Jump to content

Advice with camera selection


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I am shooting a short in July and I'm unsure as to go about choosing a camera to shot on. Obviously you chose the camera around what you're filming as opposed to just shooting on whatever you can get your hands on.

 

It is a sci-fi thriller and it is being shot within a small set we are having built. The director wants the film to possess a grainy look and so I thought about using 16mm.

 

We then realised very quickly that we could just not afford the stock, processing etc. Digital is our only option but I am having trouble figuring out how to go about choosing the correct camera.

 

Like I said, the director has asked for grainy/dirty footage. The easy option is to do it in post but I don't think it will look as convincing.

 

If anybody has any advice I'd really like some assistance.

 

Thanks,

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

digital has it's own grain. which can look nice, I got a canon 7D if you want, your more then welcome to borrow it. has a nice grain to it, dependant on how you use it(iso, edit sequence codec settings etc.)

post grain can look ok, dependant on what you use. color and shake have ok grains, controllable to an extent. may be worth a look.

 

peace out

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I would look into some of the 2/3" HD cameras, such as the veritable Panasonic Varicam, so as to get similar DoF to 16mm, if that's what you're going for. I would shy away from the 7D due to compression problems and if you'll be grading and doing FX shots well, I for one would want more information in my footage.

But without knowing where this project is destined to end up, how much money you have to work with, and what, if any Special effects are needed, we're all kinda shooting in the dark.

Another way to go, which is done quite often would be to look into a RED package. There's a lot of them out there in the wild, so to speak, and you can often get away with some good deals on it. Now, i'm not a big RED fan, but I'd take it over most other lower-end 35mm sized digital cameras, if only because you'll be using, one would hope, more film-centric accessories which'll make everyone's life easier. Plus, their REDCodeRAW, while pretty compressed, does offer a lot of grading possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panasonic Varicam is sharper and cleaner but more costly. DOF isn't an issue as you can always add depth (harder to take it away). compression really isn't that bad on the canon 7D. i know some people have had issue with moire but not really an issue for most situations, alot nicer footage from it then alot of cameras i have used. i have a good fix for rolling shutter if that becomes a problem(same as other rolling shutter issues etc). although avoiding is the best way lol, A very flexible camera. would avoid RED due to the hassle of transcoding the file type. but how you use your footage in post will decide on quality

either way lots of choice out there with the right know how, everyone on here will provide the knowledge base and are always very helpful

 

peace out

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panasonic Varicam is sharper and cleaner but more costly. DOF isn't an issue as you can always add depth (harder to take it away). compression really isn't that bad on the canon 7D. i know some people have had issue with moire but not really an issue for most situations, alot nicer footage from it then alot of cameras i have used. i have a good fix for rolling shutter if that becomes a problem(same as other rolling shutter issues etc). although avoiding is the best way lol, A very flexible camera. would avoid RED due to the hassle of transcoding the file type. but how you use your footage in post will decide on quality

either way lots of choice out there with the right know how, everyone on here will provide the knowledge base and are always very helpful

 

peace out

Carl

 

I ruled out the DSLR straight away as although it's the new rage I don't like the idea of having to shoot to H.264 with the 1K resolution being stretched up to 1920 X 1080. Canon really haven't done it for me with the DSLR video I'm afraid.

 

I have access to the RED one for no cost due to working in a rental house and I can also get the Panasonic HPX-171 with Letus extreme for no cost as well. I've still got a couple of months to decide but ideally like I said earlier I'd like to avoid having to put grain on in post. It all sounds very contradictory of me but unfortunately I'm being fairly picky as to what I shoot on.

 

Any other suggestions are more than welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you have a free RED, go free RED. It's a hell of a lot easier to work with than ANY DoF adapter nonsense. Footage might be a bit of a PITA to transcode; but I'm told that's getting better and better and you can use good glass in front of the lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thanks for the info, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable enough to shoot on RED yet so I'll just see how things go.

 

Adrian, I'm doing my thesis paper on 'The reinvention of the dream sequence within science-fiction thriller' and I need to gather up primary resources, i.e. interviews.

 

Would you be so kind as to answers a few questions for me in a couple of months?

