all situations, and these cameras are certainly not only stepping stones.
That's "filmmaking" based on a traditional definition. Definitions change...little fat girls in Ohio happen..."filmmaking" ain't filmmaking anymore.
I think we're very close...
Barry, you're perfectly right. And I'm personnaly involved in the process of working with actors only. I also make the music myself, as well as the sound design and the editing. It is not exactly cinema, more video art and handcraft.
I'm now thinking of making cinema, a 90 minutes film, in the same conditions. And I think this is an interesting challenge, as crossing the usa from east to west by skateboard would be. Anyway, I can get money to do it, I have time to do it, and I like to do it.
If I would like to compare the situation of video now, with the music a few years ago : some musicians got more freedom, just working in a "home made" and "self produced" process. In the musical field, these musicians were first very criticised because of their lack of professionalism : "how could he record directly through his mbox, the ad converters are so bad" etc etc. It's true that very bad things went out of this process, as they went out of the professional studios. It is just a matter of how you want to work I think. In the video and in the cinema, you hear a lot of this indie music recorded with a mbox and its bad ad converters and professional filmakers don't seem to care a lot...
It's exactly the opposite with video. I hear a lot of people criticising 7d and that kind of technology in general. In your case, Barry, it is productive because I want to know that this problem exists, and that is weak etc. But for some people, it is just something else that is involved, maybe a little bit dogmatic, what do you think ? And at the end, I'm sure some video artists and filmakers will make great things with this "home made" workflow, getting freedom at some places, and loosing freedom in others places ; it's just a matter of how you like to work, how you like to be reactive to the situation, etc etc.
squig
Veteran
I agree, properly exposed and lit 1250 ISO footage on the 5D looks great. (I haven't used a 7D but I will be shooting a short with one in a few weeks.) There are issues with these DSLRs but if you don't have the money for something better then know the pitfalls and make your feature working within the limitations. Mattsand shot a feature with 2 D90s and almost no crew and no lighting.
I'm planning to shoot a feature next year with either my 5D or a 1D MKIV with a very small crew. With 25k invested in camera, sound and lighting gear my 60k film will look like a 6 million dollar film.
I was successful in the music business in part because I had access to low cost digital recording and could record when I felt inspired and not on somebody else's dime. Did it sound like analog? not quite. Did anybody notice the difference? nope.
I'd rather ride a skateboard than catch a plane, call me crazy.
Last edited:
yeah personally I don't see any problem shooting with a 7d (or other dslr) for a feature. maybe not for a big budget hollywood movie or something along those lines but it's already been used for indie features, music videos, webisodes and also commercials I'm sure. the only problem I could see is the heating issue.
but if budget wasn't taken into factor, I don't see how you could say it's better than a red. the red has the same sized sensor for that shallow depth of field, a much better codec and better color space. the red isn't an option for me now but if it were I would definitely choose it over any dslr if I could.
but if budget wasn't taken into factor, I don't see how you could say it's better than a red. the red has the same sized sensor for that shallow depth of field, a much better codec and better color space. the red isn't an option for me now but if it were I would definitely choose it over any dslr if I could.
Killicam, I will never say that it's better than, or even the same as a red, because it is not. It is a different choice, with different advantages, not technical advantages indeed. This is really a matter of how people work. Cinema and work process is not only (but also) about camera and light, and this I'm sure everyone will agree with.
Is the scarlet released ?
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Well the way I see it is the indie filmmaking world has plunged into the wild west. In the good ol' wild west it's not about how well you can twirl your gun but how quick you are on the draw and how well you can aim. It's all about who can prove everybody wrong by making a good feature with an HDSLR first and hitting the bullseye. Only then will the HDSLR be WANTED by everybody in the west.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i know a few of the prominent indie filmmakers from (makers of medicine for melancholy, in search of a midnight kiss, and humpday, for example) are now shooting with DSLRs. I know because they've contacted me for consultation.
Looool. Okay so who went to The AFM? And who saw all the horrible DSLR features?
Lmfao. Seriously. In context, it's not even the camera. For the most part it looks like if you're shooting a feature with one the project is either pre-dist for web and it's not an A cam or your project was doomed from the onset.
Yikes!
I know what my dp(s) are capable of with the equipment. But after AFM I'm now afraid to use anything sub RED even though it's all about who's behind the camera.
Lmfao. Seriously. In context, it's not even the camera. For the most part it looks like if you're shooting a feature with one the project is either pre-dist for web and it's not an A cam or your project was doomed from the onset.
Yikes!
I know what my dp(s) are capable of with the equipment. But after AFM I'm now afraid to use anything sub RED even though it's all about who's behind the camera.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
It's cause their aim is off.
Some day somebody is gonna hit that bullseye... trust me. :kali:
Well yeah. Someday somebody. Abundance? Maybe not.
