Do you NEED to film in HD?

Hi guys,

Pretty simple question really. Is it necessary for a filmmaker with any air of professionalism to film I'm HD? The reason I ask is that I currently have a Panasonic DVX100B, which is standard def. my ultimate goal would be for one of my films to get into a film festival and be potentially noticed to start my career as a director (worth a shot, right?). So my question is, to get into a festival, is it necessary for me to buy a new camera?

I've gotten some response in a different thread but I'd just really like to solidify what I need to do in this area.
 
I'm afraid you will never fully solidify this issue. People have different opinions
and one isn't more solid than another. Many festivals are not accepting SD
films anymore - many still are. Do some research to find the requirements of
the festivals you want to enter.

You do not need a movie shot in HD when starting your career as a director. You
need several excellent finished movies that show your talent.
 
to get into a festival, is it necessary for me to buy a new camera?

Nope. If you feel a need for HD, but don't want to buy one... rent one for about 1/10th of the price.

Or, find a local budding (or experienced!) cinematographer who already has some gear, and is willing to work at your affordable (or non-existent) rates. Heck, you might even get some pro-bono work, if they need someothing for their reel or just the experience themselves.

If you'll be shooting something every week, it would make more sense to invest in some gear. Otherwise, it could be a better idea to put the bux elsewhere - into the people who can make your vision look great, while you focus on the directing part.

Fwiw, the DVX100 was the best there was, in its era. It still makes a great image. That's the camera you have - What have you done with it so far? :)

.
 
You do not "need" to do anything per se. For current distribution standards, if that is your goal for the movie you are making, YES, you will probably "need" to upgrade to an HD camera. If it's just, as you say, for festivals or DVD, then you're probably fine with a DVX.

It's entirely up to you. There is no definitive answer beyond what fits your needs.

That said, I guarantee a great film in standard def will always further your career more than a mediocre movie in HD. It's the artist not the brush that counts.
 
The image resolution and/or camera will not be what gets your submission denied from much of anything.
It'll be the audio and most likely the story, or rather, how well (or not) the story is told.
 
Does SD give you the look and quality you desire? If yes do it. If you don't have any money for anything better than do it if you really can not get the mo.

But on a technical level it doesn't make any sense to film a serious project on a sub par format. Take a look at some of the greatest paintings which although need slight restoration to get saturation of the colours right,have mostly survived perfectly. And than take a look at Van Gogh's pictures who have lost their colour in 100 years just because he used cheap pigment.
 
Thanks for the input everyone.

@Zensteve: I have not done much with it yet, mostly a few shorts and some school projects.

So, I guess what I should say then, is that in worried its going to look awful when blown up for any kind of audience viewing. I'd hate for all my filming work to result in something that doesn't look satisfactory.

If I choose to buy another camera, what should I get? I assume a DSLR of some sort, t5i perhaps? And if that's the case, I'd need some kind of external audio recorder... Is there a digital audio recorder that would function with the XLR mics I have? An is there any software that will sync the audio for me? I heard that there was once upon a time.
 
So, I guess what I should say then, is that in worried its going to look awful when blown up for any kind of audience viewing. I'd hate for all my filming work to result in something that doesn't look satisfactory.
In addition to "28 Days Later" which was released theatrically there have been
more then 100 movies shot on SD that were released in theaters around the
world.

And you aren't talking about a major theatrical release - you're asking about
film festivals. SD is fine for that. And for starting your career as a director.
 
If I choose to buy another camera, what should I get? I assume a DSLR of some sort

No! No! No!

You've yet to make something of significance with your SD to prove your filmmaking mettle and you now want to complicate your life further?

Get a simple low cost (used) HD cam with auto features you can shut off and jacks you can plugs mics into. Then awe us with your short. Revisit DSLRs at that time.
 
my ultimate goal would be for one of my films to get into a film festival and be potentially noticed to start my career as a director

That has exactly zero to do with what camera you own. More to the point, you shouldn't be worrying about owning the gear, or running the camera. Hire/recruit people to help in those capacities. Focus on telling a compelling story in a manner that makes someone take notice and think, "gee, this is a good director..."

