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?

 

[Nate North]

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.

I agree with literally every single sentence of this. See, I'm not so argumentative!

I would point out that The Red is a very versitile device (from MX sensor on) and that though I didn't like the way it was used in those 3 movies, I've also seen it give a very good look. Red isn't about a certain look, it's about a certain degree of control over your look.

Here is an example I posted that shows a raw red image, and some different looks I've dialed in from it.

This is the original raw file. As you can see it looks great coming off the epic. Yes to all above, lighting and set is important. I did mention them.

These two above are done with the "Nate" setting, where I just dial it in how I think it should look

Here's a more matrix look, not perfect, would need different lighting

 

[Nate North]

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

I keep mentioning that I don't think cinematography goes over story. My point is that it's a complete package. When you minimize the importance of any one thing, it's a mistake. It's all important. Saying something is 1% importance makes it sound like you can just forget that part (they certainly forgot cinematography in Pieces of April)

Would you tell an pilot that gassing up the plane is only 1% of the skill of flying? That may be technically true, and you could even cite some rare case where a plane glided to a safe landing after running out of fuel. That's what I hear when people say, hey, you can just ignore something critical. "I saw Blair Witch land their plane wihtout gas, so now that's the new way to land planes. These stuck up people want you to spend your time gassing up planes, when 99% of the experience is being a competent pilot. Let's all save money on overpriced plane fuel and glide our way to success"

I forsee a lot of these metaphorical planes crashing.

 

[brianluce]

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.

Sure but you can still get beautiful sound with the mic out of frame. In this case, you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Alcove Audio]

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.

You also keep the director, the lights, the crew, the generator, the extra props, the craft table... In fact, you keep everything out of frame that will interfere with the illusion, for that is what we are, illusionists creating an artificial reality to entertain our audience.

 

[Kholi]

Preface: I understand that Audio is important.

That said, film is a visual medium. You can tell a story without a drop of audio and moving images only and it would still be called "Film".

You cannot tell a story without visuals and only audio and still call it film. It's a radio show, audio broadcast, etc.

I get what 2001 is saying. Again, I think we all understand how important audio is (kinda like story...script...), but it's inherently second to image "technically".

 

[indietalk]

Preface: I understand that Audio is important.

That said, film is a visual medium. You can tell a story without a drop of audio and moving images only and it would still be called "Film".

You cannot tell a story without visuals and only audio and still call it film. It's a radio show, audio broadcast, etc.

I get what 2001 is saying. Again, I think we all understand how important audio is (kinda like story...script...), but it's inherently second to image "technically".

Um, well yeah, if you make a silent film, of course sound is not important

I believe most people make talkies these days

 

[Kholi]

Um, well yeah, if you make a silent film, of course sound is not important

I believe most people make talkies these days

Point is it's still film, and I think (I think, anyway) 2001's purposely ornery comment was toward that fact.

Like beating the diatribe of "Story is King!" into the ground, I think most people realize audio is really important.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I am reminded of the age-old Nature vs. Nurture debate, that every psych class discusses, at least once. It's your genetics that make you that way! No, it's not, it's how you're raised!

Then, as I was getting my degree in anthropology, learning a great deal about cultural transmission, in addition to human evolution, I realized that we've created a false dichotomy. It's not either/or -- it's BOTH!

 

[Nate North]

I am reminded of the age-old Nature vs. Nurture debate, that every psych class discusses, at least once. It's your genetics that make you that way! No, it's not, it's how you're raised!

Then, as I was getting my degree in anthropology, learning a great deal about cultural transmission, in addition to human evolution, I realized that we've created a false dichotomy. It's not either/or -- it's BOTH!

Bingo!

 

[Murdock]

Bingo!

I like this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKiXiyuTguk

 

[Alcove Audio]

A truly silent film would be pretty boring. Before sound came along the so-called silent films were accompanied by live music, anything from a solo piano to a full orchestra. And, did you know, that in the major movie houses in the big cities they also had as many as 20 people behind the screen performing Foley/sound FX live to picture. The sister of my paternal grandfather was one of those who did live sound FX for silent film.

