Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?

[johnhafner]

Just do it

Just do it

Each camera is essentially a TOOL and good at some things and bad at others. Having shot on both the Red ONE and the 7D I can say that both amazing tools for capturing cinimatic images.

The 7d is more that capable of producing a cinematic image. I just shot this short for MonsterFest on it http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=188911 Or check out this footage http://www.youtube.com/OmegaManATX

The RED is an amazing system and it's technical capabilities are staggering, but it's harder to work with in all aspects of production. I am producer on a feature 'Crashing Down' we are shooting primarily on the RED ONE but also on 5d and 7d.

The Canon DSLRs allow shooting at low light levels previously unheard of The 5d and with almost non-existent noise, conditions where the RED cannot produce a usable image. The 7d allowed us to shoot a great scene with just streetlights at night which is an big advantage. The low weight and size allow hiding cameras, shoot with the camera on a c-stand. Attaching the camera directly to someone's body, etc etc.

Where the RED comes into it's own is on productions destined for the big screen and when you take advantage of the great image quality and color depth, very high dynamic range, RAW image, and 4k resolution to speed up your shooting. Because the 4k image is so highly detailed you can get multiple shots out of just one take just by cropping.

BUT, for the cost of one RED ONE you could by 10 7d bodys, and set them up with different focal lengths and diff angles. Indeed we shot one two bodies the other day and it really did speed things up quite a bit. Not all scenes can benefit but it's nice shooting a wide and a closeup at the same time cause you will have very solid cutting option to cut between them, which is a lifesaver great if the actor's performance (or improv) isn't exactly the same every take.

In the end they are each better for certain productions so I can't give a hard answer without more details. Generally given the choice (no money considered) between a RED ONE and a 7d I'd pick the red, but 2-3 7d's would be a great setup and I might prefer that over the RED in some situations.

 

[johnhafner]

Ugh. This is sounding more like a nightmare than ever. So what does the 7D have for a LCD? I don't exactly find the HMC150's pathetic LCD that hot for focus either though at least it has the detail option. (Why didn't they put the GH1's LCD in that camera?)

Any other quirks/things I should know? I asked this in it's own thread but nobody is responding.

The 7d lcd is tiny, you can't use it to rack but a 23" LCD monitor can be had for $200 and hooked up via HDMI for live monitoring. I use the external monitor for 99% of my shots.

I am considering purchasing a 5-7" lcd to attach to the camera as well. Note that the RED will need this too though.

 

[johnhafner]

No HD monitoring means you can't see whether you've actually hit your mark or not. And unless you're using cinema lenses, the precision of measuring marks on an SLR (and that goes for ANY SLR, not just the 7D) means it's a crapshoot.

Unless you want to pull by eye using the optical viewfinder, which now that I think about it wouldn't be the worst thing, as long as the camera is in a place where you can comfortably see through the optical.

Barry the 7d has HD monitoring while recording. It's not the full 1920x1080, it's more like 1400x800 but it is still MORE than is needed to RACK and nail follow focus. It's more resolution than you get on the RED ONE 7" lcd.

When using a follow focus system you will mark the start and end spots, on the follow focus wheel plastic insert anyway so the lack of marks on the lens isn't an issue in 99% of use cases. What can be an issue is using a lens with a coarse thread where small turns cause big focus changes, but this just depends on the lens.

 

[Barry_Green]

Ugh. This is sounding more like a nightmare than ever. So what does the 7D have for a LCD?

The 7D's LCD isn't bad at all. It's just not all that visible in daylight circumstances, you really need a hood or a z-finder or something like that.

I don't exactly find the HMC150's pathetic LCD that hot for focus either though at least it has the detail option. (Why didn't they put the GH1's LCD in that camera?)

GH1 came out a year after the HMC150 (well, not a full year, but long enough...)

Any other quirks/things I should know? I asked this in it's own thread but nobody is responding.

Lots and lots. You're talking about using a $1700, consumer, sold-at-Best-Buy, still camera -- to shoot a feature film with. The entire process is going to consist of finding ways around things.

