Funny you should mention that.
Leaving aside the definition of "a proper shoot" (which would likely be as illuminating & clarifying as asking "what does 'indie' really mean?"), I have seen this happen on the shoot we finally wrapped this morning.
True -- I'm being terribly vague by using a phrase like "proper shoot". That could mean a lot of different things to different people.
I'll clarify what I meant by it, but I don't mean to say that any alternative to what I'm suggesting is "improper".
At least a skeleton crew of professionals (and I mean "professional" by it's literal definition). I'd say, bare minimum, I'd want a DP, gaffer, grip, 2 cameras, boom-op, sound recording expert guy (I feel stupid that I don't know what they're called), script supervisor, umm, I'm sure I'm leaving some very important crew members out, but you get my gist. The crew on my feature is myself and another dude. We're both very talented, but neither of us has the experience of a professional, and I'd really like it if I had all those other people who really should be (in my opinion) standard.
Professional quality camera. If I can't shoot on film, at least get me a Red. As a minimum, I'd like one of those big-ass light trucks, with all the professional lights and stuff. And last, but definitely not least, I'd like enough of a budget to not be forced to rush every shot. I'm sort of glancing over this; I'm sure there's other stuff I missed, but I think this probably communicates my ideas, no?
I chose a T2i because it's all I could afford. I caught a lot of flack in another thread because I've chosen to pretty much not light any of my sets. I don't want to re-open that debate, but I assure you I made the decision not because I wanted to, or because I was lazy, but because I truly felt it would make the end-result better, by allowing me to focus my time on other stuff.
Anyway, yeah, it's pretty sad that someone would choose to use a DSLR, with minimal or no lighting, or any of the other stuff that's mentioned in the cartoon, if they have the option of the more traditional methods.
I'm just speculating, but my intuition tells me that if a producer chooses the least expensive route, at sacrifice to the quality of the film, when they can afford better quality, that producer probably doesn't have any serious aspirations for the film. I'm thinking they are probably just low-balling, looking for ways to pinch pennies, with no hopes of the film having any real success. That's lame. So, I can see better now, why the cartoon is funny (and sad).
, until I just read that a basic camera package rental starts somewhere around 100,000 for 5 days.
I stand corrected, sir.
