Just a simple question...

B

Brooksy

I already have my opinion to this question, but I wanted to get some other opinions. How important is the camera?

If the story is great, and the cinematography is great, and the lighting is great, and the acting is great, and the audio is great (recorded with other means probably then directly into the camera), how important is the camera?

Like I said I have my opinion, does anyone else have an opinion?
 
A movie cannot be made without one so it's essential. You
CAN make a movie with bad actors (it's done all the time)
but making a movie without a camera isn't a movie. Great
lighting, great audio, great actors and a great script without
a camera is, I guess, a stageplay.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Sorry. I assumed people would be smart enough to get what I meant. My bad. Let me rephrase: How important is the QUALITY of the camera?
 
It’s hard to give thought without knowing how important in relation to what?

The importance of water quality in relation to drinking is one thing, the importance in relation to soaking paint brushes is another.

Do you mean in relation to making a film to sell, in relation to making a film to put online, in relation to a film’s chances of being accepted by a fest etc etc?


-Thanks-
 
Last edited:
Agreed, if EVERYTHING else is amazing, you can get by with a less-than-amazing camera. Trouble is, EVERYTHING else has to be fantastic. That's putting a lot of pressure on yourself.

Be sure the opening of the movie is great so people will be invested early and want to stick around.

What about audio? People will forgive a bad camera before they forgive bad audio.

What's the intended audience of the movie? Internet? Sundance? That will make a difference too. How long is the piece? 5minutes? Gone with the Wind?
 
"the cinematography is great"

You say it all right there. What a "crappy" camera does is make that harder. You can make a film look beautiful on a cell phone camera, and you can make a film look beautiful on a $100,000 camera (and everything in between). Doing it on a cell phone camera (or a $600 Walmart special) is going to require some really inspired lighting, and a lot of creativity.
 
I knew exactly what you meant.

I say the quality of the camera is important, and should be at least something above consumer grade, even if it's only a 3000.00 camera or something.

Mine was shot with a Sony EX-1 Cine Alta with a Letus lens package. Got a great picture. I recommend one if it's feasible to your budget.
 
Your comment that "the cinematography is great" followed by "does the quality of the camera matter" is both contradictory and intertwined. A great film is one in which ALL of the elements mesh. If you are working on a minimal budget the project must take advantage of the limitations. Too many people are hung up on having the latest, greatest toys; in the music biz it's known as "technolust." Having great gear will not guarantee a great product, but having crappy gear does not mean that the product will be crappy. Rap and Techno music were originally created by renegades who took the technological cast-offs of the music industry and created something fresh by taking advantage of the limitations of their low budget gear.

Compared to many of my peers my studio is definitely low budget, I did a lot of research and chose my tools carefully, getting the most bang for the buck. Are they the most expensive products on the market? Definitely not. Are they quality products? Absolutely! I then spent many, many hours learning all those tools inside and out so that I can still put out quality product.

You may have a great script/story, but can you present it in a way that the audience will accept and enjoy on your projected budget? You're not going to make "Avatar" with a Canon GL2, Home Depot lighting, a Zoom H4 and Windows Movie Maker. But you can make something great if you work within and take advantage of those limitations.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Your comment that "the cinematography is great" followed by "does the quality of the camera matter" is both contradictory and intertwined. A great film is one in which ALL of the elements mesh. If you are working on a minimal budget the project must take advantage of the limitations. Too many people are hung up on having the latest, greatest toys; in the music biz it's known as "technolust." Having great gear will not guarantee a great product, but having crappy gear does not mean that the product will be crappy. Rap and Techno music were originally created by renegades who took the technological cast-offs of the music industry and created something fresh by taking advantage of the limitations of their low budget gear.

Compared to many of my peers my studio is definitely low budget, I did a lot of research and chose my tools carefully, getting the most bang for the buck. Are they the most expensive products on the market? Definitely not. Are they quality products? Absolutely! I then spent many, many hours learning all those tools inside and out so that I can still put out quality product.

You may have a great script/story, but can you present it in a way that the audience will accept and enjoy on your projected budget? You're not going to make "Avatar" with a Canon GL2, Home Depot lighting, a Zoom H4 and Windows Movie Maker. But you can make something great if you work within and take advantage of those limitations.
Click to expand...



I can certainly see your points here... However... Cinematography does not directly refer to the camera. It is more about the camera motion, composition, and lighting. Certainly the camera does play a role with lens used and frame rate, but I feel that when I hear the term Cinematography the actual camera isn't up front.

While I may not make "Avatar" on a Canon GL2 (Nor would I want to. I feel that movie was a very bad decision for the industry but I digress...) I certainly can make a movie like "Colin" on a consumer palm-corder that gets shown at the Cannes film festival.
 
Preface:
Dogma 95 is retarded, and Lars Von Trier is a pompous douche of questionable talent.

It's like the whole premise of Dogma 95/5 Obstructions. The idea that (like being forced to stick to a certain meter in poetry) imposing contraints on your self (or having them imposed on you) forces you to take your creativity to another level.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Preface:
Dogma 95 is retarded, and Lars Von Trier is a pompous douche of questionable talent.

It's like the whole premise of Dogma 95/5 Obstructions. The idea that (like being forced to stick to a certain meter in poetry) imposing contraints on your self (or having them imposed on you) forces you to take your creativity to another level.
Click to expand...

I agree that Dogme95 is a total joke. Everything made following those guidelines is unwatchable.


Limitations do force you to be creative, denying that is just silly...

Say, for example, you've got someone stuck in a broken space ship, halfway to the moon, and realize they are about to run out of breathable air. The scrubbers that make the air breathable that are still usable are the wrong design and you need to fit the square peg into the round hole, somewhere in space between the earth and the moon. Do you let them die, or find a creative solution workable within the limitations of what's available on that ship? I think you know the answer, since damn near everyone saw Apollo 13.

On the other hand, imposing limitations on yourself as a means of provoking creativity seems a bit silly as well, if you're not very creative, leave the writing to someone else and so on..
 
Having great quality in Everything but camera is a hard pill to swallow....

Why would your production not have the means to a quality camera but everything else?


Usually quality = Money because Money = Time, time to find a great talented crew, time to plan and perfect, to get quality equipment, and so on.
 
I agree that Dogme95 is a total joke. Everything made following those guidelines is unwatchable.
Click to expand...

Dogme95 is 15 years old. But it was already too old in '96. It's premise was sound (consciously moving away from shit like Transformers) but its practice was misplaced and it quickly became another gimmick, no different than the robots and CGI it was trying to escape. But "new waves" can't be consciously created, no more than viral videos can be consciously created ("hey, check out this new viral video I made").

But I disagree about the unwatchable comment...I know it's not an official Dogme 95, but I can't turn away whenever "Breaking The Waves" is on. And I also loved "The Celebration."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top