What parts of Black Swan was filmed on the 7D?

I knew going in that the subway scenes were shot on the 7D. Since I was looking for it, I thought it was pretty stark a difference. I didn't like the feel of those scenes. They felt too soft, and the color wasn't a good match to my eye to the rest of the movie.

And I really don't know why they needed to cheap out on a permit for that movie. I imagine it had enough of a budget that he could have done it normally.
 
I think there's a screenshot somewhere that I seen, and to me, it looked like they added a major blur over the image in post, as well as a good noise pattern. At least from the screenshot, I'd say DSLR's do much, much better than that in terms of sharpness. But to me, the screenshot still looked aesthetically nice, but I haven't seen the film in the cinema to know.
 
I did see it and it wasn't too bad in comparison. Pretty much what I'd expect it to look like.

Agreed that it was soft Against the film footage. No real surprise.
 
I bet 99 percent of the people who saw this film could care less about the cameras used, story was awsome and even hard to watch at times which makes a film great IMHO . Yeah the film had a huge budget but why give away money to Govt , when they accomplished the shot for the price of the MTA ticket, and a 7d system. the subway scenes were realy just there to familiarize the Audience to the realism of having to travel in NY by subway. So, it was soft but I bet canon gets Oscar recognition now at least golden globe, after all its a freaking PHOTO camera with Video feature and We just saw it used on a 17 million dollar budget with A list talent and A list Script. oh and on the Big screen. blown up anamorphic. now that was a test.
 
I noticed it just a tiny bit as in- this looks a bit lower resolution. But was it objectionable- not at all. Was it something probably 99% of the general moviegoing public would have ever picked up on- not at all. BTW the DP chose the 7D over the 5D because he was pulling his own focus and was concerned about having too shallow of depth of field with the 5D.
 
speedjunkie said:
I bet 99 percent of the people who saw this film could care less about the cameras used, story was awsome and even hard to watch at times which makes a film great IMHO . Yeah the film had a huge budget but why give away money to Govt , when they accomplished the shot for the price of the MTA ticket, and a 7d system. the subway scenes were realy just there to familiarize the Audience to the realism of having to travel in NY by subway. So, it was soft but I bet canon gets Oscar recognition now at least golden globe, after all its a freaking PHOTO camera with Video feature and We just saw it used on a 17 million dollar budget with A list talent and A list Script. oh and on the Big screen. blown up anamorphic. now that was a test.
Click to expand...

Was it publicized that they didn't want to spend money on permits in NY?

I don't remember reading the reason why they had to do that.
 
I thought I read somewhere they used the DSLR's because they could barely fit a camera on the subway to begin with - with some get-ups, the DSLR rigs are almost as big as the Red rigs or 16mm rigs, but when you break it down, the DSLR's are tiny when stand-alone and many productions report using them in tight scenarios. As well, it seems the majority of digital cameras have rather complex technologies behind them and a big dedication level, where as the DSLR's, beyond picture style, are relatively pick-up and go - it's probably a bit more natural to work with than a Red. But I'm not sure why they didn't just film the scene on film; surely there's S16 cameras just as small as a DSLR.

My opinion is that productions are simply getting curious about these DSLR's. The guy behind Black Swan did a bunch of testing before the shoot, and I'm sure he thought it was good enough to put into the film, or else he probably would have went the extra mile with another camera. As well, 148 Hours or whatever is reporting having used the DLSR's for filming the tight canyon set spaces, and as well, I'd bet they're simply curious about what these cameras can do, and how audiences react to it (the honest truth though is that most audiences wouldn't be smart enough to pick up on a blurry scene right in the middle of a S16 film though, so I'd suggest to the 'curious filmmakers' that they need to shoot all or most of a film with it and see what happens.)

But yeah, you know, I think this proves at least something; there's no excuse for anyone getting a "low budget" look with these cameras. The screenshot I saw had Natalie Portman standing in front of some subway windows, her face was lit with what seemed to be just a general soft fill, and the rest is simply shooting with the right picture style and knowing how to edit it (if editing of the colors indeed even took place.) It was a very raw shot, yet it didn't look like a newbie spy video that's lit with orange bedroom lamps shining on faces or whatnot. The screenshot I saw looked amazing aesthetically, and I think that's what matters and proves a point. But the resolution is no doubt important too, half of us here are probably beyond already knowing how to make a great looking film and just want to have theater-appropriate cameras to film it on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top