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

 

[WhiteOpus]

I'd say just sell the D5100 and pick up a gh4 w/ a zoom lens. If your budget is $28,000, why not just spend 2k buying a decent camera?

If all of your budget is already spoken for, and you think you can get quality images by using other methods than nice cameras, then fire that actor. You don't need that kind of negativity on your set.

 

[sfoster]

i'd be more worried about your kit lens than the camera.

you have just one lens ?

 

[rayw]

What are you going to do with this $28k "investment" when you're finished editing it?

Is there a marketing campaign or web page already up & running for this film?

How's your audio collection?

If your cast (not crew, right?) member's primary concern is the image and not the audio or marketing then he's concerned about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you want to compete with Cannes entries then you'll need real "talent" for marketing purposes who would walk off the set the moment he saw you using this:

This $28k film likely isn't going to Cannes, so your cast-ard can just figure out a more useful way to help get this film in front of more people than pretty pictures will.

 

[directorik]

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?

This is pretty tech-centered forum. There is a lot of focus on equipment.
I'm not one of them. I believe it's the content of the film (acting, story,
creativity) that makes a good movie that will go somewhere. Festivals
don't care what camera or lens you used. The judge the movie on how
well it works - on how it makes them feel. Audio is far more important
than the camera used. Slightly grainy, slightly lower video quality but
well acted with a great story, inspired direction, tight editing, perfect
audio and great music will be able to compete.

But you seem to be leaning towards the advice of your main cast member.
And you seem to believe that it's the camera that makes an acceptable,
marketable movie that will go somewhere. So do what you can to get the
camera others are telling you to get.

BTW: did you look at the films in competition at Cannes last year? Did
you see the average budget for feature films? How many were under
$200,000? If you want to compete with the big boys that submit their
films to Cannes to get recognized you should understand what THAT
festival looks for. Name actors are FAR more important than the camera
used. Tell that to you main actor...

 

[Sweetie]

But my question to you is.. If the production values of your film are good, then does the quality of your camera still matter?

It does, but in most situations, not as much as many think. Though, that being said, it really does depend on what you're doing with your film. If you're doing special effects, blue/green screen etc, the sub-sampling rate and bitrate of the camera becomes somewhat important.

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.

A better camera will either capture better images or do a job more suited to your needs. You need to be careful of incremental improvements. It's easy to step from your camera, to a 5d, to a Red One, Red Epic, Dragon, Alexa, Arri 65mm. Each step costs more and brings something to the table.

Just be aware, it's more than just the camera. Each step up can also add to the cost production and post production. Extra storage, more hardware required, more complicated workflow etc. etc.

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?

As Rik already said, talent attachments have more to do with Cannes these days. If you can afford those talent attachments, your choice of camera shouldn't be much of a concern. Your concern should be more to do about the elements you can control. Your marketability, marketing, story, blocking and getting a professional output.

I read recently that of the 5000 odd feature film submissions to Cannes, the average cost was 1.7mil and about 70 were accepted - Not sure which year these numbers were for. That's a little more than 1% success rate. I don't say this to discourage you, I say this to let you know, you're going to need to make a masterpiece.

Last thing. If you do go ahead using this camera, you may need to consider whether your actor is going to give their best performance if they have the belief that your camera won't get your film anywhere.

Good luck.

 

[Jack Lynt]

What others have already said. ^

In your edit, you seemed to have told us that changing the camera is already too late, since you've "...already filmed too many scenes with the Nikon D5100." So, sounds like you'll just have to live with it. No?

So, you're committed. If so, then what's the point of fretting over it? Maybe it's time to just make the best of it?

28K is no small amount of money from my perspective, so I don't blame you fretting over it. Is it your personal money?

Yes, there are ITers who will tell you that anything from a DSLR will be unacceptable on the big screen.

