Why Camera Matters

penfever

penfever

Well-known member
Hey -
I've been reading a lot of posts lately ( my first mistake, I know ) :smile: and a lot of folks have expressed the opinion (rather noisily) that 'the camera doesn't matter, it's just a tool, and nothing matters but a good story and quality direction/performances/whatever'.
This myth has been circulating unchallenged, just burning in the back of my head, and I finally realized last night that it was time to rebut it. The camera absolutely matters. And if anyone still doesn't believe me by the end of this thread, I'll trade my DVX for your Varicam if you don't mind... :smile:

1. Good Equipment Attracts Good Personnel
DPs like getting to work with better equipment. If you're shooting on 35mm or high-end digital, you're going to attract better camera talent - which means a better-shot movie.

2. Production Values give a film respect
Films with that 'basement-made' look can be effective (like the oft-quoted Celebration, Blair Witch et. al), but ONLY if the material is perfectly suited to the camera. Whereas a pretty camera can always be dirtied up to get the same effect, as well as being useful for flashier work.

3. Cameras can allow special FX that add choices for the director
HVX = variable frame rates = awesome. 'Nuff said.

4. Shooting DV restricts creative options
Under the category of 'sad but true'. This is probably the most important reason why a good camera matters. DV mashes the color gamut preventing proper correction, it has little-to-zero depth of field, preventing the rack focus which is a vital tool in cinematic storytelling, it often has attached lenses which prevent the use of primes (another classic tool) and the lack of resolution basically invalidates the use of the long shot or well-developed mise en scene. Consider the following directors, and imagine what their films would look like shot in DV. I guarantee you none of them would be famous.
-Masaki Kobayashi (long shot, long take)
-Michaelangelo Antonioni (the same)
-Seijun Suzuki (Long shot and color depth)
-Douglas Sirk (color depth)
-Milos Forman (long take)
-Orson Welles (shallow and deep focus)

Obviously, the list would go on for a long time. These directors RELIED on tools that we don't even have access to with DV, meaning that no matter how long I work a DVX, it will never shoot Citizen Kane.

Handheld - well, I'm kinda torn on this. It's been used to great effect in many films (I love early John Frankenheimer for this - just saw Seven Days in May and it has a great handheld fight sequence in the first few minutes). HOWEVER - it's a little too liberating and invites people not to plan out shots or camera moves as they would have HAD to in the old days. Gone are the days of tracking from a staircase to an eye a la "Notorious", or even the opening of the player - these carefully staged shots are too often forgotten in the trial and error world of DV.

Soooooo -
The next time somebody says "the camera doesn't matter", you know what to tell them. Why is this in the RED forum? Because thanks to Jim Jannard, every one of you will soon be able to look back on these early, restrictive days of DV as a fond memory. As of April (give or take) you are technically prepared to run with the greats - so start working up your best story, any genre, any kind. And learn your tools.
Peace,
penfever
 
The funny thing is that most of the people saying the camera doesn't matter only the story, acting, and directing count are making movies with bad stories, acting, and directing. They should be the ones looking to get a Red because although a good camera cannot make a bad film good, it can make a bad film presentable. Has anyone seen the crap they peddle at the American Film Market? Yes, they make the sell on T&A but the production value of film is still there. The only time production value doesn't seem to matter is when the subject of the film justifies the low quality footage or porn.
 
I already anticipate that this camera will improve my story telling not just because of the quality of the material that can be produced but simply because of the fact that I will know that I have in my posession a piece of equipment that could be used to make a Motion Picture.

This is not something I would necessarily believe if I was holding even a HVX in my hand, whilst I would make every viable attempt to produce something as close to and to a certain degree mimic footage of something I might see at the cinema the bare fact is that I wouldn't think as someone making a film - I would think as someone trying to get as close to film quality as possible and half the problem with that is that many indie directors/dp's get more bogged down with making it look good than making it a good film, take that out of the equation then a bad movie is what it is because it fails as a story or in the way it was told.

I completely agree that better equipment matters - I also have massive respect however for those who manage to make great movies without having it.
 
penfever said:
Hey - I've been reading a lot of posts lately ( my first mistake, I know ) and a lot of folks have expressed the opinion (rather noisily) that 'the camera doesn't matter, it's just a tool, and nothing matters but a good story and quality direction/performances/whatever'.
Click to expand...

