Shooting For the Big Screen

geffyb said:
...a finalized good 2K file is all you need. 4K's best asset is the ability to get perfect Down scaled/cropped 2K.
Click to expand...

Well now that's good to know. 2K is UHD correct? Egg Born Son was saying the A7s was a good camera but also felt 1080p was fine and that a BMPCC was killer. I do confess that the latitude afforded me when shooting larger-than-needed images has helped me. I think some here will use this larger file to help with rolling shutter and for dolly shots, panning in post, that sort of thing. There must be a lot of G4/Sony/BMPC4K owners mixing footages on timelines trying to leverage these cameras and their respective traits....
 
I was lucky enough to have a 2 hour screening of my music videos and short films in a real cinema. Videos shot with multiple cameras: GH1, GH2, Blackmagic Pocket, Red One and Sony FS700. I was sitting about 10 meters from the silver screen and I realized that pixel peeping your videos at the distance of 30cm from your computer makes you loose the big picture so to speak.

But 1080p, absolutely enough for the silver screen!
 
Essami said:
I was lucky enough to have a 2 hour screening of my music videos and short films in a real cinema. Videos shot with multiple cameras: GH1, GH2, Blackmagic Pocket, Red One and Sony FS700. I was sitting about 10 meters from the silver screen and I realized that pixel peeping your videos at the distance of 30cm from your computer makes you loose the big picture so to speak.

But 1080p, absolutely enough for the silver screen!
Click to expand...

Good to know. I guess the difference between '2k' and 1080p is negligible as I read 1080p is vertical resolution and its width is 1920 anyway, vs 2048 for 2k. Looked for more posts on this here but found this 3 yrs ago on dpreview.com of all places:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3178458

Interesting to know, and I'm sure things have really changed since 2012!
 
My doc was screened at multiple international festivals on mega huge screens - shot with 7D with some sequences shot in slow mo at 720p... You would never know.

ANY CAMERA today shoots footage that will look superb on mega screen assuming that the person holding it knows what they are doing.
 
I've seen my 1080p footage projected several different times at various theaters/venues, and have never once been disappointed at the quality when the projection equipment was up to date. Maybe it upscales the footage? But to me, it always looks better than on the computer screen.
 
I completely agree! I had 2 shorts play on a full-sized screen last month and while the 4k film did look absolutely superb and crisp, I couldn't complain about the quality of the 1080p film either! As long as you focus well, any HD footage works.
 
Also, I think either 1080P or 2K is the sweet spot. View your footage at UHD or 4K and you find yourself wanting to lower sharpening in camera, needing more makeup and softer lighting on actors for flattering skintones, etc. 4K seldom looks like film without grain and other assorted "film" artifacts added.
 
I've had quite a bit of my work in film festivals over years, aside from that I attend many indie and mainstream film festivals on a regular basis.

Most projection is still HD/2K.

At the end of the Q&A when you find out what camera films were shot on its always mostly Canon DSLR, Alexa and RED, followed by real film, or Sony. (Sony rarely mentioned)

Film and Alexa look the greatest. RED looks great. Canon looks great and Sony looks great. What doesn't look great is the film shot on small chip camera like 1/3" because it just stands out and looks weird. Not to say that camera format is more important.

Anyway my suggestion is you go to some film festivals and see for yourself what things look like on the "big screen". Here on DVXuser we can only sit around and talk about it but a picture is worth a thousand words.

I'm always shocked at how great Canon DSLR looks on a big screen, and I really mean that.
 
starcentral said:
Anyway my suggestion is you go to some film festivals and see for yourself what things look like on the "big screen". Here on DVXuser we can only sit around and talk about it but a picture is worth a thousand words.

I'm always shocked at how great Canon DSLR looks on a big screen, and I really mean that.
Click to expand...