But like Rik said, probably, if you want to fret about something, fret about sound. It seems to be a truism that an audience will forgive lower quality image much more easily than they will forgive substandard audio. Make sure an adequate percentage of that 28K is going toward sound. And also all the other things Rik and others have said --story, acting, marketing, etc., are far more important.

It depends on what you mean by "successful." But Tiny Furniture was shot with a 7D and enjoyed some success, at least by some measures.

We have no idea who your actor is or what your relationship with him is exactly. But it might be time to put your (benevolent) dictator, director/producer hat on and tell him to stop worrying you about your gear and stick to worrying about his performance.

 

[itarumaa]

Last Saturday we had a premiere for my film and we saw it in the big screen. Video was great, even the camera was Canon 550d and 50mm lens and lights used were work lights. Many people said that film looks good (and it does).

Again the problem was the audio, even with the proper stereo mix it still had some issues. So I would start my investments from audio.

 

[trueindie]

But Tiny Furniture was shot with a 7D and enjoyed some success, at least by some measures.

Exactly!!

@film
I don't know how many days you're into your film, and how many days you've remaining. But it is absolutely imperative that you stop this argument with your actor. I don't know how you want to do it. You can take him out to lunch or coffee by yourself, just the two of you or something, but you cannot be arguing with ANYONE in front of other people in your film on your set. It makes it more difficult to control your day, and to make sure that everybody is listening to your direction.

If you pay me to do your bidding, I'll do whatever you want for the right pay. I'll clean your dishes, or your toilet, as long as I'm getting paid. I may complain, but I'll do as I'm told, because doing as I'm told helps pay the bills. You said your budget is 28K. In a setting like that, it means that the cast and crew are not getting paid that much. In that kind of a setting, the cast and crew, even through their grumblings, must be running to your tune, the moment you say go. Otherwise, everybody gets to exercise their artistic impulse, and pretty soon, everybody is a director. The funny thing about movies, at our level at least, is that everybody has an opinion on movies and what shots they like, so why should they really listen to you? You're no expert. So everybody is going to question you. It's only natural. Every day that goes by, you will have less and less control, at our pay levels. So the idea is to make sure that people don't question what you're saying. You can't win their trust with money, at our level, so you need to win it by knowing everything, knowing every detail, and making sure that people are not arguing with you, or changing your decisions after you made them. It's a creeping problem. But if not arrested, it will affect your film.

I just made a $25K film (I'm afraid to count, because every time I count, it seems like I actually spent way more). I made it over 11 days, and most people got paid very little. And I spent most of the money on wages. Maybe about 25 to 30% went to props and location rentals. Very little went to gear, as we shot with what we owned, between myself and the DP, and everything else went to actors and crew. And I didn't get paid. So I don't know what your situation is, but I think you can lose control of your crew very quickly if you don't put a stop to this argument with your actor. It's not his fault. He's going to want to be shot with a better camera. It's only natural. It's your job to convince him that a red camera doesn't mean Jack Sh*t, if you or your crew don't know how to use it.

I don't want to publicly ridicule anyone, but I'm going to pm you a link to a web series shot with a red camera for a budget of about $40K. It's not that it's especially bad, but it's absolutely nothing special. You show that to your actor, and you tell him, that's what's going to happen, if you bring in a red camera, and not know how to use it. Then show him the stuff you've already shot. Color correct a little bit and show him what you've shot. I guarantee you, whatever you've shot, is going to be better than the link I send you. Convince him that you know what you're doing. And tell him, that it works against the film, the final project, when he argues publicly with you. Tell him, that you need his support to finish this project properly. Tell him that it's in your interest and his interest that the project is a good final package, and for that you need his cooperation. If he has a grievance, he should make them known to you privately, but if he does it publicly, it's not helpful. It undermines your ability to direct your film properly. Somehow or the other, you need to manage your actor. It's also important that your actor trusts you. It's EXTREMELY important that he trusts you. This person is moving to your beat. Or at least that's what you want. That's not going to happen, unless he gives himself completely to you. You need this person on your side ASAP.