 

Thanks,

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, GO RED, 35 adapters aren't worth the effort and can leave some horrible outcomes

shoot a high iso, control with ND and get the grain in camera. but would be better to get the quality image and create your own in post (as you will be stuck with the noise once on the master)

everything step should lead to the quality of the output(dependant on what that is). Just make sure you use red to it's strengths. don't be frightened by red, embrace it. read the manuals on Red.com if you are unsure about interface etc. They are very straight forward. and as always people on here will answer questions for you.

good luck and avoid adapters when possible

 

peace out

Carl

 

 

ps. when you finish your showreel, we shall compare. really want to see the competitions work lol (i am very nervous about it all)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

 

How is yours coming on? I'm working on stuff at the moment. Only got a couple more pieces to do then it should be finished. Should be looking at about 7-8 minutes overall.

 

Are you just putting everything in or are you being very meticulous about the footage you choose?

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ruled out the DSLR straight away as although it's the new rage I don't like the idea of having to shoot to H.264 with the 1K resolution being stretched up to 1920 X 1080. Canon really haven't done it for me with the DSLR video I'm afraid.

 

I have access to the RED one for no cost due to working in a rental house and I can also get the Panasonic HPX-171 with Letus extreme for no cost as well. I've still got a couple of months to decide but ideally like I said earlier I'd like to avoid having to put grain on in post. It all sounds very contradictory of me but unfortunately I'm being fairly picky as to what I shoot on.

 

Any other suggestions are more than welcome.

I can't see how the 7D would be stretched to HD resolution considering the sensor size being APS-C. The 7D has its share of flaws but I don't consider stretched resolution to be one of them. I'd be much more wary of the suggested 4K resolution of the Red Camera considering the sensor size being roughly the same as the 7D's anyway. Where's all these extra pixels coming from?

 

Regardless of the proposed facts Red suggest, they are indubitably buggy and only having access to one of them could lead to problematic shoots. Weight would also be another factor in indie productions, as soon as the weight of the camera goes up, so does the required equipment that could have been significantly cheaper with a lighter camera. I also believe the Canon DSLRs have a lot of versatility in terms of effects and range of shooting, the ability to use tilt-shift lenses gives more creative control in itself, as well as many other tools that are at a fraction of the cost in comparison with most prosumer camcorders.

 

But if you do end up going with Red, from what I've read, it'll give a very clean grainless look to it, so I predict you'd have to add the grain in post. I'm sure it would look fine as long as it fits the context well.

 

Good luck on the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Cannon Line skips in order to record video. It barely resolve 720p.

Hence why it's hard to stretch to HD resolution, even if it records an HD image.

 

7D is a Stills camera which shoots video. Red, despite flaws is a Digital Cinema Camera. Just because something can do x or y, doesn't mean it should be used primarily for x or y. Hell, I could shoot "HD" video on a "flip" camera, doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to make matters more difficult in your camera decisions, but, you said your director wanted a grainy look. When it comes to low budget, I understand where you are coming from but noise generated on a digital camera is not comparable to film grain when it comes to achieving a particular look and overall feel in your images. Take it from Public Enemies... a period film that was clearly shot on digital that, at least for me, removed me from the story due to the digital look of the images. I am not sure about how adding "grain" in post will achieve the effect you and your director are looking for but I can assure you that shooting at a high ISO on a digital camera to get increased noise in place of true film grain will be counterproductive in achieving your desired look and feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting. How do you do it?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

i was referring to the sensor size and the ability to close the iris to give less shallow DOF, but if you wanted the ultra shallow DOF offered by larger sensors, on a smaller sensor, you would be required to zoom in.

I may be wrong, and apologies if that is the case, however this is my understanding as it stands.

 

 

 

Jay,

might be worth shooting on super8

 

with the amount of good footage i have, it's hard to be meticulous lol (really want to shoot something else before submission, but just don't have the time for the edit etc.)

not sure how long mine will be, i don't want longer then 10mins (as it will become boring). really hate being on the computer all the time. I wanna go shoot!

 

 

peace out

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to make matters more difficult in your camera decisions, but, you said your director wanted a grainy look. When it comes to low budget, I understand where you are coming from but noise generated on a digital camera is not comparable to film grain when it comes to achieving a particular look and overall feel in your images. Take it from Public Enemies... a period film that was clearly shot on digital that, at least for me, removed me from the story due to the digital look of the images. I am not sure about how adding "grain" in post will achieve the effect you and your director are looking for but I can assure you that shooting at a high ISO on a digital camera to get increased noise in place of true film grain will be counterproductive in achieving your desired look and feel.

