cinematography Just how important is what camera you use?

[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?

 

[NickClapper]

Unsurprisingly I also think that story, script and acting are much more important than the camera it's shot on. Not the first time I've said it, won't be the last. This seems to be pretty much the most common argument on here.

@Nate: What I'm curious to know is how you manage to watch classic movies. If you had to switch off all of those SD movies 1/3 of the way in, how can you sit through something like, say, Casablanca, where the picture quality, by modern standards, is far shabbier?

 

[brianluce]

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.

This is a bad analogy and weak point. The fact is, DSLR owners, RED owners and even Panavision Renters, consistently disregard the primacy of story. That's why there are so many bad movies. It's point that cannot be made enough times. Film has so many sexy elements, especially with new technology, that it's easier than ever for story to be subsumed by the glitter dust. There is nothing more deathlike than holing up in office and opening Final Draft.

So no, I don't agree that a good script and story is a baseline or given. Even at the highest levels, good stories aren't particularly valued -- what matters more is that the movie includes some existing brand or pop culture touchstone. This is the age of Bieber, not Springsteen.

 

[brianluce]

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.

That's fine if that's what you prefer, but people like George Lucas manage to make Star Wars movies with
F900's and Varicams that sample at 422 and 311 respectively. And with the powerful keying software, even 420 keying isn't that hard. And speaking of 422, some DLSR's already have that.

Generally, with the current state of technology, it's just hard to accept your argument that the limiting factor is the camera.

 

[Ponty301]

This is a bad analogy and weak point. The fact is, DSLR owners, RED owners and even Panavision Renters, consistently disregard the primacy of story. That's why there are so many bad movies. It's point that cannot be made enough times. Film has so many sexy elements, especially with new technology, that it's easier than ever for story to be subsumed by the glitter dust. There is nothing more deathlike than holing up in office and opening Final Draft.

So no, I don't agree that a good script and story is a baseline or given. Even at the highest levels, good stories aren't particularly valued -- what matters more is that the movie includes some existing brand or pop culture touchstone. This is the age of Bieber, not Springsteen.

agreed...except for Springsteen.

 

[Nate North]

Unsurprisingly I also think that story, script and acting are much more important than the camera it's shot on. Not the first time I've said it, won't be the last. This seems to be pretty much the most common argument on here.

@Nate: What I'm curious to know is how you manage to watch classic movies. If you had to switch off all of those SD movies 1/3 of the way in, how can you sit through something like, say, Casablanca, where the picture quality, by modern standards, is far shabbier?

To give you an honest answer, I am having a harder and harder time enjoying old movies. I want to, but the format is incapable of holding my attention like it used to. What I watch now is Blu-Ray versions of old movies, which have been restored and digitally downsized from the estimated 4k resolution of film to 1080p.

If you have not rewatched old movies on blu ray, you are seriously missing out. You get to see the films as they were originally intended to look.

@directorik I may be interested in the technical side, but that's not what's driving me this direction at all. It's about color more than anything else. 4:4:4 is all there is to me. And time ramping is somewhat of a common technique for me to use, so having a system that's capable of 10x time ramping is more than a superficial change in the final artistic outcome. I also make extensive use of HDR, and the camera I've selected is the only one in the world that allows me that type of control over color. (wow I just did a terrible job of not sounding like a tech guy)

 

[directorik]

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.

This seems to be where you and I differ.

I see most of the questions about cameras posted here as coming
from people who are not yet thinking about the business of producing
a marketable movie for theatrical release. Sure, many ask what camera
is good enough for theatrical release, but I know they are not really at
that point.

And for me, I do not buy top of the line equipment. When I am making
a movie I rent the equipment. I would never even consider owning a RED
or an Alexa. I look at it as a business and the financials always are on the
side of renting.

But I am fascinated that you will turn off a movie that doesn't meet your
picture standards no matter what. So the story and the acting and the
production design and... do not come into play when you watch a movie?
If it was shot on a camera you don't feel is up to pro standards you just
shut it off.

I have an award winning feature, shot by an award winning, very talented
DP. We shot SD. Do I understand you correctly that you would turn it off
even if you loved the story because it was shot SD and looks horrible?

I understand that this isn't personal - I'm just a curious person. I will not
subject you to the entire movie but how about the trailer? Does this look
horrible to you?

http://youtu.be/w9rvvn3WPzE

(wow I just did a terrible job of not sounding like a tech guy)

Yeah ya did. It made me laugh. "4:4:4 is all there is to me."

That just about sums it up. Story is all there is to me.

 

[dlevanchuk]

Wohoa, that trailer looked awesome!

 

[Alcove Audio]

To give you an honest answer, I am having a harder and harder time enjoying old movies.