That's the one thing I do. I make sure my actors believe in me completely. At the end of the day, I make my actors believe that whatever I say, is in their best interests. I believe it in my bones that if my actors look good, I look good. I believe it inside and out. I make sure that they know it. Your actor must trust you completely. There's no two ways about it.

Also, there is no way, you can switch cameras now without it causing a serious problem in post production just to make sure your images match. It's possible, but it only means huge waste in time and money. Don't do it. Do NOT change camera! I wouldn't say no to renting a few lenses, but talk it over with your DP in confidence, not your actor.

Anyway, maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm just telling you what I would do in your situation. But whatever happens, this is going to be the funnest time you're going to have for a while. I hope you enjoy it fully. I hope you're able to get the trust of your actor. But I'm pretty sure nothing ever will go smoothly . And that's part of the beauty of the fun .

Check you private message.
Best,
Aveek

 

[MileCreations]

A good camera will not make a good film. A good camera will not necessarily make a good story look like a great film visually.

From a story perspective, amazing cinematography will only get you so far. As you yourself said other production values are what really make the film. Your film could look amazing but if there story, or the characters aren't there for you to connect with, then you're not going to be accepted into a larger festival.

From a visual perspective. Say you have a budget. With that budget you will decide what you want your film to look like; based on that you might make the creative choice to shoot on a specific camera. But it's not just about the camera. It's about the lighting decisions within the frame. Poor lighting will still look like poor lighting on a Red. If you know you are specifically lighting for a DSLR, and an entry level at that, you can make decisions and light according in order to get a better image. ON TOP of all of this, a Red shooting at a blank wall isn't going to look much better than a DSLR; it's the production design elements within the mise en scene which really help to make a film look great. On that note there are a number of other high end digital cameras which are used in smaller indie productions which in the right hands still produce amazing imagery such as the Sony F55, or you could go full indie and look at something like a Blackmagic Camera.

My opinion?
Firstly, make sure you secure decent audio for this project. It'll definitely not be accepted into a big festival if it sounds terrible. Just recently I watched a whole series of short films. One I came out of confused at the story but just listening to the film you could tell their sound design budget far exceeded all the other films.
Secondly...ditch the Nikon. Or at the very least the kit lens. Sure, features and TV shows use DLSRs for parts on occasion, but I haven't heard of many/any which have used the entry level DSLRs. My personal opinion would be to get a slightly better camera. If you're into Nikon then go for the D610, or something in it's range, and invest in a decent lens or two. You could probably quite easily lay only $2500 grand into a decent body and a not terrible zoom lens.

On a side note, unless your film is a period piece, I think 60% of the budget spent on props and costumes could be better spent elsewhere. It's a lot easier to borrow somebody's nice jacket or their kitchen table for free then it is to somehow score a whole bunch of professional lights or even just their stands for free.

All the best with your feature

 

[trueindie]

Secondly...ditch the Nikon.

But don't you think at this stage switching the camera would only add to problems? He's already shot part of his film. If he switches camera now, the images going forward are going to look completely different.

We were going to use two cameras on our film. We ran a test between the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D MII, before our shoot, and the images looked vastly different under the same lighting conditions. It was different enough that we decided we couldn't use the two cameras together, at least not for the same scene.

I'm not sure about changing the camera. But of course you DPs know more than I do. But I'm thinking about post production when I'm shooting. To me, changing camera now is a bad idea, from that perspective.

 

[rayw]

Anyway, maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Nah, IMHO you're spot on.

The camera is such a minor piece of the ENTIRE scope of a film project.
It's like complaining about a car's color or steering wheel.

"LOL! Seriously?! THAT'S your problem?"

 

[directorik]

I agree; changing the camera after shooting footage you cannot
reshoot is a bad choice.

