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

The Prosumer Myth is bad

OK, I know I'm not going to make any friends with this thread, but I really need to share my thoughts and feelings about the mythology of Prosumer camcorder film making.

The basic problem with cheap prosumer camcorders is they give both too much and too little to make a movie.

They give too much in terms of formats: DV/Dvcam/HDV/HD720p/DVCPro50/DVCProHD etc etc... and yet neither the chips or the optics are good enough to serve the formats... and because the price you pay for a cheap camcorder is HAVING to use the sub-standard lens they provide, there is always going to be a huge difference between what those camcorders promise and what they deliver.

Not only that, because they are always light weight and either won't shoulder mount... or when they can, don't have the right kind of balance for hand held camera work... they present a set of limitations, which isn't out weighted (IMO) by their cheapness.

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.

Secondly, working on prosumer camcorders with no crew is completely different from working with a professional crew and equipment. Only about 30% of the skills acquired shooting on camcorders translates over to working with professional kit... even less when it comes to camera operating or producing.

So, actually the skills a DV camcorder film maker acquires don't relate to the industry at all... they are not good learning tools.

If we go back a few years... then indies worked in a different way (this is more true in the UK and Europe where there has never been a market for home grown direct to DVD movies)... basically, a film maker made some short films... either on digital or on film... saved up their money and honed a really good short, which they shot on 35mm with a name actor... and they they used this demonstration of technical competence to chase down a budget large enough to shoot their first feature film... on film.

Every step of that process they worked with the best professional crews they could... they shot less often... but they invested more time in development of their ideas and their scripts.

Now, professional HD equipment and film cameras are still available for us to use... not always at a huge price... there are skilled professionals out there who want to work on interesting projects.

Primer was shot, on film, for $7000.

The very practice of working on film... or on professional HD means you have to prepare your story and your shoot. You can't just pick up you camera and waste both tape and time noodling about.

What I've seen in the indie world isn't the explosion of new talent into the industry... but instead a ghetto mentality... "we make films on camcorders... we only do it this way... we think every new format development or gadget is going to allow us to live the dream of making movies, without actually having to make movies."

Instead of seeing hundreds of breakout movies hitting the cinema, made with the advantages of new technology, instead I see more and more indies going from film making as a career to film making as a hobby.

Somewhere in the last seven years the possibilities of new digital technology destroyed the indie film scene... a scene that has stopped talking about distribution deals... a scene that has stopped talking about budgets... a scene that has replaced movie making with talk about the new cameras.

And we've let this happen... what the hell went wrong... and when did the ambition to make real movies stop being a part of indie film making.

Somewhere the difference between being a film maker and being an indie became a yawning chasm... and it all happened in the last five years.

I do have a solution though... stop making films, stop buying equipment... work out what movie you really want to make and spent the next year writing it... then make it with a professional crew on either film or at the very least the Panasonic Varicam.

Either that...or somebody make a film on a prosumer camcorder that gets an international cinema release and some decent press.
 
Last edited:
Prosumer cameras come with a cheap price tag... anyone who takes that route for cameras will probably apply the same logic to all aspects of film making. Once you get into the mind set of "how can I DIY this for $25" then you automatically dismiss the professional tools to do the job. And, I think that's a mistake.

What happens next is the scripts get written to match the resources; rather, than the resources being found to match the script. In other words the camera starts to dictate the kind of film that gets made.

I disagree with the first paragraph and think you hit the nail on the head (somewhat) with the second. That DIY mentality drives the industry technologically throughout history...without it, we wouldn't have any of the grip tools we currently have access to as they were almost all developed on the fly to address a specific problem on set.

The second paragraph is just the mindset of the filmmaker...Lots will have this mindset. Kevin Smith wrote to his resources (and continues to)...Rodriquez wrote to his resources. Yes, they shot on film...but they started out with the barest monetary resources and made magic with them. I know (and have argued) that these are bad examples due to the fact that they are both one in a million types of careers...but they inspired me to pursue filmmaking. I don't have the time or money resources to be able to drop everything in my life to pursue a typical hollywood career path...but I did amass the resources (material and personnel) to pursue it on a hobby basis to start out with.

