That's what a lot of people have been saying on here, that technically you can shoot a feature film on a Canon T2i or something like that if you want to, and the types of lens that come with them. But I haven't found one successful feature film that was distributed to DVD or even theaters, that got people's attention. Do you think these movies were rejected cause of the low grade equipment? Is saying that it it's do-able something we are all telling ourselves, when really it's the reason why there hasn't been a successfully released feature, shot with that level of equipment? At least not any I can find.
Is micro-budget DSLR gear really good enough to make a real movie out of?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Honestly, talent and opportunity are most important, followed by budget and gear. If you're Shane Hurlbut, you can shoot a feature on a t2i with a kit lens and it'll look fantastic. The guy knows what he's doing AND enough people know it that he can work on a film with major distribution.
Budget is the next hurdle, it takes money to make money. A-list actors cost a fortune but generally get you solid distribution and a lot of eyes on the final product. People are used to seeing good looking stuff with a lot of money in it.
Finally, yes, you are limited by your gear. However, not that many on the indie level have hit that limit yet, they're stuck under limits of budget, talent and opportunity.
It's happened before though. Some great indie films get distribution and lead to awesome futures for the cast an crew. Unfortunately, as you've noticed it doesn't happen a lot though.
Budget is the next hurdle, it takes money to make money. A-list actors cost a fortune but generally get you solid distribution and a lot of eyes on the final product. People are used to seeing good looking stuff with a lot of money in it.
Finally, yes, you are limited by your gear. However, not that many on the indie level have hit that limit yet, they're stuck under limits of budget, talent and opportunity.
It's happened before though. Some great indie films get distribution and lead to awesome futures for the cast an crew. Unfortunately, as you've noticed it doesn't happen a lot though.
It depends what you want from your 'real movie'. I'm not sure what you need to happen to your film in order for it to become 'real' but supposing you want distribution then shooting on DSLR is not a definite dead end. Like Crazy is an interesting example but I think you'll only find it misleading. No-one will give a shit what camera you shot in on if it has Felicity Jones, Anton Yelchin and Jennifer Lawrence in it.
Do you have famous actors in your movie?
And Act of Valor is even more misleading because the amount of expensive gear that they had to use in order to make the 5D into the right camera for the job would mean that it would've be cheaper to shoot on a different camera. Shane Hurlbut might be talented but he also had a $12 million budget and Navy funding behind him. You will not be able to do what Act of Valor did on a 'micro-budget'. No way. In that sense, Like Crazy is a better model.
It amazes me that you're still asking about which camera will make your film a 'real movie'. There are no 'real movies' and 'fake movies'. We all make the best movie that we can with the resources available to us and they're all equally 'real'.
Do you have famous actors in your movie?
And Act of Valor is even more misleading because the amount of expensive gear that they had to use in order to make the 5D into the right camera for the job would mean that it would've be cheaper to shoot on a different camera. Shane Hurlbut might be talented but he also had a $12 million budget and Navy funding behind him. You will not be able to do what Act of Valor did on a 'micro-budget'. No way. In that sense, Like Crazy is a better model.
It amazes me that you're still asking about which camera will make your film a 'real movie'. There are no 'real movies' and 'fake movies'. We all make the best movie that we can with the resources available to us and they're all equally 'real'.
Generally speaking, artistic and critical considerations aside, from a business POV a (commercially) "successful feature film" is measured by it's return on investment, ROI.
ROI = Revenue divided by Expenses
ROI = R / E
Expenses are everything from production to promotion, the latter of which everyone seems to poo-poo to their fiscal detriment.
Spend all you want or can on production.
Do the same for promotion.
Go crazy.
Buuuuut... how is that supposed to bring you back some actual cash-in-hand revenue?
Well, for actual revenue a film has to be seen by a paying audience.
Typically in a theater, VOD anomalies aside.
Lettuce say your magically muscle your no budget indie film THE GOOD TERRORIST into... what? Two? Three? Five theaters?
And through whatever magical promotion formulation you spend money on each theater grosses a decent enough $800 per night average the opening weekend.
$800 per night
x 3 Fri, Sat, Sun
= $2,400 per theater opening weekend
x 5 theaters
= $12,000
Attendance drops off across the week, but week #1 wraps up with a decent $15,000.
By fourth weekend expect the total gross to be 1.5 times the revenue of the first week.
$15,000
x 1.5
= $22,500
Same for the next four weeks and don't expect your no budget indie film to be carried much farther than eight weeks.
$22,500
x 1.5
= $33,750
Cool. Great. Wonderful.
Now, how much did you spend on your film, production and promotion?
Hopefully less than $33,750, which would just break even, meaning you could have sat on your sweet biscuits and done nothing and have no more no less in your bank account to show for it.
Okay, so now for the bigger/biggish films that'll actually go into >800 theaters.
HOW DID THEY GET INTO >800 THEATERS?
Probably they had a marketable star.
And if you can afford a marketable star then you can probably afford... wait for it... SOMETHING BETTER THAN A T2i et al!!!!!!!
