VDSLR for more than run-and-gun/music videos/small time?

[squig]

btw the idea that you would save money by shooting on dsrl is pretty absurd. the camera is such a small part of a film's budget, even indies, that it pretty much doesn't even count. dslr's can save a lot of money by allowing you to shoot in unorthodox ways but again that changes everything, it's not just less money spent.

/matt

Bullshit! Have you ever tried hiking 10km up a mountain in 3ft of snow with a 35mm camera strapped to your back then try to setup your shot when the weather closes in on you. It's the money you will save on crew, lost days of production etc.

 

[squig]

I've only done a very rough budget estimate for my epic at this point but to shoot it on 35mm would cost at least twice to 3 times as much if not even more and would be almost impossible....not to mention it would be no fun at all.

 

[Kholi]

I'm not understanding. Are you saying an epic can't be done on a lot less money with a DFSLR?

No. I'm saying that just because you have near-to, equal or greater-than 35mm DOF and FOV doesn't mean your project looks like millions. In fact, it'll probably hurt you more in the end if your production isn't up to snuff.

 

[Kholi]

btw the idea that you would save money by shooting on dsrl is pretty absurd. the camera is such a small part of a film's budget, even indies, that it pretty much doesn't even count. dslr's can save a lot of money by allowing you to shoot in unorthodox ways but again that changes everything, it's not just less money spent.

/matt

Did you just contradict yourself in one post? LoL.

 

[mattsand]

Bullshi*! Have you ever tried hiking 10km up a mountain in 3ft of snow with a 35mm camera strapped to your back then try to setup your shot when the weather closes in on you. It's the money you will save on crew, lost days of production etc.

and how is that not *exactly* what i said?

/matt

 

[Kholi]

Honestly, it depends on who you are and what you know, what you can do and what you have done to prove that you can do it.

I know some people that shooting with a VDSLR or a RED, wont' make a difference. No larger crew needed or anything like that and they get results on par with much larger organizations.

 

[squig]

No. I'm saying that just because you have near-to, equal or greater-than 35mm DOF and FOV doesn't mean your project looks like millions. In fact, it'll probably hurt you more in the end if your production isn't up to snuff.

Agreed....just like you can spend millions on 35mm and end up with something that looks like it was shot on video....happens all the time here.

 

[Eddy Robinson]

Who's planning to do an Epic Action/Fantasy Feature on the 5D MKii? D90? GH-1?

I'll seize on the 'epic' part and say probably not, because for stuff with lots of eye-candy the camera is a fairly small part of your budget, and you're going to want an output that's unprocessed as possible on account of all the different stuff you will be trying to match in post.

Though having said that, that silly 'Crank: High Voltage' film seems to have reached release just fine despite being shot with cheapie pro/consumer cams from [NOT Panasonic] Canon.

But yes, I think all these cameras (and the many which will come to market soon after) are viable candidates for shooting a feature. The D90 seems very strong in the 'film look out of the box' department. The Canon 5d/2 delivers superb image quality and light sensitivity. The GH-1 is an unknown quantity so far but seems to offer the most manual control.

If it delivers visually (YMMV) that'll be my preferred option, because control = consistency = time saved = money saved. I'm less of a shooter than an editor and production/post management guy...so I'm biased in favor of deciding things in pre-production. If the 30p workflow suits you, the Canon arguably offers the advantage of being able to shoot with little or no lighting, and that also offers huge potential savings.

The biggest obstacle for all these cameras is sound input - the Panasonic is a little more advanced, but nowhere near full-featured. However, having got into film by doing sound, it's not a big deal to me to do it seperately from the camera, using a timecode slate and so on. Obviously it's convenient for me to say that since I have the relevant equipment on hand - but to me, expecting to get good sound without having a person mixing it is like expecting to get good shots without paying attention to exposure.

One of the most exciting possibilities offere by this new breed of cameras, beside the obvious one of improved image quality - is that the relatively low cost of both camera dn recording media make it far, far more practical to consider shooting with 2, 3 or possibly more cameras. This requires much more planning and coordination, but if done right the potential gains are huge. US$2000/day or more is not an unusual budget for an indie product. If you're going to shoot longer than a week, the price of an extra camera + lens + operator may well pay for it itself in terms of a shortened production schedule.

I strongly recommend borrowing a few friends with cheapie SD camcorders for the weekend, and shooting a 5-minute short. Don't even write a script, just rip off an existing movie you like and shot a couple of scenes, use a dumb slate to obtain sync. Frame it so no camera can see either of the other two, then just stay there and concentrate on the actors. Bingo, when you get a take you really like, the coverage will already be shot and guranteed to cut together if you chose your angles wisely. It'll be the easiest edit you've ever done. Once you've got the hang of doing this it'll work with any camera.