I've never left sight of my vision of "making it"...but I've tempered that with the reality that I have to feed my children and keep my house. That leaves me in a location with a floundering (but enthusiastic) creative community and little access to filmmaking resources...the old guy with a 16mm camera is apparently a hermit here that doesn't come out during the day, and thereby can't be found ;). I did check the yellow pages too...and he wasn't in there (I looked under 16mm guy).

Networking with film folks is a random thing fueled by excitement in communities like this. Since I don't have the option to uproot to LA or NY. I'm working within my means (according to the first paragraph, not the second...I'm thinking big and finding ways to pull off things that I shouldn't be able to do with my available resources).

I am currently working on a feature project (development stage, nowhere near the funding stage yet) that will be a large budgeted, 35mm (or RED rental - my preference) musical. I'm not thinking small, not limiting the script to what I have available and have learned through my DV filmmaking process that I can do anything I set my mind to...so the mindset is the thing in this equation, not the equipment. Some people stop at DV and don't make moves toward bigger...and that's OK for them, not a problem with the community.

One of the reasons I haven't really mentioned it much is that it's off on the horizon and I'm not publicly discussing the project at this point. I've got a writer with great credentials who is looking to develop a more commercial endeavor than he's worked on in the past. He's currently an avant-garde performance artist and published writer who is looking to expand (very YAFI attitude) into work that is approachable by a wider audience. While I would scoff at my prospects of this working just from reading this post, I hand selected this guy as a creative partner due to several specific attributes he will bring to the project...not a random choice. Once developed, I will be working on securing some funding and trying to get a named actor attached to it to help secure more funding. I'm not putting a specific timeline on the development/preproduction piece of this so I can end up with a script that will actually have a chance of securing funding.

I'm a dyed in the wool DV filmmaker with a DIY filmmaker's mindset...but I have grand visions!
 
I guess we each take a view from our own experience



All I can say is this is exactly how I leaned to make films... I directed my first short, shot on a Pansonic DVCPro25 camera worth at that time about $50K and a professional crew ... then we won a Royal Television Society award with it, then had it distributed on 400,000 copies of Total Film magazine in the UK.

My first DOP had fifteen years of experience, my first sound guy twenty-two. My 1st AD was an award wining director in his own right... as was the guy holding the boom.
....Show of hands for everyone who had access to a $50K camera and professional crew for their first short.....The point is: that is not often an option. Nor is renting the $50k camera. I bought my camera because for the time I would have needed it for, I could pay for it for what I would be renting.

If you have a brain in your head and want to be a filmmaker, you have to knock on doors, because you might not have access to all of these people. I know I didn't and didn't know anyone who did. I know more people now, but that was because I went looking for them.


Everything I learned about film making I learned from guys making a living in TV and film. I didn't have to figure a lot of this stuff out... because people just showed me how it's done.
You were fortunate there as well. I can't tell you how many people hoard what they know for fear of someone knowing more than they do, don't get me started. (I learned more from IndieTalk in 3 months than I did in a year when I first started getting serious about filmmaking, than I did at my old job and that was computer stuff.)

You don't always have access to those people who have the kind of experience you speak of. If you are conscienous, you seek them out. I have found that many of these people are willing to talk to you, but don't expect them to work for free, (they have to make a living too and that should be respected.) If I want to talk to people in the business, I have to go to Detroit. That is an all day event, but I do it because I want to get better at what I am doing.

Naturally, you won't know more than most in filmmaking when you start out, but you have to find those who are open and willing to explain things to you. When you don't have access to these people, you get yourself out there and go to the library or public access or else you are out of luck.

We spent $6K on that first short... but to be fair, these days I could get the same thing made for under $1K. Most of the 6K went into an online edit and laybacks. And... I knew we needed $6K, I went out and found a corporate sponsor... none of the money came out of my pocket.

What bothers me is exactly the point you're making... prosumer seems like the only choice... it isn't, there are other ways. The only problem is, with prosumer being so cheap and simple... very few people do it any other way.

The money is still difficult to find even with a sponsor. Almost everything I have done has come out of pocket. Grants/Investors are not easy to find and they come with their own set of particulars. That is not to say don't look for them, but its not easy to do this sort of thing for one's first short.