More and more those are the films I still enjoy after a dozen viewings. A few years ago I watched a very scratchy (both visually and sonically) copy of "M", which was shot with substandard equipment even by 1931 Hollywood standards. But Fritz Lang still managed to grab my interest and peaked my desire to know what happens at the end of the film.

All those old films from the 30's and 40's are a testament to solid filmmaking. A great story is still a great story, great direction is still great direction, great cinematography is still great cinematography and solid acting is still solid acting. If you can't watch those films simply because of your perceived lack of their technical qualities you are missing out on hundreds of great films. If nothing else you could learn how to overcome your technical limitations.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

I am having a harder and harder time enjoying old movies.

I having the same problem too. But it has more to do with slow pace, poor editing, and, well, the stories aren't living up to the hype. Never because of format.

If you're not able to get through a film, its likely the story wasn't entertaining you.

Oh, and yeah, I recently saw one film that was shot with a Viper, another with the RED and a third with a Panavision and I had to walk out of theater for all of them - the pristine and cool images just weren't entertaining enough.

 

[Kholi]

That's fine if that's what you prefer, but people like George Lucas manage to make Star Wars movies with
F900's and Varicams that sample at 422 and 311 respectively. And with the powerful keying software, even 420 keying isn't that hard. And speaking of 422, some DLSR's already have that.

Right, but, It's a different story now, and you will be hard pressed to find many whom are shooting for VFX with less than Raw formats on a major level. In addition to that, employing 4K+ images, in regards to compositing and keying, is a boon. Again, it makes even the smallest jobs that much easier.

Working with VFX extensively for broadcast etc, just had to add that. I do understand that it might not matter when there isn't much money, but it absolutely makes a major difference when there is.

That said, I still think Camera is the lowest common denominator, but that's on a list where everything should be equally important.

 

[Nate North]

This seems to be where you and I differ.

I see most of the questions about cameras posted here as coming
from people who are not yet thinking about the business of producing
a marketable movie for theatrical release. Sure, many ask what camera
is good enough for theatrical release, but I know they are not really at
that point.

And for me, I do not buy top of the line equipment. When I am making
a movie I rent the equipment. I would never even consider owning a RED
or an Alexa. I look at it as a business and the financials always are on the
side of renting.

But I am fascinated that you will turn off a movie that doesn't meet your
picture standards no matter what. So the story and the acting and the
production design and... do not come into play when you watch a movie?
If it was shot on a camera you don't feel is up to pro standards you just
shut it off.

I have an award winning feature, shot by an award winning, very talented
DP. We shot SD. Do I understand you correctly that you would turn it off
even if you loved the story because it was shot SD and looks horrible?

I understand that this isn't personal - I'm just a curious person. I will not
subject you to the entire movie but how about the trailer? Does this look
horrible to you?

http://youtu.be/w9rvvn3WPzE



Yeah ya did. It made me laugh. "4:4:4 is all there is to me."

That just about sums it up. Story is all there is to me.

Hmmm. I buy instead of rent because my numbers add up differently. I'm shooting maybe 2 days a week when the equipment is available. Sometimes 3 weeks at a time. The camera package I bought for 65k rents for 4k a week. So if I need it 17 weeks this year, that's 68k I save. Then I have rental agreements set up with several national rental sites, that allow me to recoup 2k a week any time I'm not using it. Subtract 1/3 weeks for non rental, and you've got 52-17=35/3=11*$2000= 22,000+the 68,000

So I get back 90k in value in the first year.

If a story is really that great, then yes, I could watch it. I often watch the Twilight Zone. Black and white stuff doesn't bother me, but weak color does. But usually the better produced films have better stories also. Usually when I see a film where they didn't care about how it looked, that's a sign of things to come in terms of not caring about the story, acting, etc.

I watched sections of "Pieces of April" and it looked really terrible, sorry, but it did. I was thinking "BBC 1983 the whole time I watched it. Except the BBC would have at least sprung for a damn tripod. Really? 3 known actors in the budget and they didn't have 8 grand for a stedicam? Also it looked like the whole thing was shot at on slow lenses. Dark and blurry.

As far as "most people can't tell the difference" I think they can. I just don't think they know how to describe that difference. I think everyone sees the difference between Minority report and "Everybody loves Raymond".

I watched your trailer. It had it's moments, but yes I would stop watching this film over the image quality.

Also you uploaded it in 360p, probably before higher options were available. It's difficult to tell how your original film looked. Acting was good overall, but with some action scenes where people were clearly being careful not to cause damage while in a violent altercation. Use of light and shadow were above par.

I did like your framing and colorist work, you clearly did a lot with the tools you had to work with. I remember a time when I would have rushed to the store to rent this movie.

 

[HedgesPictures]

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

I'd agree with that.

