Richard Hicks

it is because in video mode the mirror is up and the auto focus is designed to use the mirror when in operation. So, when the mirror is up auto focus capability is very limited.

I’m no expert that’s for sure, but it sounds to me like this is an emotional area of turmoil for your character. I’m guessing also that you’re going to be pulling in close to her face for all the emotion and responses from the people that she is getting “no’s” from. Perhaps a little crying and frustration? If that’s the case then why not just make everything tight except the action establishing shots and leave the lighting just the way that it is or even take out a bulb or two to make the place look even more distressed and in turmoil. You said something about being a dark and brooding film? Make the hallway dark and crappy and only have her run through the lights enough to show extreme distress perhaps? Sometimes it helps to leave the scene lighting as bad as it is just to help add to that effect of mood. But like I said, I am no expert. These are just the thoughts that I had about what I read.

I would only add that you might want to consider a 70-200mm as well or even longer. I know that a lot of people think only wide angle for DSLR video, but one of the major advantages of this format is that longer lens are very easy to rent for them and very few productions use them. In my view this only adds to their usefulness in helping your piece to be more distinguished from its peers. Why not a macro lens also? I could easily do a very interesting opening montage with just a nice macro lens. Has anyone tried focus stacking for video with a macro lens? A lensbaby? The lens that you use is dependent on the type of shot that you want. You could actually get rid of a few of those lenses that you listed depending on what you want to film. You need to plan out your shots and your locations first and then you will know what lens that you want to use for your video. How do you want your video to look? What style did you have in mind? How do you want to present your information, up close and emotional or something else?

I have a T2i and use it for video a lot. I love the quality. If you don’t have a canon camera body, and you want to do nice stills and video for the first time, then get a T2i. Firstly, the quality is the same from what I can tell on both cameras. Why? It is because it is the same sensor, just with less processing and throughput. So, why spend more on a camera body when the quality of the recording and stills will not show an effective meaningful difference. If this is your first foray into DSLR nice stills and video then the extra money is much better spent on nicer lenses, memory cards, tripods, and other equipment. Remember, the camera body takes the picture, yes, but is the lens and you that makes the picture. Which do you think is more important, the camera body, or what lens you use and what you put through that lens for the camera body to capture? The Canon T2i will last you for a long time of learning and use if you don’t know what you’re doing and you don’t have the lens for the job yet. However, if you all ready have a good lens stock and your much more into photography and video and you have the money, by all means go for the Canon 5D mark 2. What? Why not the 7D? I say the 5D mark 2 because you all ready have a lens setup and you just want to upgrade to a nicer body. In this case it still makes no sense to go with a 7D when for another T2i’s price you can get the 5d mark 2 and get much more advantages in light control and quality with stills and video. So, either way that you look at it from my point of view there is very little need for the 7D. The T2i takes just as sweet videos and the difference in price does not justify almost no difference in function or quality. If you all ready have lens then save the money and get the 5D mark 2 anyway because I am assuming that you are greatly into photography and the only major improvement to your abilities will not be in the 7D over the T2i, but in your lenses and getting the 5d mark 2 over your current digital camera. But even then rumor is that he 5d mark 3 will be out soon from what I hear so, who knows.

What is a Bad Film you ask? It is very simple. A bad film is a bad story, period. In our day an age people want to pretend that flashy graphics and engaging cinematography will turn a lame duck of a story into a great film because it is “full of action”. But time always tells a different story. The great expensive thriller did ok at the box office and most people say, “It was ok”, or the yawning “It was good”. Hollywood knows that only great stories make great movies, which is why they only seem to make remakes of remakes or sequels to the nth degree these days. Every year there is an abundance of remakes and sequels enough to make you puke. It used to be that many actors would refuse to do sequels because they knew that the story involved would never be better than the original. We as viewers know this so well that we often wait for DVD rentals before seeing the sequel of a movie that we thought was, “Yawningly good”. It is the movies that are truly great that people will see over and over again so long is the memory has faded enough to make the story seem fresh again. Passion of the Christ, Jaws, and Saving Private Ryan are all movies that shaken people to their very core. It was stated that Jaws made everyone in the world terrified of sharks. Many people cannot bear to watch Passion of the Christ more than once because it changes them and forces them to see themselves differently. Would any of these movies be great movies without the story behind them? Of course they wouldn’t. What highlights best that a great movie is only a great story on screen is when a low budget movie either does really well and is loved for many years, or is instantly hated and vilified for eternity. Two cases in point are Army of Darkness and The Blair Witch Project. Army of Darkness will always be a beloved low budget comedy horror classic while Blair Witch Project is only remembered for the pathetic mass swindling of the public for ticket money at any cost on the part of the Hollywood so called elite. You can claim good or poor cinematography for the failures or successes of either film, however, it is the fact that one presents a classic humor story line very well (Army of Darkness) while the other one (Blair Witch) has little to no story whatsoever and attempts to utilize classic horror film cinematography fill the gaps in between the action. I’ve seen much better, and more entertaining, short and long films done with little to no budget than Blair Witch would ever come close to matching. The sequel to Blair Witch was just as bad, proving that throwing money at a problem does not and cannot fix a lack of story involvement. It never has, and it never will, because the movie is the story and it cannot be separated from this brutal fact by any attempt at clever cinematography or special effects. So, good stories make good movies and always have no matter how simple or complex the cinematography was or is.