No decent sound recording, for example -- it has a mono audio input and always has automatic audio gain. So everything will HAVE to be double-system.

No exposure tools of any real merit, no zebras, no live histogram. So try getting a Panasonic monitor that has a waveform in it, so you can at least use that for exposure. Then again, that means buying a $140 HD Fury so you can convert the HMDI output into something that a pro monitor can use (HD Component) or $500 for an HDMI->HD-SDI converter.

Then, as discussed already, there's focusing.

Then there's aliasing -- anything that's in sharp focus will show aliasing artifacts, which may or may not affect your shot. I've shot some gorgeous stuff with a 7D, and some dog poop too. But you won't really know if your shot was ruined by aliasing until you play the footage back on an HD monitor.

7Ds can overheat. If you're running it hard, watch for the temperature warning light to come on. And if it does, shut down and let it cool off. Even if you could eke out some more recording from it, you really wouldn't want to, because when a 7D gets hot, the picture quality goes down.

What else -- well, what else do you want? You can't really lock it nicely onto a tripod because there's only one hole, no hole for a lock pin, so get used to it eventually squirrelling its way loose and wobbling back and forth on the tripod head. If you want to use it on a Steadicam, and you're using the stock (or any zoom ) lens, you'll have to rebalance it every time you adjust the zoom, because the zoom telescopes out the front and throws the balance off.

Watch out for fluorescents and HMI's, if you're using magnetic-ballast HMIs or fluos or sodium-vapor or mercury-vapor lights, lock your shutter speed at 1/60. Forget about 1/50 or screw your footage with pulsing scrolling waves all throughout it.

Oh, and if you want to connect a monitor, kiss your LCD goodbye -- you only get one or the other. So either the operator gets to monitor and pull focus during the shot (off the LCD), or the director gets to see the monitor, but not both.

There's probably a dozen other things I can't think of offhand, but that you'll run into. If you want to use a $1700 still camera as the main camera for a feature-film (!) you're going to have to make tons of compromises because it simply is not designed for that job.

It'd be fine as an a-camera for a microcinema type application, but if you're used to working with professional equipment, you're going to have to make major, major concessions in order to wedge a still camera into your workflow.

 

[Denwa]

Ugh. I think that basically sums things up for me.

I think he's chosen this camera cause it was in his budget range. I wonder if it's insured. Maybe I can lose it in the snow.

I get pissed off using prosumer cameras for lack of pro functions. I softened with the panasonic series of prosumers but I'll probably want to throw this thing off the mountain by the second day. Good picture or not.

The 7D's LCD isn't bad at all. It's just not all that visible in daylight circumstances, you really need a hood or a z-finder or something like that.


GH1 came out a year after the HMC150 (well, not a full year, but long enough...)


Lots and lots. You're talking about using a $1700, consumer, sold-at-Best-Buy, still camera -- to shoot a feature film with. The entire process is going to consist of finding ways around things.

No decent sound recording, for example -- it has a mono audio input and always has automatic audio gain. So everything will HAVE to be double-system.

No exposure tools of any real merit, no zebras, no live histogram. So try getting a Panasonic monitor that has a waveform in it, so you can at least use that for exposure. Then again, that means buying a $140 HD Fury so you can convert the HMDI output into something that a pro monitor can use (HD Component) or $500 for an HDMI->HD-SDI converter.

Then, as discussed already, there's focusing.

Then there's aliasing -- anything that's in sharp focus will show aliasing artifacts, which may or may not affect your shot. I've shot some gorgeous stuff with a 7D, and some dog poop too. But you won't really know if your shot was ruined by aliasing until you play the footage back on an HD monitor.

7Ds can overheat. If you're running it hard, watch for the temperature warning light to come on. And if it does, shut down and let it cool off. Even if you could eke out some more recording from it, you really wouldn't want to, because when a 7D gets hot, the picture quality goes down.

