Does the camera affect the value of the movie?

Ralph Keyser · September 18th, 2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Graham

If digibeta IS better is it SO much better than HDV to warrent spending the money on it over a perfectly good HDV camera that I already own?

I'd love to hear folks thoughts/experiences on the matter.

Andy.

I'm going to postulate that it's not the equipment that really matters. It's the people running it. As people get better, they prefer to use better equipment. After all the discussion about Robert Rodriguez, take a look at what equipment he uses today.

Josh Bass · September 18th, 2006, 01:29 PM

From what I've heard, with all the digital cameras being fairly affordable for so many people, film festivals and distributors are being flooded with low budget films these days. Shooting on 16 or 35mm as opposed to DV, HDV, or even HD makes distributors very happy, and distinguishes you from hundreds/thousands of other entrants at a film fests. This may be because much of what is shot digitally is done so poorly, and regardless of whether your work has poor production values as well, it may be assumed that it does, and immediately passed over/dismissed without being given a fair chance.

They also say star power overcomes all. Hi-8 with Scarlett Johannsonn > 35mm with Joe Blow.

Matt Setnes · September 18th, 2006, 01:59 PM

obviously the ultimate answer to this question is no. Movie making is about storytelling, that's why everyone watches movies.

Joe Carney · September 18th, 2006, 02:05 PM

delete post

John Vincent · September 18th, 2006, 02:32 PM

Well, here's my two cents. I've made three full length films, sold 2 of 'em so far (newest one still on the sales block).

In my experience distributors are going to ask you 3 questions - who's in it, what's it about, and what's it shot on.

There is still quite a bit of 'hate' out there for anything shot on video, whatever type it is. It's one thing if you're a famous director or have a big name actor in the film - obviously, they get sold.

But "shot on video" for years meant not only poor picture quality, but (usually) also poor production values across the board with no actors. 5 years ago a film shot on video w/o a star had little to no chance of being picked up for wide release. This attitude is changing, but much slower than I thought it would.

I made the switch to video five years ago and don't regret it, but there is no doubt in my mind that the first film I shot on video would've sold more if on film. Of course, I could never have afforded to shoot it on film, so there's the catch-22. But my last 2 films were shot on the last generation of DV cameras...

This new generation of cameras is like day and night. I can't believe how much better this JVC100 is than, say, an Canon XL1. Frankly, I think it looks much better than 16mm film.

But the 'hate' is still out there, and a few indie hits and a few big name directors using high-end video cameras has not, as of yet, changed that.

Story is all important, but somebody still has to buy the thing. Remember, it's still hard as hell to make a full length movie at all, much less a good one, regardless of what you're shooting on. There are countless Hollywood films w/great production value that aren't worth squat - but they have guaranteed distributorship - we don't.

Bottom line - these cameras are (just) good enough that, even blown up to fill a 100 foot screen, they should hold up. That's the gamble -
john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Andy Graham · September 18th, 2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Vincent

it's still hard as hell to make a full length movie at all, much less a good one,

You know I think you naild it with that simple statement. What exactly does it mean by making movies? there are sooo many films that have clearly had a large budget of millions shot on 35mm that are crap/boring /cheesy.

I guess this thought of A class filmmaking on DV, HDV or even digibeta is absurd. There are of course a select few you can count on one hand.

BUT why do people play the lottery....they know their chances but they play anyway.

were all just playin' the lottery.

Dave Ferdinand · September 18th, 2006, 09:04 PM

Of course the camera affects the value of the movie, if it didn't this site wouldn't exist and people would still be hanging on to their VX1000's and XL1's.

The reason most of us come here is to discuss cameras and technology. If you make a film with a VX1000 you're still years behind technological-wise, as opposed to someone using a HD100 or XLH1.

If you have a great script will you want to shoot it using a Hi8 camera? Nah...

Patomakarn Nitanontawat · September 23rd, 2006, 12:42 AM

I think that there are certain industry "minimum" standards that each market adheres to. In my country, feature films starring some of the country's top comedians routinely look much worst than some of the shorts I saw around here shot with a simple first generation DV camera. And those guys were shooting real 35mm, with pro crews, pro lighting kits (trucks I mean,) pro actors the works. I should really show you guys some of the stuffs here. And do they get distributed? Yes certainly. Now the why is really debatable. And look at my country's average soap operas. Cinematography wise and production value wise, a kid half way through film school could have done much better. But these soaps have the highest ratings of all time, the cash cow for the stations. So, I'm just speaking about my country Thailand here, the minimum standard is quite low. But they do expect a descent and attractive script (more often than not.) Also depends who are you showing it to. So, yes camera does play a big part in the value of a movie. But the priority should be invested in front and behind the camera.

Making a movie? Yeah you should try it sometime, see how tough it is.

One last thought, about film. Once you turn the camera, everybody gets serious, they know a bucket of money is running every second. You practice and practice until you get it right, then you shoot. Strange, but you don't get that kind of effect with actors and crews on a "digital" shoot.

Josh Bass · September 23rd, 2006, 12:58 AM

Yes, I hear what you're saying. . .

