"Wee bit", quite literally. I edited a DSLR feature on an $800 PC.
Are we having an less-expensive-off?
I guess so.
Likely they have newer output options. Maybe even on a DVD!
How do you value full-on DSLR feature films?
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
I guess so.
Likely they have newer output options. Maybe even on a DVD!
I would go see a cool movie that was being cheered and championed by my peers, and especially by those peers whose opinions and tastes I value.
But the fact that a movie was shot on a DSLR means very little to me. Isn't just about every indie movie made these days shot on a DSLR anyway? Almost a moot point.
So, regarding the OP... if there was an ad in the paper about "SEE A MOVIE SHOT ON A DSLR!" I wouldn't bat an eye.
On the other hand, if there was an ad that claimed "A haunting film that kept me up all night. ~ David Lynch" and was shot on a ratty camcorder, I would see that film.
Call it marketing, publicity, the buzz, the hype, whatever.
Touting a "a DSLR feature" is akin to boasting "Acrylic Paint Art Show!"
In contrast to what Marshall McLuhan claimed, the medium (in this case) is not the message.
But the fact that a movie was shot on a DSLR means very little to me. Isn't just about every indie movie made these days shot on a DSLR anyway? Almost a moot point.
So, regarding the OP... if there was an ad in the paper about "SEE A MOVIE SHOT ON A DSLR!" I wouldn't bat an eye.
On the other hand, if there was an ad that claimed "A haunting film that kept me up all night. ~ David Lynch" and was shot on a ratty camcorder, I would see that film.
Call it marketing, publicity, the buzz, the hype, whatever.
Touting a "a DSLR feature" is akin to boasting "Acrylic Paint Art Show!"
In contrast to what Marshall McLuhan claimed, the medium (in this case) is not the message.
Hahaha!
LIKE CRAZY hits theaters next month, feature that sold for quite a hefty number (see:millions)at this year's sundance? Shot on 7D + PL (HOT ROD CAMERAS) and stars Anton Yelkin. I'm curious if any filmmakers are going to go and see it just to see how what might be the best treatment of the format holds up at 60(ish) feet.
That's what spawned the inquiry. The consensus seems, though, that no the fact that it was shot with a DSLR wouldn't be the draw, it would have to be the content.
I agree... and, probably won't be seeing LIKE CRAZY because it's not MY kind of content to begin with. Not that it's going to be a mad movie! Just, not my thing.
Although, I'll throw it out there... I might not shoot Epic or RED MX on the next feature... for no other reason than having the choice? 5D with fifteen dollar lenses or a GH2 w/FDs or PL*Cooke's + Hack... it actually sounds "fun" and a challenge in ways.
I read about this a little. I came to the conclusion that it fetched the price it did because of the cast. I have no idea what the content is. But it has known performers and that always gets sold it seems to me. If it had no name actors I don't think the DSLR bit would have helped sell it.
Personally, I'm tired, tired, tired of bloody shorts. They're just bloody, and gooey I don't like them any more. They make me feel weirdly inadequate.
I'm working on an unexciting feature (read social drama- no special effects/sci fi, etc.) that should be very cheap to shoot. I currently have two T2is with lenses that go with them. I'm thinking of selling this stuff and getting a couple of GH2s before production begins in earnest. Let me know if you guys have any comments on this.
And for me, yeah, I would care a little bit, if somebody made a low budget movie with no name actors and made it big, DSLR or miniDV or worse? If they made it with a low budget and no name actors, I wanna know how they did it or what they did to achieve the success, so I'd be curious and I'd definitely pay to see it.
That's what draws me. I am not at all curious how the 7D holds
up on the big screen. But then it seem you aren't either. You
won't go because of the camera used even though you are curious.
If the story attracted you, you would go. Same with me.
I still hold onto the hope that most audiences care more about the
content than the equipment used. This thread helps be hold on.
Hmm... I'm a little suspicious of mainstream releases that are shot with DSLRs because, let's face it, the main reason to use them is the price. I don't think they should be used as a marketing gimmick.
But I probably wouldn't have noticed that Like Crazy was shot with DSLR if you hadn't told me. You could shoot Felicity Jones with an iPhone and I would still watch...
But I probably wouldn't have noticed that Like Crazy was shot with DSLR if you hadn't told me. You could shoot Felicity Jones with an iPhone and I would still watch...
Just watched the trailer for it, and it looks good. I think I'll go see it in the theater (if it's playing anywhere near me) when it comes out. I guess the fact that it was shot on a DSLR makes me more interested in seeing it from a "professional" perspective (though I wouldn't consider myself a professional at this point), but it looks like a movie I might have wanted to see anyway.
Just from my end of the table, I am definitely very interested in the use of technologies in cinema. I feel like, if I weren't, then I'm just not interested enough in what I want to do. Then again, I'm also interested in most aspects and like to see what other people do.
So, there's still a level of intrigue that makes me want to see it, it's just that straight drama isn't the cup of tea I pay to drink.
Well, this is a question/topic geared toward the filmmaker in people, not the audience member. Although the veil's no longer there for us, and audience members are pretty savvy to filmmaker's tricks, I think people pay to watch what they want to watch, not because of the gimmicks.