What else -- well, what else do you want? You can't really lock it nicely onto a tripod because there's only one hole, no hole for a lock pin, so get used to it eventually squirrelling its way loose and wobbling back and forth on the tripod head. If you want to use it on a Steadicam, and you're using the stock (or any zoom ) lens, you'll have to rebalance it every time you adjust the zoom, because the zoom telescopes out the front and throws the balance off.

Watch out for fluorescents and HMI's, if you're using magnetic-ballast HMIs or fluos or sodium-vapor or mercury-vapor lights, lock your shutter speed at 1/60. Forget about 1/50 or screw your footage with pulsing scrolling waves all throughout it.

Oh, and if you want to connect a monitor, kiss your LCD goodbye -- you only get one or the other. So either the operator gets to monitor and pull focus during the shot (off the LCD), or the director gets to see the monitor, but not both.

There's probably a dozen other things I can't think of offhand, but that you'll run into. If you want to use a $1700 still camera as the main camera for a feature-film (!) you're going to have to make tons of compromises because it simply is not designed for that job.

It'd be fine as an a-camera for a microcinema type application, but if you're used to working with professional equipment, you're going to have to make major, major concessions in order to wedge a still camera into your workflow.

 

[Barry_Green]

Folks who haven't used professional gear may not see or understand the limitations involved. For those who don't know, they may never miss it. For guys like Denwa who are used to a certain standard, finding out that all those things are missing can be a rather nasty wake-up call.

In the 7D's defense, it is only $1700, it's a still camera, and it's a consumer still camera at that. It really can't be expected to have all the professional options. It can usually make some amazing pictures that look much better than the pricetag would indicate, but that low pricetag brings with it some serious compromises.

When someone wants to talk about using it as the main camera in a microcinema production ($3,000 budget, etc) I have no problems with that at all. When someone starts talking about using a 7D instead of a Red? Well, that's where the differences should be pointed out, so that an informed choice can be made. If a Red is total overkill, the 7D might be a good tiny-budget alternative. But if you need what a professional camera delivers, you can't expect those things from an SLR.

 

[Denwa]

Yeah, I should have qualified my response with the statement that I am not knocking those that use this camera for productions etc. I just don't like the workflow (and for me the picture). Having to screw around with work arounds takes out of the creative process. I have enough things running through my head to have "make it work". Pro features are 75% of a pro camera. Optics etc. are the other 25%.

This is an ultra low budget feature film and I am doing this shoot as a favor, so I can't blame the the producer/writer for buying this cam as it was in his price range and a HMC/HPX etc was not. (He wanted to own a cam not rent). Doesn't mean I necessarily want to work with it though. (Thrw this cam into a pro body and upgrade the video related hardware and that would be another story).

After some comparisons, he prefers the footage of my HMC150 over the 7D and we may end up using both. His for any necessary need for shallow DoF, mine for everything else. That is, if I can match the gamma's etc so the footage looks simular.

Any tips on that? (though I should probably search or open a new thread with that question).

 

[jgharding]

The same issue exists in music: a poor songwriter with a $1dollar studio won't record as good a song as the wolds greatest songwriter with a portable recorder, his voice and a guitar. The $1million dollar studio will make for an exceptionally clean and sharp recording... of a worthless song! So no-one will care! The audience tends to focus on the more important aspects.

As film making now approaches the same low-budget arena as audio has occupied for a long while now, we're bound to see negative reactions from those who've already enjoy the luxury of better equipment, but at the end of the day the 7D a positive step. I'm gonna get one soon, because i have what i think is a good script, some good actors, a head full of ideas and enough money. If i rent a Red, I'll have to give it back, and I want the camera to mould to my hands.

Being involved in Pro-Audio for the day job I hear a lot of slagging off of cheaper gear 'blah blah AD convertors, this and that vintage preamps' and yes those thing do matter -- as polish on a great carving, so to speak -- but the song matters more. The same principal is true of movies. A shi* film is a shi* film, whether it's shot in HI8 or 26K. It's easy to lose sight of this.

