Type of camrea I have and if its a problem

[gusthebus3250]

I'm serious about film making however the only possible problem is i have a Sony DV Handycam that cost me about $400. I need some opinions as two if this will suffice. Also i know every pro uses film, should i be going towards that direction. Thank You

 

[Sad Max]

If you create something engaging and as good-looking as your equipment permits, you'll do fine.

28 Days Later: shot on interlace standard-def video.

Pluto Nash: shot on top-of-the-line Panavision 35mm.

I rest my case.

 

[gusthebus3250]

If you create something engaging and as good-looking as your equipment permits, you'll do fine.

28 Days Later: shot on interlace standard-def video.

Pluto Nash: shot on top-of-the-line Panavision 35mm.

I rest my case.

Wow haha thank you for that, you brought up a great point with some very interesting facts. That makes me feel ten times better about the type of camera i have rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[taormina]

Eventually you're going to need to make the jump to a real camera. By that, I mean at least a dvx-100, an HVX200, an Xl2 or something. Heck, even an HV20 will be far better than what you have.

Can you make a good short on yoru camera? Yes.
Could you possibly get it into a film fest or win an award? Yes.
Could you film a feature on it and get distribution? Probably not.

So film away, practice and practice some more. Your limitation at this point probably isn't your camera.

 

[Capt Quirk]

Unless you need the camera to do production work, you are fine. It may not be as good a camera as theirs or mine, but it will make you learn how to. How to compose a shot, how to light, how to direct, how to shoot for the edit. None of that comes with any camera, I don't care how nice it is.

 

[gusthebus3250]

Unless you need the camera to do production work, you are fine. It may not be as good a camera as theirs or mine, but it will make you learn how to. How to compose a shot, how to light, how to direct, how to shoot for the edit. None of that comes with any camera, I don't care how nice it is.

Wow another great point Thank you

 

[Ian-T]

28 Days Later[/I]: shot on interlace standard-def video.

Pluto Nash: shot on top-of-the-line Panavision 35mm.

I rest my case.

...LOL.....that's cold man....LOL

 

[clang]

yeah, learn with a handycam - if you get addicted or start making money, then you can worry about spending thousands on 'professional' gear

 

[DorkmanScott]

If you create something engaging and as good-looking as your equipment permits, you'll do fine.

28 Days Later: shot on interlace standard-def video.

Pluto Nash: shot on top-of-the-line Panavision 35mm.

I rest my case.

Technically, 28 Days Later was shot on a PAL XL1-S in frame movie-mode (faux progressive) at 25fps (much closer to film than NTSC's 29.97).

Although I get your point, that the subject matter is more important than the camera used, there are choices you can make to make it better. Others have already mentioned lighting and framing.

Also, I don't know what your films are about, gusthebus, but one of the successes about 28 Days Later in particular is that the subject matter of the film itself was arguably served better by the choice to shoot on standard-def video, making it seem more "real" by putting it into the visual framework of a home movie. If you can, try to leverage the format to your advantage and pick projects that will be accentuated by the use of standard-def videography.

 

[emotepix]

Just finished editing a real kicka** little short film by a team of local film makers, shot on a little two-bit Handycam, but very well, on two levels:

Technically -- tripods, jibs, particularly smooth hand helds, everything shot and covered multiple times to make sure the shots were nailed -- every trick in the book to make the most of that little camera. All the tapes labelled (correctly), camera report sheets in a file, nicely boomed audio on DAT as well as in camera, even a script super's notes on a marked script -- and every setup was white balanced on tape (i.e. with the tape running), room toned, and color charted -- technically done like the pros, and a real pleasure to edit.

I don't know how they managed to get such great sounding audio on it, but it was done in the cheapest decent way - a good boom mic straight into an old DATman, with a decent pair of headphones to monitor it. It was wild audio (no timecode) but slated and clapped and I was able to get pristine dialog and production effects off the DAT with little effort. Did I mention that this was a real pleasure to edit?

Aesthetically -- it was lit to the limits of the camera by someone who knew what they were doing, no unnecessary moves on people, a simple story but art directed so that the people stood out from the backgrounds (making the gaffer's job that much easier and therefore faster, and the autofocus to work well too), the performances were amateur but enthusiastic and varied, yet most importantly, their coverage continued until the makers were sure they had captured enough dramatic range in the performances to let me fine tune the character's arcs in post, with varied shots for each setup (i.e. at least a medium wide and a closeup for every line, usually a wide as well).

So the medium's chief advantage ($7 an hour for tape and no lab costs) was maximized - lots of carefully prepared takes, each and every one well rehearsed and executed - a high shooting ratio with nary a pray-and-spray shot in sight.

Just from looking at the dailies, I deduced a technical crew of at least six behind the camera - a cam operator (obviously), an assistant camera (to manage tapes, slate, do report sheets etc.), at least one real sound person, some kind of art director, a real gaffer, and a real script super. The script was 16 pages long and there were four shoot days, over two weekends, so around 4 pages a day. So not a hectic pace, but enough time to do the job right. Which is paramount, because, like me, everybody worked for expenses (i.e. free) but to see a good script come to life properly.

Using weekends and evenings over a month, I cut it first -- with the coverage, the performances were able to come together well enough that the storylines emerged just fine.

Screened it, fine cut and CC'd it, screened it again, locked picture, audio edited it and mixed it properly. The audio part of it took way longer that the picture edit, BTW, around 7 weeks, part time.

Finally, I reverse-telecine'd (from 2997i to 24p) and film-looked it, and now something *that already played great* now plays even better.

This is the part that most people here go on about - the 24p, the camera's lens look, etc.. Plus I have better cameras myself, and even offered it to them - but they'd already got their own equipment dialled in, and were more into the project than the equipment.

They had their camera, a good fluid head tripod, a home made jib and stabilizer (both borrowed for the shoot), a decent AT short shotgun mic and boom (borrowed), an old Sony DAT walkman, a decent pair of Sony MDR headphones, some home made cool lights, flags, scrims, some C stands and sandbags, and "a lot of paint".

Plus, of course, some talent and a lot of hours, love, hard work, practice, patience, discipline, stamina...

So I say that there are so many ways to get a decent-looking end product these days, providing the original material was shot right. In this narrative piece, it was the last thing we were concerned about.

This little movie will, I believe, do its makers proud.
It won't go into a theater (it was never intended to) but on a TV sized screen, it does what it was made to do.
Because of the story, the acting, the way it engages the audience.

Don't think that people will care one way or another what camera was shot on.

And the film makers? They've asked to remain anonymous, but they're well into their next project.