Prosumer is what I have access to right now. Its not where I intend to stay, heck! I'd love one of the new HD cameras, they are out of my reach right now. But it is not an option for me, to not do something.

I reiterate that there is a difference between someone who is happy with point-and-shoot and those who want to move beyond that. Some people may aspire to only go as far as YouTube and that is fine. Personally, my aspirations are beyond that, but in that I only have prosumer, I have to make sure that everything else is working, camerawork, editing, audio, etc. I can't expect what I do to be okay if it only looks like home movies and neither can anyone who wants to be a success in filmmaking. Just because it is on tape/film doesn't make it a great film. The aspiration has to be to create the great film.

Prosumer isn't the only way, but it is the only way I have access to and for the time being, I have to make that work for me...

-- spinner :cool:
 
Last edited:
.Show of hands for everyone who had access to a $50K camera and professional crew for their first short.

Hands up everyone who tried to get a $50K camera and a professional crew for their first short?

I think you'll find the answer to both questions is usually the same... and that is my point.

I had a pro crew and a budget for my first film because I didn't know people made films on camcorders... so I assumed I needed all those things and people to make a film. And, because I wanted to make a film... I did what was needed to achieve my film. My ignorance of prosumer film making FORCED me to deal with professionals and find a budget.

I AM NOT LUCKY... I can do what I do, because those are the skills I acquired by NOT working on prosumer cameras... if you can only make a film by finding people to help you, then you get good at finding and keeping the right people.

If somebody says to me "I spoke to every professional in a fifty mile radius and they all slammed the door in my face" then I'll buy the idea that prosumer is the answer... but most people reach for that B&H catalogue before they've spoken to anyone in their region.
 
I guess making my first couple of shorts...I didn't know I could get hold of a big film camera (not that I could have afforded to make a short at age 14 with no job and no clue...but I did get to run a HUGE broadcast pedestal camera for a local cable station - my dad volunteered there alot).

Didn't know I needed a script or actual actors...just did my thing with a VHS camera that someone brought over.

Starting big seems like an anomaly to me rather than the "way it should be done". You have to know the questions before you can ask them...and they simply don't occur until you've run into problems that need a solution.

I think you are the exception rather than the rule. It's often hard to look back without your personal experience colouring how you perceive the world...but I don't think your path is normal Clive.
 
I had a pro crew and a budget for my first film because I didn't know people made films on camcorders... so I assumed I needed all those things and people to make a film. And, because I wanted to make a film... I did what was needed to achieve my film. My ignorance of prosumer film making FORCED me to deal with professionals and find a budget.

I AM NOT LUCKY... I can do what I do, because those are the skills I acquired by NOT working on prosumer cameras... if you can only make a film by finding people to help you, then you get good at finding and keeping the right people.

Please don't misunderstand my post. :)

I get what you are saying. However, I think that which you have achieved is testament to your drive and determination. I am sure many people you started out with probably fell by the wayside.

I also think maybe our definitions of "luck" are different. To me, luck isn't being struck by lightning. Luck is being in the right place, at the right time and being fully prepared. I don't think that you "stumbled" upon anything and don't mean to imply that. It is clear that you worked for what you have. But your chances of making important contacts in film will go up if you live in Los Angeles. Or at least work around people who are in the business.

I mean no disrespect....:)

-- spinner :cool:
 
Regardless of which side of this argument you may land on, I think it's exciting that Red can provide far better quality for $25K than that $50K Panasonic DVCPro25 ever could, and it's quite likely that some pro-sumer cameras today could match it or even beat it. My personal take on that is "power to the people!" and "down with the Hollywood, corporate hegemony!".

In my opinion, you cannot judge a storyteller by the amount of money he/she can funnel into their production. Judge the production by the final product, not how it came about, or how much it cost.
 
I love hollywood movies...weak plots and all! Simply because I can't currently make a pirateship blow up while Johnny Depp hangs form the mizzenmast in the middle of a giant whirl pool in the middle of some random ocean!