You always have great things to say... I go every year to our local festival which has inspired me to give it a try. I am doubtful anything I will do will be good enough, but we all have to try in life right? We are at the age where we might not be able to afford to buy a decent camera again. It's that gloomy for us. So, I put this post up to just hear what the consensus was even though we (Marie and I) both know in our hearts that if we don't have a good story to tell, and take great care in terms of what it is we are actually shooting (and recording), then it doesn't matter what camera we use. But, given that we plan to get the most out of the device, e.g., try to bump up the level of our golf show, or do some promo clips of every course, etc., we figure we should invest in something that is suitable to as many jobs as possible, e.g., a F3 or an Ursa mini. We are really sniffing at a BMPCC bc Egg Born Son was so convincing, and are wanting to wait and see how that cuts with the Mini once they are out in the wild. There's also that new small 16mm BM cam too. I have lurked around Red for years. It is a costly proposition and probably way too much for us, as is the other options, sans Canon, which you have now got me thinking about.... Canon. I switched to Nikon in '96 and always wondered about their color, as I am horrid at grading and with that cast just think I'd really blow it.... good stuff to think about..
 
The good thing with BMD or F3 is you won't lose your shirt trying to make movies and hone your craft.

In my opinion Sony needs to be colored by someone who's good at it. Some of that's changed lately but the F3 can be a good one to try...
 
I have done a lot of commercial work on the Alexa lately, and really love that camera. But I am seriously Jonesing for a used Sony F65 package. I got to work with that camera using Cooke lenses and HBM filters, and it gave me endless wood. I'm hoping to get one once the prices drop under $18K.

In all honestly, if I were shooting a low budget feature right now and didn't want to rent, I would put together a used Sony F35 package. It has one of the best looking pictures I have seen.

Don't forget to factor post production workflow into your camera decision.

Good Luck!

Dave
 
Well, you heard it here everyone: some heavy hitters ringing in and Sony and Canon are getting their due. Of course, 'low budget' to Mr. Jones is still big for a peon like me! Thanks guys!
 
Hey man,

There's been a TON of great wisdom imparted in this thread and I don't want to cloud anything up with getting too far into "gear details" but I just wanted to comment on 2 items:

1.) The camera - it seems the Blackmagic Pocket is getting mentioned a lot, and I think its image quality is outstanding, but I personally can't recommend it over the Cinema Camera (which I ended up getting) for the following reasons:
a). The battery life is SO short, that while many batteries is not expensive - it is a huge inconvenience and a stop in your flow to be changing them out so frequently. This means an external battery solution becomes almost mandatory. This means more rigging.
b.) The screen is so dim that a separate monitor is required most of the time. This again means more rigging.
c.) SD cards can get expensive and fragile if you want to get the most out of the Pocket Camera by shooting RAW. The SSD storage on the Cinema Camera is the cheapest Per-Gig media out there, and it's very reliable. Also filling up SD cards quickly again means stopping your flow.
d.) The weak HDMI port. Most folks at BMCUSER.COM agree that the HDMI port is of poor enough quality that it simply WILL fail after enough time and use. Fixable yes, but at a cost of both time and money.

The points about rigging do not automatically mean it's a problem - it just means that the smaller size factor of the pocket immediately gets lost. A complete rig will usually weigh more than the camera itself so the weight or size difference between the Pocket and the Cinema 2.5K becomes moot in the majority of shooting situations.

The Cinema Camera offers a bigger and better screen that in many shooting environments is all you'll need. It offers the cheapest and very reliable data storage medium. It also has balanced 1/4" audio inputs if you want to feed your audio into it from a recorder or mixer or powered mics. Then there's the extra .5K of image size in RAW that will give you either a wee bit more resolution or a degree of wiggle room for re-framing shots.

These reasons were why I got the Cinema Camera.

