Why do a lot of indie films brag about cheap cameras when sound is more important?

H

harmonica44

What I mean is a like for example. They brag about how the show House was shot on the 7D. There was also a comedy feature, that got distribution shot on the 7D as well that bragged about it. Can't remember the name.

But they never say what mic or field recorder or pre-amps they used even though that's more important. People care about sound a lot more than picture and that's evident at film festivals. So how come a lot of indie films tend to brag about what camera they got away with, and not audio equipment?
 
Digital recorders have been around for years. High cinema quality, low priced digital cameras are new.

If someone built a spaceship with a tool you have access to it means (theoretically) you can too. It's exciting!
 
What gets me is when they don't talk about what LENS they used on the 7D. I've seen about 3 indie films shot over the last 2 months shot with 7D's. The lenses cost around $1200. That's how you get the best 'film' look.


-- spinner :cool:
 
I really am miffed a bit when indie filmmakers who in the first sentence mention their format/camera choice when talking about their film.

IMO this "format-first syndrome" is a result of peer pressure from techies and gear freaks.

Its alright to love your equipment, but remember you're a filmmaker first.

As for House, I never knew it was shot with the 7D. Didn't care. I watch because of the writing.
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
As for House, I never knew it was shot with the 7D. Didn't care. I watch because of the writing.
Click to expand...

One episode was shot on 5Ds. So I'm not surprised you didn't know it was shot with the 7D :D

I can't say it really bothers me, but then I'm always interested in which cameras/lenses/film stock were used on a film. I wouldn't go and see a film because it was shot on a specific camera, though.

Are thousands of regular consumers buying digital audio recorders? Have recent improvements in technology found a new market for digital audio recorders? No, so why (and how) would they use it as a marketing tool?
 
Bragging that your feature was shot on a DSLR is a whole lot different from bragging that your feature was shot on a Panavision.

And I strongly disagree that people (read: the general viewing public) cares more about sound than image quality.
 
And I strongly disagree that people (read: the general viewing public) cares more about sound than image quality.
Click to expand...


Oh really??

Do a quick experiment. Put on any movie. Now turn the volume reaaaaaally low, barely noticeable (you can turn on captions if you'd like)... note how long your friends will pay attention to the movie.

Now, put the volume back to normal, but switch your movie into black n white..

I bet your friend wont mind watching the movie black n white, but will most likely stop paying attention in first 10 mins into the movie.
 
dlevanchuk said:
Oh really??

Do a quick experiment. Put on any movie. Now turn the volume reaaaaaally low, barely noticeable (you can turn on captions if you'd like)... note how long your friends will pay attention to the movie.

Now, put the volume back to normal, but switch your movie into black n white..

I bet your friend wont mind watching the movie black n white, but will most likely stop paying attention in first 10 mins into the movie.
Click to expand...
Here's a better experiment.

Put a movie on, but turn off the sound. Then, watch it again, but leave the sound on and turn off the picture.

For the record, I love watching movies without sound. It's a wonderful learning experience, and often a solid litmus test for the quality of the film.
 
harmonica44 said:
What I mean is a like for example. They brag about how the show House was shot on the 7D. There was also a comedy feature, that got distribution shot on the 7D as well that bragged about it. Can't remember the name.
Click to expand...

This is not so much bragging as it is justifying a lower end format as acceptable. The point is: If a Canon 5DII is good enough for an episode of HOUSE, then it's good enough for someone's guerrilla short or feature. I'm sure you heard about how Danny Boyle shot 28 DAYS LATER with standard definition Canon XL-1 cameras? That was huge news at the time.

This goes back with most formats. 35mm was the standard, but then filmmakers started breaking out with some 16mm hits (EVIL DEAD, EL MARIACHI), it meant that you didn't have to be uber-rich to produce a movie. Same thing happened with Super 8mm, when the Rank Cintel transfer system came out and VHS was dominant.

That still didn't help the people shooting video, trying to break in with film favoring distributors. Then THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT came out (shot on high 8mm, 400 line video, with some 16mm interviews) and people went crazy about the possibilities. George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez made waves when they shot ATTACK OF THE CLONES and ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO in HD, using the Sony cams.

Amateur stuff still looked like video, but then the Panasonic DVX100 with 24P and Cinegamma, and Magic Bullet software came out. Video didn't have to look like a soap opera anymore, so people were tauting the DVX. Then Spielberg reshot a scene for MUNICH (a 35mm film), using the Panasonic HVX200 - the HD version of the DVX.

The big rage about DSLR cameras, like the Canons is that you can achieve a cinematic shallow focus and switch out lenses. Most prosumer video cameras have a single built in zoom lens, hence the depth of field is deep (everything is in focus) and that's not a good look for movies, which are very calculating (using focus, colors, lighting, arrangement) about where a viewer's eyes are supposed to be focused. You had to buy/rent a special lens adapter to get shallow focus shots.


Now, it seems that many pros are looking to cams like the Arri Alexa and RED Epic, for shooting theatrical fare. But that doesn't mean you should ditch your current camera and break your bank. Unless you make the next PARANORMAL ACTIVITY breakout, your movie is going to be seen on TV. Making beautiful shots have as much, or more, to do with lighting, composition and set elements than what kind of camera you have. I pointed out some things about "production value on this thread:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=34518




Feutus Lapdance said:
Py comes to mind. Bad image quality but good sound.
Click to expand...

