Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?

[John J. Heppe]

this isn't really that confusing...there's studio features and indie features

studio features have a distribution pipeline in place before they even roll the first shot. they use top of the line everything to ensure best quality, plus they have the resources and money to waste. scenarios like this necessitate and support shooting 2k/4k or 35mm due to the fact that part of the distribution pipeline includes theatrical projection as well as home video releases.

indie features are (usually) made with no solid distribution plan (but should have an idea on how to get a return on investment). the primary goal of these films should be to either reach an audience on their own and/or get a studios attention to distribute the film. it goes without saying that making money is just as important to indies as it is to studios. but in this day and age, on an indie level, shooting something feature length on 4k or 35mm would be a waste of time and resources, and in most cases are chosen based solely on the indulgence of the filmmakers rather than serving the story/production (unless you're script calls specifically for 90 minutes of 120fps and 15 stops of dynamic range).

all an indie filmmaker needs to effectively tell a story is a camera with a decent sized sensor, frame rate options, and manual control over all the camera functions. even a resolution of 720p is probably more than enough for home viewing for at least the next 5-10 years (look at how long standard definition video stood its ground for home release, and the "crappy" codec that this current generation of cameras has is exponentially better than nearly all home releases before 2000).

the hilarious thing is that kind of camera is now available, and its stupid cheap, and you can even pick from multiple companies to pledge your allegiance to.

there's been a constant spreading of negativity in the indie community and the divide seems to occur between people who live and die by the color Red (and to some extent stubborn old film pros/gear snobs) and those who seek alternative means of storytelling that isn't so taxing on the wallet and hard drive. its especially disconcerting when the uninformed on both sides pass off their opinions as flat fact (i saw someone recently recommend a Red over 7D for a short film, and in the next breath ask what AC stood for...seriously? conversely, you probably shouldn't be telling people its ok to try to do anything that involves keying with any of the hdslrs...it can be done, but its too much of a risk to fully endorse)

instead of constantly pointing out the negative aspects of a camera system (which has been beaten to death in relation to using dslrs in the last year...we get it...the codec isn't perfect and the body is not the same size and shape as cameras that we're used to, can we please move on?), the influential people on this board should be encouraging the community to embrace the major progressions that video has taken in the last year, as well as what we can do to push it.

in conclusion...this argument is incredibly stupid and the internet bickering is never going to end. to the kid who started this thread, obviously your feature falls under the INDIE category, so just do your job the best you can with whatever is put in front of you and cash your checks at the end of the week. a 7D will do fine. a red one will do fine. both will look like crap if you don't take your job seriously...and it won't matter if it looks like crap if the story is crap...but that's another topic...

 

[mhood]

You make too much sense John.

 

[Barry_Green]

and the body is not the same size and shape as cameras that we're used to, can we please move on?)

And... you're making this statement in a thread where the O.P. was told by his producer to "forget the Red, the 7D is better".

You really think the message is getting out there?

, the influential people on this board should be encouraging the community to embrace the major progressions that video has taken in the last year, as well as what we can do to push it.

Are you saying we don't? We wholeheartedly embrace the steps that have been taken. What we reject is the notion that any step has been taken when it, in fact, hasn't. The hype over these SLRs was fever-pitch, and people were making astonishing and outlandish claims about them. And, people are going to go out and spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars under a false impression. That bugs me. I like folks to know exactly what they're getting into.

In other words, no sticking one's head in the sand and pretending everything about a DSLR is just as good as (or better than!) a professional cinema camera. It isn't. And I'd much rather people find that out NOW, before they're neck-deep in a fifty or hundred-thousand dollar quagmire, realizing they're woefully unprepared.

But, for some reason, some people think that's "trying to stop the revolution" or "keeping the little guy down while the film snobs continue to rule over them" or whatever. I sure wish THAT attitude was one we could "please move on" from.

in conclusion...this argument is incredibly stupid and the internet bickering is never going to end.

"incredibly stupid"? What "argument" are you talking about? And if it's so offensive to you, perhaps you should step away from the thread for a while.

My aim is to point out what is, and what isn't, and what someone who's contemplating working with one of these products is going to have to factor in. If that qualifies as "incredibly stupid" to you, well... once again, I will have to agree to disagree.

to the kid who started this thread

At what point did he become a kid? Why assume he's anything less than a professional, perhaps even a seasoned one?

so just do your job the best you can with whatever is put in front of you and cash your checks at the end of the week.

And the point of this thread was to PREPARE him to do that job. To point out what he's going to have to consider. To let him know what he's not going to be able to count on, so he can make alternate arrangements.

Or would we all rather he go into it blind?

a 7D will do fine. a red one will do fine.

Yet there are many things one can do, that the other can't. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

 

[ChipG]

Did the original poster say how much the budget is for the feature "length" film the producer is considering a 7D over a Red for?

 

[dvbrother]

Well, we shall indeed have to disagree. "feature length" serves to qualify something as 90 minutes or longer, but doesn't go to imply that it is, indeed, a feature


I don't think it was ever used as specifically length, until recently. Feature means it's the headliner, and a B-picture (which is also, by the way, feature-length) was the second half of a double header. That's what those terms meant and have meant for the last, oh, fifty years or so, as far as I know.