 

 

Maybe he wants the digital noise look rather than the analog noise (grain) look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to make matters more difficult in your camera decisions, but, you said your director wanted a grainy look. When it comes to low budget, I understand where you are coming from but noise generated on a digital camera is not comparable to film grain when it comes to achieving a particular look and overall feel in your images. Take it from Public Enemies... a period film that was clearly shot on digital that, at least for me, removed me from the story due to the digital look of the images. I am not sure about how adding "grain" in post will achieve the effect you and your director are looking for but I can assure you that shooting at a high ISO on a digital camera to get increased noise in place of true film grain will be counterproductive in achieving your desired look and feel.

 

I totally agree with you on that one. I saw it at the Empire in Leicester Square in London and I just could not get into it unfortunately and I just felt like I was forcing myself to.

 

I spoke to the director again yesterday and explained that I had posted on here and how people were being helpful with their suggestions etc and then he re-phrased the 'grainy' look for more of a 'dirty' look. Now, I've thought about this and I'm not exactly sure what 'dirty' is as I think it can be judged on a case-to-case basis per film. Something like Saving Private Ryan has that dirty feel but could that be a combination of de-saturation and the grain of celluloid?

 

If I can't seem to resolve this problem then I shall try and convince him otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he wants the digital noise look rather than the analog noise (grain) look?

 

Maybe, you're right, I shall check with the director later on today. Also how would you go about achieving that digital noise, which wouldn't prove a complete dilemma in colour grading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannon Line skips in order to record video. It barely resolve 720p.

Hence why it's hard to stretch to HD resolution, even if it records an HD image.

 

7D is a Stills camera which shoots video. Red, despite flaws is a Digital Cinema Camera. Just because something can do x or y, doesn't mean it should be used primarily for x or y. Hell, I could shoot "HD" video on a "flip" camera, doesn't mean it's appropriate.

That sounds a reasonable enough explanation, but sure you can shoot small time projects on a flip video camera, but how practical can it possibly be in comparison to shooting with a 7D or a 5D? You can achieve so much more in terms of desired look with both of those. Even the 1D being a pure sports photographers camera can give unbelievable low-light performance.

 

Somehow a show like House can make a stills camera work for them, I'm sure competent photographers are able too as well. And having seen great graded footage, I don't think the colour space is completely relevant in terms of skills of the person filming/grading. Personally I wouldn't completely disregard the decision to shoot on a DSLR, but then again having free access to a Red Camera, I would by all means select the Red.

Maybe, you're right, I shall check with the director later on today. Also how would you go about achieving that digital noise, which wouldn't prove a complete dilemma in colour grading?

Shooting with a high ISO or in badly lit areas will most likely achieve said digital noise, but I think it looks quite unappealing and not at all planned. Give Public Enemies a check to see if you like the certain look or not, I found the imagery to be more fascinating when it was clean and crisp, giving a more documentary-like feel. But then it would bring it back into that digital realm and I thought it took me out of the story at times. If I were in your situation I would personally shoot and work in-camera taking two takes of a clean image and a noisy image, post-process the clean one to look noisy and then show the director to decide how he wants it to be done.

Edited by Marcus Joseph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i'm typing an answer and it's turning into a bit of an essay, so I'll split it up. Also I only just nmoticed your last but one post about 'grainy' becoming dirty, which is good cos it's exactly what I'm about tio say...]

 

 

 

There are two basic ways to get grain/noise in the footage:

 

 

1) Shoot it that way by deliberately using a hi ISO setting in camera (or high speed/small format film)

 

If you shoot with grain then you're locked in and can't get rid of it or change it. Also grainy footage is a lot worse for working with if you want to do a lot of color correction, effects or push or pull, that sort of thing.

 

There's a slight advantage that you don't have to fuss over doing it in post, but I think the main benefit is that as you'll be shooting at higher ISO you generally won't need as many or as powerful lights which could be easier, cheaper and allow you to work faster or better incorporate practical lighting elements.

 

 

 

 

2) Add it in post

You mentioned this option in your original question. I don't think you need to worry too much about it not looking convincing, if you use the right software there are very good simulations of grain available. After filming you can set down with your director and non-destructively try out different options and choose which works best, even varying it between scenes.

 

For me the main disadvantage is you'll need to shoot with more/more powerful lights and it will be a little harder to incorporate practicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe do a bit more research and talk to your director again giving him or her you advice based on your findings. You need to establish the look the director wants more clearly. Discuss other films, show him samples and ask him for examples of the look he wants. "grainy/dirty" is ambiguous and the director might mean something completely different to what you think he means.

