Yes, I bought a TRV900 around 1999 I think and it was supposedly a revolution. Democratizing film etc. Well making a movie is hard and not cheap. That's all I have to say on the subject.
How do you value full-on DSLR feature films?
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
Yes, I bought a TRV900 around 1999 I think and it was supposedly a revolution. Democratizing film etc. Well making a movie is hard and not cheap. That's all I have to say on the subject.
yeah but dslr movie making is sooooooooo cheap and gets such stunning results if in the right hands because of its variety of lenses, compact nature and digital format saving tons of money and allowing almost unlimited creativity. I see alot of garabage from them true, but sooner or later we're gonna see poor genius's surfacing, guarenteed. the power is shifting to the underground, the same with music, advances in technology is allowing people to produce from bedrooms. an example of both music and video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSbZidsgMfw
The same thing has been said of the other "technological breakthroughs" listed.
I will point out that in viewing the several hundred shorts I have probably now seen at festivals (features as well). I INSTANTLY know when it's shot on film (which usually means it's foreign because they get that gubberment money). Film just looks different, and bettter, still, to this day.
The problem with the revolution? For every one absolute brilliant filmmaker waiting to be discovered, there are a thousand people who either don't have the knack or the desire to put the time in to learn. So in order to find that one great film, you have to sit through HUNDREDS of awful films. Who is going to do that? Well, us. The people who cared about indie films 20 years ago, who care about them now and who will ALWAYS care about them.
It's the same with music. Technology has lead to higher production values for the hobbyist. Will that make them a better guitarist/cellist/electronic musician? No, but the time they sink into it will. The guy (or gal) who woodsheds his craft for 8 hours a day is always going to be better than the one throwing down loops in a (let's face it) pirated version of Live. But how are either of them going to get people to listen to their music, when there are hundreds of thousands of other songs (of varying quality) competing for their attention and/or pocket money?
The average consumer will just go with the vetted mainstream product. The underground will be noiser than ever, and while on one hand the work will look/sound better, it'll be harder for those artists to get heard. The tech is not a bad thing (and I'm always excited when I am capable of more professional work than I was), but the real revolution has more to do with advertising and distribution, and it'd take a smarter person than I to crack that nut.
Good stuff to think about though, and I am an optimist and someone who already cares about the underground, so to speak.
It's the same with music. Technology has lead to higher production values for the hobbyist. Will that make them a better guitarist/cellist/electronic musician? No, but the time they sink into it will. The guy (or gal) who woodsheds his craft for 8 hours a day is always going to be better than the one throwing down loops in a (let's face it) pirated version of Live. But how are either of them going to get people to listen to their music, when there are hundreds of thousands of other songs (of varying quality) competing for their attention and/or pocket money?
The average consumer will just go with the vetted mainstream product. The underground will be noiser than ever, and while on one hand the work will look/sound better, it'll be harder for those artists to get heard. The tech is not a bad thing (and I'm always excited when I am capable of more professional work than I was), but the real revolution has more to do with advertising and distribution, and it'd take a smarter person than I to crack that nut.
Good stuff to think about though, and I am an optimist and someone who already cares about the underground, so to speak.
Agreed. The revolution isn't ALL good by ANY means.
You mean now that the steaming pile of shit over there is ten times as big, there are 5 times as many diamonds in it... rock.
You mean now that the steaming pile of shit over there is ten times as big, there are 5 times as many diamonds in it... rock.
Every generation thinks they started the revolution. That this is the
first time stunning results is in the hands of the creative. That some
poor genius will surface. And they do. When 16mm cameras became
readily available in the 1950's and 1960's making a film was sooooooo
cheap and offered stunning results (for the times) that creative but poor
genius's could kick open the floodgates and take power from the studios.
I'm agreeing with you. But the "movie making revolution" did not begin
with the DSLR camera. And when you are 50 there will be another
"movie making revolution" that takes movie making out of the hands
of the studios and gives it to the creative people.
I often wonder why this democratizing of film, this revolution, has never
taken the cards away from the studios. In the last 60 years the cameras
and format have gotten cheaper and better and more and more creative
people are making movies but the studios still hold all the cards. I bet you
pay to see more studio films each year than independent films.
Sorry, I'm veering off topic again.
