Shooting a feature with the EOS 7D?

[romain]

I don't care if I can make Clerks with a 7d, or with 35mm, or with Red.

I don't want to make my first movie with a 7d, get famous and have a Red.

I want to think about what this technology changes in the way I work, because I don't want to work with a big team, I want to experiment cinema as handcraft.

I want to have time with the actors, that I would not have renting an expensive camera that a technician should use instead of me ; I want to work on post-production myself, which I could not do if a lot of money was involved on the movie ; I want to start shooting without a much developed script, trying to adapt to the situations (which may be better with that kind of material).

And I want to do things the best I can ; trying to make a beautiful picture etc. So Clerks shot with a 7d or not may not be a concern for me.

 

[Revsta]

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

 

[Nitsuj]

I wasn't arguing or agreeing really. Just stating that times are different and going the exact same route the other films went isn't exactly going to work today. I have been arguing constantly that you can make a SUCCESSFUL feature with an HDSLR. I have been getting friction for that here but I still stand by it that it can and will be done, just a matter of time. There will be many bad features but I think there will be a good successful feature at some point.

 

[Revsta]

I wasn't arguing or agreeing really. Just stating that times are different and going the exact same route the other films went isn't exactly going to work today. I have been arguing constantly that you can make a SUCCESSFUL feature with an HDSLR. I have been getting friction for that here but I still stand by it that it can and will be done, just a matter of time. There will be many bad features but I think there will be a good successful feature at some point.

Yeah, you most definitely can. On my short film, 11 cans of film ran me 1,100 bucks. I'd still choose film for that shoot, but if I had to shoot a feature right now with a great script, talented actors, and 2 grand, I'd hire a good sound guy, shoot with my primes, edit on FCP and call it a day. If you have good writing skills any HDSLR will produce a good enough image for you to shoot on, just make sure you don't write in a buncha car chase sequences.

 

[mhood]

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

That doesn't matter at all to a little fat girl from Ohio...or her protege. :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

Y'know what -- maybe it's the term "feature film" that's throwing everyone for a loop.

A "feature film" shouldn't just be a term tagged onto any production that's 90 minutes long. That might make it "feature length", but it doesn't make it a "feature" (which is the term used to designate the top-billed film in a double-feature, the lesser film being the "B" picture).

I don't think anyone would argue that a 7D absolutely could have made Clerks, or Stranger than Paradise. But those weren't "feature films" in the traditional sense either. Clerks had pretty much no concessions to cinematography or camerawork at all, did it? And "stranger than paradise" is pretty much a string of wide establishing shots and nothing else, isn't it?

The "feature film" is pretty much the one you hand over your $10 on a Friday night to see. That doesn't mean it's good, mind you -- you won't really know that until you get in the theater, but -- that's what the designation is for. It's not an indicator of quality (because heck, "Transformers 2" would qualify as a "feature film", and it's horrible). But the term does imply a scope of depth and production value and budget and all the other things that you go into producing a "feature", such that you just know the difference when you see it.

For stuff where you make it in your back yard, or your entire crew is three (and you're the actor and the director and the producer all together), the definition of "feature film" doesn't really apply there (IMO). That's microcinema, or guerilla filming, or no-budget or microbudget filmmaking, or even could be classified as "independent filmmaking" but the results are rarely, if ever, comparable to what generally is known as a "feature film". An "independent feature" is usually something made on a decent budget and with great production values and known actors and such, just financed independently and outside of the studio system.

I guess we live in a time where the term "feature" has been hijacked and repurposed to mean "the opposite of a short", but it probably shouldn't be. The "feature" has always been the main attraction, the headliner, the star film of the program. "El Mariachi" may be the closest of the micro-budget films to resemble a feature, but "Desperado" is a real feature. Even though El Mariachi is, in my opinion, definitely the better movie.

To me, a feature film is the one you pay money to see, it's the one you go to the midnight screening because you can't wait any longer. The guerilla/indie/microcinema film is the one you catch at a festival, or you get on netflix.

Anyway, whether you agree with me on the definition or not, that is the definition I was using when I answered the questions in this thread. Under that definition, I think using a 7D on a "feature film" is a wacky idea. But for a guerilla or microcinema film, yes, you definitely could (and probably should) use something like the 7D for those.

