If anyone asks about digital cine cameras....

[Vincent Sweeney]

http://vimeo.com/23674221 Send that to them.

 

The Alexa one:

[Joseph Arch]

Are you for film or digital?

[Vincent Sweeney]

I think what someone/a production can truly afford is best. I just wrapped an indie feature with an F3 but it would have been on film if more money could have been raised, and because it would have been appropriate for the material. The F3 did very well though. Sometimes it's a question of timing vs. budget vs. need.

[Joseph Arch]

You might want to see the trailer for Mr. Popper's Penguins

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1396218/

 

 

 

It was shot on Arri Alexa, Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses. It looks better then the RED. You see, I agree with the DP's choice shooting it on digital. The film is stupid. It would not make any sense to shoot it on film. Films that are rich in story like City Of God, Gladiator etc... should be shot on film and not digital. You want that sense of beauty and artistic freedom to work to your advantage.

[Vincent Sweeney]

I agree. Imagine Gladiator, There Will be Blood, The Devil's Rejects or The New World being shot digitally; something would be lost for sure. Then again Avatar works better digitally, no doubt.

 

On a related line, check this Wally Pfister interview out:

[Joseph Arch]

I definitely want to see that interview.

[M Joel W]

These videos are ridiculous. Instead of propagating the ridiculous (but at least kind of egalitarian) myth that a dSLR will make you a "filmmaker" they propagate the yet more poisonous one that yet more expensive cameras will...because they're more expensive. Straight from the school of "buy a red; be a DP." Studio pictures, with budgets in the millions of dollars, rent more expensive cameras? Who'd ever guess it?

 

If you have the money, of course rent a better camera. First hire better talent, sound, production design, and lighting, which are far more significant factors.

 

Anyone who's intimidated by dSLRs to the point of ignoring their remarkable image quality for the money is uncomfortable enough with his own craft that he has to look to the expensive cameras he's using for validation.

Edited May 25, 2011 by M Joel Wauhkonen

[Joseph Arch]

Clearly you have never worked with film Cameras.

[M Joel W]

Me? I've worked with bolexes plenty and have shot a bit with SR2s. I don't know how that factors into a discussion of digital cameras, though. I didn't even mention film. If we're talking about movies that are shooting on dSLRs film probably isn't an option, budget-wise.

Edited May 25, 2011 by M Joel Wauhkonen

[Marcus Joseph]

I agree with Joel, I've seen stuff shot on the Red that looks like rubbish and I've seen stuff shot on miniDV that looks much more watchable in comparison. It just goes for all the great footage I've seen from all different sorts of cameras and formats. Sure there are limitations and dramatic differences between all the cameras and formats, some have more cons than their pros, be it digital or film, but regardless of these limitations, it is not about the camera, but about the person behind it and what's in front of it. I'm sure you can call it a compromise to shoot digital, and in some ways it probably is, but it really depends on what you're going for. And I also think the line between digital and film is becoming increasingly thinner and there are significant benefits to shooting digital.

 

Of course these aren't issues that are as relevant to guys like Wally Pfister with the budgets they have to shoot with, but even still, there is apparently never enough money in filmmaking and there almost always seems to be compromise.

 

But these inspiration studio guys are absolutely hilarious either way and produce fantastic marketing videos. That DSLR thing is great proof of their humor and it is obviously meant as a joke when they have a 7D stocked in their rental house.