• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Just how important is what camera you use?

T

TheKoreandonut

As I watched 'Inland Empire' which was filmed entirely in SD, I wondered just how important is the camera(s) that I use for my short films. I have a D90 and a Sony CX150 that I've used extensively. I used to think that better camera = better picture but now I'm not so sure. I recently saw a couple of YT vids where people have rented red ones and made a short film. Some of these films didn't look much different that some that had been filmed with consumer cams and that got me thinking...

Maybe the camera is only as good the person operating it. Maybe with the proper lighting and cinematography, even a cheap, standard definition camera could be used to produce something worthy of the big screen. I know dynamic range and lenses play a big part in this but I dunno, what do you guys think?

If you gave Steven Spielberge a handicam and an amateur filmmaker a 7D, who do you think would come out with the better looking film?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
My top 10 order of priorities (after 30+ years making films):

1. Story
2. Script
3. Director
4. Actors
5. Cinematographer
6. Sound
7. Music
8. Design
9. Crew
10. Camera

Yes, camera is last, but at least it made the list. In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head when you said that the tool is only as good as the person using it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheKoreandonut said:
Maybe the camera is only as good the person operating it. Maybe with the proper lighting and cinematography, even a cheap, standard definition camera could be used to produce something worthy of the big screen.
Click to expand...
You know, you might be right.

You know what other movies were shot on SD and released in theaters?
Baghead, Panasonic AG-HVX200
Cloverfield, Panasonic AG-HVX200
Open Water, Sony PD-150
The Anniversary Party, Sony DSR-500
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, Canon XL-1
28 Days Later, Canon XL-1S
Pieces of April, Sony PD-150
Bamboozled, Sony VX 1000 PAL
Book Of Life, Sony VX1000 (NTSC)
The Celebration, Sony PC7 PAL
Chuck & Buck, Sony VX1000 PAL
Dancer In The Dark, Sony PD 100 & Sony DXC D30WS PAL
Final, Canon XL-1 PAL
Chelsea Walls, Sony PD100 PAL
Full Frontal, Canon XL1s PAL
Hotel, Sony PD 100 & PD150 PAL
Julien Donkey Boy, Canon XL1 PAL
Time Code, Sony DSR-1
Supersize Me, Sony PD150
Lonesome Jim, Panasonic DVX 100
November, Panasonic DVX 100
A Day Without a Mexican, Panasonic DVX 100
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
You know, you might be right.

You know what other movies were shot on SD and released in theaters?
Baghead, Panasonic AG-HVX200
Cloverfield, Panasonic AG-HVX200
Open Water, Sony PD-150
The Anniversary Party, Sony DSR-500
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, Canon XL-1
28 Days Later, Canon XL-1S
Pieces of April, Sony PD-150
Bamboozled, Sony VX 1000 PAL
Book Of Life, Sony VX1000 (NTSC)
The Celebration, Sony PC7 PAL
Chuck & Buck, Sony VX1000 PAL
Dancer In The Dark, Sony PD 100 & Sony DXC D30WS PAL
Final, Canon XL-1 PAL
Chelsea Walls, Sony PD100 PAL
Full Frontal, Canon XL1s PAL
Hotel, Sony PD 100 & PD150 PAL
Julien Donkey Boy, Canon XL1 PAL
Time Code, Sony DSR-1
Supersize Me, Sony PD150
Lonesome Jim, Panasonic DVX 100
November, Panasonic DVX 100
A Day Without a Mexican, Panasonic DVX 100
Click to expand...

That's a nice list. However, at this point I don't think we'll be seeing any more SD films in theaters. The main reason these films were shot in SD is due to budget. You can pick up a DSLR for less than any the cost of any of those cameras. My phone shoots in HD. The time of SD is over; HD cameras have reached ubiquity.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SinEater said:
That's a nice list. However, at this point I don't think we'll be seeing any more SD films in theaters. The main reason these films were shot in SD is due to budget. You can pick up a DSLR for less than any the cost of any of those cameras. My phone shoots in HD. The time of SD is over; HD cameras have reached ubiquity.
Click to expand...
Not my point.

I am only pointing out that when SD was being used many movies shot in SD
were released in the theaters. Now that HD is standard, movies shot in HD can
be released in the theaters.

The point started by TheKoreandonut is "Maybe the camera is only as good the
person operating it". Something I agree with. He mentioned the Lynch movie. I
expanded that list. I am not suggesting people shoot SD right now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Not my point.

