• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

please help me by giving your thoughts on cameras

L

LittleEarthquakes

I don't have the money yet, but I'm looking to hopefully be getting close in the coming months (hopefully not too many months) and I was wondering if y'all could possibly give me a run down on the pros and con and abilities of 2/3" chip cameras I know about the panasonic varicam, the red one (and the future epic which you can upgrade to from the red one), and I know there are others, but I don't have my lil list infront of me.

here is what i'm wanting to do...i know that lighting is a big part of making your film lok great, but i'm looking at the fact that there will be times I will be needing the ability of shooting in a lowlight situation...while some small amont of liting may be possible or needed, i'd like to be able to shoot outside at night and it look like regular/natural outdoor night lighting (perferably as those the actors are lit by the moon, etc), I'll also have a few indoor night shots with low light situations

i'll also be needing some crane shots, on car mounted shots, i'll be intending on shooting widescreen at 24p with plans that it will eventually be transfered to 35mm and what that transfer to be as easy and good as possible


i know that these are highend cameras with highend prices, but I would really like your input so that I have other facts, thoughts, feelings, and info, etc...to add to what I have now.

thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
P.S. I'm not asking for you to tell me what camera is going to make me a star cause I know that's a stupid question....I will also be needing lighting and sound, but the script, actors, crew will not be a problem (if it looks like it will be a problem when it's time, I will remedy that by finding the right people)...what i'm trying to do is find the camera that will be able to produce the best product when shot correctly in the situations in which it will be used.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The camera isn’t what is going to give you regular/natural outdoor
night lighting no matter how high end it is. Every movie you see
with regular/natural outdoor night lighting is the result of a
lot of lights and experienced, skilled people. When it looks like
actors are lit by the moon you’re not seeing a high end camera
shooting in moon light, you’re seeing a lot of hard work by
skilled, experienced people - and quite a lot of light.

EXT-night1.jpg

EXT-night2.jpg

EXT-night3.jpg


There is no need to buy a Vericam or even a Red One. Renting high
end cameras is the best way to go. Same with cranes and car
mounts. When you are ready to make your movie check into renting
these high end pieces of equipment.

However if all you want is a list of the names of high end cameras
I’d be glad to type one up for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know that it will have to be lit, but I'm looking for something that can shoot very well with the least amount of light in night shots (preferably without the camera costing a ton)...i have intentions of shopping this around to the film festivals when completed and attempting to obtain distribution (of course I know that's ultimately what we all want)...I live in an area where camera rental is not very available, though I know there is a place about a 3 hours or so drive away that rents cranes, mounts etc

it's not that I want to go high end if I don't have to, but i want my camera to provide the best quality possible for what i'm filming...it has nothing to do with my thinking my camera will make or break my project, it has to do with my fear of pouring my heart and soul into my first feature only to feel like I did everything right, but the image was not what it could have been if i'd chosen the right camera.....you know?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In that case, choosing the right camera is the easy part. Any 3CCD
camera will work for you.

Movies have been in festivals and found distribution that were shot
on standard definition cameras like the Sony PD150, the JVC DV500
and the Canon XL-1. Any of the HDV cameras available now will work
just fine for your goal of shopping around to the film festivals and
trying to get distribution.

Check out the JVC HD6 and the Canon HV20 in the lower price range
and the Panasonic HVX200, Canon HX-A1 and JVC HD110 in the higher
range.

If it helps, I tried them all and bought the JVC HD110.

Are you thinking of buying a full HD camera like the Vericam or the Red?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Please don't be offended at what I'm about to say, because there is no malice in it at all.

It's really important when you first start out as a film maker to ask basic questions... because how else do you learn.

But it seems to me that you're looking for a camera to solve problems that are really solved by a combination of knowledge and lighting equipment.

At this point in your development you'd be better investing your money in some training on lighting and camera usage... and maybe buy a cheap second hand prosumer camera to develop your skills... maybe a VX1000 or a PD150.

Having the knowledge about how to use your kit and how to light for film, will result in a better film than you'd get by using even a superb piece of kit like the RED in ignorance.

By the time you're ready to own a RED, you won't need to ask anyone whether it's the right camera, because you'll know.

