Film making possibilities with high end DSLR:s ??

[shrugged]

Hi everyone!
I am a newbie to film making, and my "only" equipment at the moment is the eos 550d. Im spending many hours a day learning film techniques and my results is getting better and better, but of course the quality is not fit for the big screen or anything like that

BUT...i resently learned that the last episode of House was shot entirely with the canon eos 5d mark II, and that made me realise how much you can do with a dslr.

My question is at follows...is it possible to make a movie with all the latest special effects etc etc only with a high-end dslr? And im talking big ass movies, like batman dark knight etc. I expect the answer to be no...but lets say that you have ALL the equipment & money necessary for that kind of film, massive green-screen, makeup, dollys, cranes, 3d graphic designers, locations, blowing-stuff-up-equipment etc etc...is it then possible with a dslr?

If absolutely no, what is it that a conventional film camera can do, that a dslr cant? Im asking because im qurious and want to learn

/ Ted, Sweden.

[jax_rox]

Yes, and no.

Your 550D can get you just as good images as a 5Dmkii in the right hands.

Now, DSLRs record heavily compressed and have all sorts of artifacting issues. But, that's not to say you couldn't make that kind of movie with them.

My issue with the DSLR is it looks like a DSLR, especially when not colour graded right. Therefore your movie more often than not is going to look less believable and more cheap because it looks DSLR-ey. A DSLR actually requires more equipment, more lights, more time in colour, more time in editing, more time coming up with the workflow etc. to make it look like a normal film than film does.

Film is not only originating in high quality (especially the 65mm Pfister likes to use on Batman), but it is also technically 'uncompressed'. That means through a DI or telecine, you can get the highest quality of film possible. Film also has a certain grain structure to it that audiences have become accustomed to over the years which is much more aesthetically pleasing than any digital noise. Film also handles highlights better, and rolls them off nicely rather than clipping them.

I don't want to turn this into a film vs digital, and i particularly don't want a film vs DSLR as there is obviously no comparison.

However, to answer your question: Yes, you could do any of that with a DSLR. You could do it with a prosumer if you wanted to. If you had the budget. However, as I say a DSLR is going to need more equipment, and therefore more money for it to look decent. And even then, it won't look the same as if it were shot on film.

[shrugged]

Thank you for the reply, it was very informative
I dont have any big plans with my 550d, but i will get a 5d mark II or III in the near future. My ultimate goal is to make a 45-60 min short movie that is visually compelling on a modern hd-tv monitor and can capture a specific feeling and mood that really is convincing to the audience. Some action scenes will be in it.

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Originally Posted by shrugged

Thank you for the reply, it was very informative
My ultimate goal is to make a 45-60 min short movie that is visually compelling on a modern hd-tv monitor and can capture a specific feeling and mood that really is convincing to the audience.

This is absolutely possible with a DSLR - 95% of achieving this (well, of the visual part at least) will have to do with how you light, edit and grade the film, so any decent camera will work.

[wheatgrinder]

550d = T2i one of the most common film making cameras for low budget indies out there right now.

Id bet that every film festival in the US shows at least one film shot on a T2i or similar. Its a great place to start and will get you well on your way.

For now its a better camera then you are a film maker. Once you are no longer the weak link in the chain, upgrade or pass of this duty to a DP and be just the director..

[jax_rox]

A good DoP can make an average camera look great. An average DoP cannot make a Red look great.

Keep in mind that you actually need to have something to shoot - Production Designers get such little credit, and in low budgets are often not included but they are very important to making a shot look good. If there's nothing in the frame, it doesn't matter how nicely you light it or how nice a camera you use - There's still going to be nothing in the frame. I'm so sick of seeing low budget shoots with giant blank white walls.

A 550D is just as good in video mode as a 7D, and almost as good as a 5Dmkii in terms of the eventual footage. A good crew, good lensing, good lighting, good production design, good sound, good directing and good acting is much more important than what camera body you use.

[mussonman]

Yes, you can. Just practice before you shoot it.

[mussonman]

Does anyone know any features that are shot on the T2i? I would like to take a look at them

[directorik]

Originally Posted by shrugged

My question is at follows...is it possible to make a movie with all the latest special effects etc etc only with a high-end dslr? And im talking big ass movies, like batman dark knight etc. I expect the answer to be no...but lets say that you have ALL the equipment & money necessary for that kind of film, massive green-screen, makeup, dollys, cranes, 3d graphic designers, locations, blowing-stuff-up-equipment etc etc...is it then possible with a dslr?

The answer is yes. But the camera is only a tool. It's the skill and
talent of the people using the tool that really makes the difference.
Frankly if you can afford to make a big ass movies like Batman Dark
Knight, etc. you can afford to rent a better camera than the eos
550d or even the eos 5d mark II. But it doesn't take much money
to make your eos 550d a fine production camera. Make sure you
have excellent lighting and excellent sound and great actors and a
compelling story. The camera itself is low on the list to the general
film watcher. No one watching that episode of "House" cared what
camera was being used.

[GuerrillaAngel]

It's far more important to spend your time working on the story instead of splitting hairs with gearheads. Once you've a great story ready, pick any damn camera in your price range and start shooting. All popular modern day cameras can be made to capture great looking images.

My 2 cents. Good luck.

