Cinematographer vs. Producer (Canon 7D)
- Thread starter sonnyboo
- Start date
Of course, the natural rebuttal is that there are a lot of people who simply can't afford to do ANY of those things that the cinematographer wants to do. It's not that the producer doesn't WANT to make a film properly; they just can't afford to. For these people, the only two options on the table are:
A. Make a feature on a dime budget, but make it as best as you can, and that means using this camera.
B. Don't make a feature.
If a production company has money, they'd be idiotic to shoot on DSLR. However, there's no telling how many creative people are going to have their work seen, thanks to these inexpensive cameras.
The question isn't whether or not DSLR gets better footage than by using all of the professional stuff this cartoon cinematographer mentioned. That's a false debate -- nobody I know is questioning that. The real question is whether or not DSLR will get you better footage than a 3CCD HDV cam, in the relatively (but still more expensive) price range. As far as I'm concerned, there's no debate there. DSLR wins, hands down.
A. Make a feature on a dime budget, but make it as best as you can, and that means using this camera.
B. Don't make a feature.
If a production company has money, they'd be idiotic to shoot on DSLR. However, there's no telling how many creative people are going to have their work seen, thanks to these inexpensive cameras.
The question isn't whether or not DSLR gets better footage than by using all of the professional stuff this cartoon cinematographer mentioned. That's a false debate -- nobody I know is questioning that. The real question is whether or not DSLR will get you better footage than a 3CCD HDV cam, in the relatively (but still more expensive) price range. As far as I'm concerned, there's no debate there. DSLR wins, hands down.
Hilarious. I was expecting a documentary.
The argument can be debated until the cows come home, to answer a question with a question--who cares?
Makes movies whatever way you can, it's true that a whole widely unknown chunk of the industry has grew a nut-sack since the birth of the DSLR, but that's not a bad thing. I'm in love with cinematography, I'll enjoy it whatever the model of camera.
The argument can be debated until the cows come home, to answer a question with a question--who cares?
Makes movies whatever way you can, it's true that a whole widely unknown chunk of the industry has grew a nut-sack since the birth of the DSLR, but that's not a bad thing. I'm in love with cinematography, I'll enjoy it whatever the model of camera.
After watching that I got to admit the 7D has its faults but I think it is taking it to the extremes to say it is that bad. You can work around a lot of the 7Ds faults though right? Does the 5D have the same issues or is it a little better. The 7D is so cheap compared to the Red they really should not be compared but I think that the 7D actually does have a good look to it and maybe that is why they are compared.
House was shot on 5D not 7D btw.
Imagine when cannon adds a lot of the features the Red has to its cameras Red may be in bigger trouble. If you make it have an external hard drive to record to via firewire. Then add uncompress files as an option. Then also up the resolution. Fix the rolling shutter issue.
Funny the red camera has so expensive lenses that people are using adapters to use cannon lenses on the red.
House was shot on 5D not 7D btw.
Imagine when cannon adds a lot of the features the Red has to its cameras Red may be in bigger trouble. If you make it have an external hard drive to record to via firewire. Then add uncompress files as an option. Then also up the resolution. Fix the rolling shutter issue.
Funny the red camera has so expensive lenses that people are using adapters to use cannon lenses on the red.
Last edited:
I remember having a conversation with a friend about purchasing a new camera for documentary. I bought a JVC HM100 because I needed a camera that would work for a documentary and the DSLR I used for freelance work wouldn't do. He told me I was crazy and needed to get a Canon 7D and hook up a crazy audio system and do some tricky editing on post. For the record, running dual sound doesn't work while filming in refugee camps in the Middle East. I used my GH1 for b-roll, but for interviews and run and gun shots you need to have a proper camcorder for sound.
Fiction work may be different, but for documentary work DSLRs and RED cameras aren't the most practical. While I enjoy having a DoF that helps bring out subjects from the background and complement the focus of the natural eye, I think a lot of the DSLR and 35mm stuff blows out the background way too much.
Fiction work may be different, but for documentary work DSLRs and RED cameras aren't the most practical. While I enjoy having a DoF that helps bring out subjects from the background and complement the focus of the natural eye, I think a lot of the DSLR and 35mm stuff blows out the background way too much.
I'll believe that that's why you think it's funny, but it seems to me like the creator of this cartoon has a very strong anti-DSLR sentiment.
And he's created a false debate. Give me the option of a real budget and of course I'll take it, and of course the DSLR would go by my wayside. I don't think anybody is making the argument that these cameras should be your first choice -- it's the best alternative if your 1st (and 2nd and 3rd) choice(s) is out of your price-range.