And... in terms of investment, good training lasts forever and the latest piece of camera kit is relevant for about three years at prosumer level, five at pro. At your stage of development, the camera will be obsolete before you're skilled enough to use it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Directorik...thank you for the info on cameras and taking a moment to explain what it seems I need. :) I'm not buying any camera right this second, but i'm intending to do that soon. I wasn't really looking to go as far as the varicam, but the red seems so appealing and I figure with there not being rental places closeby but there being other filmmakers in the area I might be able to make some of the money back while in post on my film by renting locally, but I may go with one of your suggestions due to cost. I intend on doing this right but if I can do that with one of the HD cameras you mentioned that would ultimately give me more money I can use in other areas...could you please give me a little bit of a run down on your personal experiences whith the HD cameras you tried and what was ultimately the factors that drew you to purchase the JVC HD110?


Clive...I understand where you're coming from, and please forgive me for the fact that i'm about to sound defensive, but...I know lighting, i'm not worried about lighting, and i'm not that worried about sound because I had bad sound on a limited availability of time short that I made with limited equipment, and will not allow anything else I ever do to produce less than steller sound. I'm a bit of a perfectionist when I do things and while I may not be a pro, I know that I will not allow that to be evident in my finished film. While there is a chance that I could be the one wielding the camera (and I assure you I would not unless I felt totally comfortable in my knowledge of the camera and it's abilities) there is a high percentage of likelyhood that I will be looking to higher and experienced camera person
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, if that's you're take... but I can only give advice based on what you write... and I quote:

here is what i'm wanting to do...i know that lighting is a big part of making your film lok great, but i'm looking at the fact that there will be times I will be needing the ability of shooting in a lowlight situation...while some small amont of liting may be possible or needed, i'd like to be able to shoot outside at night and it look like regular/natural outdoor night lighting (perferably as those the actors are lit by the moon, etc), I'll also have a few indoor night shots with low light situations
Click to expand...

Truth is, any producer/director whose aim is to finish the film with a great product isn't going to allow themselves to get into a situation where they don't have the lighting they need to get the job done. An experienced director wouldn't try to solve the problem by searching for a camera to solve a low light situation... because the phrase "low light" essentially means "not enough lighting." There are least a dozen reasons why nobody, except maybe a documentary film maker/or a wildlife photographer, would want a camera that handles low light.

So, actually the real question is probably... what are the best portable lighting systems for creating X effect?

or... does anyone know a good gaffer?

or... does anyone know a good DOP?

Now the fact that you're starting with the assumption [QUOTE i'm looking at the fact that there will be times I will be needing the ability of shooting in a lowlight situation[/QUOTE] doesn't really support your claim that
I know lighting, i'm not worried about lighting
Click to expand...

Now there is absolutely no shame in NOT knowing how to light for a particular effect... but the one thing that screws up films more than anything else, is believing you know more than you actually do. Ignorance is one thing, but not knowing how ignorant you are is a project killer. It always results in bad films.

And based on what you've already written,
I had bad sound on a limited availability of time short that I made with limited equipment, and will not allow anything else I ever do to produce less than steller sound. [/QUOTE you've already had experience of getting a bad result by using the wrong equipment... and not knowing it was the wrong equipment. How many times do you need to make that mistake before you learn from it... and I don't mean your sound, I mean the attitude that caused the problem in the first place.


Based on what you've written, there is NO WAY IN THIS WORLD that you know either lighting or camera work. Again, there is no shame in that... and I could care less whether you get defensive or not, because it's not my film that's going to look like a bag of hammers.

So, again, it's your choice you can either take this as advice from a veteran film maker whose trying to pull you off the tracks before the train hits you, or you can see it as a threat to your manhood... your choice... but dog, egos don't make films, they just wreck them.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Either way, a 2/3" CCD can offer better shadow quality (less noise), but not necessarily. A good deal of light handling is a result of the quality of the electronics in the camera. If we use a sound analogy, when your sound source is quiet or too far away, you must amplify the sound more, which also amplifies background noises and increases the noise produced by the amplifier electronics. It's much the same with light. To get clean, noise free shadows, you need very high quality electronics and the best possible image sensor.

