great films shot on crappy camera's...
- Thread starter dr stilly
- Start date
Use whatever you have access to and don't let anything stop you from accomplishing your goals and dreams! 
Story and execution are extremely important but they are just pieces to the overall puzzle.
I like the story behind 28 Days Later. That movie rocked and was shot on DV as well. I don't know many other ones besides maybe Clerks.
Story and execution are extremely important but they are just pieces to the overall puzzle. I like the story behind 28 Days Later. That movie rocked and was shot on DV as well. I don't know many other ones besides maybe Clerks.
Clerks was shot on an Arri 16 SR2. Are you saying that's a crappy camera?
I would think with a decent lens any 16mm film camera is going to give you a good image if the DP is skilled.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109445/technical
Clerks. (1994) More at IMDbPro ยป
ad feedback
Camera
Arriflex 16 SR2
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
16 mm
Cinematographic process
Spherical
Printed film format
35 mm (blow-up)
Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)
I would think with a decent lens any 16mm film camera is going to give you a good image if the DP is skilled.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109445/technical
Clerks. (1994) More at IMDbPro ยป
ad feedback
Camera
Arriflex 16 SR2
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
16 mm
Cinematographic process
Spherical
Printed film format
35 mm (blow-up)
Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)
Use whatever you have access to and don't let anything stop you from accomplishing your goals and dreams!
I like the story behind 28 Days Later. That movie rocked and was shot on DV as well. I don't know many other ones besides maybe Clerks.
Are you telling me that Dogme Film #1 isn't a Dogme film? The rules for inclusion on the list require that it be shot on 35mm film with academy framing. But yes, also "dancer in the dark" with David Morse and Bjork has a realtime dance number that takes place on a train and uses hundreds of little handycams (also considered Dogme, even though it's not shot on film) to allow the sequence to happen in real time over a huge stretch of space.
I need to revisit that film... give it another look-see...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HoCnC1OZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HoCnC1OZM
Of course 28 Days later as well.
And who can forget
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093833/
Shot on a Hi-8 camera. The director claims it is the first feature ever shot on DV in 1989.
And who can forget
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093833/
Shot on a Hi-8 camera. The director claims it is the first feature ever shot on DV in 1989.
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b7h6pyJ83M
I love Dogma movies....
I love Dogma movies....
Hahahaha!
If every Dogma movie was like that one I wouldn't think (as I do) that dogma was the stupidest, most pretentious, full of shit idea ever in the history of film-making.
If every Dogma movie was like that one I wouldn't think (as I do) that dogma was the stupidest, most pretentious, full of shit idea ever in the history of film-making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8nR72S7MxI
I beg to differ. Dogme 95's intention was to break rules and it did.
I beg to differ. Dogme 95's intention was to break rules and it did.
For me the problem is "great" and "crappy".
I'm not a fan of the Dogma movement and didn't find any of
the movies made to be great. And right here on this thread
most of the cameras mentioned were not at the time "crappy".
The XL-2 used for "28 Days Later" was a top of the line digital
camera at the time. The Sony used to shoot "Inland Empire"
was an excellent camera in 2005. Hi-8 was an excellent format
in the late 1980's and the cameras by Sony had top of the line
optics and lenses.
But this is what's truly important:
many of you have looked at the movie made by Mannie Bothans
on a Kodak pocket camera? Now that might be considered a
"crappy" camera and his movie looks quite good. He's been
obsessing over camera specs yet when challenged by wheatgrinder
to make a movie with what he has, he made a very watchable
movie.
It isn't the camera used - it's how you use the camera.
Sorry I can't come up with other examples, dr stilly, but I don't
know of any non-dogma films shot on crappy cameras. I know a
lot of movies shot on SD cameras that got theatrical release, but
most were shot on good cameras.
I'm not a fan of the Dogma movement and didn't find any of
the movies made to be great. And right here on this thread
most of the cameras mentioned were not at the time "crappy".
The XL-2 used for "28 Days Later" was a top of the line digital
camera at the time. The Sony used to shoot "Inland Empire"
was an excellent camera in 2005. Hi-8 was an excellent format
in the late 1980's and the cameras by Sony had top of the line
optics and lenses.
But this is what's truly important:
People do get hung up on the tech specs of the camera. How
many of you have looked at the movie made by Mannie Bothans
on a Kodak pocket camera? Now that might be considered a
"crappy" camera and his movie looks quite good. He's been
obsessing over camera specs yet when challenged by wheatgrinder
to make a movie with what he has, he made a very watchable
movie.
It isn't the camera used - it's how you use the camera.
Sorry I can't come up with other examples, dr stilly, but I don't
know of any non-dogma films shot on crappy cameras. I know a
lot of movies shot on SD cameras that got theatrical release, but
most were shot on good cameras.
And (like my XL2 reference) "crappy" is relative and good films transcend the quality of the images.
Like everyone else has said, it's not the kind of equipment you have and how good the quality is, it's what you do with it that counts. I've seen short films and festivals that have so much production value, great lighting, costumes, and etc, but the STORY sucked balls. I wanted to rip my eyes out because it was 38min of bullcrap.
I didnt intend to promote the dogma movement because I am not really a fan of movements and even dogma eliminated their own 'rules' because people began to see it as a 'style'. I simply meant to promote the fact that a great film can be shot with anything...as long as the audio is still high quality that is. IMO if the audio is crappy then forget about it...
Have there ever been any hit movies shot on Super 8? Or a VHS camera? Funny how DV was okay like five years ago, but there seems to be no VHS or super 8 movies, of the 90s that I know of.
Filming a feature on video in the 90's was pretty much unheard of. Mark Pirro did some "cult" films in late 80's and early 90's on Super 8mm http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089823/technical
Most of Steven "F*ckdafilmmakingpolice" Soderbergh's more artsy films, especially Full Frontal, which was a little daydream-ish with its horrid XL1 footage.