Stating that Red is better than 7D is kind of obvious, but does it suit every aspect of what you're doing? Buying a 7D means infinte practice with it, learning the resistances and menus like it's an instrument. At low level production it seems to me that it's far important to learn on the job by doing, and focus on the things that most often let down a low-budget movie - script, acting and lights. We have acres of fidelity now compared to Super 8, but I've seern plenty of films shot on 8mm that I'd watch ten times over instead of a poor script shot on Red.

I don't have a mass of shoot experience, but these principles appear to me to be transferrable.

 

[romain]

jgharding,

as a musician myself, I really like the comparison of video with audio.
many things are changing : at the same time people work more and more independantly in home studios making good stuff (sometimes), pro studios mix on more and more technical material.
Everything is more and more (again) played anywhere : web with bad encodings, cds, mp3.

Strange situations, and you sometimes don't know if what you are listening to was an expensive production or not. There are also some good examples of people working on old analog products, others on old digital products, others making bad mixing for aesthetic purposes.

sure, 7d is not red, as 01V is not studer. and the main difference btw both is the context where they can be used : one in a pro studio, the other at home with a few devices plugged. the sound at the end depends on so many other aspects than the mixing board... as skills of people using material (not always proportional to the price of the material itself ?), kind of music mixed and so on.

Today, many musicians have adapted their music to the tools they are using, and it doesn't make a better or worst music, as symphonic music is not better or worst than solo piano music. I think everyone agrees with that here.

Talking about the possibility of making a long feature with a 7d is of no interest as long as we don't talk about the kind of long feature it is, the team involved (or not), the working process etc. It's like asking : can I record a CD with a 01v. And same answer : it depends on the music : is it the requiem de Fauré, or is it a jazz trio ? At the end, it makes a difference. So if one thinks the 7d is more adapted to his working process, and if he knows all the weak aspects of this camera and can deal with it because of all the positive aspects, he can start to work.

I spent the last two weeks shooting pictures, in natural light. I just projected the pictures on a beamer. Enthousiastic.

 

[Ian-T]

.....I like you romain...:thumbsup:

I've recorded music in multi-million dollar studios with their SSL boards and costly racks in the past.. But I have been doing this same type of work in my home studio with comparatively cheap gear for the last few years. I have to say...the stuff coming out of my cheap home gear sounds miles ahead of what was done in a more professional environment.

 

[Barry_Green]

but at the end of the day the 7D a positive step.

It's a huge step, yes. It (and the GH1, and the 5D) are bringing shallow-DOF cinematography at a price point absolutely unheard of before. It is a very, very welcome step.

At low level production it seems to me that it's far important to learn on the job by doing, and focus on the things that most often let down a low-budget movie - script, acting and lights.

Unquestionably. And for the micro-budget productions, I think the 7D or GH1 would make far more sense than a Red, even if you could get the Red donated. The support equipment alone would probably overwhelm a microcinema film.

I don't have a mass of shoot experience, but these principles appear to me to be transferrable.

They are 100% transferable.

 

[Revsta]

Think about Clerks and Resevoir Dogs and El Mariachi and Stranger Than Paradise. All those movies could have been shot on the 7D or the Gh1. El Mariachi would have had to work around mud, but shooting in 720p it probably wouldn't have been an issue. He could have shot sound on something better than a tape recorder. Any of these cameras would far surpass what those men had to make their start, and they probably are just blown away by the fact that they could have done those films for much less money now.

And if you think about any Judd Apatow film, those could be done with these cameras and a sound guy. 90% of your movie is the script. Any of these HDSLRs is fully capable of making a film.

 

[salils]

Think about Clerks and Resevoir Dogs and El Mariachi and Stranger Than Paradise. All those movies could have been shot on the 7D or the Gh1. El Mariachi would have had to work around mud, but shooting in 720p it probably wouldn't have been an issue. He could have shot sound on something better than a tape recorder. Any of these cameras would far surpass what those men had to make their start, and they probably are just blown away by the fact that they could have done those films for much less money now.