The director could have shot that in color, but he shot on Black & White 16mm - a grainy Tri-X reversal stock, I believe. If you watch any of Darren Aronofsky's movie, the guy is always going for an unusual style. I believe PI cost about 60K to shoot and then another 60 for lab and post. It's grainy and washed out, yet it cost him a pretty penny to get that look.
 
Last edited:
And I strongly disagree that people (read: the general viewing public) cares more about sound than image quality.

They care WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more, they just don't realize it.

Ever try to watch a movie where it was hard to understand the dialogue or the where the sound went loud and soft and loud and soft... Most people will last about 5 minutes before they shut it off. It could look like freaking Lawrence of Arabia and you'll stop watching because bad sound just drives you crazy ("Wait, WHAT did he just say.....")

Sound quality just isn't sexy.
 
dlevanchuk said:
Oh really??

Do a quick experiment. Put on any movie. Now turn the volume reaaaaaally low, barely noticeable (you can turn on captions if you'd like)... note how long your friends will pay attention to the movie.

Now, put the volume back to normal, but switch your movie into black n white..

I bet your friend wont mind watching the movie black n white, but will most likely stop paying attention in first 10 mins into the movie.
Click to expand...

Don't think this really works because silent and B&W are hardly comparable.

Both sound and visuals are very important but it's become very trendy to make the point that people won't watch movies they can't hear properly. But not being able to hear something must be equivalent not to being able to properly see something, and I doubt people would watch movies like that after.

And clearly the answer is because people (everyday people, not freaks like us) use cameras and like cameras. Cameras are sexy whereas microphones are... well, not.
 
Those guys nerd out too, big time.
Directors and writers just tend to gravitate to the visuals. Sound has to be good, but it's not always woven into the fabric of the piece. It's an afterthought. I have a sound director. He does as much or more work than me purely on the audio side. We aren't where we want to be yet, but we take the "sound is half the movie" seriously. Recorded something like 9 individual music pieces including 4 full blown bands doing complete songs for a 12 minute movie.
 
Papertwinproductions said:
Last time I heard, Sound was HALF of the experience.
Click to expand...

You'd think, but no.

While this might be true for a silent film with a musical score, for a film that's heavy on dialog, sound is more like two-thirds of the experience in scenes where dialog prevails over visual action.

The "bad sound" issue is really all about being able to clearly hear the dialog, otherwise audiences are unable to engage with a film. Having worked at and programmed film festivals, I can tell you that people will walk out of films with badly-recorded dialog and an excellent picture, while if the reverse is true -- low-quality picture with good sound -- people will have no problem with it.

And regardless of how people imagine the balance of the sound/image ratio, I think that sound and image should both be as good as you can get them. What you can get away with should not be the issue.
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
Its alright to love your equipment, but remember you're a filmmaker first.
Click to expand...

I tell newbies this ALL THE TIME. Go get you a cheap camera from the pawn shop and start shooting!

Remember, fuzzy/grainy focus in Hollywood is out of focus, for indies it's "stylized!" :lol:


-- spinner :cool:
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
You'd think, but no.

While this might be true for a silent film with a musical score, for a film that's heavy on dialog, sound is more like two-thirds of the experience in scenes where dialog prevails over visual action.

The "bad sound" issue is really all about being able to clearly hear the dialog, otherwise audiences are unable to engage with a film. Having worked at and programmed film festivals, I can tell you that people will walk out of films with badly-recorded dialog and an excellent picture, while if the reverse is true -- low-quality picture with good sound -- people will have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Everything said above is stressed by the majority on this forum.

However, I think you're misunderstanding the key element of the quote.

Half of the "experience", meaning the entertainment element aswell as the creation. Sound often falls shy of the plaudits of cinema-goers, only on the rare occasion of a stunning score, or a well put together Soundtrack (But still, the "sound" is unnoticed). The taxi ride home is full of chit-chat over the amazing effects, but it's more so a reminder to the viewer as it is the filmmaker scratching their heads when they're left with $400 to capture sound for their next venture.

Still, I'd keep the percentage to 50/50 in the creation. Although I totally agree with your reasoning.

There's just as many components to constructing a stunning image, as there is magnificent Sound.
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
Don't think this really works because silent and B&W are hardly comparable.

Both sound and visuals are very important but it's become very trendy to make the point that people won't watch movies they can't hear properly. But not being able to hear something must be equivalent not to being able to properly see something, and I doubt people would watch movies like that after.
Click to expand...
Someone almost agreeing with my contrarian, devil's advocate positions? Clearly, I must be dead.

DirtyPicturesTV said:
While this might be true for a silent film with a musical score, for a film that's heavy on dialog, sound is more like two-thirds of the experience in scenes where dialog prevails over visual action.
Click to expand...
True; how much of a movie is dialogue?

The "bad sound" issue is really all about being able to clearly hear the dialog, otherwise audiences are unable to engage with a film. Having worked at and programmed film festivals, I can tell you that people will walk out of films with badly-recorded dialog and an excellent picture, while if the reverse is true -- low-quality picture with good sound -- people will have no problem with it.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me, but just like dlevanchuk's example this isn't viewing the quality of image and quality of sound fairly and proportionally. Not being able to hear dialogue clearly is very similar to not being able to see what's going on, which means that the 'poor' image quality of those films people stayed for isn't on par with the 'poor' sound quality of the ones people walked out of.

And regardless of how people imagine the balance of the sound/image ratio, I think that sound and image should both be as good as you can get them. What you can get away with should not be the issue.
Click to expand...
Wisdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top