I am only pointing out that when SD was being used many movies shot in SD
were released in the theaters. Now that HD is standard, movies shot in HD can
be released in the theaters.

The point started by TheKoreandonut is "Maybe the camera is only as good the
person operating it". Something I agree with. He mentioned the Lynch movie. I
expanded that list. I am not suggesting people shoot SD right now.
Click to expand...

I probably shouldn't have quoted you, I just liked your list. I agree with pretty much everything you've said; The DP is far more important than what camera the project is shot on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Obligitory Rant

It depends entirely on your level of skill, and what you're trying to accomplish.

For the film Chronos, the entire value of the movie would have been lost if it was shot on any of these cameras.

SD looks horrible, and if you haven't caught up to that fact yet, you are years behind your competition.

You guys keep arguing that you can hit a home run with a whiffleball bat, and you're right. But you'd look like a fool trying to compete professionally with one.

Would I like the industry to be cheaper and more easily assessable? Sure. Do I see anyone I respect as a theatrical filmmaker cruising by on a Ti, No. Not even one.

As far as story, It's not that I disagree with it's prioritization as first, it's just like we are discussing pole vaulting, and 1000 people keep saying "forget about your jump, it's all about standing on a solid surface"
It's not that it's bad advice, just so basic as to go without saying.

How would others like it if I just kept posting 10,000 posts saying "the most important part of a film is taking your lens cap off" What I say is technically true, but if you didn't know that before I said it, you shouldn't even be making films, so it seems pointless to keep restating it. If you want a good story, there are over a million public domain books to draw from.

No one, including myself has ever said that your camera was the most important part of your film, but it's certainly not the least important. Lenses are very important also. If these items were of no consequence, I assure you people wouldn't be spending the amounts they are.

Here is good advice. Look at what those who are succeeding are doing, and try to emulate their methodology to the best of your ability. Don't look for the cheapest "found footage" film ever made and say "that's how good films are made", face reality. That's how cheap, fluke, and mostly unsuccessful films are made. You are telling yourself what you want to hear, rather than the truth. Who does that help long term?

I read through that list of films above. Almost every single one is one that I started watching, then turned off 1/3 of the way through because the screen quality was so subpar.

If you're still learning, use whatever, but don't go around saying that every pro filmmaker in history is wrong and you are right. 99% across the board use movie cameras instead of video cameras, I mean, it's incredibly obvious that you should film motion pictures with "motion picture" cameras. Just because you can't afford one doesn't change that fact. Blair witch project doesn't mean that we can all just give up on real filmmaking and go screw around in the woods with a flipphone. Sheesh.

And of course the operator is more important. How arrogant are you if you just assume someone else doesn't know how to operate their camera? I maxed out several cameras before upgrading, improving my hardware only when it couldn't catch up with me. Don't assume others are trying to "spend their way to success", any assumption is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
2001 Productions said:
My top 10 order of priorities (after 30+ years making films):

1. Story
2. Script
3. Director
4. Actors
5. Cinematographer
6. Sound
7. Music
8. Design
9. Crew
10. Camera

Yes, camera is last, but at least it made the list. In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head when you said that the tool is only as good as the person using it.
Click to expand...

Having recently had a bad experience with sound, I think I'd move sound up above cinematographer, otherwise, I absolutely agree with this list!

directorik said:
Not my point.

I am only pointing out that when SD was being used many movies shot in SD
were released in the theaters. Now that HD is standard, movies shot in HD can
be released in the theaters.

The point started by TheKoreandonut is "Maybe the camera is only as good the
person operating it". Something I agree with. He mentioned the Lynch movie. I
expanded that list. I am not suggesting people shoot SD right now.
Click to expand...

Excellent list, of SD movies, that you posted. You left one off -- the one people get sick of hearing me talk about -- "Puffy Chair"!

Anyway, yeah, I think SinEater is right to point out that SD is now obsolete, but it was perfectly fine, a few years ago (as evidenced by your list), and in the same respect, HD is perfectly fine, now.

Do I want to shoot with the Red? Of course! But that's not going to stop me from using what I've got, to tell the best damn story I know how to tell.

@Nate, I appreciate much of your obligatory rant. However, I think the analogy isn't quite spot-on, for you to say that we're trying to compete with the pros, shooting with these cheap cameras. I'd say it's more like we're in the minor leagues, trying to make it pro.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Camera's bottom of the list, even less important for Short Films.

