Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?

[Barry_Green]

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.

And this is absolutely everything I've been saying. In this context the DSLR has definite advantages over a Red or film. Those advantages are not image, but image isn't everything -- sometimes it's about enabling and empowering and getting a different type of shot than you ever would have gotten any other way.

So USE that, folks. Don't just try to replicate the same ol' thing on a lower budget, because the market is flooded with that. Listen to Kholi's and Zak's comments about the AFM... the world doesn't need another lousy movie made on a DSLR. Making it on a DSLR doesn't somehow make it "better", and NOBODY CARES that you shot it on a DSLR (or HDV or a cell phone or a Red One or 35mm film). Nobody cares. They just want to be entertained by the end product, that's all.

So instead of making some awful "chop up 12 kids in a house on the hill" film with a DSLR, make a "slumdog millionaire" or "pi" or "blair witch project" or "paranormal activity" or "napoleon dynamite" or "supersize me" or ... "crank 2"... or ... something new. Something different. Something we HAVEN'T seen before. So don't re-make those films I just listed, but make something that's as different to today's work, as they were to their day's work.

 

[Ian-T]

Those advantages are not image, but image isn't everything -- sometimes it's about enabling and empowering and getting a different type of shot than you ever would have gotten any other way.

This comment reminds me of how those guys who filmed "Crank 2' approached things. They are used to shooting on the Red camera but chose the XHA1 and the HF10 for the reasons above. I thought it worked just fine.

 

[killacam]

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.

well mostly I was just talking about the producer who seems to think it is. and I do like these cameras but I don't think anyone should delude themselves into thinking they're better than a camera like the red. the things they're good at (low light, shallow depth of field, etc.) the red is just as good or better at. really the only advantages would be price and size. that's not a knock on them- it's good that they're in the conversation. and not that the red is the be all end all- the cinealta f35 and the panavision genesis might be better (definitely more expensive). and of course 35mm film still rules over them all (except for workflow). still, in the right hands, I think a great feature could be made on one of these (and look pretty great too). I'm definitely with the 'bedroom music producer' side (to use that analogy) with this but people should be aware that there are limitations and not delude themselves.

 

[Barry_Green]

This comment reminds me of how those guys who filmed "Crank 2' approached things. They are used to shooting on the Red camera but chose the XHA1 and the HF10 for the reasons above. I thought it worked just fine.

Which is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. They didn't shoot Crank 2 on an HDV camera because it was "just as good as the F950" they used on Crank 1... and they didn't shoot it on HDV/AVCHD cameras because that's all they could afford... they shot it on the micro-cameras because those cameras allowed them to create a visual style that was unique and different. Especially that 8-camera half-circle bullet-time rig they built. They got shots and did things that they'd never have been able to do with F950's. They had surround-shots with the cameras in plain view, but you couldn't see them because they were so small, so the freedom and creative opportunities were totally opened up specifically because of the technology.

That's a perfect example of the new technology being utilized specifically for what it's good for. Unfortunately it seems like so many folks totally miss that point, and instead all they seem to see is "hey, if Crank 2 thought HDV was good enough, then that means it's good enough for me to make my breakthrough feature on." Totally, completely, and entirely misses the point.

 

[romain]

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.

Barry,

I live far from Hollywood, and know nothing about percentages on this particular subject. I think good and bad things get out from holywood and from indie world, I don't want to oppose one to the other.
What I want to say is that, as an artist, getting access to that kind of material is both challenging and liberating, no matter if my work is a revolution or not.

Romain

 

[romain]

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.

99.999% ? You are more and more precise, Barry... How did you get to this value ? Any particular analysis ?...

"Making a movie because it's cool and always wanted to" ? Is that the definition of anything being out of the cinema industry ?

Objectivity is flying away but it's ok, today is sunday, the day for church.