2.) The Audio Recorder.
I got the Tascam DR70 and it's been great. I take 4-seconds to screw it onto the bottom of my rails-rig directly under the camera and it's PERFECT. The screen is visible right below and to the left of the camera - right where I can see it at a glance.
The recording quality is definitely as good as you're going to get at the price point. No question about that.
It's a great multi-purpose recorder. 4 XLR inputs. All the usual ins and outs. And even stereo mics on the front for the occasion where you want to just capture the ambient sound of what's in front of it.
You can also use it as a mixer/pre-amp by feeding its output into your camera's input. Just get a $25 Sescom -25db attenuating cable for that connection and you get great audio fed into the camera.

OK, so that's my 10-cents on those issues.

Wakka-Wakka!
 
Last edited:
DPStewart said:
There's been a TON of great wisdom imparted in this thread
Click to expand...

You can say that again. I actually joined this forum after dreaming about making a movie. ANY movie. Something I could at least say I did. Only after a bunch of gear buying, I quickly discovered I was so overwhelmed that I sort of just caved. That was a while ago. I've since recovered, sort of, and am at it again, ahem.

I really don't think anyone should leave this site without doing at least one picture, if that was their original intent. Sure, we need to pay the bills doing whatever it is we do, and hopefully it has some artistic flair of some kind, somehow, but to bail and not give it at least one good whirl seems a shame... after all, we only have this one life.

DPStewart said:
The Cinema Camera offers a bigger and better screen that in many shooting environments is all you'll need. It offers the cheapest and very reliable data storage medium. It also has balanced 1/4" audio inputs if you want to feed your audio into it from a recorder or mixer or powered mics. Then there's the extra .5K of image size in RAW that will give you either a wee bit more resolution or a degree of wiggle room for re-framing shots.

These reasons were why I got the Cinema Camera.
Click to expand...

Well, once again another big gun chimes in with DPStewart who is always there with a helping hand.... Funny, I have lusted over the BM cameras ever since they were first announced, only I was too much of a coward to pull the trigger and buy one. (I knew they were more camera than what I was capable of handling or for what my final target was: mushed and mashed SD cable that is probably downscaled to like 500k/sec or something).

Then the URSA came out and I thought: 'here's my new camera!'. I had already talked myself out of the FS100, AF100, all Canons, I thought the pocket was wonky and the Cinema seemed like a tough design to work with. The F3 was way over my head and then I didn't like the fixed lens thing bc I thought I just HAD to have that lower DOF to isolate that fantastic subject I never seem to have available to shoot....

But I was reborn with the advent of raw (stills) and the improved ACR that came with later iterations of CC, etc., foolishly thinking that motion would be as easy to color correct as stills. I had high hopes that the increased improvements in DR, that the newer cams were offering (although I think I read the BMs aren't as great as some others range wise) that I thought I had a chance at coping with my lack of HMI lighting/man power (not to say all lighting would be eliminated, but some shots could be done with available).... BM seemed like a good total solution and certainly better than my baked in mushy D800 was yielding (pre Hack).

I listened intently to Egg Born Son, who really kicked some butt here reminding me of the merits of the BMPCC, which you have very carefully alluded to. I was all set to go that route but I have been seriously wavering between the necessity of having some kind of very good stills system (I do print) that shoots video, like the D750, as well as stills. I thought about downgrading to a lessor D7100 or 52/300 or two, and then doing the motion properly, as you have, with a pair of BMs.

Today, I came really close to buying a BMPCC, and was about to pull the trigger on this, which just ended.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Blackmagic-Pocket-Cinema-Camera-Package-w-Accessories-/301634321784?

But your arguments are substantive and I never even thought about the SSD/storage cost, although again, Egg aptly pointed out that the smaller media would be like shooting rolls of 16 mm film, as in one card = one roll, and the changes would not be so bad.

And, while I know the Mini has that very expensive new high speed system, CF2.0, and is the future (maybe), and with the Mini at $3k (for the old sensor) I thought the BMPCC was, as Egg points out, a good starter cam to learn with and intercut with the Mini, once I was deserving of such a creature.