As a filmmaker, yeah, I will still watch what intrigues me. If it were a zombie movie that got distro'd throughout the world and was shot on a DSLR, I would probably go and see it with friends... like trueindie said..
I want to see what they're doing and learn.
Huge difference for sure between what filmmakers care about and how they react to a film, and the general public. General public couldn't care less unless it looks like crap or is totally amazing. Anything in between and they'll never even notice.
Three years ago it might have increased my interest in seeing a film if it were otherwise appealing to me. After three years and hundreds of hours of shooting DSLRs, and having seen my own footage from the small to the big screen and everywhere in between, I wouldn't expect to learn anything new that was specific to the camera from watching someone else's film - so while it might be an interesting bit of trivia to know it wouldn't affect my decision to go see the film.
watch it. awesome!
Sorry for veering off topic.
Most of the time if I am watching a DSLR film it is a short film on youtube, vimeo, or at a film festival. About half of the shorts are not that good. The other half good. The camera has little to do with the fact it is good or not.
What it comes down to is the story, the actors, director, the editing, sound, the lighting, and SFX. The Cinematography is important. The biggest impact are the story and actors. Next important comes the icing on the cake the cinematography and sound. The camera can help too. I think the Mark II looks about as good as the Red One from the footage I have seen from it. I like the look of film too. The 7d, T2i, T3i all look about the same to me and you can make a reasonable looking film with them.
What it comes down to is the story, the actors, director, the editing, sound, the lighting, and SFX. The Cinematography is important. The biggest impact are the story and actors. Next important comes the icing on the cake the cinematography and sound. The camera can help too. I think the Mark II looks about as good as the Red One from the footage I have seen from it. I like the look of film too. The 7d, T2i, T3i all look about the same to me and you can make a reasonable looking film with them.
Last edited:
First, I RAAAAAARELY pay to see anything at the box office.
I'll wait four to six months and catch it at the public library where I can scour the DVD for director/producer/writer/actor commentary - not to mention SUBTITLES!
God, I love subtitles!
Second, as a Joe Schmuck Humpty Dump movie watcher - I could care less WTH it was shot on.
Gimme an interesting story.
I don't really care about actors.
I don't really care about directors.
I kinda care about genres, but I'll give most anything a fair day in court.
But if it's suckin' donkey in those first ten to twenty minutes - RRRRNNNNGH! Off she goes. I got better things to do with my time. Always.
Third, however... as a nubie filmmaker I'm forensically interested in seeing how far someone can take the feature-nubile DSLR capabilities.
I'll keep my expectations low. Give it some fair chance to impress me.
Five bucks says anyone that can make DSLR look pretty darn good (story aside, of course) can probably get ahold of some better financing thus equipment.
Anyone that can't get cr@p done that looks super cool is just gonna hafta settle for the poor mans' Arri.
I'll wait four to six months and catch it at the public library where I can scour the DVD for director/producer/writer/actor commentary - not to mention SUBTITLES!
God, I love subtitles!
Second, as a Joe Schmuck Humpty Dump movie watcher - I could care less WTH it was shot on.
Gimme an interesting story.
I don't really care about actors.
I don't really care about directors.
I kinda care about genres, but I'll give most anything a fair day in court.
But if it's suckin' donkey in those first ten to twenty minutes - RRRRNNNNGH! Off she goes. I got better things to do with my time. Always.
Third, however... as a nubie filmmaker I'm forensically interested in seeing how far someone can take the feature-nubile DSLR capabilities.
I'll keep my expectations low. Give it some fair chance to impress me.
Five bucks says anyone that can make DSLR look pretty darn good (story aside, of course) can probably get ahold of some better financing thus equipment.
Anyone that can't get cr@p done that looks super cool is just gonna hafta settle for the poor mans' Arri.
I don't think you veered at all. Was just stating that's the POV that I sawr it from.
When I go see a film in a actual movie theater I don't care what the camera was. All it matters is that the film is attractive to me. Maybe I saw the trailer and thought wow that looks cool. I normally check viewer reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and if the viewer reviews are high then I probably will go watch it. I may also wait for the DVD to come out if I am not sure about the film then I rent it. I normally don't give the critics too much of my confidence on reviews. I normally look to see what the viewers of the film thought and there ratings.
If the movie is good that is all that matters not the camera.
If the movie is good that is all that matters not the camera.
The "movie making revolution" was kicked off in the 1940's with
inexpensive 16mm cameras.
The "movie making revolution" was kicked off in the mid 1960's
with the introduction of super 8 cartridges.
The "movie making revolution" was pushed forward in 1973 when
sound was added to the super 8 cartridges.
The "movie making revolution" was reinvented in the 1980's when
VHS cameras dropped in price.
The "movie making revolution" kicked off again with miniDV and
HDV.
Each time, someone said the camera and format is going to kick open
the gates and give the power to the creative people. And each time
it did. We, the independent filmmakers, have had the power in our
hands for decades. The "movie making revolution" has been thriving
for decades - long before video was added to a digital single lens
reflex camera.
Viva la revolution! Now we creative people need to make movies
that audiences want to see. This decades old revolution is
stagnating in our hands because too many of us are making movies
the people do not want to see.