 

 

I think most people on this thread have been assuming that by 'grain' you or your director is asking for the

classic film grain, the sort that you see on older, perhaps black and white films, that establishes them as being artistic, 'real', and classic. But you said the film is a sci fi thriller and I don't think that look is used by many of those sorts of film or would necessarily be appropriate. It's possible that your director wants the sort of dirty, grungy look you see in films like Alien 3, Moon, and Terminator Salvation, and has described that look as 'grainy' when it's really more down to art direction, lighting and color correction rather than the amount of noise.

 

Take a look at these two movie trailers:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/termi...xtended-trailer

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/moon/trailer

 

Those films have very different budgets and were shot in different ways, but both have that greenish-bluish dirty distopian sci fi look. There's a great post on pro lost explain this sort of look in terms of color correction, well worth watching the video:

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/6/23/got-me-a-side-job.html

 

The VFX show has done episodes about both Terminator Salvation and Moon

http://www.fxguide.com/vfxshow/?p=223

http://www.fxguide.com/vfxshow/?p=372

and if you have time they're worth a listen. That show's emphasis is on VFX but they discuss all the other aspects of the film too, and in the case of Moon in particular they go into some detail about how the look is achieved and why that look was chosen, both in relation to pre-existing sci fi films and what was possible for them to do in the budget.

 

 

If this is the sort of dirty look you and the director want to go for you need to factor that in when creating the set, so you'll need to get the set designers involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About choice of camera.

 

There are a lot of people on the web saying how great DSLRs are and also a lot of people complaining about all the issues with them. From everything I've seen they can be great in the right hands but there issues.

Don't be put off just because you've heard the quality isn't there, check out some of Philip Bloom or Vincent Laforet's work to see that in the right hands they are very capable.

eg http://exposureroom.com/members/philipbloo...c7b9348da74380/

 

On the other hand, for most narrative fiction a Red 1 is going to give you better absolute image quality.

You'll need a crew of people to run it, but you'd need a focus-puller etc. to get the best from a DSLR anyway so the Red is not much extra burden in that sense. It's a lot bigger and heavier though!

 

I've done stills on sets where a Red 1 was used and it's a big production because of the size and weight, the batteries run out quite quickly, there's a lot of data wrangling that has to be done and so on. You'll need to do some practice and prep work before using it. Two other issues are it's apparantly not as good at high ISO as a Canon DSLR, and compared to the 5D2 it has a smaller sensor so it's harder to get extremely shallow DOF, if that's the look you want.

 

The main argument against Red is price, but if you can get one for free then go for it! (and I say that as a 5D2 owner) It would be good experience.

 

 

 

 

 

... noise generated on a digital camera is not comparable to film grain when it comes to achieving a particular look and overall feel in your images. Take it from Public Enemies... a period film that was clearly shot on digital that, at least for me, removed me from the story due to the digital look of the images...

 

 

Shooting with a high ISO or in badly lit areas will most likely achieve said digital noise, but I think it looks quite unappealing and not at all planned. Give Public Enemies a check to see if you like the certain look or not, I found the imagery to be more fascinating when it was clean and crisp, giving a more documentary-like feel. But then it would bring it back into that digital realm and I thought it took me out of the story at times.

 

 

Both of those are arguments why you should shoot digital/aim to have digital noise!

This is a sci-fi film so it probably wants to be futuristic, hence digital image acquisition. If it was shot in a style that looked like a period piece shot on film then _that_ would take you out of the movie.

 

Whether film or digital looks better, in terms of grain or any other factor, is ultimately a matter of subjective taste. You can compare the two looks, then you and your director should decide the look _you_ want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, what a reply.

 

Massively helpful though. I think if anything it's made me really think and challenge myself as to what I am capable of as well as what equipment is up to par for the job.

 

I have used the magic bullet briefly last week for a music video and I was very impressed with the results, it's also fairly cheap too and looks like it would be a good investment.

 

You are definitely right about the RED, I did a shoot for MTV and my god, what a nightmare it was with all the data: backing up, changing batteries constantly, taking ages to change lenses etc.

 

I'm going to go away and make some notes with the director and make a list of films that he feels he'd like our film to look like and then between the two of us (and some help from you guys on here) begin to really fine tune the look of this film.

 

Mei, I see you're based in Cardiff? Are you ever down in London at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...