If you want THIS then you gotta have THAT, and if you can get THAT then you can probably get THIS OTHER STUFF, TOO!
Inversely, if you want THIS and you DON'T HAVE THAT then you pretty much don't have to worry about THIS OTHER STUFF, TOO.
Package deal.
Like Crazy is also a misleading example because they actually modified their 7D with a PL mount for super expensive cinematic lenses. I still love that movie as an example of indie filmmaking though because they could have used talented no-name actors and the story and feel of the film, including the improvised dialogue and natural lighting, would have still made it a good film. Would it still have sold for 4 million dollars? Most likely not.
In my opinion, if you're going to shoot a low budget film with a DSLR, shoot the film handheld and go for the organic, doesn't need to be perfect, feel. If you're not already an immensely talented and experienced cinematographer and you're trying to set up every shot flawlessly with just a 7D and no other equipment, it's not going to come off as a professional looking film.
I think all of the "cinema verite" or "made to look like a documentary" type films from the past would have been just as successful had they been shot on the DSLRs of today. For example:
Once
The Blair Witch Project
Rachel Getting Married
Monsters
Manic
Cloverfield
Paranormal Activity
In my opinion, if you're going to shoot a low budget film with a DSLR, shoot the film handheld and go for the organic, doesn't need to be perfect, feel. If you're not already an immensely talented and experienced cinematographer and you're trying to set up every shot flawlessly with just a 7D and no other equipment, it's not going to come off as a professional looking film.
I think all of the "cinema verite" or "made to look like a documentary" type films from the past would have been just as successful had they been shot on the DSLRs of today. For example:
Once
The Blair Witch Project
Rachel Getting Married
Monsters
Manic
Cloverfield
Paranormal Activity
The glass didn't make much of a difference on a 7D. It's too low res to matter. It helped likely in the arena of "fall off", but negligible amounts. The reason to use them would be mechanics, and that's just because of who's working with the camera.
And, cinema glass doesn't mean "instant cinema look"... by any means. It's still just glass.
Well I am practicing with a couple of friends and we all want to make a movie that is distribute-able. My one friend who is great with lighting has gotten a lot of good feedback, and people have told him that he has done better than some Hollywood movies.
He's not so good with gear but we are learning. I don't want to do the whole hand-held thing though, because in my experience, it seems more difficult to make that look good, then it does to use gear. A lot of people's footage is too shaky, and not good shaky. That's why I want to steadicam a lot of it. Even if it's hard to use one, it will still look a lot better than hand held by comparison I think. Right now I have that, a fluid head tripod, and want to get a slider, and follow focus. I hope that's enough gear and don't need more since we are not a whole big crew, and don't want to get carried away...
He's not so good with gear but we are learning. I don't want to do the whole hand-held thing though, because in my experience, it seems more difficult to make that look good, then it does to use gear. A lot of people's footage is too shaky, and not good shaky. That's why I want to steadicam a lot of it. Even if it's hard to use one, it will still look a lot better than hand held by comparison I think. Right now I have that, a fluid head tripod, and want to get a slider, and follow focus. I hope that's enough gear and don't need more since we are not a whole big crew, and don't want to get carried away...
The tools matter much less than the talent and dedication of those involved. Both the Rap and Techno music genres were originally created by people using the technological cast-offs of their musical peers. They began extremely low tech, but they found an audience. I always thought it funny that the new MIDI "toys" that "failed" with the music industry as a whole became the basis of these new genres, and that what the innovators of these genres bought for $50 or $100 all of a sudden became the subject of bidding wars to the point where they were purchased for more than their original MSRP.
So learn to use your gear to the fullest of its capabilities and don't worry about what is the "right" gear to use; if you turn out a great product you will find a market. The whole key is connecting with your audience; they won't care what you used to make your film.
So learn to use your gear to the fullest of its capabilities and don't worry about what is the "right" gear to use; if you turn out a great product you will find a market. The whole key is connecting with your audience; they won't care what you used to make your film.
Okay thanks. I thought maybe the tool matters too though. I mean a lot of movies are not shot in SD anymore, for example. Kind of figured people upgrade for a reason. Same why back in the 90s a lot of people preferred to shoot no lower than 16mm, and hardly anyone made a successful movie on super 8 or VHS.
Plus a lot of indie fillmmakers seem to prefer the big expensive equipment. Like the director of Paranormal Activity for example, shot on a cam that would have cost a few thousand dollars. And I'm thinking it's not the equipment but the talent behind it, than why bother to splurge so much on that when a camcorder under $1000, is good enough then... Same with other filmmakers how have shot on cams, mics, and field recorders that go over $1000. I figure they must feel some sort of pressure from the industry, to spend that much money on that stuff, instead of other production values.
Plus a lot of indie fillmmakers seem to prefer the big expensive equipment. Like the director of Paranormal Activity for example, shot on a cam that would have cost a few thousand dollars. And I'm thinking it's not the equipment but the talent behind it, than why bother to splurge so much on that when a camcorder under $1000, is good enough then... Same with other filmmakers how have shot on cams, mics, and field recorders that go over $1000. I figure they must feel some sort of pressure from the industry, to spend that much money on that stuff, instead of other production values.