I can make a film that has people doing heartfelt inner feeling dialog in interesting locations. I tend to watch lots of popcorn blockbusters that people deride and just revel in the sheer extravagance (which at $12 it had better darn well be chock full of). I'm a big fan of the corporate hegemony so far as their ability to pour truckloads of cash into a project goes. I know that there will always be an artistic underground that strives to put their auteuristic visions on the screen...and people will go to see it because their souls need that artistic fulfillment...but something in me really likes to see big things blow up!

I'm excited at the prospect of the RED though and what it means for the big studios. Imagine their ability to green light more projects by buying a bunch of final cut studio edit bays and red cameras... no more camera rentals (no offense to rental houses - they're great) for the studios...no more film stock costs (replaced by much cheaper hard drives for capture and storage).
 
Yep... that's me... none of my shorts, TV work or the first feature are listed on IMDB. I must update it at some point.

I guess you guys are right, my circumstances are different from most people entering the industry.

For a start, I didn't make my first film until I was in my mid-thirties and I'd already had a successful career as a writer in advertising.

So, I came to film primarily as a writer and I really wasn't interested in the technical side of film making... and because I already worked in professional media production I had a fixed idea of how things worked.

The other thing is, my work involved me going out and asking for huge amounts of money for my creative work... so I guess I also had a huge amount of self confidence both in myself as a writer and in the value of what I was doing. I came to film making with skills and a level of self-confidence that no teenager could be expected to match... or to be fair anyone who hadn't worked as a professional writer.

The downside of my approach is I definitely get into production less often than other film makers... I can go a couple of years between projects. As a result I've probably spend more time writing than most indies.

Now, I've been round this forum for a long time now...and in that time I've learned to DOP, edit, colour correct and grade, do my own audio... from recording to foley to mix-down... and a thousand other things I had no intention of learning when I first started out.

I'm glad I can do those things and I think there are definite advantages to being able to make films under your own control... almost alone.

However, by the same token, there are a lot of advantages to the way I work... all I want to do with this thread is offer people a different way of working... for them to see there is film making beyond prosumer camcorders.

And... yes, of course the RED is interesting... I've seen a lot of production companies buy into RED as a replacement for their ageing Varicams... which is good for me, because it means there are more Varicams knocking about.

Look, I'm really not trying to put anyone's nose out of joint here... I sometimes feel a bit isolated in the indie community, because my circumstances and working practices are so very different. I just need to shout about what I do every now and again... because there is a lot of good in the way I work. I've made films that I'm proud of and worked with people who were marvellous to work with.
 
Circumstances certainly play a huge part, but I would encourage anyone interested in film making to pick up whatever camera they can get their hands on and make one.

And I would encourage them to learn how to write... because 75% of indies figure out how to shoot and edit, but a fraction of that number learn to write well enough to justify the learning they've put into production.
 
And I would encourage them to learn how to write... because 75% of indies figure out how to shoot and edit, but a fraction of that number learn to write well enough to justify the learning they've put into production.

Sure, and I consider that part of "film making" when I use the term.

As a professional DP, I far prefer to work for a director that's tinkered with writing as well as shooting, and editing, before they got the money to hire me, as opposed to a writer who hasn't actually made anything since film school that's been handed some money to direct. I know the old saying, the only entry level positions on a film are PA and director, but nobody has to work for a clueless PA.

My trouble is this: I don't understand how anyone can conclude that even though they no nothing about cinematography, editing, or pretty much anything technical, and with little to no experience with visual storytelling or getting decent performances from actors or crew in general, somehow still feel they're qualified to be captain of the whole ship.

No matter how confident one is, they can't possibly know they're a good, worthy, director until they actually do it. Now that the technology is available, isn't it better to find that out before they waste a bunch of people's time and money?
 
My trouble is this: I don't understand how anyone can conclude that even though they no nothing about cinematography, editing, or pretty much anything technical, and with little to no experience with visual storytelling or getting decent performances from actors or crew in general, somehow still feel they're qualified to be captain of the whole ship.

Well that's certainly an opinion and one you have a right to hold.

However, let me share a bit of film history with you.

