Use only industry cameras to get a major film distributor?

Blackmagic Design and Panasonic are superb companies that have produced superb cameras over the years, namely the Production Camera 4K and Ursa Mini 4K, 4.6K and Pro from BMD and the GH3, GH4 and GH5 from Panasonic. In terms of cinema lenses, Rokinon has some affordable Cine lenses. This thread is not in any way meant to be negative to the above cameras or lenses but it seeks to ask another question below.

Have you ever heard of or seen a blockbuster feature film that was filmed 100% with Blackmagic Design cameras or the Panasonic GH cameras as noted above? 100% is the key word here. Not partial as in B camera etc. but 100%.

As we know, the digital Arri Alexa camera and the Red Epic camera have both been used in many blockbuster feature films. Zeiss Compact Primes have also been used on several films.

Therefore if independent filmmakers would like to make movies that have the potential to be purchased by major film distributors, would it not be better for the filmmaker to save up a bit more to purchase a fully decked off Red Epic camera and kit and Zeiss Compact Prime lenses (or renting the camera and lenses) instead of saving up to purchase a Blackmagic Design camera or Panasonic GH camera?

It seems that aspiring filmmakers are not thinking outside of the box and are simply making movies with BMD and Panasonic cameras, and the movies don't seem to be picked up by major distributors for a major release.

I think if one is serious about this business of filmmaking, that person should go mainstream professional in terms of equipment or go nowhere.

Once again, I ask the question, have you ever heard of or seen a blockbuster feature film that was filmed 100% with Blackmagic Design cameras or the Panasonic GH cameras as noted above?
 
They also put in almost $1million into audio post to make it theater ready.

One million is a lot if it is to be paid by the filmmakers making an ultra low budget flick. I assume the said million was paid by the distributor?

Not to stray from this point but can an average feature film get some decent theatre ready audio post for $5,000 to $10,000? I know audio post has a lot of elements but for the sake of this question, let us assume the film had excellent recorded dialogue and no ADR is required.
 
One million is a lot if it is to be paid by the filmmakers making an ultra low budget flick. I assume the said million was paid by the distributor?

Yup. A very large chunk was spent on ADR. Other than that it was mostly Foley, some sound effects and a real theatrical mix (the biggest $$$ chunk).

Not to stray from this point but can an average feature film get some decent theatre ready audio post for $5,000 to $10,000? I know audio post has a lot of elements but for the sake of this question, let us assume the film had excellent recorded dialogue and no ADR is required.

Excellent production sound changes the approach to the dialog edit. Instead of being a rescue mission (which happens all too frequently) the dialog edit now becomes a creative endeavor. It may sound stupid, but just choosing which "yeahhhh….." can take quite a while, but can make a huge difference in the final product. You may want to check out this thread:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=63057

My specialty is audio post for low/no/mini/micro budget projects, "Last Exit" being one of them. I put a little over 100 hours into it - a full dialog edit, as detailed a Foley as I could in my small room, and pulled sound effects from libraries & created them myself. I then dropped in Mitchell Gibbs very cool score and did the final mix.

For "Last Exit" my 100 hours comes to a little over seven hours of audio post work per linear minute of film. So, at least for me, a 100 minute feature would be over 700 hours worth of work. The amount of "special" sound effects work - for example, a 9 second two person shoot out ("Last Exit") versus a 3+ minute gun battle involving 14 people with 6 different types of weapons plus magic/supernatural effects ("ShadowGlade") - will impact the budget.

With film/video you only get to influence only two (2) of the five (5) senses - sight and sound. Sound is, literally, HALF of the experience.


If you want to PM me I could walk you through a sample budget.
 
Interesting post. Did you mean to say "without a big name star."?
No. Even with a name star it's getting more and more difficult to get
theatrical distribution. Even if a professional camera is used.

“Tangerine” (2015) was shot using the iPhone 5S and was released in
16 theaters in the US – bumped up to 44 on its third week. It was in
theaters for 10 weeks. Magnolia Pictures thought people might pay to
see it because of its content and didn't care about the camera used. It
even got a small theatrical in several other countries.

That same year Caliber Media made a western starring Kurt Russel shot
on RED. It did well at a few festivals but no distributor was interested.
All professional equipment was used and it was Kurt f-ing Russel in a
western. The camera used was not a factor. No distributor thought people
would pay to see it.

You get no argument from me that the equipment used is important. Just
not as important as you say it is. A distributor is far more concerned with
the content than the equipment; will it bring paying customers to the theaters.
 
No. Even with a name star it's getting more and more difficult to get
theatrical distribution. Even if a professional camera is used.

“Tangerine” (2015) was shot using the iPhone 5S and was released in
16 theaters in the US – bumped up to 44 on its third week. It was in
theaters for 10 weeks. Magnolia Pictures thought people might pay to
see it because of its content and didn't care about the camera used. It
even got a small theatrical in several other countries.

That same year Caliber Media made a western starring Kurt Russel shot
on RED. It did well at a few festivals but no distributor was interested.
All professional equipment was used and it was Kurt f-ing Russel in a
western. The camera used was not a factor. No distributor thought people
would pay to see it.

You get no argument from me that the equipment used is important. Just
not as important as you say it is. A distributor is far more concerned with
the content than the equipment; will it bring paying customers to the theaters.


Quite interesting indeed!
 
I'm not an expert by any means, but generally I'd say it doesn't
really matter what kind of camera is used to get the shots in a
film, as long as the shots are framed well etc.
I doubt a major film producer would be so elitist that they would
refuse to work on a film because an industry specific camera wasn't used
 
Back
Top