 

[David G. Smith]

Barry, I believe I brought the "Little fat girl from Ohio" quote to this argument, and you have made the most succinct responses, thanks. I have long been an advocate for embracing the unique aesthetics of the modern DV cameras and developing a new way of telling stories, a new way of looking at the world. I think that this is the crux of the "Little fat girl from Ohio" quote from Coppola. It is sad, but a lot of the "Post DV revolution" "Independent filmmakers" are looking for that prosumer priced magic camera that will let them make a 10 grand feature that will look like it was shot with a $100K, plus, Panavision package, with an "A List" cinematographer behind the camera. What is forgotten, is that the $100K Panavision camera package is pointing at sets, designed by an "A List" production designer, dressed by an "A List" Art Director, lit by an "A list" gaffer and grip staff with a multi-million dollar lighting budget. Those sets are populated by "A list" actors, made up by "A list" make-up artists and wearing costumes designed and created by an "A list" costume designer, acting in a story written by an "A list" screenwriter, directed by an "A list" director. The whole enterprise is supervised by an "A list" producer.

Now I am not saying that if it your ambition to make a feature film, and all you have is 10 grand, that you should not make the feature. Far from it. I think you should go for it. I just suggest, that you embrace the limitations that you have in money and available equipment, with the unique effect that will have on the aesthetics, to make a unique movie, that has your stamp of creativity on it.

Now, if you have 10 grand to make a movie, and you want to make a movie that looks like, sounds like and tries to tell the same kind of story that you saw at the local cineplex last week, you are going to be, in my opinion, disappointed with the results. I suggest rejecting that, and using the limitations to make a new kind of movie.

I will give you a good example. From another thread, discussing the merits of filmmaking without a script, Chapelgrovefilms made a reference to a film called "The Devil of Blue Mountain", which I got off of NetFlix and watched. I have to say, that I was very impressed, and think that it is a successful film, even though it is flawed. From the commentary I found out that this movie was made for $1000.00 on, are you ready for this, "DIGITAL 8" on a Sony Handi-cam over 2 days. I have to say, it is a creepy little movie, and really embraced the aesthetics of a hand held Digital 8 handi-cam, and, from the other post, the strengths of filmmaking without a script (they used an outline and improvised the movie). As I said, it is a flawed film, but I have to say, I was compelled to watch it to the end. It looked like sh*t, but it worked.

The v-DSLRs do bring something new to the low budget filmmaking world and, as is noted in many threads on this board, that something new has some things that are better, and somethings that are challenges. I look forward to seeing the films of those that work through the challenges and exploit the things that are better. And maybe, just maybe, one of these gizmos will fall into the hands of a, "...Little fat girl from Ohio"!

 

[David G. Smith]

Now I do stand by my original posts in this thread and advise that shooting a feature with a v-DSLR is harder than shooting on other readily available alternatives. I still think that if a producer believes that the image quality of a 7D is better than a RED (and is not making that decision based on money), and insists that the 7D be used, they should be able to pay the DP for the extra effort that will be needed to work with the 7D over a feature shoot.

 

[mhood]

Barry, I believe I brought the "Little fat girl from Ohio" quote to this argument, and you have made the most succinct responses, thanks.

Well...you had it in your sig, yea...and Barry may be lots of things but "succinct" isn't one of them.

Do you really think for a second that our little fat girl in Ohio will give a moment's thought to what type of camera she has? So many seem so involved in the process of "filmmaking" that they seem incapable of walking a mile in a little fat girl's shoes. When she kills the process monster with her Excalibur (and she won't see her camera in that way), it will free Art to happen...and the process monster will be the last to realize it has died.

 

[Nitsuj]

I think this mystical girl from Ohio has already grown up and is making films. I think that time has already happened. I personally think it was a skinny boy from Texas that took the spotlight on making a successful film by "yourself" though. Rodriguez just said screw it I'm going to make it and not really get an opinion from somebody else. That's what I am gonna do. I think the best experience and knowledge I can give myself is to make a feature in the most unlikely circumstance possible. So I said screw it I'll just do it for my own good. Don't let somebody bring you down by saying it isn't a good idea. Find out for yourself because the best experience is your own.

