|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30th, 2009, 02:44 PM | #16 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 30th, 2009, 02:55 PM | #17 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: helsinki
Posts: 104
|
The 7d offcourse if you want to pinch dollars. RED does look better but by the time it hits Vimeo, it really doesn't matter.
We did a 12 hour shoot of interviews with the 7d and everything went well. |
December 30th, 2009, 03:26 PM | #18 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
|
December 30th, 2009, 03:31 PM | #19 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 969
|
Quote:
I suggest you read Sidney Lumet's book on the subject. According to him, the lensing was one of the most important parts of that film. You chose it as an example, not me. I was giving you solid feedback on your question. Not sure why you're giving me attitude.... |
|
December 30th, 2009, 03:48 PM | #20 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30th, 2009, 04:12 PM | #21 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 969
|
Brian, I seem to have offended you by asking if you know how to work/post-produce either camera. There was no offense intended, it was a honest question, as there are different and distinct workflows with both systems and there are benefits and pitfalls with either route.
I've used the 5D, 7D and RED for projects ultimately destined for the web and the choice of camera in each case was down to a combination of budget, quality, accessibility, ease of use, post workflow and speed. Whether anyone, other than pixel-peeping professionals could tell the difference is irrelevant to me as I always strive to make the best film I can with what I can afford. Yes, you can use the 7D, if you adhere to the advice above. But only you can make that call. I hope that was more helpful. |
| ||||||
|
|