So when's that fake housing that looks like a 35mm camera and fits around a miniDV camcorder coming out? It has the fake film magazine that makes noise when you press the record button.

Patomakarn Nitanontawat · September 23rd, 2006, 11:24 AM

Yeah, one thing I learned with actors though. The bigger the camera the better performance you get out of them. They think you're more serious. So deck your camera out with Mattebox, follow focus, extra batteries, microphones, sun guns, all the works.

A little story, on the first day of the shoot, we were shooting with a Arri 235, nice little light weight camera. The actors were not behaving really well. Then later we brought out the arri 535, decked out with a zoom lens, and huge sun shade. Hah, they said, so this isn't a low budget shoot? After that things got a little more serious.
I've seen guys who deck out their hd100 with a big mattebox and sun shade, plus the battery holder and dual hand grips. It looks very pro, very serious, trust me it helps. Also when shooting cooperate videos, they go like whoa! That looks like a real "movie" camera.

Jack Walker · September 23rd, 2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patomakarn Nitanontawat

Yeah, one thing I learned with actors though. The bigger the camera the better performance you get out of them.

I read in an article that when HDV cameras were being tested on the set of "24," Kiefer Sutherland commented that he was able to give a better performance with a large camera.

This caused Rodney Charters to comment that he recommended the use of a matte box when using the smaller cameras (such as the HD100) with actors.

Search for "Sutherland" in the below link and read the exact quote:
http://www.freshdv.com/archive/2006_03_01_index.html

Or, here it is:
One very interesting comment from Rodney, on talent in front of the lens:
"...I told Keifer we were testing more small cameras for drama use and he said again that he doesn’t feel he can perform as intensely in front of a small camera as when he faces a large Panaflex. So I’ll start by reiterating a point I made last time: it’s a good idea to use large matte boxes if you intend to use HDV for drama, so that the actors feel there is something of substance there they can address – obviously not for taking an eyeline down the lens, but at least to act as an audience..."
That's a very important point...what good are cost and workflow savings in the camera when the performance suffers? Before you assume Sutherland is just being snooty and resistant to change, consider that he himself shoots with the Z1 for personal work. This is mentioned later in the article...

(The original series of articles were in Showreel magazine, and their availability is rather ubiquitous.)

Josh Bass · September 23rd, 2006, 03:33 PM

That seems so. . .silly. Actors can't act 'cause the camera's not big enough? What would Stanislavsky say?

William Hohauser · September 23rd, 2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patomakarn Nitanontawat

Yeah, one thing I learned with actors though. The bigger the camera the better performance you get out of them. They think you're more serious. So deck your camera out with Mattebox, follow focus, extra batteries, microphones, sun guns, all the works.

A little story, on the first day of the shoot, we were shooting with a Arri 235, nice little light weight camera. The actors were not behaving really well. Then later we brought out the arri 535, decked out with a zoom lens, and huge sun shade. Hah, they said, so this isn't a low budget shoot? After that things got a little more serious.
I've seen guys who deck out their hd100 with a big mattebox and sun shade, plus the battery holder and dual hand grips. It looks very pro, very serious, trust me it helps. Also when shooting cooperate videos, they go like whoa! That looks like a real "movie" camera.

You just filled out my shopping list for next month!

Mike Marriage · September 25th, 2006, 03:32 AM

A film's value is judged by the profit the buyer believes he can make from it. For some films, low production value helps in the marketing - Blair Witch, Open Water (remember the "Blair Witch meets Jaws" tagline).

For most films, poor production value is viewed as a negative. I know a producer who was refused consideration for cinema release because they shot on S16 and not 35. I haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure how it looks - maybe it is the DoP's fault instead of the format, after all, plenty of S16 films have been distributed in cinemas.

John Vincent · September 25th, 2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patomakarn Nitanontawat

One last thought, about film. Once you turn the camera, everybody gets serious, they know a bucket of money is running every second. You practice and practice until you get it right, then you shoot. Strange, but you don't get that kind of effect with actors and crews on a "digital" shoot.

This is absolutely true. It also has an effect on anyone else stnding there - anyone from cops to janitors will be more helpful if they think it's a 'real' film being made.

This fact was certainly a factor in my buying the JVC vs HVX. A dolled up JVC looks like a 'real' camera, whereas a HVX still looks like my mom's handycam.

I always try to treat every take as though it were the last, and though I get more coverage now that I shoot digital, I don't shoot that much more - and I let the actors know that.