And if you think about any Judd Apatow film, those could be done with these cameras and a sound guy. 90% of your movie is the script. Any of these HDSLRs is fully capable of making a film.

Resevoir Dogs was shot on 35mm...the gold standard in the film industry today. How is a 7D better than shooting on 35mm??? Shooting El Mariachi on a 7D? Imagine all the jello in the chase scenes? What about latitude? At the end of the day film stock is only a small portion of a professional feature film's budget typically.

 

[johnhafner]

The exciting thing about the new DSLRS is they MAKE THE JOB EASIER and FUN. You can argue all day about technical merits, but at the end of the day, if you can point a DSLR at a subject and press a button, it's capable of getting a very gorgeous detailed and richly saturated cinematic image. Before the RED (and maybe the EX1) this just wasn't possible without using a very expensive camera or 35mm film or doing color correction in post. At DSLRs dirt cheap price point, you CAN have it as an OPTION on almost any production. That is not to say it's a better choice, but it is a choice.

Some of Barry's points, while being valid, are really applicable to any CMOS based camera, including RED, EX1 etc. Those both need external monitoring for focus pulling, have similar issues with jello and noisy ballasts or sodium vapor.

But for ease of use the DLRs have a lot to teach the pro cameras. The 7d takes 1 second to turn on and start rolling. RED ONE? up to 60 secs. 7d has never frozen or locked up or overheated on me. The RED? happens at least once per day. The 7d is cheap, and you don't a ton of accessories. RED will need experienced operator to work so you can't just go rent one yourself and think you can figure it out. 7d outputs 4.8meg/sec .mov files to a $80 32GB flash card that anyone can open on a mac or pc without converting or whatnot.

I prefer dual sound as on camera Audio is NEVER as good fidelity as a field mixer, recorder combination. That is not to say I wouldn't buy an XLR breakout box for my DSLR in seconds, but I'd still run dual audio for most projects. Now the RED has clout which is worth something on it's own.

For me as a starting out DP it's a no brainer choice to go DLSR. In Austin where Indie filming means small small budgets, and small projects RED ONE isn't an option. (Scarlet, (if it ever comes out) does start to make sense for the price)

No camera is perfect but you just have to decide what things you can live with. In reality, both 7d and RED are very flexible camera systems and each can do a very great job on a lower budget feature.

If I was faced with this decisions I would choose the RED in a situation where 1. you have tons of money. ( for post work, nice gear, lenses, dolly, jib etc etc ) 2. limited or no night scenes 3. tons of time to shoot and light multiple setups.

Without all three of those criteria met I'd much rather have the flexibility of shooting multiple cameras, faster setups, more camera angle flexibility on cheaper gear, easier night scenes that you get with DLRs, lighting is easier cause you know how you record it will be exactly how it will come out end result.

 

[Nitsuj]

Think about Clerks and Resevoir Dogs and El Mariachi and Stranger Than Paradise. All those movies could have been shot on the 7D or the Gh1. El Mariachi would have had to work around mud, but shooting in 720p it probably wouldn't have been an issue. He could have shot sound on something better than a tape recorder. Any of these cameras would far surpass what those men had to make their start, and they probably are just blown away by the fact that they could have done those films for much less money now.

And if you think about any Judd Apatow film, those could be done with these cameras and a sound guy. 90% of your movie is the script. Any of these HDSLRs is fully capable of making a film.

They were also made in a much different time. Distribution was much different then. Today there is much more competition. All kinds of people have a camera and there are a lot of people who know how to make a movie. So today it isn't so much about the equipment as it is about the movie itself. Those were kick ass movies. You need a kick ass movie today just like you did then. You can't rely on how it looks or how it was done. You can't make your movie and announce to everybody it was made on an HDSLR and expect to get a great response just for that. You have to basically punch everybody in the face that sits down to watch your movie and wake their ass up. Tell a good story in a unique way that punches them in the face and make them say "Whoa this is something great." Just goes back to a very common theme repeated on these forums... it isn't just about the camera but about the content no matter how you slice and dice it. But there are also different levels of filmmakers. You can make a movie and BAM!! you are a filmmaker. If you want to make films for money then that is a different level and you have to learn many different things besides just the movie making process. Gotta figure out how to get it to the right people. I'm sure there a tons of great movies that just didn't get to the right people. So focusing on just the equipment alone is such a small piece to the whole puzzle. Least that is how I am approaching it.