I do not believe anyone is throwing around the idea that one can use a VHS camcorder and make a great film as long as the story is solid.

This myth has been circulating unchallenged, just burning in the back of my head, and I finally realized last night that it was time to rebut it. The camera absolutely matters. And if anyone still doesn't believe me by the end of this thread, I'll trade my DVX for your Varicam if you don't mind...
Click to expand...

DVX -vs- Varicam ? Apples to Oranges, isn't it ? No. Apples to Cinnamon Rolls.

1. Good Equipment Attracts Good Personnel
DPs like getting to work with better equipment. If you're shooting on 35mm or high-end digital, you're going to attract better camera talent - which means a better-shot movie.
Click to expand...

If one is shooting on 35mm or High-End digital then they probably have the budget to attract 'better talent.' What about 'talent' like Anthony Mantle and his use of the XL1 ? Phil Parmet and his use of the DVX100 or 16mm on Reject's? Matty Libatique's 16mm on Tigerland ?

2. Production Values give a film respect
Films with that 'basement-made' look can be effective (like the oft-quoted Celebration, Blair Witch et. al), but ONLY if the material is perfectly suited to the camera. Whereas a pretty camera can always be dirtied up to get the same effect, as well as being useful for flashier work.
Click to expand...

You're comparing films shot on cheap $300.00 video cameras to high-end cameras ?

3. Cameras can allow special FX that add choices for the director
HVX = variable frame rates = awesome. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Huh ? John Woo eat your heart out.

4. Shooting DV restricts creative options
Click to expand...

I thought it was limitations that brought out our creativity ?

Under the category of 'sad but true'. This is probably the most important reason why a good camera matters.
Click to expand...

What is a good camera ?

DV mashes the color gamut preventing proper correction, it has little-to-zero depth of field, preventing the rack focus which is a vital tool in cinematic storytelling, it often has attached lenses which prevent the use of primes (another classic tool) and the lack of resolution basically invalidates the use of the long shot or well-developed mise en scene. Consider the following directors, and imagine what their films would look like shot in DV. I guarantee you none of them would be famous.
Click to expand...

Add a 35mm adapter, add a Follow Focus and mis-en-scene has nothing to do with what format you are shooting. And all of the above would never make or break a project.

-Masaki Kobayashi (long shot, long take)
-Michaelangelo Antonioni (the same)
-Seijun Suzuki (Long shot and color depth)
-Douglas Sirk (color depth)
-Milos Forman (long take)
-Orson Welles (shallow and deep focus)

Obviously, the list would go on for a long time. These directors RELIED on tools that we don't even have access to with DV, meaning that no matter how long I work a DVX, it will never shoot Citizen Kane.
Click to expand...

These points are moot. The list can stop here. None of these filmmakers had to rely on anything. They were simply using the tools available to them at the time.

Handheld - well, I'm kinda torn on this. It's been used to great effect in many films (I love early John Frankenheimer for this - just saw Seven Days in May and it has a great handheld fight sequence in the first few minutes). HOWEVER - it's a little too liberating and invites people not to plan out shots or camera moves as they would have HAD to in the old days. Gone are the days of tracking from a staircase to an eye a la "Notorious", or even the opening of the player - these carefully staged shots are too often forgotten in the trial and error world of DV.
Click to expand...

Blame the French New Wave for Cinema Verite, not DV.

Soooooo -
The next time somebody says "the camera doesn't matter", you know what to tell them. Why is this in the RED forum? Because thanks to Jim Jannard, every one of you will soon be able to look back on these early, restrictive days of DV as a fond memory. As of April (give or take) you are technically prepared to run with the greats - so start working up your best story, any genre, any kind. And learn your tools.
Peace,
penfever
Click to expand...

The camera will matter when comparing the Arri 535 to a PD-150 ... But at some point in time, the camera just does not matter: Red, Arri 535, S16, Viper, Genesis .......

Why am I moving this from the Red Forum ? Because it has nothig to do with Red.

The real culprits in this spectrum are those who think if they have the highest end camera, then they are golden. But Spielberg could have filmed War of the Worlds or Munich in 16mm or DVX and it would have ruled. You seem to fall under the category of 'I have a high camera; hear me roar.'