 

[Nitsuj]

Well of course Barry. Anybody that has a GH1 or 7D with change in their pocket shouldn't be considering to make a movie like Transformers or anything. That is a big problem with microbudget films I think. They tend to try to make it look Hollywood when it should be looking more like guerilla with class and style. When I use the term I mean in length because really that is the term for a film at 90 min. Feature Film in other terms would mean it was intentionally made for theatrical release into the common theater. But you can also make a microbudget feature film for its intended purpose to be shown at a local theater as the main attraction and it's term holds. But I am referring to length. But that is sort of touching on my point earlier that today things are different and you don't have to make a film for intended theatrical exhibition and still be successful. You can make a film for VOD and that is a perfectly acceptable idea which is what Barry pointed out about the festival circuit or netflix. And of course doesn't mean you won't get lucky and get a distribution deal to have a theatrical release because it IS possible.

 

[ydgmdlu]

Goodbye Solo. One of the most acclaimed and successful indie movies of the year. Minimal production value. "Feature film" in Barry's sense (IMO). Could've been shot on the 7D, yes?

 

[dvbrother]

Barry, I have to respectfully disagree about the term "feature". At least a definition of "feature" as "something 90 minutes or longer" is objective and verifiable by everyone. To limit the definition to "something people pay $10 to see in a theater" is completely subjective, different for everyone, and a bit condescending to anyone trying to make a film outside the mainstream. My guess is "Clerks" was just as much of a logistical pain in the ass for Kevin Smith to make given his limited budget as somebody else who had several million to make their first film.
I don't think anybody hijacked the definition of feature. It has always basically been one of length. Just as a novel is longer than a novella, which is longer than a short story.
I know from experience that writing and directing a feature is exponentially more difficult than making a short (at least when you're trying to make a good one). And even when you have no money, and end up going the festival route or straight to DVD, initially, when you're writing the film, you have big dreams of mainstream theatrical release.
Anyway, I don't write this disagreement with any mean-spiritedness or anger. Just an observation that little films are features, too. And as somebody who managed an arthouse theater for 7 years, I can verify that people shelled out their $10 to see these films, too.

 

[Nitsuj]

Goodbye Solo. One of the most acclaimed and successful indie movies of the year. Minimal production value. "Feature film" in Barry's sense (IMO). Could've been shot on the 7D, yes?

Sweet! I didn't know about that film. Just watched the trailer and is now in my next netflix spot. From the looks of the trailer I think you surely could.

 

[Nitsuj]

Barry, I have to respectfully disagree about the term "feature". At least a definition of "feature" as "something 90 minutes or longer" is objective and verifiable by everyone. To limit the definition to "something people pay $10 to see in a theater" is completely subjective, different for everyone, and a bit condescending to anyone trying to make a film outside the mainstream. My guess is "Clerks" was just as much of a logistical pain in the ass for Kevin Smith to make given his limited budget as somebody else who had several million to make their first film.
I don't think anybody hijacked the definition of feature. It has always basically been one of length. Just as a novel is longer than a novella, which is longer than a short story.
I know from experience that writing and directing a feature is exponentially more difficult than making a short (at least when you're trying to make a good one). And even when you have no money, and end up going the festival route or straight to DVD, initially, when you're writing the film, you have big dreams of mainstream theatrical release.
Anyway, I don't write this disagreement with any mean-spiritedness or anger. Just an observation that little films are features, too. And as somebody who managed an arthouse theater for 7 years, I can verify that people shelled out their $10 to see these films, too.

Great point man. I agree with this. The arthouse theater was what I was getting at about making a microbudget for intended purpose to show at a local theater.

 

[Zak Forsman]

In addition... regardless of what you call it, I think it is imperative (my opinion) that filmmakers have a solid grasp on who their audience is. and more importantly, that they likely don't actually have one yet. I know a lot of filmmakers who just put their film out there expecting some faceless mass to gravitate toward it. Doesn't happen. An audience, or better yet "community", needs to be cultivated on more than a superficial level. Audiences aren't found, they're built. build your audience and you'll have your A-title feature-length motion picture that people are shelling out $10 for.

Barry, I have to respectfully disagree about the term "feature". At least a definition of "feature" as "something 90 minutes or longer" is objective and verifiable by everyone. To limit the definition to "something people pay $10 to see in a theater" is completely subjective, different for everyone, and a bit condescending to anyone trying to make a film outside the mainstream. My guess is "Clerks" was just as much of a logistical pain in the ass for Kevin Smith to make given his limited budget as somebody else who had several million to make their first film.
I don't think anybody hijacked the definition of feature. It has always basically been one of length. Just as a novel is longer than a novella, which is longer than a short story.
I know from experience that writing and directing a feature is exponentially more difficult than making a short (at least when you're trying to make a good one). And even when you have no money, and end up going the festival route or straight to DVD, initially, when you're writing the film, you have big dreams of mainstream theatrical release.
Anyway, I don't write this disagreement with any mean-spiritedness or anger. Just an observation that little films are features, too. And as somebody who managed an arthouse theater for 7 years, I can verify that people shelled out their $10 to see these films, too.