[AudioPostExpert]

There is another issue which hasn't been mentioned. In many professional workflows (film and higher budget TV) the field recorder and camera/s are usually time-code locked. This facility is not available AFAIK on DSLRs and is likely to impact the audio post workflow, take more time and therefore cost more. With certain types of project (those that require very long takes) it is also necessary to ref lock the field recorder and camera/s, again this isn't possible AFAIK with a DSLR. The audio drift problems which can occur without ref lock can usually (not always) be fixed in audio post but are time consuming and therefore expensive.

G

[GuerrillaAngel]

For the record, I would not go the DSLR route nor would I ever recommend a DSLR. I want my gear department to be simple and issue-free. Time and money spent solving gear issues, especially in post, do not show up on the big screen.

[galenb]

I have a theory: It's probably going to be pretty hard to find a major release movie that was shot entirely on low end DSLR's. My theory is that this is because once you get into the budget that it would take to allow you to make a movie like that, You usually have enough money to rent a Film camera or RED/Alexa/similar.

It's really easy to find examples of great looking DSLR movies out there but most of them are going to be someones first few, self financed films. If they do a great job on those, they can usually take a step up and find outside financing and when the budget gets bigger, so too the aspirations of the film maker. :-)

I think it's entirely possible to make nice movies with DSLR's as long as you know your limitations and shoot with that in mind. As opposed to what GuerrillaAngle said above, I actually would not recommend shooting film for your first major project. When I was young I struggled with my 16mm film camera (I still have it) to make only mildly bad films. It is a huge money suck because every foot of film you shoot costs money to buy, process and transfer, synching up sound (especially on an old Beaulieu) is a nightmare, hand editing with a splicer and little film editor is a bitch, there's no saving improperly exposed footage and a lot of times, you are stuck with crap you shot because it's to expensive to shoot again, having to wait a day to see anything (now a days I would have to send it to Seattle!), etc. etc. etc. Eventually, I learned how to deal with it but now a days I cringe at the thought of shooting low budget features/shorts on film. Of course, that was then and this is now; The process of shooting on film is made a lot easer with DI but then we're talking a totally different budget bracket.

Now a days, you can grab your DSLR, go out and shoot some tests, bring it home and edit, grade, post, whatever all by yourself. Maybe the convenience takes something from the art but it also frees you in other ways. Not to mention how much money you save. Forget low budget movies, now you can make No budget movies. There's another important thing too: Most film makers make crap their first few films. DSLR's can help you minimize the cost of learning while making mistakes. With film, all you can do is scream at yourself in the mirror for spending all that money on a crappy movie.

You mentioned CG so there is one thing that you should be aware of that bites a lot of low budget VFX movie makers in the ass: "Rolling shutter" (the effect that makes your videos look like jello when you pan a lot) is a destroyer of shots that need to be tracked in 3D in order to insert CG elements into them. 3D tracking software depends on angles in the environment staying true to how they are in real life otherwise it's not able to solve for the environment correctly. Rolling shutter will cause vertical lines in your shot (like doorways, walls and windows) to slant at an angle depending on how fast you pan so this really messes up camera tracking. So obviously, you need to do some research into which cameras offer the lowest rolling shutter. You might even want to look into CCD HD video cameras too (I don't really know anything about them though). There are some editing programs that have a built-in rolling shutter removal. I have only ever had minimal success with these and only the one from the foundry was any good... and it costs $500!! So... just be aware of this when shooting and try to avoid a lot of shaky hand-held moves and fast pans to minimize the jello wobble.

[Santhem]

Originally Posted by galenb

You mentioned CG so there is one thing that you should be aware of that bites a lot of low budget VFX movie makers in the ass: "Rolling shutter" (the effect that makes your videos look like jello when you pan a lot) is a destroyer of shots that need to be tracked in 3D in order to insert CG elements into them. 3D tracking software depends on angles in the environment staying true to how they are in real life otherwise it's not able to solve for the environment correctly. Rolling shutter will cause vertical lines in your shot (like doorways, walls and windows) to slant at an angle depending on how fast you pan so this really messes up camera tracking. So obviously, you need to do some research into which cameras offer the lowest rolling shutter. You might even want to look into CCD HD video cameras too (I don't really know anything about them though). There are some editing programs that have a built-in rolling shutter removal. I have only ever had minimal success with these and only the one from the foundry was any good... and it costs $500!! So... just be aware of this when shooting and try to avoid a lot of shaky hand-held moves and fast pans to minimize the jello wobble.

Most post-production houses have The Foundry's RollingShutter software though. The reason why its the best software out there is that it identifies different skewed objects and fixes then individually (and allows you to control the strength and area of the fix), where as most other software detects skewed lines and tries to fix it by skewing the entire image, which mostly only creates more artifacts.

Then again, if you want good and cheap CG, id advice against alot of motion in your shots anyway.

[MPatrickHeywood]

Originally Posted by mussonman

Does anyone know any features that are shot on the T2i? I would like to take a look at them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTUvX_pYNBM

Like Crazy wasn't shot on the T2i, but it was shot on the 7D, which is pretty much a comprable camera. Granted, the people working on the film knew what they were doing and had incredible lenses. All that being said, I think the film really showed, with the right tools and people around it, what a DSLR camera is capable of.