Bruce Robinson picked up an oscar for best screenplay for "Killing Fields" and he had a script he really wanted to make... so, he pulled together a modest budget... hired a DOP and some other pros and made "Withnail and I"

At the time he had neither any directorial or technical experience... he just knew how to write one of the greatest scripts of all time... and as an actor who had trained at Central Drama School, he REALLY understood performance.

All the decisions about camera placement, lens and all the technical stuff he delegated... in fact, on the first day of the shoot he got the whole crew together and told them he knew "FA" about the technical stuff and for people to be kind to him. Being a British crew... they did exactly that. They knew that the film was worth the effort... and everyone pulled their weight without bitching about Bruce's lack of directorial experience.

Now, if you read the screenplay for Withnail you notice two things... firstly it's perfectly obvious how the film needs to be shot, just from the script... and, also it breaks pretty much every rule ever created for formatting a script. A fact that pretty much destroys the "you have to have camera experience to tell a story visually" theory.

So... having made "Withnail" Bruce was whisked over the pond to make "Jenifer 8"... where both the Hollywood studio, the DOP and the crew made his life a misery because he wasn't technical... both the Oscar and "Withnail" meant nothing because he didn't know which prime he wanted and a director OUGHT to know shit like that... As a result he fled Hollywood, made a couple more indie films in the UK and then quit film making forever because the industry was full of wankers.

Personally I'd swap one Bruce Robinson for several hundred technically adept directors and DOPs.

And... I'm also fairly sure Citizen Kane was shot by a first time director who'd never shot an inch of film before stepping into the big chair. Just another great director who understood drama and writing.

... did I mention I won a Royal Television Society Award for my first short... one I made when I knew nothing about the technical aspects of film making?
 
Last edited:
Hey Knightly-- being that you are a fellow Minnesotan you probably already know this, but Johnny Depp is making a movie with some of to be filmed just across the border in Wisconsin in a small town there, I forget the name, was just on the local news here in Duluth MN last night.

Aside from that, I have enjoyed very much this thread, full of great wisdom, discussion, and inspiration.

I love hollywood movies...weak plots and all! Simply because I can't currently make a pirateship blow up while Johnny Depp hangs form the mizzenmast in the middle of a giant whirl pool in the middle of some random ocean!....
 
Clive,

I totally agree. Bruce Robinson, Orson Welles and you are a few of the rare exceptions.

I shouldn't have used the word "technical" as I know it bothers people. I certainly don't think the director needs to carry around a DOF chart or something, but if a first time director who had no experience around a film set and knew nothing technical about a camera told me to dig a hole in the floor to get the angle as low as he visioned... not only would I be impressed, but I consider them to be extremely technical.

Most people aren't that talented and need to practice a bit.
 
Look, I'm really not trying to put anyone's nose out of joint here...I sometimes feel a bit isolated in the indie community, because my circumstances and working practices are so very different. I just need to shout about what I do every now and again... because there is a lot of good in the way I work. I've made films that I'm proud of and worked with people who were marvellous to work with.

Eh, don't feel that way. Its just that some of us are at square one or two or three. You, sir, are at square 597 :D

I think your point is that the goal of filmmaking is to learn filmmaking. I agree. But until I talk Sam Raimi -- who is a legend at my college alma mater -- until I can talk that guy into letting me observe one of his projects from the inside, I'll suck it up and pretend my digital video cam is an Arriflex :lol:

-- spinner :cool:
 
Justin

I agree, people need to practice and learn in order to develop as film makers... you won 't find an argument with me at all about that. My doubt is whether camera ownership is the best way to achieve that.

Lets say, for example, we've got two wannabee film makers Bob and Fred. Neither of them know anything about making a film... but they each have a script.

Bob decides to buy a $500 camcorder and make the film himself... Fred decides to look round his area and find a more experienced film maker to help him and he finds Frank, who is an indie film maker who owns his own DVX200, lights, sound kit and also has half a dozen friends who also make films.

Bob meanwhile gets his mates, who have also never made a film, and they have a go at shooting Bob's script.

Fred, meanwhile is having coffee with Frank, who is going over Fred's script... making suggestions on how it could work better... and because he likes the script he agrees to help Fred make his first film... but Fred wants to direct the film... so Frank says to him... well, come and help out on a couple of our shoots first... and watch me direct my next short... so you understand what you're doing. So Fred goes and helps out on a couple of shoots.

