My main cast member and I constantly get in fights about the video quality of my film

[film]

Hi I am new to this forum and frustrated

I am making an entire feature film that is being shot on a Nikon D5100. He thinks that the idea is absolutely absurd and highly recommends that instead of proceeding with this film, I should invest in a RED Epic to shoot this feature film on. I again tell him, that Red cameras are like 3,000 dollars to rent for a week plus paying the crew and that is a ridiculous price. He again tells me that if an entire feature film is shot with a Nikon d5100 with a kit lens, it will not go anywhere and he is absolutely driving me nuts. I think it's mainly bothering me because I slightly believe him. In this day and age, I have yet to see a highly successful film that has been shot on a cheap Nikon or canon with a kit lens. Most follow the industry standard RED/Panavision for most festivals or they at least have a Nikon D800 or the latest Canon rebel.

Back in the day, people were able to just pick up a camera and make a film. Now, you typically see MOST filmmakers renting out high quality filming equipment to compete with industry standards to get their films recognized...

But my question to you is.. If the production values of your film are good, then does the quality of your camera still matter? Like if you have tons of props, beautiful set location, nice audio equipment, but there is a significant low quality graininess to your quality videos. No matter how good the lighting is with a Nikon D5100, it still looks a significant lower quality to most films shot with a RED camera. So my question to you is, if you want to compete with the big boys that submit their films to Cannes to get recognized, do you need to get a RED camera and not shoot a feature on an old Nikon with a kit lens? Or does it matter?

The budget of my feature film by the way is $28,000 in which 60% is going toward props/costuming, 25% cast and crew, and 15% toward equipment costs.

Thanks for the feedback!


**EDIT** I also know some of you guys will say "People use dslr cameras for industry shows and movies like House!" but when you watch the show House, you will notice that the video quality of the show is very similar to a RED camera. What is considered "Professional" in quality of videos today needs to always match the RED/Panavision quality it seems like for most very prestigious film festivals to accept them. My video looks like a high quality film that was shot in the 1980s. It's not bad, it just definitely does not look at par with what the Nikon D800, RED Cameras and cameras such as produce...

@White the budget is too tight and we've already filmed too many scenes with the Nikon D5100.

@sfoster 18-55. The basic lens that comes with the Nikon D5100

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

He thinks that the idea is absolutely absurd and highly recommends that instead of proceeding with this film, I should invest in a RED Epic to shoot this feature film on.

You need to ditch this actor, pronto. And anyone else on your set that questions your equipment selection. The relationship is tainted for this project. This person is going to ruin the production for you.

------

That said, it is okay to collect general feedback from people before you begin production, but if anyone tells you MUST invest in a certain piece of equipment, considered it a RED FLAG.

It's your money, go with what YOU can live with. Everyone else, f-all! Once production starts everyone needs to shut the fuck up.

Good luck.

 

[WalterB]

......... RED FLAG.

.......

Great pun.

But yeah: the train is already rolling, so he has to be patient.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What they don't tell you is that Directing is really a combination game of a vision and confidence.

There's a great deal they don't tell you about directing! Interviews, BTS videos (and similar) are effectively an individual's or production company's PR/marketing tools and/or supporting products, and for this reason they need to be interesting. Directors therefore tend to concentrate on the production phase of filmmaking, which to the vast majority is the most dynamic/interesting filmmaking phase but in reality is also actually the shortest of the five filmmaking phases. Additionally they obviously tend towards the more interesting/unusual anecdotes, which are the exceptions, while simultaneously being diplomatic. All this leads to a very limited and skewed impression of what being a director, a general filmmaker or film crafts person actually is.

There is no team in the vision part of it. There is one vision, and everybody works together to implement that vision.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this statement, at least in one sense. In professional, dramatic productions my experience is that a team, albeit a small team (a few Dept. Heads, Producer, Director, maybe screenwriter and/or others), is very much a part of forming the vision, which is an evolutionary process throughout development and preproduction phases. How collaborative this vision creation process is does vary but it seems to me that modern filmmakers by necessity tend towards more collaboration. I do agree though, that once the vision is formulated, it's the Director's job to get everyone to work together to implement that vision, forcefully or diplomatically, whatever works with the individuals concerned, baring in mind that with the possible exception of the Producer no one apart from the Director actually knows the full scope/details of that vision.

The difficulty at the lo/no budget and inexperienced end of filmmaking is creating this vision. Inexperienced/amateur filmmakers tend to create a vision aimed at the production phase of filmmaking, rather than at the post-production phase and their vision therefore tends to have at least serious weaknesses if not huge great holes. In other words, they virtually never create a comprehensive, realistic and coherent vision in the first place! Without a comprehensive, realistic and coherent vision the Director is forced into making many more "off the cuff" decisions during filming which not only increases the chances of mistakes (not ideal materials for post-production) but opens the Director up to others making suggestions, second guessing or even disputing those decisions.

It's hard though. It's not easy.

It is indeed! Although I have on occasion envied the decision making power which directors have, I've never been even slightly tempted to try and be one myself! Not because it's hard work but because of the breadth of the role and the breadth of the personnel management/manipulation skills required.

If it were me, I would tell the cast member that the camera/lenses decision was made in pre-production but he/she should feel free to have a chat with the camera dept. if they wish, providing they don't distract them from their job.

G