The camera is important, don't get me wrong. If there is a real
possibility of a theatrical release the camera is more important.
But I emphasize "real". So few under $250,000 movies get a
theatrical release that possibility rarely comes up. So the focus
of the filmmaker should be story and characters above all else.
People who will watch "zero" budget feature won't care about
the camera used if they are engaged in the story.

And (I'm repeating myself) if the filmmakers goal is to get into
Cannes (or one of the top five) then money needs to be spent
on name actors.

 

[MileCreations]

I agree; changing the camera after shooting footage you cannot
reshoot is a bad choice.

The camera is important, don't get me wrong. If there is a real
possibility of a theatrical release the camera is more important.
But I emphasize "real". So few under $250,000 movies get a
theatrical release that possibility rarely comes up. So the focus
of the filmmaker should be story and characters above all else.
People who will watch "zero" budget feature won't care about
the camera used if they are engaged in the story.

And (I'm repeating myself) if the filmmakers goal is to get into
Cannes (or one of the top five) then money needs to be spent
on name actors.

Basically listen to this ^ (perhaps consider spending half your budget on an experienced actor, or all of it)



I was just going from the angle that if you're spending $28k on a film it'd be a real bummer to shoot it on a piece of equipment of such low quality. But yes, if scenes are shot then you shouldn't change it.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

If your cast (not crew, right?) member's primary concern is the image and not the audio or marketing then he's concerned about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Love this. And true.

 

[mrpink89]

"Get the job Done"- Rufus

 

[AudioPostExpert]

If the production values of your film are good, then does the quality of your camera still matter?

In this scenario, then yes, the quality of the camera does matter. However, it seems to me that your focus on the camera has lead to you posing a rather ridiculous hypothetical question in the first place! That "if" at the beginning of the quote is a huge, great big "if"! Good production values are not achieved with tons of props, beautiful locations and nice audio equipment! It's achieved by the right props, appropriate locations, highly skilled and experienced Production Designer, Costume Designer, DP, Make-up Artist, Gaffer, Editor and Colourist and, better than "nice" audio equipment, along with: A highly skilled PSM, Boom Op, Sound Designer, Dialogue Editor, Sound FX Editor, Foley team, ADR team and Re-recording Mixer/s.

The reason why your question is a "rather ridiculous hypothetical" is because the cost of hiring all these skilled professionals with the equipment and for the time required to achieve good production values is so high, that the cost of hiring a good camera + lenses pales into insignificance. In other words, the real answer to your question is "no", the quality of your camera doesn't matter because the production values of your film are not going to be good. With a lot of time, work and luck, you might be able to achieve mediocre or acceptable production values but without a much larger budget (for a team/s of skilled pros), achieving good production values is pretty much inconceivable.

... when you watch the show House, you will notice that the video quality of the show is very similar to a RED camera.

No, you're missing the point. With the exception of the odd DP and Cameraman, pretty much no one notices the video quality of House at all, let alone notice it's similar to a RED! The scriptwriting (fairly sophisticated character dynamics/development and storylines), acting and other TV crafts all combine to result in an engrossing drama. If any but a few extreme video camera buffs are specifically noticing the video quality, then the makers would have failed because by definition the the drama would not be "engrossing" and chances are that House would never even have been aired in the first place, let alone achieve the huge success it did.

In other words, there's a multitude of filmmaking areas and crafts more worthy of your time and worry than which camera to use. Is a $28k film shot on a Nikon D5100 going to "go anywhere"? Probably not ... If it doesn't go anywhere, it will be because of poor acting, poor script, poor editing, poor directing, poor execution of the other film crafts, poor marketing or most likely some combination of these factors but, it won't be because it was shot on a Nikon D5100!

At the end of the day, unless the actors' performances are spot on (or very close) it's not going to matter much whether you shoot with a top of the range Alexa setup or a cell phone, so obviously every ounce of your cast member's attention needs to be focused on their performance. The fact that's obviously not where their attention is purely focused does not bode well for your film and is ultimately a Director failure. Most likely, they're banging on about the camera to divert attention away from their own acting abilities/insecurities but whatever the reason, as Director you need to find some quick and effective way of getting them to STFU and concentrate instead on producing superb acting performances!