Fair enough, but there have been no b-pictures as the bottom half of double bills in decades. That's a fairly archaic definition of a feature film.

Paranormal Activity has earned the title of "feature film" by commanding top box office.

I'll bet the filmmakers of "Paranormal Activity" would be surprised that their film magically became a feature once it started making lots of money.

I understand what you mean, and your definition of "feature" is a valid one, I guess, albeit one that will have a different meaning to everyone who employs it.

To be honest, I haven't read the entire thread, so I just jumped in when I read your post about the definition of feature. I'm assuming part of the discussion has been about BAD microbudget movies that pass themselves off as "features" just because they're 90 minutes. If that's the case then I probably agree with you about your distinction.

I only feel a little sore because I've written and directed a "feature-length" movie and been the DP on another "feature-length" project that probably don't qualify as features under your definition. They have yet to find distribution. Well, maybe they aren't features, but it's not for the lack of trying! I put my blood, sweat and tears into those projects, and in my opinion they are good movies. Everywhere they've played, they've made audiences laugh, jump, cry...everything "features" are supposed to do. They've won awards. But at the end of the day, they'll probably end up in the bargain bin at Blockbuster...if even that.

It's a tough market out there.

 

[John J. Heppe]

whoa...barry, i get the sense that you took certain parts of my post personally...if that's the case i apologize.

i only say this argument is stupid is because 17 pages in and once again another thread has drifted off topic. i came into this thread looking for information on using 7Ds for feature films...and here we are defending and picking apart other people's opinions, with no new information to help us really grow as filmmakers.

instead of grilling the kid (and i use the term 'kid' loosely, there's plenty of men and women in their 30s that qualify as kids), none of us really sought to arm him with the necessary links/resources to manipulate a producer into reconsidering his decision, and that actually cam 'x' is the right choice for their picture. does anybody know the budget? the content? post requirements and support? we as a community are not entirely at fault for this, because his original post comes across like he's already made his mind up about which camera is appropriate for the job (just like the producer obviously did before having an open discussion about it with the director and dp at the same time), and since they both come across as people not open to suggestions, nobody else really cared to discuss how to utilize the 7D to its fullest potential in long form narrative....and somehow we are now discussing the definition of a feature film.

so, once again, to the OP...if you feel that the red is the right choice for the job, then i suggest you get on vimeo and gather up some links that highlight red's abilities as well as some clips that make the 7D look like crap (there's plenty of each). stress the difficulties of running multiple monitors out of the canon as well as the cost of using active hdmi or hd-sdi splitters (cuz that will acutally make a difference in a producer's mind), find a good rate for the red package, and present it all to him in an itemized list comparing the cost of supporting both. be sure to request the most expensive components for the 7D possible. even still, the bottom line is probably not gonna be that different. get the director to back you up, hit him with all of that at once, and there ya go. if you're really serious, then you should actually rent/borrow both and any other camera considered for the project to perform camera, hair, makeup, and post workflow tests that way the three of you can make informed decisions based off first hand experience rather than the opinions of strangers on the internet.

 

[jgharding]

I think it's fair to say that without any more information from the original poster this thread is well and truly side-tracked.

Though of course all my posts have been well off the original subject, but that's half the fun of discussions eh? Still, at least there is a sensible consensus on this board when it comes to the quality of scripting/ideas being paramount.

So how about it SaintDemure? Give us the details...

 

[Barry_Green]

whoa...barry, i get the sense that you took certain parts of my post personally...if that's the case i apologize.

Okay, no worries -- I thought it was indeed singling me out, but no problem, we're all fine.

i came into this thread looking for information on using 7Ds for feature films...and here we are defending and picking apart other people's opinions, with no new information to help us really grow as filmmakers.

That certainly does look like the case. I attempted to offer some advice early on in what the differences in usage would be and what kind of things a 7D user would have to do (i.e., what hoops to jump through) to get comparable functionality. He did respond and I thought we were making progress towards getting him up to speed if he's tasked with using it.

and somehow we are now discussing the definition of a feature film.

Yeah, that one's completely my fault, I introduced that topic -- but it was under the attempt to reconcile why we were seeming to come at this with such different impressions. If our definitions of "feature film" weren't the same, then our discussion of "can you use a 7D for a feature" seemed to be meaningless. At least, that was what I was attempting to reconcile.

 

[johnhafner]

if you're really serious, then you should actually rent/borrow both and any other camera considered for the project to perform camera, hair, makeup, and post workflow tests that way the three of you can make informed decisions based off first hand experience rather than the opinions of strangers on the internet.

AMEN! That is how these decisions are supposed to be made. Internet strangers do their best, but you need to be proactive about this. I'm sure there are plenty of active forum members in LA who shoot either RED and 7d. Maybe you could start a new thread asking for "Help me do a 7d and RED camera test for a Feature film in LA" or similar.

If you were in Austin TX i'd gladly let you and the director come over and shoot my 7d around for an hour or so and get some footage to play with in post. It's possilbe there exist at least 2-3 helpful folk in LA who would do the same. Maybe people new to the town and unjaded.

 

[ChipG]

Anyone find out the budget of this film?