I remember reading a long time ago that people will forgive a less-than-stellar camera before they will even think about forgiving crappy sound.

I also agree that, if your story is good enough, a less-than-stellar camera is more acceptable. Finally, I also agree that you can make your less-than-stellar camera a part of your concept/mood/style/etc.

 

[2001 Productions]

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

Meh, I really weigh them equally. They should probably be numbered 5A & 5B.

This thread has really taken off! Nate, you've kicked a hornet's nest.

 

[Kholi]

Meh, I really weigh them equally. They should probably be numbered 5A & 5B.

Same. Same.

This thread has really taken off! Nate, you've kicked a hornet's nest.

Any time someone hails the tech over the story, it ends up like that, right? haha.

But, honestly, if there's a scale involved and someone asked me to weigh what was more important then...

*In most cases, I don't think story or script are that important, either. But, the POV is coming from someone who would rather make a sustainable living and do nothing else but visual, narrative content.


*In most cases means not every occurrence, but in most when pertaining to the business end of this specific medium, which is feature film content.

 

[Theodebernacius]

I don't think Nate is a techhead. He's an image aesthete. I'm the same way. I can't enjoy a movie unless the image quality is topnotch. I might be worse than him. I don't think RED holds a candle to film. Really didn't care for that blurry, hazy, yellow greenish look of "The Social Network"or the cold metallic look of "Rabbit hole" or "Fair game".

Have I ever seen a movie where I thought the story was good despite low image quality? I can't think of any. It might seem odd but I think there's an explanation to that. It's virtually impossible to dissociate form from content. Suppose you had the best dialogues and then hired awful actors to say them. I'm pretty sure the general audience will think "bad dialogues, bad actors" rather than "the dialogues were good, too bad the actors weren't up to them".

From directorik's list I remember Pieces of April. I've watched dozens of Thanksgivings family reunion dinner movies. I ranked this one among the worst. I thought "low production values, uninteresting story and characters". Was my judgment on the story influenced by the look? I can't say.

 

[brianluce]

Meh, I really weigh them equally. They should probably be numbered 5A & 5B.

This thread has really taken off! Nate, you've kicked a hornet's nest.

I vote with Cracker. Sound matters more. Huh?

I notice bad sound right away. Bad cinematography? If that means totally out of focus or an inverted image sure, but usually it means dull uninteresting lighting and composition, and i can totally live with that if all the other elements are strong. I vote sound WAY in front of cinematography.

 

[Murdock]

I want to chime in. I would think that there are some movies where it is true that story takes a back seat. The big bang action movies for instance. They all have the same basic story. But something like As Good as it Gets, does not depend on being HD to present a good movie. Don't get me wrong, there is obviously a lot of work going on in As Good as it Gets, but it isn't central to the story.

 

[brianluce]

*In most cases[/U], I don't think story or script is that important, either. But, the POV is coming from someone who would rather make a sustainable living and do nothing else but visual, narrative content.


*In most cases means not every occurrence, but in most when pertaining to the business end of this specific medium, which is feature film content.

Ah ha! Salient point here! Kholi is one of the most experienced people here and he's placing his bets in
the right area it seems. Personally it's the old school narrative elements of film that intrigue me the most, but the money
and sustainability are probably best found in other areas. I think this is a huge point.

 

[2001 Productions]

I vote sound WAY in front of cinematography.

Just cuz I'm feeling ornery, I'm gonna call you on this.

In any given dialogue scene, where is the best mic placement for optimum recording quality? Directly in front of the actor's mouth, of course. Why don't we place it there? Because it would be in frame, so we instead place it at the best location possible outside the frame line. By definition, we have thus made sound quality a secondary consideration to image quality.

I know, this was a cheap shot. But, like I said, I felt ornery.

Also, regarding story vs. visuals, I think that's purely a matter of personal taste. I will groove on a good story no matter what, and forgive most everything else. But that's just me. Other people enjoy Michael Bay movies (huge numbers of people, as a matter of fact). They can have them. They're beautiful but vapid, and if I never see another one in this lifetime I'll die contented.

 

[Kholi]

Also, regarding story vs. visuals, I think that's purely a matter of personal taste. I will groove on a good story no matter what, and forgive most everything else. But that's just me. Other people enjoy Michael Bay movies (huge numbers of people, as a matter of fact). They can have them. They're beautiful but vapid, and if I never see another one in this lifetime I'll die contented.

Yeah, I definitely agree. Especially on the personal taste. I should've made sure to put that it was just my own opinion or point of view that story and script weren't top priority on the list for myself.

Everyone should find, or and should be allowed to hold, what they value more as filmmakers and audience members, and what that means to his or her path as a filmmaker. Whether that's a fiscally healthy lifestyle only doing that one thing or a part-time exploit--on the side or when it's convenient, either way is great.