G

 

[FantasySciFi]

I would echo TrueIndie's comments that this is a People issue, not so much an Equipment issue. I don't know the degree of investment the cast member has in the project--both creative and monetary. Tact is an important asset. The director needs to be in charge. Most actors, especially if paid, will step back if pulled aside as suggested and gently persuaded that it's in everyone's best interest. The worst case--the actor threatens to leave--can be very frustrating.

You have two choices, re-cast and re-shoot OR re-write the script with an exit plan for the character. And as director, I would say, "You're not happy with the decisions I need to make and I accept that. I value your input but as director, I need to make that choice." If he threatens to leave, then "You've done fine work and should get credit for it. I'm prepared to help exit your character from the script. All you need to do is finish shooting the exit scenes."

Now some would say they wouldn't be so generous, but let me assure you that most actors having already given time to a project, would rather do one more shoot and get the credit than walk. As a director, it's more cost effective to alter the script to continue shooting than to have to re-shoot several scenes. Especially if you have to re-access locations. It's easier and more cost effective to kill off a character. Take a break to alter the script, then resume the shoot. This happens in major movies too when an actor dies or is injured. And many annoying actors on television find their characters meeting untimely ends. I know one television producer who confided he keeps an exit strategy for all his characters.

I would honestly try to smooth things out first but you need to be firm. If you can get the cast member to simply fall in line, all the better. But if they get in a huff, a departure is a frustration though isn't necessarily the end of the film. Film production works best as a team effort. As long as you have a signed consent to use their image and voice, their presence or absence is of no consequence. I like to include a line in the contract that it is contingent on their completion of role that they receive credit, payment, etc. People who are difficult to get along with on the set get reputations that come back to haunt them. They often forget that the 'off camera/on set' drama is also witnessed by other crew who work on other projects. As crew or even talent, you hear the gossip. Directors know which actors are miserable to work with and often start to avoid them, and vice versa. So praise in public, reprimand in private.

 

[trueindie]

as Director you need to find some quick and effective way of getting them to STFU and concentrate instead on producing superb acting performances!

G

It's hard though. It's not easy. Just watch Fincher tell a story about his interaction with a cameraman at 4:30. And remember, even though he's new, he's working on a $150K budget music video. Most of us working on peanut budgets, and everyone is questioning us, and probably none of us are Fincher or has any of his talents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqU4lEkNokk

If it happens to Fincher, just imagine what happens to the rest of us. People are questioning you constantly. Most people have just come off another set. And almost every single one of them think that they know more than you do, because they know what a c-47 or an MOS is. Most of the time, all it means is that they went to some film school.

What they don't tell you is that Directing is really a combination game of a vision and confidence. Filmmaking may be a team effort, but the team has to work together to implement a vision. There is no team in the vision part of it. There is one vision, and everybody works together to implement that vision. It sounds cocky. It sounds rude. But it's true. The moment people start to put their vision into your vision, you're no longer director.

It's a fine balance, to get people to follow your direction in what is supposed to be a creative effort, and to make sure that you don't come off like an a**hole. But it can surely be done. But it's really a fine art at low budgets, where walking off the set is not a career ender for anybody.

But you do have to have a particular, articulated, and a near exact vision. When you know when something has gone wrong, and nobody else knows what went wrong, and you catch it, because it doesn't go with some other shot, or whatever the edit is going to be, or something someone said that doesn't match with something someone else will say in the future, or has said in the past, your crew starts to fall in line, and starts to believe that you know what you're doing. And then it's easier. But it's still not easy. It's a constant, constant battle.

 

[WalterB]

Well said!
There has to be one vision!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1IMZmJe-U