 

[mattsand]

Did you just contradict yourself in one post?

no, because the money you can save comes from shooting a different movie, not from using a cheaper camera. if you srotyboard a 35mm shoot and do exactly what you had planned on a d90 instead not only will it cost the same, it will also suck. change your style to the opportunities the d90 gives you and it will not be the same epic, but it will be cheaper and potentially brilliant in its own way.

/matt

 

[squig]

and how is that not *exactly* what i said?

/matt

yeah I agreed with your contradiction....but you haven't answered my question

 

[mattsand]

I know some people that shooting with a VDSLR or a RED, wont' make a difference

so they can pass as tourists in an airport with a red one? respect!

/matt

 

[Kholi]

I get what you're saying, now. You mean the creative options that open up when you go with a smaller camera. I was referring to logistics such as crew, etc.

Now we're on the same page. So yeah, the movie may be different, but it doesn't HAVE to be.

 

[mattsand]

yeah I agreed with your contradiction....but you haven't answered my question

yeah, bullshit is exactly the word i tend to use when i agree, sorry. it's not a contradiction though, it's two different issues and they both connect to the point i'm trying to make over and over again. lotr 4 on a d90 wouldn't be a penny cheaper but lotr 5 dogma style in thailand would be super cheap and hopefully quite interesting.

what's the question? have i ever hauled cameras up mountains in 3 feet of snow? too many times.

/matt

 

[squig]

no, because the money you can save comes from shooting a different movie, not from using a cheaper camera. if you srotyboard a 35mm shoot and do exactly what you had planned on a d90 instead not only will it cost the same, it will also suck. change your style to the opportunities the d90 gives you and it will not be the same epic, but it will be cheaper and potentially brilliant in its own way.

/matt

I'm planning on shooting on a DFSLR because it's the only way it can be done. To do it on 35mm means a big crew, helicopters, and somebody else's money.....no thx.....maybe 1 helicopter though. Think "The Thing" meets "Das Boot"

 

[mattsand]

helicopters aren't a very big part of an epic adventure's budget either.

/matt

 

[squig]

yeah, bullshi* is exactly the word i tend to use when i agree, sorry. it's not a contradiction though, it's two different issues and they both connect to the point i'm trying to make over and over again. lotr 4 on a d90 wouldn't be a penny cheaper but lotr 5 dogma style in thailand would be super cheap and hopefully quite interesting.

what's the question? have i ever hauled cameras up mountains in 3 feet of snow? too many times.

/matt

yeah as soon as I posted it I thought...he's from sweden, he's been filming since he was a kid....of-course he has...hehe

ur the first candidate for dop btw....I can pay in beer

 

[mattsand]

the movie may be different, but it doesn't HAVE to be.

i think it pretty much has to be. it's such a huge part of the process and the process is where the film comes from. sure, you can pretend that you're using a 35mm camera but as i said then you haven't really saved anything either, it will just look worse. once you limit team sizes, shorten days, operate the camera with smaller equipment, for example, you've changed so much it can never be the same film.

/matt

 

[John Caballero]

An epic movie is composed of various things that cost a lot of "dinero". The number one item in an epic nowadays as it has always been is who is your movie "Star" on top of the credits. Then what other "movie stars" are supporting your star. An epic has big scenes, lots of extracts, maybe a tank or two shooting each other, maybe a helicopter blowing up on top of Manhattan, even if it is CGI. It has mansions, big cars, cuban cigars. First class trips on a plane or a cruise. Maybe a walk thru the dessert or Paris, or both. Its got big music, award winning score perhaps. Maybe all or some of those. An epic is big thus an epic.
Coming back to reality, it is not only about a $1599.00 VDSLR. Not even close.

 

[Kholi]

An epic movie is composed of various things that cost a lot of "dinero". The number one item in an epic nowadays as it has always been is who is your movie "Star" on top of the credits. Then what other "movie stars" are supporting your star. An epic has big scenes, lots of extracts, maybe a tank or two shooting each other, maybe a helicopter blowing up on top of Manhattan, even if it is CGI. It has mansions, big cars, cuban cigars. First class trips on a plane or a cruise. Maybe a walk thru the dessert or Paris, or both. Its got big music, award winning score perhaps. Maybe all or some of those. An epic is big thus an epic.
Coming back to reality, it is not only about a $1599.00 VDSLR. Not even close.

Thanks for enlightening us, John. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, let's go back to the theoretical question posed. Well, let's not, because Matt already cleared it up and may has a bit more to add to the fantasy.

 

[mattsand]

i agree, but since you're my arch nemesis i need to tell you that this is exactly what we've been discussing for six pages, maybe you should read some of the posts you're replying to for a change?

EDIT: too slow, that was in reply to john

/matt