To reiterate what's already been said, but to put it more succinctly; photography (and by extension, cinematography) is a process that relies on light to reproduce an image. The better the lighting, the more reliable, clean, detailed, and accurate will be the recorded image. And finally, it's always easy to discard detail from and/or darken a perfectly exposed image. It is impossible to recover detail that was simply not recorded for lack of light.

I know all of this is obvious, but anyone who is planning to shoot a movie on any camera must embrace these obvious facts if they hope to get the most from their camera.

Returning to your original question, 2/3" CCD cameras are professional cameras and will give you excellent results when operated by an experienced camera operator or DoP. However, here is a quote from "Shut up and Shoot, a Documentary Guide" that sums up what Clive is saying;

"If I gave you Lance Armstrong's bike or Tiger Woods' golf clubs do you think you could suddenly go out and win the Tour de France or the PGA Championship? ... that notion is just as ridiculous as the notion that by merely having the best camera, you can shoot the best film." (Anthony Q. Artis)

Finally; any 2/3" CCD camera is going to be excellent, and it will also give you less DOF than a 1/3" camera, which is a very good reason to aspire to a larger sensor, but of course, it will cost you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Clive...I'm sorry for sounding defensive and for not fully explaining myself. I guess I still hadn't quite explained myself. BTW I didn't buy the wrong equipment for the short...I went into it using what was available to me and due to time issues was unable to use my best sound.

OakStreet....thank you for taking the time to respond with something informative. DOF is one of the things that sparks my intrest in the 2/3" cameras...and you're right about not being able to bring out detail you never got, so I guess that's something for me t keep in mind. I do know how to light outdoor night shots, but I've found that I personally tend to like the shots that have the least amount of light while still being able to get a good, clear, sharp picture. It's not that I don't intend on lighting these scenes, just that I intend on lighting as low as possible while still getting my desired shot.

now, I do realize I'll be getting a better camera than I have now, no matter what I get, but I guess the abilities of the 2/3" really seems appealing, but with the additional cost of a red verses the cost of a Panasonic HVX200 or JVC HD200 would probably pay for the rental of additional equipment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK... two things:

Firstly, I wasn't saying you bought the wrong equipment... I'm saying you used the wrong equipment and paid the price. Even if it was all you had, that doesn't make it the right equipment... it just meant you were prepared to shoot, even if your equipment wasn't up to the job. Not every producer would consider that an acceptable choice... because it's almost impossible to unpick bad sound in post production.

Secondly... camera choice is more than a cinematographer's decision... it's also a decision made depending on what market place you're entering.

Some cameras are unacceptable for some markets... the main advantage of the RED is it's an acceptable format at all levels of the business... and the most talked about film at Cannes this year was Soderberg's "Che" ... shot on the RED. Apparently it looks absolutely fantastic...

On the other hand, anything from a PD150 all the way up to a Varicam is entirely suitable to shoot direct to DVD or even for TV.

Basically, a camera is a large investment... and to justify the spend on a RED, you have to have something which will make enough money back to justify that expense... that means having a marketable script, high quality acting and a team with the abilities to make the film look worth looking at.

The camera choice is a reflection of the potential market value of the end product... and nothing else; unless you're rich and this is an indulgence thing... or you have masses of music video work that will pay for the camera before it becomes obsolete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That you Clive...I was starting to feel a bit like a chided child with you, but I realized too that since I havea tendency to not reread my messages when posting on forums, before I post them, that I really and truely was not getting my points across.

You fully said in your last paragraph what I was feeling which is one of the many reasons Red seems so appealing. I see and feel potential in this and the marketablity of it. I also intend on attempting to pull in one name for a certain character (plus other actors will be pro trained actors) which will also add to the marketability of the film thus leaving me wanting the most film like look I can in a cost effective kind of way.

Plus perhaps I should have noted that whatever camera I get will be well known before filming. Whether I am the operator or I higher someone for that I intend on spending some time before film in testing and learning the ends and outs of whatever is used.

anyway thanks again for the post. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, I understand what's happening now. You're gearing up for a micro-budget feature, with the idea that using the RED and having a single name actor will be enough to make sure you can sell your film when it goes to market.