For features, it helps to have a really solid medium to capture with, but even then it's not that big of a deal.

If you have to do VFX or anything like that, then camera is a priority. I do a lot of that kind of work, so it's a necessity, but if you're just shooting Drama or Comedy... really doesn't matter all that much at this level.

I still wouldn't shoot with less than a 5D/GH2, but they're so cheap... why not? xD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Camera's bottom of the list, even less important for Short Films.

For features, it helps to have a really solid medium to capture with, but even then it's not that big of a deal.

If you have to do VFX or anything like that, then camera is a priority. I do a lot of that kind of work, so it's a necessity, but if you're just shooting Drama or Comedy... really doesn't matter all that much at this level.

I still wouldn't shoot with less than a 5D/GH2, but they're so cheap... why not? xD
Click to expand...

Maybe this is why I put so much weight on camera, I'm literally always using SFX, even in drama or corporate stuff.

When you shoot with less than a 4:4:4 camera, or with a slow lens, keying amongst other things becomes very difficult.

But I also like the deep rich colors and low compression footage, even sans FX.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheKoreandonut said:
If you gave Steven Spielberge a handicam and an amateur filmmaker a 7D, who do you think would come out with the better looking film?
Click to expand...

I would like to see Spielberg make a feature length movie for $10k or less. I think he would do a good job, but am interested to see what he would do in the way of "work arounds".

Also, if you gave him a handy cam, he would just turn to his DP and say,"Here is what we're using. Figure it out. We start shooting next month.":)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nate North said:
I read through that list of films above. Almost every single one is one that I started watching, then turned off 1/3 of the way through because the screen quality was so subpar.
Click to expand...

Over many posts you have established that you stop watching movies
if the quality is not up to your standards. Taking into consideration the
financial success and awards garnered by several of the films on that list,
many people (perhaps most) do not turn off movies based primarily on
the picture quality.

For many people if a story attracts their interest they will continue
watching, even if the quality of the picture isn’t excellent.

Face it, Nate, you’re a techhead. Not a pejorative in any way. But
what is most important to you is not what’s most important to most
movie goers. I’ve gone to hundreds of film/video festivals. At
every one there are people who get up and leave if the quality
isn’t exactly the same as the kinds of movies they see come out of
the studio system. Fortunately, most people stay as long as it is
an enjoyable or engaging movie.

Since “horrible” is so subjective, I have a difficult time even
asking my next question. I’m pretty sure I know what you are going
to say.

Do you really feel that “Pieces of April” looks horrible? That “28
Days Later” looks horrible? That the award winning (Cinematography
Award at Sundance) “November” shot by the talented Nancy Schreiber
looks horrible?

I think all three, in very different ways, look wonderful. You
thing they look horrible?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Over many posts you have established that you stop watching movies
if the quality is not up to your standards. Taking into consideration the
financial success and awards garnered by several of the films on that list,
many people (perhaps most) do not turn off movies based primarily on
the picture quality.

For many people if a story attracts their interest they will continue
watching, even if the quality of the picture isn’t excellent.

Face it, Nate, you’re a techhead. Not a pejorative in any way. But
what is most important to you is not what’s most important to most
movie goers. I’ve gone to hundreds of film/video festivals. At
every one there are people who get up and leave if the quality
isn’t exactly the same as the kinds of movies they see come out of
the studio system. Fortunately, most people stay as long as it is
an enjoyable or engaging movie.

Since “horrible” is so subjective, I have a difficult time even
asking my next question. I’m pretty sure I know what you are going
to say.

Do you really feel that “Pieces of April” looks horrible? That “28
Days Later” looks horrible? That the award winning (Cinematography
Award at Sundance) “November” shot by the talented Nancy Schreiber
looks horrible?

I think all three, in very different ways, look wonderful. You
thing they look horrible?
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough,

28 days later I do think looks terrible

Pieces of April I saw, but dont remember the picture quality clearly.

November I haven't seen, I'm not sure I've seen every picture on the list, but at least 75%

I'll hunt down POA and November and watch them. Once in a while a spectacular artist can transcend their means, I'm not denying that.

My argument isn't even specifically about the cameras, I'm just having difficulty finding the words.

You have to make a mental shift where you look at it as a business, and run the financial end accordingly.

Buying good equipment isn't the source of that, it's the result.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top