Why a DSLR Won’t Make You a Good Filmmaker

[dalethompson]

Well said and absolutely correct sir!

A DSLR is really only one tool to work with. A good filmmaker has to have much more in his/her arsenal than just tools. We have to be creative, imaginative, constructive creatures before we even get a tool in our hands. That being said, putting a high priced DSLR in the hands of a total amateur and then giving an old, cheap cam from the 80's in the hands of Robert Rodriquez or Steven Spielburg isn't even a fair fight, it's not about the equipment, it's about the person using it.

I was in a seminar a few weeks back and the subject of DSLR's and HD cams came up. The fact 16 year olds are getting this equipment and shooting skateboard videos (and then posting to YouTube) does not qualify as filmmaking. Yes, it's great practice, initiative and keeps kids busy but having a nice $1000+ camera doesn't make you a better artist or able to make your production Sundance worthy. I do have to say, a generation of kids will have the technicals skills but they also need the writing skills along with it, should be interesting to see in 10-15 years what this generation can do. I do think some unreasonable expectations will be set for kids in them thinking filmmaking is about getting a DSLR or HD cam, turning it on, and shooting something. Obviously, it's much more than that.

The one issue with having affordable equipment now to film is the fact people are not learning the basic skills anymore with filmmaking. I learned on an old 8mm camera and then an old manual camera for photography, so I learned about the basics (ISO, f-stops, exposure, lighting etc.) and how to correct potential problems before the camera rolled. Having a DSLR now means you can either auto correct things or get FCP/After Effects/Photoshop etc. to help you out. We are relying on a chip now to make decisions we used to have to make before for ourselves. This takes thinking out of the equation and some creativity too.

Some marvelous things have been shot with a DSLR and I'm absolutely thrilled to have the new T2i as well but does it make me a better director or filmmaker? Absolutely not. It merely gives me the tools to try to shoot something creative, original and highly entertaining but it also guarantees nothing. For the record, I use my new T2i along with my HVX200, it's just another tool to be creative.

It would be the same in giving me a lot of nicely priced carpenter tools... I'm horrible at building things and I doubt a $100 hammer or $1000 table saw would change that.

 

[Toenis]

Thanks for reminding.

I think DVXuser might well be the first and last "common" international forum where ideas might seemingly matter over viral marketing and consumption. (Y) (excl this GH1 praise that is but it's a Panny forum after all).

T

 

[marlontorres]

To continue my previous analogy...

If you take MS Paint again and give it to someone who is unskilled with it, what will you get? A very bad drawing. Something no one will care about.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

 

[Erik Olson]

...Also, it's entirely possible that DSLRS will make us better filmmakers, at least better than if we were using camcorders or low-end prosumer gear. Some people have compared the process to shooting 16mm in the past or something like that and I see some validity there. The limitations, the manual focus, the shallow DOF, the interchangeable lenses, the dual system sound...it's a more immersive and substantial training ground requiring more effort and study from us than anything in the same price range. We learn more about the photography part of things than we otherwise might, and while we're not all trying to be DPs, I think this is useful.

With six months of HV30 ownership, I learned to keep the camera steady and a few things about framing. In my first few months of DSLR ownership I learned about f-stops and ISOs and lenses and exposure and pulling focus and focal lengths...I feel now like I could be on the set of a large feature film and not be completely lost.

These are good observations. Going into TV and film in the late 80s, I was lucky enough to cut my teeth on Arri and Panaflex Elaine cameras - my first camera was a trusty (if not breathy) 16SB and then the venerable SR/IIs. Those represented a chasm-wide leap from the Hi-8 and VHS video cameras we had at home and in high school at the time. 16 and Super16mm were more demanding in almost every way than 35mm, and we never had money for anything more than best light in our telecine sessions. You simply had to learn to make the tools work, or you got miserable results. In my mind, sync-sound with a 25-year-old S/B and a film finish is a truly awful experience.

With these DSLRs, you're learning central elements of film-style production. With more powerful tools available at bargain prices, new filmmakers are better equipped to really tackle the basics for film production: composition rules; scene blocking; camera movement; exposure / lighting ratios; proper lensing; camera reporting and on and on.

 

[dalethompson]

Ya know, there's an old story about Ted Nugent asking a guitar tech to try out Eddie Van Halen's gear onstage before a sound check and when he played through Eddie's gear, guess who he sounded like? Yep. He sounded like Ted Nugent, not Eddie Van Halen. Guitar magazines sell issues based in part on disclosing what gear certain guitar players are using so all the wannabe rock stars can run out and buy that gear and sound like whoever. Guess what? They'll still sound like themselves regardless of having the same preamp Carlos Santana uses.

Having a better set of tools won't necessarily make one a successful artisan or craftsman or technician. When the playing field gets leveled, it still comes down to the same stuff and in fact forces people using these same tools to expand on technique and to be even more creative and original so as to stand out.

When DV changed filmmaking to something within reach of 500% more people, all it did was create a glut of crappy films and helped usher in 500% more film festivals in addition to ushering in a new era of awful TV spots.

It ain't what you got that counts. It's how you use it.