A couple of things leap to mind... the first is that using the RED to make your film will only push it into the top end of the market, if you have both an exceptional project, an exceptional director and an exceptional DOP. This is because the camera format doesn't help sell the film, it just ensures that sales agents and distributors will consider it... but they also weight in other factors, like who is in it, who wrote the screenplay and who directed.

Therefore a feature film shot on the RED with one name actor, an unknown director and an unknown screenwriter is likely to have less value in the market than a film shot on a VX1000 by a known director, with a known cast and an established screenwriter.

Camera formats, by themselves, don't add sales value to movies... and I know this from personal experience. My first producer made exactly the same choice... and we were the first company in the UK to shoot a feature on the Varicam. When it came to the market, the fact that we were shooting on the latest and sexiest HD camera didn't even factor in.

Based on my current understanding of the market, I think that indies who produce and direct themselves have to realize that they're going to be selling in the direct to DVD market. Anything above that can only come from turning out one of those freak festival films, which captures people's imagination.

The economics about buying a RED are therefore not about a particular feature film, because the RED won't make any difference in the market... but actually, it's about whether you'll be able to earn from it in other ways.

So, basically, my DOP owns a RED... but he's bought it because it's a guarantee of regular work for him. He picked up three feature shoots at Cannes this year, just based on having the RED and his showreel.l
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
All the features that make a camera great for cinematography also make it necessary for the operator to have more skill (e.g. shallow DOF). I think the reason that Red took the industry by storm is because the big guys (Panasonic, Sony, Canon, etc.) did not believe it was worth marketing a camera that required a truly talented and skilled DP to the budget conscious market. Many critics have said that the result of Red One is going to be a lot of badly lighted, out of focus crap in a 4K format (which shows every flaw). Generally, movies that have the required talent, have multi-million dollar budgets, so the cost difference between a $30K and a $200K camera is mostly irrelevant.

These are only my unfounded, non-technical, market based opinions. Furthermore, I'm not a marketing guy, so take it for what it's worth.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OakStreet...thanks for the responce. I'm not looking for one or maybe two names and my camera to be the thing that carries it..I know that every aspect of the film will be what makes or breaks it. The story is good and different and with good acting (which I know I can get my hands on), and good photography, lighting and sounds I think it will have no problem shopping it around to festivals and stuff but I know having a name attached makes something that's already intriguing even more intriguing.

It's not a freakfest type film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh, I wasn't so much responding to you, LittleEarthquakes; I was just adding some thoughts about the skill level required to operate a heavyweight camera. When you're in the consumer camera range, the cameras are designed to operate on autopilot and be very forgiving.

None of this was actually meant to address your specific situation.

Doug
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I really think your enthusiasm will carry you a long way. As an old hand can I just make a few suggestions:

1) Script is everything when it comes to sales, attaching names and also in getting financed... therefore I STRONGLY recommend you pay a professional script reader to go over your script with you. If you get any aspect of that part wrong... GAME OVER

And, do this before you even consider sending it out to your name actor! VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT

2) Before you go into production, get your ass to one of the major selling Festivals... Toronto, Berlin, Cannes, Sundance or Venice, and study what the market is both selling and buying.

3) If you're going for a full feature to take to market, delegate and hire in all the skills needed to play the game at that level. Whatever you do, don't try and shoot this yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with Doug and clive.

There are dozens of movies released in the theaters which were
shot on standard definition cameras and there are are tens of
thousands of movies shot on HD cameras that haven't even seen
DVD distribution.

No movie goer pays to see a movie based on the camera - so that
cannot be used to carry the project. You've never done it, your
friends have never done it. "Open Water" made $30,000,000
based on its marketing hook. It wasn't financed based on the stars
or the camera and not a single movie goer paid to see it did so
because of the camera they used.

clives second point is the best advice you can get. Far, far, far more
important than what camera you use. This is what almost no movie
maker ever does. They consider the camera, the discussing lights,
the ask about "film look" plugins, but they never go to film festivals
to see what movies are getting accepted and they never go to the
film markets to see what distributors are buying and selling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top