And AFM was a sad... Sad affair. It was my first experience and the brevity of my visit exposed the truth: Either you're really sitting on a gem like THE SIGNAL or you're eating real four leaf clovers in your lucky charms on a daily basis. Whoa buddy.
Talk about scary.
And AFM was a sad... Sad affair. It was my first experience and the brevity of my visit exposed the truth: Either you're really sitting on a gem like THE SIGNAL or you're eating real four leaf clovers in your lucky charms on a daily basis. Whoa buddy.
Talk about scary.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I jumped in for a day. wish I'd known you were going. traffic was definitely up from last year. a bit. anyway, I only saw horrible features, haha! DSLR, RED, didn't matter. 90% of what i saw there looked terrible. granted this is based on the hack-job key art and the endless loop of trailers in the lobby, but it all looks so cut-rate. AFM isn't exactly known as a market for well-executed films, just ones with marketable ingredients.
Barry_Green
Moderator
And this is, I think, the very definition of what the "fat girl from ohio" could do.
These products open up opportunities for people to do things that may never have been seen before. But I'd estimate probably 95% of the folks using these products, want to use them to do the same old thing Hollywood has been doing for a hundred years, thinking that now, somehow, a DSLR has changed all the rules.
Embrace it for what it is -- a different world. Make something truly original. Make some art. Now anyone can afford a product that (in the right circumstances) can deliver Red-looking footage. Don't think "hey, I was gonna shoot my epic feature on a Red, but now I'll use a 7D" -- down that path lies madness. But use these things for what they are -- a liberating, unique, empowering tool that can bring unprecedented results at an unprecedented price point.
Frankly, here's the problem with 99.999% of indie films: the filmmakers have nothing new to say. They're just trying to "make a movie" because it's "cool" and "they've always wanted to". If you have a voice with something unique to say, and you can do 90 minutes of compelling entertainment by yourself? That could be a huge breakthrough indie hit. And that, I suggest, is the ultimate fulfillment of the "fat girl from ohio" quote.
I think that people take equipment very personally. They invest their soul and their ego into some product that they've bought, thinking that it's the Wonka Golden Ticket that's going to salvage their lives and bring them fame, fortune, and glory. And it never happens that way. Every product, every engineering decision, is a tradeoff. Every decision is a compromise. And you cannot have perfection at a $1700 price point, when even the F35 has its issues at $350,000. But people don't want to hear that. They want to close their eyes and plug their ears and click their heels and really, really, really fervently believe that "there's no place like home." They want to believe that the Scarlet is going to deliver them to the promised land, and that the GH1 and 7D are going to do it at 1/5 the price, and that it's here now, and anyone who criticizes it (or points out what it actually is) is an old-school meanie who's "threatened" by the "new crop".
What they fail to understand is -- Hollywood LOVES the "new crop". They eat them for breakfast and pick their teeth with the "new crop's" bones.
Of course, a lot of the criticism also could be coming from the last generation of the "new crop" who thought that somehow buying a piece of equipment was going to lead them to the "promised land" and they found out that no, indeed, it won't -- so now they're harsh and embittered. And they're making sure to spread the hate, because, by gosh, if they have to be miserable, so does everyone else.
Which is a pity. Because the "promised land" does exist -- in the hearts and minds of a very few, those who are born artists and storytellers. If they would just embrace their own visions, and then select whatever equipment is appropriate to realize their vision, instead of thinking that somehow a piece of gear will in any way imbue them with talent or skills.
It's a camcorder. It's not Excalibur.
That's what everything is about. I bought two of these things because I just love the low cost, (usually) great image, and instant accessibility. I find myself shooting more, now that I have them. They're so incredibly convenient, especially the GH1 because when you sling it over your neck, it weighs nothing, it's easy to take everywhere, and who knows what you'll do and what you'll shoot?
But I'm also a traditional cinema type guy, and I know I will not be the breakthrough artist "little fat girl in Ohio". I'm okay with that.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Which is all I've been saying, even though it seems to really grate on some people's nerves and they feel compelled to make snippy little comments in other threads about it.
Know what it is, what it can do for you, and what it can't do. Once you know that you're empowered to go forward and get the best from it.
If that's what you want to do, why would it be "crazy"? If you know what you want to do, you're ahead of the vast majority of folks. There's nothing in the world wrong with choosing that path, as long as you know what you're choosing. And there are benefits to that path -- you'll have a story to tell for the rest of your life (who else has taken a skateboard across country?) You'll get on Oprah and in the Guiness book... maybe someone'll make a movie about your trek. You will have done something different -- and that's what a lot of folks are crying out for.
But if you're trying to make it "look like a $6 million film" then ... you MIGHT be falling into the same trap everyone else does. Story, content, and unique vision count a lot more than a slick look.