So even 110 years ago films were accompanied by sound FX, Foley and music. You cannot divorce sound from picture in this context; film is not a visual medium, it combines visuals and sound to create an artificial "reality".


http://web.archive.org/web/20031203095914/http://www.windworld.com/emi/articles/soundeffects.htm

 

[Kholi]

A truly silent film would be pretty boring. ]

It would still be film. There's really no arguing that fact. It's a visual medium first, not an audible one. That's why it's called film not dat. The Aesthetic is the first thing that attracts anyone, any shape or form, not the audio.

It's seriously another tiring diatribe that's only worthwhile preaching to super noobs, again, like story or script. Fairly useless beyond that.

But, either way, I digress.

 

[indietalk]

The original name was a talkie, then motion picture, then movie, same as a film. Talkie refers to taking, so audio was more important then? Don't take the name so literally.

 

[Kholi]

The original name was a talkie, then motion picture, then movie, same as a film. Talkie refers to taking, so audio was more important then? Don't take the name so literally.

I may be wrong, which is all well and good, but I think you have that backward.

Motion Picture (moving pictures) came much earlier than "talkies" or motion picture combined with sound.

The name is literal, because it was created literally: single photos captured consecutively, creating the illusion of motion.

 

[indietalk]

No I meant the first name of pictures with audio. Talking picture became talkie.

Before that I think it was moving picture or picture or picture show. Whatever

 

[Kholi]

No I meant the first name of pictures with audio. Talking picture became talkie.

Before that I think it was moving picture or picture or picture show. Whatever

Oh sorry, I misunderstood.

It was motion picture until commercialized, which became the picture show, then silent was usurped by the talkie.

If I remember right, anyway. And I'm only saying, basically, that you can escape sound in movies but you can't escape the image. Haha. Which is a pretty stupid point to talk on anyway. xD my bad.

 

[2001 Productions]

You also keep the director, the lights, the crew, the generator, the extra props, the craft table... In fact, you keep everything out of frame that will interfere with the illusion, for that is what we are, illusionists creating an artificial reality to entertain our audience.

Although my example was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I must point out that having those other things in the frame would not (necessarily) improve their performance, whereas having the mic placed closer to the talent most certainly would.

(P.S. -- Please don't forget I said earlier that pix and sound are equal in my book. I was just responding to the assertion that "sound is way more important".)

 

[laurenvictoria]

the story is definitely the most important thing in a film

but a camera that has decent quality can help it too.
i believe some people are shallow and wont watch a film if the video quality is bad, they may not take it seriously. i think thats unfortunate but its the truth.

 

[Nate North]

the story is definitely the most important thing in a film

but a camera that has decent quality can help it too.
i believe some people are shallow and wont watch a film if the video quality is bad, they may not take it seriously. i think thats unfortunate but its the truth.

It's not a matter of shallowness, you just can't succeed in the industry without sharpening your eye to quality. A grand majority of successful theatrical releases adhere to a certain set of quality standards. It's not egotistical or shallow to try and get things right. It's egotistical to say that you can ignore all the rules and succeed anyway.

Some egos are justified, and sometimes somebody wins the lottery and releases some lazy garbage like paranormal activity. But more often, far more often, people that ignore film standards end up in financial tragedy, encircled by disappointed people that thought they were getting a break in life.

I tell people this stuff to help them avoid wasting a lot of time and effort for a disappointing result.

Many more people will win the lottery this year than will see a DSLR film succeed. I'm not trying to talk down to people or tell them to stop making films, rather, I'm saying that people need to learn the business end and not rely on hope as a business strategy.

If your idea of success is winning at a local film festival, and your crew shares that feeling, then this advice is not for you. For me I'll be out on the street if I don't produce strong visual work. When you are in that position, you pay attention to every detail, and you tire of watching films where people don't. I'm not sure that is the same thing as being shallow.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"Many more people will win the lottery this year than will see a DSLR film succeed"

Pretty much agree, and I shoot on DSLR. It's a tool that mimics SOME of what a high end camera can do for a VERY cheap price. It allows you to (hopefully) demonstrate to people you have the skill and talent to be trusted with a budget. That you have a high probablility of being able to produce a marketable film. When/if that day ever came, and I had a couple hundred thousand to play around with, near the top of my budget priorities would be renting a Red or an Arri Alexa. I shoot HDSLR because i have to.