Although it takes a bit longer... three months later Fred has also finished his first film, which was shot on a camera he couldn't afford, working with highly skilled people and edited on FCP... and although it has many of the flaws of a first film... it still looks like a film.

Bob meanwhile has cut his film on imovie after reading the manual and him and his mates have a beer and a laugh as they play it back... they've had loads of fun... so they decide to give it another go...but maybe they need a better camera?

It seems to me that the arguments for camera ownership are always about two things... cost and it's the best way to learn. I'm still not convinced either of those arguments are as watertight as they seem at first glance.

The other point I'd like to make is about the kind of experience that turns people into good film makers.

If you think about people like Orson Welles, Bruce Robinson, David Mammet they all spent years in the theatre before moving to film and yet in the indie film scene we talk very little about how to develop those skills. I think there is a strong case for telling a young director to NOT spend $2K on a camcorder, but instead to go do Tom Noonan's acting workshop in New York... which is aimed at writers/directors and actors.

I think there is also a case for telling a young film maker to spend their $2K on sound kit... top flight mics and a mixer ... because everyone and their dog in the film scene has their own camera, but sound equipment is as rare as hen's teeth. A guy with a sound rig can get a camera whenever he wants... because there is always someone who needs Pro sound.
 
Last edited:
First of all I want to say this is a great conversation.

I have to say it is particularly realavent in my situation at this moment.

When I made my second short, I brought on a camera man that had a Sony (I believe a pd150) The camera had white balance on it and made me drool because of the thought that I would have a quality picture and with a camera man, I could focus on other aspects such as directing the actors.

The camera man, as it turned out, did not know how to operate his own camera. I was constantly showing him the most basic of things (how to focus, how to frame a shot, and white balance). At one point he was so sure he had a shot perfectly aligned and because I was unable to use a monitor because of the shot he said, "Hey you have to trust your DP". That shot got thrown out, because it was out of focus and poorly framed.

I have to admit he was right, I have to trust my DP. I learned that I am at a point where I can "audition" my crew, to get the best equipment and people available for my future shorts.

I believe if you know how to delegate, can trust the people you've put in place and can inspire people with a good script, a good time and possibly some food, you can make a decent film without purchasing a camera.

Having the knowledge to know how to get a good shot (including all aspects, i.e. lighting, camera, sound, etc) is a plus because you know that the people you have aquired will do what they are suppose to do while you are doing what you are suppose to do, which is directing.
 
Justin

I agree, people need to practice and learn in order to develop as film makers... you won 't find an argument with me at all about that. My doubt is whether camera ownership is the best way to achieve that.
As with everything in life there really isn't a "best" way.

You were among the very rare filmmakers who got to make their
very first movie with a bit of a budget and professionals.

For a guy like me, owning a camera was the best way. I'm not the
rare talent like Wells and I didn't have professionals available to me
like you when I was learning. So camera ownership was the key to
my learning curve.

For me, how a filmmaker learns, what ever steps they take is the
best way.

I can give you a dozen example of people who developed and learned
because they owned a camera. Example that aren't the rare exception
of the uncommonly talented Orson Wells, but regular guys with regular
talent who are making a comfortable - if not famous - living doing what
they love. That may sway your doubt a little, clive.
 
Rik... I really do understand what people are saying

But, I do have a question... why didn't you have any more experienced film makers to work with?

I don't know if anyone noticed... but in my last post all I said was "Fred finds another film maker who owns a DVX200" ... which is a prosumer camera. Surely every large town in America has a few film makers... even if they're only working on good prosumer cameras.

I know the way I did it was far from the norm... but that's what I'm don't understand.

I'm neither remarkably talented or rich... nor did I start making films in an area where there were a lot of professionals. The North East of England isn't a production centre, there aren't any TV production companies... all the indies in the region are making a meagre living doing adverts, promos and community projects. It's one of the poorest regions in the UK... wages are half the national average.

If people think I ended up with a crew and pro kit because I'm rich or I just happen to live where Varicams grow on tree... it's not the case.
 
Back
Top