If you really want/need it to be in HD, find a DP with HD gear. Get a good sound person/crew. Good lighting people, good actors, and GOOD story. If you don't have a bunch of money to dump into it (and even if you do) dump a bunch of TIME into it. Make your shorts the best they can be so that the festivals can't say no.

You want to kickstart a directing career, focus on directing.
 
I have never understood the mentality of people on this forum to buy cheap camcorders or lesser cameras, then spend more money later when you're more experienced.

Sure, you are going to need skill as well, and a veteran filmmaker can make any camera look good blah blah blah, but the cheaper camera is usually going to take twice as much work to get the results.

If you can afford it, put yourself on a level playing field with other filmmakers. Get a respectable camera, and learn filmmaking on the tools you will be using even when you've become better. If you want to be a professional basketball player, don't practice on an 8 foot hoop.

The exception would be if you have no money, or if there's a chance you may not like filmmaking later on. But if you know its something you want to do, and you're willing to put in the work, get the proper tools.
 
Last edited:
Again, thanks for the advice everyone. Your suggestions are quite varied, but I'm trying to make sense of it all. I'll take every perspective into account.

@Will: I agree, of course. The problem is I don't have access to any other people who are into this stuff nor do I have the money to hire them. So my only option is to do it all myself, and if I make something with great directing but crappy everything else it won't go anywhere. So I have to be proficient on my own.

@Above: So does that mean you suggest getting a DSLR or...? I don't have the budget to get a large HD camcorder at the moment.

I've run into another snag with my current camera as well. Every time I transfer footage from my camera to my computer, the shot is considerably darker than it looked on my camera. I've set the white balance correctly. Does anyone know whatever be causing this?
 
Last edited:
I have never understood the mentality of people on this forum to buy cheap camcorders or lesser cameras, then spend more money later when you're more experienced.

It takes a while to develop your filmmaking skills - and a lot of those skills have absolutely nothing to do with the camera you've got. So why spend a lot of money up front for equipment that you may not be able to get the most out of for a few years? By the time your skills have caught up with the capabilities of your equipment it's likely been superseded by whatever the latest technology is.

Plus, the cameras at the mid- to high-end tend to all have their own quirks, strengths & weaknesses, and sometimes vastly different workflows. If you don't know what you're doing when you pick one you're just as likely to find yourself wanting to buy a different camera in a couple years once you've figured out what kind of workflow you prefer.

but the cheaper camera is usually going to take twice as much work to get the results.

If you're going to learn to light well, it's going to take just as much work to light for a cheap camera as an expensive one. You might have to adjust your ratios a little differently, but that's about it. It's going to take exactly the same amount of work to get the best performance out of your actors. It's also going to take the exact same amount of work to record the best location sound. The time you put into your script and storyboards is going to be exactly the same. You're likely to have to put in more work on your production design with a 4k camera compared to an SD one, and you'll definitely need a better make-up artist. The bigger your camera, the more expensive and complex your support equipment needs to be. If you're shooting raw the post workflow is going to be more complicated and require significantly more storage (both in camera media and hard drives) and more powerful (and expensive) hardware. Shooting raw or log will require you to be a lot better at color correction as well - or find someone else who is.

Cost aside - why burden yourself with all of that if you're still just learning the basics of filmmaking?

If you can afford it, put yourself on a level playing field with other filmmakers. Get a respectable camera, and learn filmmaking on the tools you will be using even when you've become better.

The problem is you could go out and buy an alexa tomorrow and it wouldn't put you on any more of an "even playing field with other filmmakers" if you don't have any experience yet. Hell, even if you have a lot of experience it might not - there are too many factors involved in making a good film for the camera you've got to make that much difference. I've known several filmmakers over the years who made features with expensive cameras that they weren't really skilled enough to understand, and made simple mistakes in camera settings which caused them problems with distribution later.

If you want to be a professional basketball player, don't practice on an 8 foot hoop.

There's a difference between learning and practicing a profession. When you learn to play basketball as a child you're probably not strong enough to get the ball even close to a regulation hoop, so you start with one of these:

c26-B001BKX0V4-2-l.jpg


If you can't even make a shot on that, you're not going to get any better practicing in madison square garden - not even if you buy the same shoes the pros use.
 
Back
Top