Cameras used to shoot hollywood movies.

solid snake · July 18, 2004

Does anyone know Im very new to this and dont know alot. I shoot with my camcoder but I was wondering how to get the "movie" look. Is it the camera or the lighting and cenimatography that gives the movie the "look"??

What are some cheap cameras that will give me results similar to movies like fight club, kill bill etc.

Sorry to be such a newbie but I want to start shooting short films with no characters, just scenery and camera movements. Help will be aprreciated.

Filip Plesha · July 18, 2004

Well if you want the atmosphere from the scenes in your favorite movies, then

you should work on your lighting.

But if you just want just the look of the image then you won't get far.

You can copy the lighting and certain postproduction "looks" added to the image.

But with film, even unlit, raw shots have the film look.

If you take your film camera on the street and shoot around hendheld

like you can do with your cheap camcorder, the image will still look

very different, because 50% of the film look is in the actual medium itself.

Phil Rhodes · July 18, 2004

Hi,

As our correspondent said, it isn't entirely about the camera - it's about a large crew and a lot of lighting gear. However, one of the best things about shooting film is that you can buy a relatively cheap old film camera (sub-$1000, if you don't want to record sound alongside it) and stick modern stock in it, and theoretically get technically very similar results.

However, that won't necessarily make it look like "Fight Club" unless you put a similar amount of effort into production design and lighting, which is much more expensive than the camera!

And for the record, I don't think it would be impossible to imagine circumstances where a completely built-up motion picture camera outfit might be worth over a million.

Phil

DanStewart · July 18, 2004

Yes, it's in the lighting not the camera. Get a 35mm stills kit and try to do 1 frame in the style you want. You'll find it's mostly to do with design and lighting as Phil said. Once you can do 1 frame you can do 24 a sec - and if you get that good you should be able to convince someone else to pay for it!

Good luck.

solid snake · July 18, 2004

What camcorder would you recomend? I can spend like $500. Or do you prefer I start with just a picture camera and work on lighting a picture before movies?

Thanks.

ALso, I can use simple bulbs and lights to light up a scene right? I am going to buy a book but thanks for your guys help.

solid snake · July 18, 2004

I do get some of the stuff about lighting. I mean a movie in the 80s(The SHining) still looks better than 80 percent of movies out now.

Also, I can use same filter on a camcorder and a still camera right? I really like messing with filter. Can more than one filture be used at a same time?

solid snake · July 18, 2004

Is digital camera better for starting? Since I can look at the pics on the computer? Are there difference in resulting picture?

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2004

You do whatever you can -- if all you can afford is a $500 video camera, then start with that. You have to start somewhere. I learned by shooting Super-8 film, but today I'd probably have started out with video. Video will teach you composition, editing, lighting, camera movement, focal lengths of lenses, filtering, etc. even if it won't get you a film look.

What makes something look like a "real movie" are hundreds of little and big things. You'll pick it up slowly as you shoot and then analyze your own footage and compare it to movies you admire.

Max Jacoby · July 18, 2004

And for the record, I don't think it would be impossible to imagine circumstances where a completely built-up motion picture camera outfit might be worth over a million.

I guess an Arricam with all the accessories (mags, remote focus, mattebox, etc...) plus a full set of prime lenses (either Cooke S4 or Ultra Primes) and an Optimo zoom would come in at around ? 500.000.

I was on a shoot recently where we were taking the magliter with all the camera equipment on down a narrow road. A guy whose period car was parked by the road obviously was worried that we might scratch his car or something. As we approached the car, I told the other camera assistant loud enough for the guy to hear: 'Careful, I don't want this car to scratch out 200.000 ? camera.' :D

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2004

Yes, it's funny when you do a car rig and they are more concerned about the $30,000 or so car rather than the $300,000 camera and lens, etc. mounted to it, but I guess that's why you have insurance...

Filip Plesha · July 18, 2004

Allso I think you should take a simple 35mm SLR camera and take pictures

for every shot you shoot with the video camera (using the same exposure and lens lenght as you did with the video camera).

That way you will see how would it look if it was shot on film. This will tell you if you are doing everything you can to make it look like a real movie.

(if your pictures look like real frames from a movie, then you have

done everything in your power to set the lighting and composition, and

you can only blaim video technology for not making it look 100% like a real movie)

good luck

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2004

I have a big photo album of stills from movies I took off of the monitor, years ago (now I can grab frames from DVD's on my computer). I used to stare at these for inspiration. The back of the album is full of postcards from art museums of paintings that I saw and liked.

GeorgeSelinsky · July 18, 2004

Is it the camera or the lighting and cenimatography that gives the movie the "look"??

The quick and cheap answer to this question is that a film camera is what is used to shoot the majority of movies out there, and if you acquire one of these cameras you will have images that have the texutre and feel of a "real movie" more than a video camera.

It's safe to say that if you bought the cheapest 35mm movie camera, like the Bell and Howell Eyemo, and even if your focus sucked and your exposure was off and you had no knowlege of framing, the resulting images would feel more like a "real movie" than the same exact images shot on video. But here we're talking about image texture only, not composition or anything else.

However, as others have indicated, how you use that camera, how you expose the film, how you light the scene, and other such things (like art direction) all play a very critical role in how interesting and satisfying the image looks. Professional cinematographers are always challenging themselves to produce the best image they can for the given situation, and that's really the art of it which takes a lifetime to learn.

If you just have $500 to spend, get the video camera and learn the composition, lighting, camera movement, and all other aspects as much as you can. The "texture" of film can be best left to when you are already a bit up to speed on the basics and want to get into the specifics of the film texture, learning how to use film which is more expensive but also more creatively exciting and satisfying (which is why it is still used).

- G.

solid snake · July 19, 2004

Whee is the forum where people share their work? I would like to see some of you guys work.

Nate Downes · July 19, 2004

I began on an old 8mm camcorder, and have since moved to Super8 film as well as 16mm. The key is to understand the lighting and composition, and that can be learned on any camera, no matter how "cheap" it is.

I might recommend some books for you to learn composition.

John Pytlak RIP · July 20, 2004

A manual SLR film camera with an assortment of lenses is a great learning tool for lighting and composition. Video will help you learn storytelling with pictures and sound.

Landon D. Parks · July 29, 2004

You can buy an Arri 435 camera from www.cinevision-ny.com for $105,000.00... Includes a lot of accessories. I cant imagin how much a fully loaded Arricam would run!!! Id say at least $200,000.00....

Dieter Vansteenwegen · July 31, 2004

I just graduated cinematography, and i recall another student a couple of years who wrote an essay about a plugin for after effects which was meant to make video-images look a little more like it was film. I don't really recall the name right now. They used it for a short movie and it turned out quite good. Haven't seen it though...

If you want to, send me an e-mail and I'll look it up for you...