 

[jfro]

Just spent the last hour reading this whole thread. I read most and skimmed some.

When I read feature film, I assumed for distribution in the theaters. Here in the USA, to the best of my knowledge, most films are still shown on film, not digitally.

So with that in mind, has anyone see footage on the Big screen on film from either the 5D or 7D?

Has anyone seen the footage on a digital projector on the big screen in either 24P or 30P?

 

[Barry_Green]

At least a definition of "feature" as "something 90 minutes or longer" is objective and verifiable by everyone. To limit the definition to "something people pay $10 to see in a theater" is completely subjective, different for everyone, and a bit condescending to anyone trying to make a film outside the mainstream.

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.

The wikipedia definition is pretty close to what I was saying, and then gravitates to include what you were saying:

In the film industry, a feature film is a film made for initial distribution in theaters and being the "main attraction" of the screening (as opposed to any short films which may be screened before it). The term is also used for feature length, direct-to-video and television movie productions.

But any implication of "condescending" is something you're bringing to the table yourself, not anything I'm implying. If something is not gathering, capturing, and captivating audiences, it doesn't qualify for the term "feature film", any more than a church group of baseball players qualifies as "Major League Baseball". Even if that church group could beat the Mets, they're still not Major League Baseball.

Terms have to mean something, inherently, or we lose the ability to communicate.

I don't think anybody hijacked the definition of feature. It has always basically been one of length.

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.

Anyway, I don't write this disagreement with any mean-spiritedness or anger. Just an observation that little films are features, too. And as somebody who managed an arthouse theater for 7 years, I can verify that people shelled out their $10 to see these films, too.

Nowhere does the definition of "feature" imply a specified budget, and a "little film" could indeed qualify for the term. Heck, Paranormal Activity has earned the title of "feature film" by commanding top box office.

But I stand by what I said -- "feature" does indeed, at least to me and I think most in the film industry, imply certain expectations of quality, entertainment value, worthiness of running in a theather, and -- well, yeah, overall quality.

"feature length" is used to specify productions that are certainly not traditional "feature films" but do run in excess of the running time length minimums as observed by SAG, film festivals, and other such organizations.

Heck, "direct to video" films aren't usually called "feature films", they're called "direct to video". And a "direct to video" film is usually not of the same caliber as the typical feature film (nor should it be, hence why there are distinguishing terms).

Actors are actors, yes? But if you had DeNiro in your film, it would automatically, intrinsically, by anyone thinking about it, transcend above something that offered nothing but local theater actors. Which is why the term A-list was introduced, (and correspondingly B-list, C-list, and D-list). To classify and make communication more accurate.

Hence also why Feature differs from B-picture.

I view "feature length" as akin to "actors", and A-List as akin to "feature film".

 

[Nitsuj]

Audiences aren't found, they're built. build your audience and you'll have your A-title feature-length motion picture that people are shelling out $10 for.

But what do you think about writing a script with an intended audience that is already built? Say you write a script that you think would appeal to... say motorcycle enthusiasts? Going out and finding the community and creating it that way? It is already built so it would just be up to promoting your film into that community right? I'd guess that was how Fast and Furious did it but not sure. I guess Evil Dead could be said it built it's audience however I don't think it was built before the picture but after... and not intentionally. We talking about a cult film? Guess I'm not following on the building your audience part.

 

[Barry_Green]

Read about how Star Wars was marketed. It's a fascinating look into doing exactly what Zak said, going out and cultivating your audience. Hollywood and Wall Street were convinced that 20th Century Fox had a massive failure on its hands, Lucas ran way over budget (budget was $7 million, he spent $11 million!) Wall Street was selling Fox short, and warning people that the company was in real trouble.

Gary Kurtz (the producer of Star Wars), meanwhile, was visiting every comic book store, sci-fi convention, chess club, geek palace, anywhere. He was taking cardboard cutouts of the characters, still frames, anything he could get his hands on, showing it off, talking to the kids and the sci-fi fans, and BUILDING an audience.

Lucas said that as he drove to the theater, he was sick to his stomach because he was about to see his fledgeling career go down the tubes, but imagine his shock when he saw people standing in line. FOR BLOCKS. To get in to his movie. That's what Gary Kurtz did, by building the audience, marketing directly to the fan base, finding them and communicating to them and telling them "this movie is for YOU."

 

[Kholi]

If a mass audience will pay ten to fifteen dollars to view your content, whatever you did is successful.