Now, I'm not privy to the hood solutions on the BMCC. I do know I can use an LCD viewfinder like I do with a DSLR, on the pocket, I think.

As I said: I figured I'd do, as Egg suggested, and shoot short scenes... trying to spend a lot of time on each take... to buff out the set, the lighting, the talent, so when it comes time to frame, focus, test the light, get out the gray card, whatever, and hit 'record'... what that camera sees is hopefully very entertaining and somehow telling the story really well....

I think you have made some good points about the two systems.

DPStewart said:
I got the Tascam DR70 and it's been great. I take 4-seconds to screw it onto the bottom of my rails-rig directly under the camera and it's PERFECT. The screen is visible right below and to the left of the camera - right where I can see it at a glance.
The recording quality is definitely as good as you're going to get at the price point. No question about that.
It's a great multi-purpose recorder. 4 XLR inputs. All the usual ins and outs. And even stereo mics on the front for the occasion where you want to just capture the ambient sound of what's in front of it.
You can also use it as a mixer/pre-amp by feeding its output into your camera's input. Just get a $25 Sescom -25db attenuating cable for that connection and you get great audio fed into the camera.

OK, so that's my 10-cents on those issues.

Wakka-Wakka!
Click to expand...

Well, I know for you, as a DP, to talk about audio is telling... and it confirms that audio, being '70% of what we see', it is no idle metaphor.

I was lurking around that thread on the DR70 that everyone was chiming in on, with respect to the cable out issue, and when it first sprung up I was bummed. Then I was bummed about the complaints I heard about the plastic base and QR screw hole being a bit weak. But you seem pretty happy and I, because the audio guys here really do tan my hide whenever I post there (although in my last thread Alex H really put me right, on a lot of counts, with his sage and generous advice).

Yet, even after all of that, I still couldn't help myself and just had to sneak over to jwsoundgroup.net to see if I could figure out what the best 'front' might be able to learn with, because I was just Hell-bent on ensuring that it wasn't the gear's fault... and we all know it could never be me!

Well, after sniffing at all kinds of great used SD702Ts and 422s, and all the rest, I started levitating back to your suggestion... and one told me a lot pros wouldn't be able to tell the difference between SD's recorder and the DR70.... So, I reasoned, if it is good enough for Alex H and them, and if it is good enough for you, then for now, it will be good enough for me (although I may just practice with my old Marantz PMD670, which I have never been able to figure out how to use)....

So Wakka-Wakka is right! Tascam's DR70 may do the trick, and I will likely get one, although I still might get an SD302 as a front for the 670 and the Mini, if I ever break down and man up, so to speak, and drop the $3K....
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
In my opinion Sony needs to be colored by someone who's good at it. Some of that's changed lately but the F3 can be a good one to try...
Click to expand...

Boy I remember how you explained to me, years ago, a little about how to grade S-LOG....

I don't know how to find that thread but it was not something I was excited about having to do. I think that has always petrified me about the F3, and the fact that if I buy one, for say $2700, and it has 700 hours on it, what will the repair bill be when that puppy goes poof?

So, you've got the grading, the camera learning curve, the age of it as a piece of electronics gear....

I have lurked a few threads where F3 owners' shared their tales about their love of the camera and some chimed in about its age, likelihood of needed eventual repairs, lots of little stuff, and I sort of pause. That CineAlta camera was like $15K when I first started lusting after moving picture cameras.

I think it came out around the same time as the FS100, maybe before I can't recall, but I was positive that it was a killer camera. I could have slapped it onto a card as I was making pretty good coinage back then, but I waited because I knew I hadn't paid my dues. Even now, after five years, I still feel like a newbie/nob/moron when it comes to handling a real video camera and audio kit.

Still, I'll never forget how you patiently described the merits of S-LOG in a thread to me and will always remember that as one of the great examples of how people who know so much, give so much.... You, sir, are outstanding... It's humbling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top