I feel like it didn't really "get there" until 24P came to prosumer offerings, the DVX100. There was still a missing link in the film look, and if you wanted that you had to shoot 8mm or 16mm at least, which was expensive to process.
Then the 35mm Adapter added to that.
Either way, you're right, the revolution was here a long-ass time ago and nothing has changed.
It's a good question, though, and it is sort of on topic as to why more no-names (independent isn't the right term, anymore... I think, anyway) aren't getting their material in theaters. It'll just take more time to find people that named producers can stake their reputation on, so that they can pitch themselves to the audience and sell tickets, and then later on downloads and/or DVDs.
Only way that's gonna happen is to realize that the camera isn't as important to the process as overall execution and voice. I'm not even saying that you have to have something interesting to say or deep, heartfelt...
But just BE interesting with what you're creating.
(not directed at you, Rik, but generalizing)
there is another advancement in technology and that is tthe tiniternet. every poor man can now not only be director but he can be a promoter and advertiser too...dvds are already holding on to dear life from extintion thanks to quicker download and streaming speeds. I think the reason this revoltution is different is because of our non-restrictive capabilities to reach the masses via the www...
Last edited:
The real revolution is the Internet. Period.
It's the ultimate playing field leveler.
The best and worst thing to ever happen to filmmaking.
I think the answer to that is pretty well summed up in this comment:
As far as I can tell - for most filmmakers - not one of these many 'revolutions' has ever been truly seen as an endpoint for the independent filmmaker. Even now DSLRs aren't seen as an opportunity for filmmakers to build a career and an industry outside of the traditional system, but rather as an accessible stepping stone into that industry - a "poor man's Arri" which is naturally to be discarded once one has the skill/fame/resources to move up to the big leagues. As long as the indie filmmaker playbook continues to go something like 1) scrape together some minimal resources and make a film 2) enter film in festivals 3) get discovered and make big films for a studio - there will be no 'revolution'.
The true revolution won't come until we get enough skilled & talented filmmakers who simply have no interest in 'moving up' to the traditional system, and who figure out how to sustainably produce independent projects. I believe at this point the tools to do this - cheap, high quality cameras & related equipment, desktop editing & finishing software, and global distribution via the internet - are in place. Now it's just a matter of people figuring out how to make them all work together, and deciding that doing so is more important than breaking into hollywood.
Couldn't give a toss, tbh.
A good film is a good film, regardless of what it was shot on.
Regarding the more specific price brackets... I don't pay 10 to 15 bucks to go see a film. Second-run dollar-theater all the way. Sure I get to wait a few weeks to see what everyone else has, but it's a constant stream of "new-to-me" with a more satisfied wallet.
The only full-price tix I spring for are for film festivals... those gems ain't gonna be shown much elsewhere.
I agree I think Film does look better. But once you go Blu-ray I really don't like the film grain showing up. That is one reason I think going Digital may be more popular in the future. I think the Red and the Mark II look good. I am sure something even better will come out someday.
The only full-price tix I spring for are for film festivals... those gems ain't gonna be shown much elsewhere.
Sometimes while sitting watching a block of festival films (mainly bad ones) I am think man I could have spent the money watching a real move at the theater. But it is good once you see a few good films and meet people. To me it seems strange that they charge so much for these tickets to watch the film festivals. It normally is just cast, crew, family, and friends that show up to watch these film festivals. I think it is sorta wrong to charge 10 to 15 dollars for these things. I am sure some of it goes to pay for the theater they rented though.
I go to the theater and watch movies a lot when I got the cash. Anyways, I love watching movies on the big screen. I have even seen some movies three times in the theater. I think Iron Man and Avatar I saw three times. I did not like the 3d version of Avatar and left early it was making me dizzy.
Last edited:
I guess we mostly agree that what the movie was shot on isn't a draw.
To address the revolution of independent filmmakers, I'm not really interested in a revolution. My goal is to make commercially viable films. I don't care if it's for myself or for a studio. I make no claims to be an artist of any kind. I just want to show other people the pictures in my head.
To address the revolution of independent filmmakers, I'm not really interested in a revolution. My goal is to make commercially viable films. I don't care if it's for myself or for a studio. I make no claims to be an artist of any kind. I just want to show other people the pictures in my head.
nailed it!