Last edited:
Because so many fall for the hype; "You can shoot HD for under $1,000!!!!!!!!!"
What good does it do you if your story sucks, you can't light well, and you have crappy sound? You have an HD piece of garbage that no one wants to see.
People get hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube with cute kids and cute cats, most of which are shot with their cell phones. Okay, they're not making any money, but there are people who want to see that kind of thing. It all comes down to communicating with an audience. That's what you should be focusing on, if you'll pardon the pun. Yes, technique is important, but you can accomplish amazing things with very low budget gear. The thing that you must do is learn your low-tech gear inside and out, backwards and forwards, know your technological limitations, accept them, and push the boundaries.
When I was a musician I got the good gigs because I was a really good musician, not because I had all of the latest toys. In fact, I was always lagging a year or two or three behind my peers when it came to gear. I was really good at covering sax parts on my keyboards; there were times people even looked around for the sax player who wasn't there. I spent many hours of practice emulating real sax players and spent many more hours programming my synths/samplers to I could bring out the nuances.
Your audience never sees the equipment, nor do they care; they only see/hear the final product.
What good does it do you if your story sucks, you can't light well, and you have crappy sound? You have an HD piece of garbage that no one wants to see.
People get hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube with cute kids and cute cats, most of which are shot with their cell phones. Okay, they're not making any money, but there are people who want to see that kind of thing. It all comes down to communicating with an audience. That's what you should be focusing on, if you'll pardon the pun. Yes, technique is important, but you can accomplish amazing things with very low budget gear. The thing that you must do is learn your low-tech gear inside and out, backwards and forwards, know your technological limitations, accept them, and push the boundaries.
When I was a musician I got the good gigs because I was a really good musician, not because I had all of the latest toys. In fact, I was always lagging a year or two or three behind my peers when it came to gear. I was really good at covering sax parts on my keyboards; there were times people even looked around for the sax player who wasn't there. I spent many hours of practice emulating real sax players and spent many more hours programming my synths/samplers to I could bring out the nuances.
Your audience never sees the equipment, nor do they care; they only see/hear the final product.
Okay then. The reason why I ask is is because I have a script for a feature I would like to do in a couple of years. Some of it can be done here and now though. I am going on a trip to Peru for example, and would get some great shots there which I could use, in this script. But I will be shooting on the T2i. Which means I would probably have to shoot the feature on the T2i later to match, and hope that that's a good enough quality camera for the whole movie therefore, in two years, when cameras will have changed.
Things like that are my concern about cameras. I can shoot stuff here and now and put it in later, if that's acceptable, which I guess it is, as long as I can make it match later, or just use the same camera later, and not be punished for it, success wise.
Things like that are my concern about cameras. I can shoot stuff here and now and put it in later, if that's acceptable, which I guess it is, as long as I can make it match later, or just use the same camera later, and not be punished for it, success wise.
If you learn to expose your images correctly and use the white balance settings correctly, matching will be a minimal effort later down the pipeline.
28 days later was shot in standard definition on the predecessor to the camera I'm currently selling to move up to a DSLR package. It got a little attention.
28 days later was shot in standard definition on the predecessor to the camera I'm currently selling to move up to a DSLR package. It got a little attention.
Examples of movies where they matched 5D or 7D shots with the rest of the 35mm or 16mm film footage:
Black Swan
Captain America
Iron Man 2
You shouldn't have a problem matching your t2i footage with whatever you decide to buy in a couple years.
harmonica - does Musgo, shot entirely on a hacked $700 Panasonic GH2 DSLM, count as a "real" movie?
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2146550/
Trailer: https://vimeo.com/33025136
Behind the scenes interviews with the auteur: http://www.artofthestory.com/filmmaker-interview-gami-orbegoso-creator-of-musgo/
http://filmcourage.com/node/812
Made in 7 days.
When people ask me this question, I usually refer them to this interview with master DSLR filmmaker Ken Simpson, who makes microbudget films in the UK: http://www.chrisjonesblog.com/2012/...0-what-can-be-achieved-jaw-dropping-work.html
As many have already said here, it is not the size of the camera that matters, it is the size of the vision, talent and commitment of the filmmaker that really counts.
Good luck with your project.
Bill
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2146550/
Trailer: https://vimeo.com/33025136
Behind the scenes interviews with the auteur: http://www.artofthestory.com/filmmaker-interview-gami-orbegoso-creator-of-musgo/
http://filmcourage.com/node/812
Made in 7 days.
When people ask me this question, I usually refer them to this interview with master DSLR filmmaker Ken Simpson, who makes microbudget films in the UK: http://www.chrisjonesblog.com/2012/...0-what-can-be-achieved-jaw-dropping-work.html
As many have already said here, it is not the size of the camera that matters, it is the size of the vision, talent and commitment of the filmmaker that really counts.
Good luck with your project.
Bill
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I don't know if it counts as a feature or a short film since it's only 72 minutes.