I use a slate and all the rest of it (including seperate sound recording) and that helps get the actors 'up' for the take.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

September 18th, 2006, 01:29 PM	#17
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	From what I've heard, with all the digital cameras being fairly affordable for so many people, film festivals and distributors are being flooded with low budget films these days. Shooting on 16 or 35mm as opposed to DV, HDV, or even HD makes distributors very happy, and distinguishes you from hundreds/thousands of other entrants at a film fests. This may be because much of what is shot digitally is done so poorly, and regardless of whether your work has poor production values as well, it may be assumed that it does, and immediately passed over/dismissed without being given a fair chance. They also say star power overcomes all. Hi-8 with Scarlett Johannsonn > 35mm with Joe Blow. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 18th, 2006, 02:05 PM	#19
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	delete post __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

September 18th, 2006, 02:32 PM	#20
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	It matters, but... Well, here's my two cents. I've made three full length films, sold 2 of 'em so far (newest one still on the sales block). In my experience distributors are going to ask you 3 questions - who's in it, what's it about, and what's it shot on. There is still quite a bit of 'hate' out there for anything shot on video, whatever type it is. It's one thing if you're a famous director or have a big name actor in the film - obviously, they get sold. But "shot on video" for years meant not only poor picture quality, but (usually) also poor production values across the board with no actors. 5 years ago a film shot on video w/o a star had little to no chance of being picked up for wide release. This attitude is changing, but much slower than I thought it would. I made the switch to video five years ago and don't regret it, but there is no doubt in my mind that the first film I shot on video would've sold more if on film. Of course, I could never have afforded to shoot it on film, so there's the catch-22. But my last 2 films were shot on the last generation of DV cameras... This new generation of cameras is like day and night. I can't believe how much better this JVC100 is than, say, an Canon XL1. Frankly, I think it looks much better than 16mm film. But the 'hate' is still out there, and a few indie hits and a few big name directors using high-end video cameras has not, as of yet, changed that. Story is all important, but somebody still has to buy the thing. Remember, it's still hard as hell to make a full length movie at all, much less a good one, regardless of what you're shooting on. There are countless Hollywood films w/great production value that aren't worth squat - but they have guaranteed distributorship - we don't. Bottom line - these cameras are (just) good enough that, even blown up to fill a 100 foot screen, they should hold up. That's the gamble - john evilgeniusentertainment.com

September 18th, 2006, 09:04 PM	#22
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	Of course the camera affects the value of the movie, if it didn't this site wouldn't exist and people would still be hanging on to their VX1000's and XL1's. The reason most of us come here is to discuss cameras and technology. If you make a film with a VX1000 you're still years behind technological-wise, as opposed to someone using a HD100 or XLH1. If you have a great script will you want to shoot it using a Hi8 camera? Nah... __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

September 23rd, 2006, 12:58 AM	#24
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Yes, I hear what you're saying. . . So when's that fake housing that looks like a 35mm camera and fits around a miniDV camcorder coming out? It has the fake film magazine that makes noise when you press the record button. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 18th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#18
Matt Setnes Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 114	obviously the ultimate answer to this question is no. Movie making is about storytelling, that's why everyone watches movies.

September 23rd, 2006, 12:42 AM	#23
Patomakarn Nitanontawat Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 97	I think that there are certain industry "minimum" standards that each market adheres to. In my country, feature films starring some of the country's top comedians routinely look much worst than some of the shorts I saw around here shot with a simple first generation DV camera. And those guys were shooting real 35mm, with pro crews, pro lighting kits (trucks I mean,) pro actors the works. I should really show you guys some of the stuffs here. And do they get distributed? Yes certainly. Now the why is really debatable. And look at my country's average soap operas. Cinematography wise and production value wise, a kid half way through film school could have done much better. But these soaps have the highest ratings of all time, the cash cow for the stations. So, I'm just speaking about my country Thailand here, the minimum standard is quite low. But they do expect a descent and attractive script (more often than not.) Also depends who are you showing it to. So, yes camera does play a big part in the value of a movie. But the priority should be invested in front and behind the camera. Making a movie? Yeah you should try it sometime, see how tough it is. One last thought, about film. Once you turn the camera, everybody gets serious, they know a bucket of money is running every second. You practice and practice until you get it right, then you shoot. Strange, but you don't get that kind of effect with actors and crews on a "digital" shoot.

September 23rd, 2006, 11:24 AM	#25
Patomakarn Nitanontawat Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 97	Yeah, one thing I learned with actors though. The bigger the camera the better performance you get out of them. They think you're more serious. So deck your camera out with Mattebox, follow focus, extra batteries, microphones, sun guns, all the works. A little story, on the first day of the shoot, we were shooting with a Arri 235, nice little light weight camera. The actors were not behaving really well. Then later we brought out the arri 535, decked out with a zoom lens, and huge sun shade. Hah, they said, so this isn't a low budget shoot? After that things got a little more serious. I've seen guys who deck out their hd100 with a big mattebox and sun shade, plus the battery holder and dual hand grips. It looks very pro, very serious, trust me it helps. Also when shooting cooperate videos, they go like whoa! That looks like a real "movie" camera.

September 23rd, 2006, 03:33 PM	#27
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	That seems so. . .silly. Actors can't act 'cause the camera's not big enough? What would Stanislavsky say? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 25th, 2006, 03:32 AM	#29
Mike Marriage Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NE of London, England Posts: 788	A film's value is judged by the profit the buyer believes he can make from it. For some films, low production value helps in the marketing - Blair Witch, Open Water (remember the "Blair Witch meets Jaws" tagline). For most films, poor production value is viewed as a negative. I know a producer who was refused consideration for cinema release because they shot on S16 and not 35. I haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure how it looks - maybe it is the DoP's fault instead of the format, after all, plenty of S16 films have been distributed in cinemas.