I guess what I'm saying is that the cartoon would be more funny to me if it were more sincere, but as is, it's making fun of something that doesn't exist -- a producer who has the option of a proper shoot, but chooses DSLR. Or, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there are people like that out there, but I haven't met them.
haha sounds like the convo I had with my friend before we shot our first video LOL
First off that was awesome. Second that is a real debate out there, which to use? I have yet to hear a real Director of Photography (By that I mean some one who not only understands the camera, but also lighting as well) choose to shoot on the Canon 7D at all. All the points given in the cartoon are perfectly taken from other producers. The only people who use the 7D are those who think that DOF and composition are the only thing that a true DP needs to know about (Sorry if anyone is offended by that, I'm not trying to offend). It's really sad when the "Director of Photography" chooses to go with that medium because he doesn't understand what truly a great picture looks like. Just my two cents.
have yall seen this one? this one is pretty funny too....
my DP friend said he goes thru this all the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NNszZseUFI
my DP friend said he goes thru this all the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NNszZseUFI
lol, both of them r funny.
but yeah, the audio vs producer was funnier bc wat the producer was saying there wouldnt even get him reasonable audio.
but in this one, u can get more than a reasonable image out of the 7D, so it seemed a bit over the top.
but yeah, the audio vs producer was funnier bc wat the producer was saying there wouldnt even get him reasonable audio.
but in this one, u can get more than a reasonable image out of the 7D, so it seemed a bit over the top.
I think the funniest part of the whole thing is that after the whole producer/cinematographer exchange, the tagline for Xtranormal comes on, claiming "if you can type, you can make a movie."
hahhaha, yeah that crossed my mind as well.
There's actually less of that going around than the Birger mount indirectly implies. PL mount lenses are so much more suited to cinematography than still camera lenses. Vastly smoother focus, hard stop points for infinity and critical focus, far less breathing when focus is pulled, better build quality and ruggedness, and they come in matched sets. I've AC'd for RED shoots with Canon EF, Red Zooms (also PL mount), and Zeiss Super Speeds (these most often). The lens rental prices are not that different. I'd take the Zeiss lenses any day, if you are going to pop the coin on going with RED it just seems silly to me to not get the good glass.
Conversely, some folks are willing to spend $4K on a 7D which has been modified with a PL lens mount.
Correction, 5ish for a built camera with warranty, 3ish for the kit:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/02/19/modified-7d-pl-mount-camera/
In the end, budget decides essentially everything. Smart producers will know where to get the biggest bang for their buck. What's funny to me is that when Canon comes out with something that shoots RAW (compressed or otherwise) on a FF35 sensor (or aps-c, whichever) with all the various features that folks are demanding in a rugged, sturdy, and ergonomically usable body, it's *not* going to be at the 7D price point.
Sadly, there are people are there with proper budgets that just want to shoot 5d2 or 7d simply because it is the big hot thing. Heck, that is part of what happened with RED cameras. They're semi-ubiquitous at a certain budget level because of the same process that is happening with the dslrs. Hype.
I don't have a problem with whatever camera someone wants to use, personally. Technique is far more important than gear, imho.
Pros and Cons of DSLR has been sort of hashed out elsewhere. I'm hypothetically on board, but I'm waiting because what I want isn't quite out there yet.
Last edited:
EH?
Why is shooting on DLSR a bad thing? How much money does 'have money' constitute? The image quality is fantastic...the best bang for your buck out there right now. No shame in DSLR footage.
Also, I have to disagree with your advice to 'don't make a feature' if you don't have the money. Do what then? Spend [less] money on a short, and put it into festivals? Then what? You're out of the money you spent on a short, with no way of compensating it...plus you're spending money on every festival you submit to (loosing your entry fee whether you get in or not on some of them).
I say shoot a damn feature. It's really the only way to be taken seriously as a filmmaker. And it's the only way to make any money. If you can't shoot a feature...you haven't really made a film yet--at least, that's how I look at it. Practice with the shorts...have fun with ideas...but if you want to make movies, shoot a damn feature. How many investors are going to take you seriously without a feature under your belt? Shooting a great short is one thing...but a feature is another thing entirely (when it comes to responsibility and follow-through).
Stop talking about it and do it.
I love you. You're all sexy and talented.
Why oh why is this msg so hard to get across? Instead we have debates and debates about the "better" camera.
I think we've had a miscommunication.
I'm currently shooting a feature on a T2i. I love this camera. Best bang for buck ever. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't really like the option of shooting on a Red. Or, better yet, film! With professional lights and a professional crew.
Either I communicated my point poorly, or you misread it. Regardless, what I'm saying is that somebody in my (and a lot of other people's) shoes really only have two logical choices -- either you shoot a feature on a DSLR, or you don't shoot a feature at all. As you suggest, I chose to shoot a feature on a DSLR.
FINALLY, somebody understands my logic! We're on the same page, brother.
I'm currently shooting a feature on a T2i. I love this camera. Best bang for buck ever. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't really like the option of shooting on a Red. Or, better yet, film! With professional lights and a professional crew.
Either I communicated my point poorly, or you misread it. Regardless, what I'm saying is that somebody in my (and a lot of other people's) shoes really only have two logical choices -- either you shoot a feature on a DSLR, or you don't shoot a feature at all. As you suggest, I chose to shoot a feature on a DSLR.
FINALLY, somebody understands my logic! We're on the same page, brother.
I love that this thread has turned into the very argument which that video was satirizing.
Irony? Maybe.
Irony? Maybe.