 

[jgharding]

What truly excites me is the democracy of the new DSLRs. Though video is more expensive than audio for equivalent quality, it's coming into the ballpark where a lone enthusiast can set himself up and go.

I worked at an IPTV startup for a while (money pit) and used the Sony HVR-Z1. I also hired one once, for a music video shoot. What really frustrated me was the lack of decent shallow DOF, shallow DOF being something that I love. The only way to create it with the Z1 is to zoom in all the way and crank up the shutter, it's a heavy compromise in a camera that costs £3-4 thousand.

Though it does have XLR inputs the audio in plagued by an horrific whine from the tape transport (or maybe the the power lines?) that renders audio in the camera useless, especially for dialogue IMHO. I'm aware that there are plenty of other HDV options, but for the price of a decent HDV setup i can buy a portable 96KHz audio recorder, a 7D, some lenses and some microphones, a tripod and a shoulder mount, plus i get the joy of syncing with a clapperboard .

It just seems like no contest for the beginner budget.

I had plenty of ideas when i left my video job, but they all seemed out of reach: creating something of satisfactory quality was too much of an investment. The 7D has changed that, which is why i signed up to this forum today.

 

[Revsta]

Resevoir Dogs was shot on 35mm...the gold standard in the film industry today. How is a 7D better than shooting on 35mm??? Shooting El Mariachi on a 7D? Imagine all the jello in the chase scenes? What about latitude? At the end of the day film stock is only a small portion of a professional feature film's budget typically.

It's not "better." You're missing my point. The budget on El Mariachi came 90% from film. RR has said if he didn't have to buy film it would have cost 600 bucks. He has since been experimenting shooting HD. If he had access to a 7D or two do you think he wouldn't have shot El Mariachi on them? I bet you 100 bucks he would have. Then he woulda bragged about his 500 dollar feature.

I'm talking about movies that launched filmmakers careers that the 7D or GH1 could absolutely handle. Any indie filmmakers first film can be done on a 7D or Gh1 no problem. People have been doing it with film cameras and spending tons of money on film and still not working outside the real limitations of the camera.

At the end of the day shooting stock is only a part of a "professional" budget, but we're not talking professional. We're talking about "can you do it?" Of course you can. I don't think the jello in El Mariachi would matter hardly at all, considering RR stays on one shot for less than a second during 90% of those chase scenes.

My point is go write a script you can actually shoot. No one does this. Indie filmmakers still write their first movie with guns and over dramatic scenes they can't find actors for, and special effect sequences to give their movie a look or quirkiness. For a first time director a HDSLR is more than capable of shooting their first movie. Write a GOOD script and get a stabalizer for your camera. Hire a sound guy for cheap and go. If you borrow the camera from your friend you could easily shoot a dramady for under a few grand. Easy. Clerks on digital would have cost Kevin Smith what, food for the cast and a day rate for his "dp?"

 

[Revsta]

They were also made in a much different time. Distribution was much different then. Today there is much more competition. All kinds of people have a camera and there are a lot of people who know how to make a movie. So today it isn't so much about the equipment as it is about the movie itself. Those were kick ass movies. You need a kick ass movie today just like you did then. You can't rely on how it looks or how it was done. You can't make your movie and announce to everybody it was made on an HDSLR and expect to get a great response just for that. You have to basically punch everybody in the face that sits down to watch your movie and wake their ass up. Tell a good story in a unique way that punches them in the face and make them say "Whoa this is something great." Just goes back to a very common theme repeated on these forums... it isn't just about the camera but about the content no matter how you slice and dice it. But there are also different levels of filmmakers. You can make a movie and BAM!! you are a filmmaker. If you want to make films for money then that is a different level and you have to learn many different things besides just the movie making process. Gotta figure out how to get it to the right people. I'm sure there a tons of great movies that just didn't get to the right people. So focusing on just the equipment alone is such a small piece to the whole puzzle. Least that is how I am approaching it.