Well put Chris

Lost in all of this discussion is the fact any great piece of film equipment won't make you a better director if your script is crap. Let's face it, Hollywood has become very, very lazy in the last 8-10 years. Remakes upon remakes, useless crap on the big screen and TV has made a general population of viewers crave for new and original ideas. No amount of HD cameras are going to make a Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson movie fly off the shelves or put fannies in the seats. It's about great writing, originality, taking a script and making it the best it can be through imagination and style. I think most movies have lost this aspect (writing) and are focusing on having the latest and best animation, special effects or going 3-D.

Write a good script, then re-write it to make it a great script. Take that great script and find someone who believes in it as much as you do. A great script can be shot with anything but it will be finished off perfectly with the help of a nice HD cam or DSLR (in the right hands of course). Then you'll be able to use your DSLR to create something truly magical. Truly, if the script is the meat of the sandwich and you don't have anything to fill up an entire movie, you're left with just slices of empty bread.

P.S. A lot more people think they can now be the next Spielberg or Robert Rodriquez with an HD cam or DSLR. Nothing beats hard work, dedication and practice, practice, practice, no matter what you have for equipment or how much money you have to buy things.

 

[saaby]

Now if I had learned exclusively on say a DVX100, I might be less enthusiastic getting used to a DSLR.

No way. When was the last time you shot on a DVX? They're great, but they're soft, the camera is huge, the viewer-screen is low resolution...I'll take my GH1 over a DVX any day. Besides that, scale GH1 footage down to SD resolution and you've really got something.

 

[Bassman2003]

Wow, this is a video forum correct?

The DVX-100 and it's ilk of cameras were and are considered to be quite compact.

Times and expectations have surely changed!

 

[Chamber005]

DOF really only comes into play if you don't have a way of manipulating the frame to suit your needs. You can take any old consumer camera and create a frame that appears to have a shallow DOF, but what DSLRs do, like film cameras, is allow you to guide the eyes of the viewer without manufacturing a "false" environment or frame.

What's funny is that if you look at Citizen Kane, Welles actually went out of his way in some frames to have the film look a heck of a lot more like video (e.g. everything in the frame is in focus, regardless of the object's depth). But in video it's everything we seem to fight against.

I require shallow DOF because a lot of the time I'm shooting in small locations. So if I'm in an office with a guy sitting at his desk, it's important that the viewer knows what they should be paying attention to -- I think it's probably exhausting for the viewer if they don't know what they're supposed to be looking at.

However, while comic books in recent years have started to play with blurring objects in the foreground and background to better guide the reader's eyes, no one can argue that when you look at a panel of a comic book page you know exactly what you're supposed to be looking at.

In the end it's always about shot composition, camera placement -- that is what actually tells the story. Shallow DOF helps the viewer pay attention to what they're supposed to be paying attention to (say, the writing on the side of a coffee cup, not the telephone or banana peel or pencil or stapler or tape dispenser). So in that, I agree, DSLRs and 35mm adapters are good TOOLS, but they're much more akin to lighting cues in a stage play than they are about being part of the storytelling process.

 

[Noiz2]

Fact 1 99.9% of commercially released movies up until now have been shot on film.

True, actually higher.

F

act 2 in recent years a handful of expensive high quality Digital Cameras have started to be used to make commercial movies.

True

Fact 3 Since the Red camera a sizable chunk of big budget commerical movies have been shot on Red.

False. Very few big budget films have been shot on anything but film.
But this will change.

I agree in principal with the talent over technology, but this needs to be balanced with the real world where 'real movies' can only recently be shot on a camera far more cheaply than film. And that in this coming year for peanuts a few companies will release digital cinema cameras that could stand side by side with a blockbuster in terms of picture.

Two separate things. Talent helps, A LOT, but the technology needs to be in place also. I don't know that $ comes into it on a Real budget. Film is a drop in the bucket. Digital release when it finally become s standard, that will be about $$$$$. But on a real budget (30 -100 mil+) film cost hardly makes a dent on the budget. The neg is digitized and your digital from there till the release print anyway. Low budget films it has had an impact on since for them stock costs do add up to a hunk of the budget.

That my boy is a revolution. So don't hang too tightly to the idea that a movie maker can use an old tin can and be a moviemaker, get in on this revolution and IF you have the talent your work can shine and be up their interms of quality with the big boys.

ANd if you can find a barn you can "do a show!". BS. Well not completely. If your on the no-micro budget end of things then go for what works for you. The DSLR looks fantastic. But if a lot of folks go that way maybe you can shoot S16 or 35mm at a good price? You can always shoot 35mm and digitize the neg and save a bundle. A DSLR with no story to tell is a cheaper misadventure than a 35mm camera and no story to tell. BUT with a story to tell use what you can afford and go for it.

 

[jamesmallonuk]

Fact 3 = True.

In the last year I have been to the flicks maybe 20 times of those times unknowingly about a third or more have been shot on Red all big budget major movies, that my lad is a sizeable chunk. let me list them for you:

District 9
Lovely Bones
The Green Zone
Knowing
Gamer
My bloody Valentine
Angels and Demons
Night at the Museum 2 (girlfriends insistence)

I hope to go and see The book of Eli next week, guess what its shot on.