As far as I'm concerned, may you true artists string me up by my pinky toes, that is the second ultimate testament to a feature film's success. The first is recognition by peers, awards.

No offense to anyone that's not concerned about the money, but in all of this camera talk the basic points that I get out of posts like Barry's and Zak's are making this a LIVING, not a one-off shot in the dark.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Here's the danger. People know when they're being marketed to. or worse yet, spammed. and its a turn off. Thins are much different now than they were when Evil Dead debuted. I imagine something done at the level of quality of the first Evil Dead would not get the kind of attention it had in 1980, meaning the genre is flooded now.

So here is what I'm saying. if you want to build a fanbase of true fans that will spend money on you and who can be carried over from film to film, it needs to be a sincere relationship. Advertising effectiveness is dwindling to nothing (for indies). The filmmakers behind "INK" said when they took out ads for their Los Angeles screenings, no one who wasn't already in their fanbase showed up.

So if you're going to make a film for bikers, you need to engage the community and mobilize it to elevate your film and pass along word of mouth. I don't think an independent biker film with no names is going to appeal to bikers in general unless you do what Faith Granger did and actively nurture relationships with the communities relevant to your film.

Connect with the audience and give them a reason to buy.

zak

But what do you think about writing a script with an intended audience that is already built? Say you write a script that you think would appeal to... say motorcycle enthusiasts? Going out and finding the community and creating it that way? It is already built so it would just be up to promoting your film into that community right? I'd guess that was how Fast and Furious did it but not sure. I guess Evil Dead could be said it built it's audience however I don't think it was built before the picture but after... and not intentionally. We talking about a cult film? Guess I'm not following on the building your audience part.

 

[Revsta]

Y'know what -- maybe it's the term "feature film" that's throwing everyone for a loop.

I suppose I see what you mean here, but I still think you could shoot a lot of "feature" films on the GH1 with a real production and not tell the difference quality wise for 90% of the theatre going public. If you had shot Role Models, Superbad, Knocked Up, etc. on the Gh1 you'd be fine. It's the performances and the script that make the movie.

Now under your definition, Paranormal Activity isn't a feature. But it's also #1 in the country. The idea that a 7D or GH1 isn't suited to shoot a feature on is ludicrous. With the right connections, I could have my DP buddy shoot my movie (he also shoots 16mm and super35), bring 3-6 person crew at 100 a day, spent 250 on my sound guy, hire some friends to work for free, have a pretty good sized crew, and not have to spend money on renting a red/lenses or spend money on film, and I'm confident the final product would be great. Not that I personally would do this, because if I was pooling that many resources I'd look for money and try to shoot film...but it can easily be done, especially if you have friends who can help you out or know a lotta professionals.

I've even seen Speilberg interviewed saying "I went to the studios because they had the most toys. I had no idea there were people out in New York scraping together 20,000 dollars and making FEATURE FILMS." Well now you cut out the film in that equation, your feature film now can cost 5gs or less.

 

[Nitsuj]

Read about how Star Wars was marketed. It's a fascinating look into doing exactly what Zak said, going out and cultivating your audience. Hollywood and Wall Street were convinced that 20th Century Fox had a massive failure on its hands, Lucas ran way over budget (budget was $7 million, he spent $11 million!) Wall Street was selling Fox short, and warning people that the company was in real trouble.

Gary Kurtz (the producer of Star Wars), meanwhile, was visiting every comic book store, sci-fi convention, chess club, geek palace, anywhere. He was taking cardboard cutouts of the characters, still frames, anything he could get his hands on, showing it off, talking to the kids and the sci-fi fans, and BUILDING an audience.

Lucas said that as he drove to the theater, he was sick to his stomach because he was about to see his fledgeling career go down the tubes, but imagine his shock when he saw people standing in line. FOR BLOCKS. To get in to his movie. That's what Gary Kurtz did, by building the audience, marketing directly to the fan base, finding them and communicating to them and telling them "this movie is for YOU."

Ahhh I see. I was a little confused but now I get it. Yeah that I understand completely. If there is a book about that I'd like to get it.

If a mass audience will pay ten to fifteen dollars to view your content, whatever you did is successful.

As far as I'm concerned, may you true artists string me up by my pinky toes, that is the second ultimate testament to a feature film's success. The first is recognition by peers, awards.

No offense to anyone that's not concerned about the money, but in all of this camera talk the basic points that I get out of posts like Barry's and Zak's are making this a LIVING, not a one-off shot in the dark.

I know my dream is to make a living doing this some day. That is on my mind as I soak in all the information and take notes.