I can't tell if you're arguing with me or agreeing. Clerks got distribution and looked like absolute ****. Both those other movies would have gotten distribution too. I don't think there's more competition now at all. I think there's more clutter and bull ****. The invention of better/cheaper cameras has not created a new influx of talent and some kind of film revolution that is sweeping the world. Everyone thought this would happen, and continue to think it will happen as things progress. It won't. All it does is create more clutter. Talented people are still out there, and talented people make films. It's not like there's some huge group of poor filmmakers out there who would make the next Citizen Kane IF ONLY they could get their hands on a camera. The point is you can spend 1,500 bucks on a GH1, rig up some ghetto sound rig, pirate a copy of Vegas, go shoot a movie for under 2 grand. If you're talented, that movie can get distribution and get you a career. If you're not, like 90% of the world, it'll go nowhere. But that's no different than the other filmmakers who used to raise 20 grand and have a film go nowhere, or the ones that still do.

 

[romain]

Think about Clerks and Resevoir Dogs and El Mariachi and Stranger Than Paradise. All those movies could have been shot on the 7D or the Gh1. El Mariachi would have had to work around mud, but shooting in 720p it probably wouldn't have been an issue. He could have shot sound on something better than a tape recorder. Any of these cameras would far surpass what those men had to make their start, and they probably are just blown away by the fact that they could have done those films for much less money now.

And if you think about any Judd Apatow film, those could be done with these cameras and a sound guy. 90% of your movie is the script. Any of these HDSLRs is fully capable of making a film.

I think the problem with what you say is that you want to make the same movies, and change the camera : making clerks with a 7d ? I don't know. What I'd like to know is how much freedom I can get with 7d, what it can change in my working process.

Obviously, 7d is not meant to be used when too many people are involved on a film set ; there are no input and only one output on that machine : it is not meant to be part of a big shooting, or to be connected to a technical network.

As you can't record a symphonic orchestra on your 01v, in the dining room.

I use big mixing studios (sometimes) for my work, because I know I can't deal without it at that time ; I work alone recording and mixing the rest of the time. It is not the same use, I don't make the same work in both places, I would not say 01v sounds better that Studer, because if I did, anything else I may say would loose all credibility.

I'm not good with percentages, but I'm not sure 90% of the movie is the script. I think 100% of the film is a beautiful story, beautiful pictures, good actors, beautiful light (either natural or artificial), etc etc.

 

[Revsta]

I think the problem with what you say is that you want to make the same movies, and change the camera : making clerks with a 7d ? I don't know. What I'd like to know is how much freedom I can get with 7d, what it can change in my working process.

Obviously, 7d is not meant to be used when too many people are involved on a film set ; there are no input and only one output on that machine : it is not meant to be part of a big shooting, or to be connected to a technical network.

As you can't record a symphonic orchestra on your 01v, in the dining room.

I use big mixing studios (sometimes) for my work, because I know I can't deal without it at that time ; I work alone recording and mixing the rest of the time. It is not the same use, I don't make the same work in both places, I would not say 01v sounds better that Studer, because if I did, anything else I may say would loose all credibility.

I'm not good with percentages, but I'm not sure 90% of the movie is the script. I think 100% of the film is a beautiful story, beautiful pictures, good actors, beautiful light (either natural or artificial), etc etc.

What would stop you from making Clerk's on a 7D? Have you seen Clerks? The 16mm print looks awful. That's part of its charm sure, but Kevin was severely limited by how much he wanted to spend on his budget. The whole movie is lockoff shots with a few moving shots. Point the camera and shoot. Hire a sound guy. 90% of the movie is still his dialogue.