The last thing you were witering on about a barn I don't know what your talking about but I can tell you I was talking about the Red camera and more specifically the Scarlet that is a budget version that will put the Red quality in the indie filmakers hands for a few thousand dollars. You can say what you want but you wont able to utilise 35mm film for that kind of price for any sizeable project. I think before you make any strong counter arguments you need to know your right otherwise you look like a bit foolish.

 

[Paul Hudson]

As mentioned earlier a DSLR is a very, very small part of the equation as is any camera. The earlier poster mentioned creativity and imagination. I would like to add another adjective or two to the list.
They are determination and experience.

All these intangibles are so important, but go to any decent film shoot and you will notice other things as well. Like, for example, the camera truck is half the size of the grip truck. I mention this because without the other gear to support any camera you may as well be shooting your kids soccer game.

 

[william boehm]

i do not agree that what matters is ONLY the tool in the hand of the filmaker. dslrs have a huge aliasing problem, and are not suitable for nature or landscape videoing with movement. ocean surf, stream with harlequin ducks, waves, fine landscape detail are full of artifacts that ruin the take. period...google dslr aliasing and watch for yourself. soft images coming out of these canon dslr's lessens effects of aliasing and artifacts. i almost bought into the dslr wave until i did some research, and will be waiting for a new generation canon xha1

 

[maarek]

dslrs have a huge aliasing problem, and are not suitable for nature or landscape videoing with movement...

:crybaby:

Learn to use them.

 

[Ben_B]

dslrs have a huge aliasing problem, and are not suitable for nature or landscape videoing with movement. ocean surf, stream with harlequin ducks, waves, fine landscape detail are full of artifacts that ruin the take. period...google dslr aliasing and watch for yourself.

You were saying?

I notice a tiny bit of artifacting in some of these shots but it certainly doesn't ruin the take.

Have fun waiting. We're out shooting nice stuff.

 

[Gary Huff]

Have fun waiting. We're out shooting nice stuff.

And not making any money!

 

[Bassman2003]

Ben, Very nice. Thanks for sharing.

Have you had the chance to put this short on Blu-ray?

I would be interested in seeing/hearing about how the footage looks outisde of the internet.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

I'm not sure how that's contradicting myself.

My point was that simply purchasing a DSLR won't make you a better shooter. Learning the artform and proper technique are more important than any piece of equipment.

But on the other hand, the DSLR is still a great tool for artists and shouldn't be dismissed because it has certain limitations.

But... Cinema is a technical artform. using the right tools is part of the job. It is not writing, it is not singing - good tools will not make you great, but bad tools will limit your potential greatness.

I am not a DSLR hater - but I do hate the unrealistic expectations people have of these things. Not all DOPS are all that bright, some are - if you know tech and codecs and compression and so on you would only ever use a DSLR for fun and for the web, never for a pro job, simply because the image quality is quite poor compared to a RED or even a good HD cam with a good adapter. If you can't see why it is poor either you do not have a very good eye, or you are fooling yourself.

Real pro tools have a purpose - they are not a waste of money spent by snobs and idiots. Thinking that way will not help your career.

That is not to say you can't make something interesting with a VHS cam, but if someone is paying you 3K a day on a 30K a day prod. and you show up with a 5D you are doing you client and yourself a ridiculous disservice.

Pro clients might disagree about how irrelevant moire and other problems are. The pro world is not vimeo vacation movies.

 

[thekeygun]

Yes, thank you ben for sharing that piece. I enjoyed the comparisons.

 

[ydgmdlu]

On the other side, there are a lot of DSLR haters out there. They complain because it has moiré, rolling shutter, aliasing, etc. that it shouldn’t be used for productions.

...

At the end of the day, you are an artist and your camera is your tool. It’s not the tool that makes the image, it's the artist. No matter how many limitations a tool has, a skilled artist can still make something beautiful with it.

The best example I can use is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUWqRhReaZk

This is an artist using MS Paint to create a fairly photorealistic picture of a car. Is MS Paint the absolute best tool for drawing pictures? No. But it is cheap and in the hands of a professional, it can be used to create beautiful images.

You wouldn’t yell at this person for using Paint and say, “You should be using Photoshop! You’ll have higher resolution and better tools for editing.” Instead you would applaud their ingenuity and creativity.

So what you're saying is, "Stop complaining about your big-@$$ VHS camcorder from the '80s and get to work!" Right? :tongue:

Seriously though, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. On the one hand, you're saying that HDSLRs are not a panacea for filmmaking, but on the other hand, you're saying that complaining about the limitations of HDSLRs is useless. If I were not already sold on HDSLRs, then I would see no reason to consider buying one. Shallow DOF? Who needs it? The deep DOF of small-chip camcorders might as well be an excusable limitation just like aliasing and rolling shutter skew.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[TimurCivan]

truth is guys, its about what producers want. If they want RED you shoot on RED. if they want 5D ( which alot of them do) you shoot on 5D. if you dont have the camera you rent it. simple as pie.