Your post made for an entertaining read anyway.


Deadzone says - The funny thing is that most of the people saying the camera doesn't matter only the story, acting, and directing count are making movies with bad stories, acting, and directing. They should be the ones looking to get a Red because although a good camera cannot make a bad film good, it can make a bad film presentable. Has anyone seen the crap they peddle at the American Film Market? Yes, they make the sell on T&A but the production value of film is still there. The only time production value doesn't seem to matter is when the subject of the film justifies the low quality footage or porn.
Click to expand...

Even funnier, these are the people actually making movies instead of fixating on gear. Why those guys drool over the next big thing, the rest of them are out honing thier craft. I wonder what the lot will do when they have Red in their hand? I suspect it will finally be the magical answer to thier dreams and prayers. Finally, they will become filmmakers!

No camera will make 'Joe the Hack' Janusz Kaminski; not even for a second and your film wil not be suddenly considered as an official selection.
 
Like we've said a hundred times: both matter. Anyone who says "it's just a tool, it doesn't matter" is being foolish, just like anyone who says "this camera is my ticket to the big leagues."

The tools matter. Obviously they matter, or we wouldn't be here. There's a reason that craftsmen and artists seek out better tools.

It is not "all about the tool". It's all about the entire process. The tool is a part of that process.

What I hope never to hear again is "it doesn't matter what camera you have, it's ALL about the STORY" or "it's ALL about the LIGHTING" or any of that tired cliche'd platitude.

There is truth to all of those statements. But none of them are the whole, complete truth.

If better tools don't matter, why did we ever bother to progress past the wheel? Or the stick?

The tool matters. The story matters. Craftsmanship and skill matter. A hack with a bad camera and a brilliant story will turn out a piece of unwatchable dreck. A master with a Red, and no story, will turn out a piece of watchable dreck.

Yes Kaminski with a VHS camcorder would probably turn out something better-looking than I could with a Panavision Millennium. So why doesn't Kaminski use a VHS camcorder? Hmmm, I guess it's because the tool matters.

Learn your craft, learn your skill, use the best tools you can, and LEARN YOUR LIMITATIONS -- and when you do, find someone who doesn't have the same limitations and team up with them and make something bigger and better than either of you could on your own.
 
in all kinds of art, you need a little bit of everything. talent(ability), story(idea), equptment. you really cant dismiss any of them. in agreement with barry here.
 
I am of the mindset that it is the people behind the tools that matter most.

(not saying the tools don't matter but you get my point)
 
why use a camera at all? lets not forget things are slowly moving/creeping over to CGI (not saying that thats where we will end up, but its an option), and many films/animations where done entirley on computers without a camera in sight.
 
Well, if you want to go that way, we've had things such as "plays" and "theater" which tell stories and don't involve cameras, and we've had those for hundreds or thousands of years...
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, if you want to go that way, we've had things such as "plays" and "theater" which tell stories and don't involve cameras, and we've had those for hundreds or thousands of years...
Click to expand...

And that guy names Shakespeare. He's somewhat involved, I think.
 
As Barry put it so well, our tools DO matter. Though some people can have a gimick and make it off of completely amaturish tools (ala Blair Witch Project) it doesn't happen that often. Now, that having been said, I think the advent of 24P captured onto a miniDV tape has closed the gap between consumer and pro formats, I still think there is something to be said about resolution like HD has and of course film has. Thing is, without a great screenplay and having it well executed it doesn't matter. And... if you make a pitch movie with less than "hollywood" production values that has a great story, then if the studio or whoever likes it, you can then use the great tools to tell your already great story.
 
Tiger Woods - 43" stainless steel shafted driver.
Other guys - 48" graphite shaft, titanium head, space age yadda yadda, etc, etc.
Who's the better golfer?
Ditto what Barry, and others said, too. (insert brown nose here)

* Oh, yeah... and 3d. Is just another tool to further the art. In my humble, somehwat biased by my performance background, opinion. I love 3d. I love a bug's life and all that craft. But in my opinion, live action (which thousands of years is the correct answer) is an evolution of THE performance art. 3d is a tool, even an entire medium, which in capable hands, can be extremely artistic, and emulate art. But, in my opinion, can never be a replacement for performance art.
Jason
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top