 

[jaydigges]

both

both

So, Im the New Kid on the block but let me say this again. Why not both???

Rent the RED for two days. Get all of your exterior wide shots. Get all of you Green screen shots.

Buy a 7D, Rent a good shoulder mount, follow focus, and Primes, and use it for all the indoors and hand-held stuff.

Someone is going to do a feature this way in the near future.

Obviously all of these suggestions are being given without know parameters of the project. The actual budget, the size of the crew, and the funding for post and grading is a big factor is camera choice.

 

[Denwa]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in this post, but Barry mentioned you can't "pull focus" with the 7D? Why is that? Lack of a follow focus control?

I ask cause I may have to use one of these things on a feature and I'm trying to decide whether to turn it down or not.

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

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.

Except the optical viewfinder is disabled while shooting on all DSLR cameras that have one, seeing as the mirror is flipped up while recording video (the GH1 has an electronic viewfinder since it had no mirror - which is nice).

This is exactly why something like the Z-finder is such an important accessory to have.
I've shot both with and without one - and there really is no comparison.
I can get focus really close using just the LCD screen... but close doesn't always mean sharp, unfortunately.
But with the Z-finder I could actually see differences in focus that were indistinguishable when trying to use only the LCD.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, see, there I go thinking of a way out, but I've never tried it because I'm used to shooting with a monitor. Thanks for the "noob" moment, Caffesse.

 

[NoahK]

Well, see, there I go thinking of a way out, but I've never tried it because I'm used to shooting with a monitor. Thanks for the "noob" moment, Caffesse.

Yeah that would actually rock if the viewfinder stayed active while shooting video, but alas... An optical TTL viewfinder would be most welcome.

Noah

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Well, see, there I go thinking of a way out, but I've never tried it because I'm used to shooting with a monitor. Thanks for the "noob" moment, Caffesse.

No problem.
:thumbsup:

What's funny is there are SO many things we take for granted with cameras, that when we're presented with a new beast like this (DSLRs) it's hard to remember that the foundation of how they work is completely different.

When I first got the 7D, I'm embarassed to admit, it took me a few minutes longer than it should have (and more frustration than was needed) before I figured out that it wasn't possible to use the viewfinder at all while shooting video.
I was going through the menus, looking for display options, etc....


That's definitely a point in the GH1's favor.
I do miss having a viewfinder.

 

[Nitsuj]

No problem.
:thumbsup:

What's funny is there are SO many things we take for granted with cameras, that when we're presented with a new beast like this (DSLRs) it's hard to remember that the foundation of how they work is completely different.

When I first got the 7D, I'm embarassed to admit, it took me a few minutes longer than it should have (and more frustration than was needed) before I figured out that it wasn't possible to use the viewfinder at all while shooting video.
I was going through the menus, looking for display options, etc....


That's definitely a point in the GH1's favor.
I do miss having a viewfinder.

I have the GH1 and I do find it is much better to get focus using the viewfinder. Only thing is if the camera is in an awkward position or if you are moving along you have to go to the LCD which is a pain to get focus sometimes. But it's cool to have the options.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I have the GH1 and I do find it is much better to get focus using the viewfinder. Only thing is if the camera is in an awkward position or if you are moving along you have to go to the LCD which is a pain to get focus sometimes. But it's cool to have the options.

Of course, with the 7D, if the camera is in an awkward position you have a hard time seeing the LCD (since it doesn't flip out)


I would definitely say the GH1 gets major points for ergonomics and ease of shooting.
No question there.

 

[Denwa]

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.

Except the optical viewfinder is disabled while shooting on all DSLR cameras that have one, seeing as the mirror is flipped up while recording video (the GH1 has an electronic viewfinder since it had no mirror - which is nice).

This is exactly why something like the Z-finder is such an important accessory to have.
I've shot both with and without one - and there really is no comparison.
I can get focus really close using just the LCD screen... but close doesn't always mean sharp, unfortunately.
But with the Z-finder I could actually see differences in focus that were indistinguishable when trying to use only the LCD.

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.