login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Video Equipment for Indie Movie Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


Very brief background: I am editing my novel and am considering shooting it as a movie.

My video background: editor and director - 20 years ago. So as far as the stuff going on today (equipment-wise), I don't know jack...

So, I have a chance to rent a place that has a large enough area to build a couple of sets and it also has some nice outdoors spots to shoot when weather permits.

My idea is to shoot video with some love sound and then edit it on a computer (I actually edited on AVID, but like I said, it was a long time ago...)

I don't need state-of-the-art. I anticipate the end result to be in black and white with as close to a film look as possible. I realize there are many variables concerning software, camera brands, etc., but what I want is a decent camera to record clean video that will be suitable to be shown on a larger screen that someone's iPhone...ha

I should say as well that I plan on renting the best camera I can, not to buy one (hoping maybe this gets me more camera for the buck).

Let's start with that - I'll add more info as replies suggest [I hope :]
Jan 16 13 04:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
I don't need state-of-the-art. I anticipate the end result to be in black and white with as close to a film look as possible.

Shoot on super 8. Cheap stock, cheap/small cameras, but violently high cost in development and scanning big_smile

I'm doing a ton of super8 Tri-X films at the moment. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkKT2sGbmw
So much fun smile

salvatori. wrote:
what I want is a decent camera to record clean video

Oh. sad

DSLR then I guess.

Jan 16 13 04:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


intense_puppy wrote:

Shoot on super 8. Cheap stock, cheap/small cameras, but violently high cost in development and scanning big_smile

I'm doing a ton of super8 Tri-X films at the moment. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkKT2sGbmw
So much fun smile


Oh. sad

DSLR then I guess.

Believe me, I ask all these questions with respect, but using a DSLR will give better video quality than a dedicated video camera?

Also, concerning sound... I don't mind using an external mike and certainly will record the sound on a sep. unit and sync it in later, but again, a DSLR for sound?

Jan 16 13 04:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dream-foto
Posts: 4,359
Chico, California, US


intense_puppy wrote:
I'm doing a ton of super8 Tri-X films at the moment. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkKT2sGbmw
So much fun smile

Cool film.

Jan 16 13 04:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
Believe me, I ask all these questions with respect, but using a DSLR will give better video quality than a dedicated video camera?

A DSLR will shoot video that is compressed. A dedicated (high end) should shoot it in a lossless format. As you're shooting for B&W, you won't suffer the chroma compression issues.
For prosumer video there's no difference really between that and dedicated and DSLR (as they mostly shoot compressed video too).
But it depends how big a production you're doing? Lossless video at HD resolutions is really only beneficial for green screening, CGI or complex secondary color correction work.

I've been to plenty of festivals and seen stuff projected that was shot on DSLR's and colored later (it's pretty much how most indies shoot short films these days).
Looks totally fine to me.

I'd still recommend shooting film if you want it to look like film. But I'm a hardcore purist. smile

The best place to discuss all this is here: http://www.cinematography.com/
That's a really sensible forum without the usual bitching, trolling and uninformed opinions you get *cough* elsewhere.

Jan 16 13 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom


It really depends on your budget, but it also depends on what camp you may decide to firmly place yourself in, and how many camera ops are you going to have?

Lower budget, I'd go the D3200 route.  You get full manual control 1080p, great shadow detail, and as you're shooting everything at 1/50th of a second anyway, you don't need ridiculous ISO performance.

If you've got a bit more cash to spend, I'd go D800 with an Atomos Ninja.  It'll record straight out to ProRes or DNxHD (Avid's codec that isn't limited to just a Mac), so you can bring it straight into Premiere/Avid/FCP.

Lower budget Canon side, I'd be picking up used 7D and 5DMk2 bodies.  If more cash is available, 5DMk3 and wait until April when the new firmware comes out and you can get clean HDMI output and record to the Atomos Ninja.

Whichever body you go for, I'd be looking at Nikon Ai and D lenses and M42 lenses myself (I use Nikon glass on Canon bodies with the Novoflex EOS/NIK adapter, they work a treat).

intense_puppy wrote:
A DSLR will shoot video that is compressed.

Unless you're shooting a D600, D800 or D4 (or a 5DMk3 after April) with an external recorder.

Jan 16 13 04:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Kaouthia wrote:
Unless you're shooting a D600, D800 or D4 (or a 5DMk3 after April) with an external recorder.

Really? Oh, it's come on a bit since I last investigated all this stuff.
That's why the OP needs to read a dedicated cine forum I guess and not take my shitty out-of-date advice big_smile

Which leads me to...

intense_puppy wrote:
uninformed opinions

Self owned irony much? smile

Jan 16 13 04:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


Well, I would love to shoot film, but I have worked on enough projects over my time that I know what will work and what won't. I believe it will be important to see things a bit more quickly on-set than I would get to with film (though I love the look of your short), so video is a concession I am willing to make.

It would be a small scale production, but we're still talking about 4 cast members, a few sets and a finished project that would be appx. ninety minutes.
Jan 16 13 04:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
It would be a small scale production, but we're still talking about 4 cast members, a few sets and a finished project that would be appx. ninety minutes.

Yeah, shooting a 90 min film at even a 5:1 ratio would run you ten grand minimum in stock, processing and scan fees.
Video is way more sensible.


BTW - when's the novel going to be finished? I saw ages ago on your profile you said you were editing it ("YES REALLY!")

Jan 16 13 04:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


You guys are funny. smile

And have no fear, you will not be held responsible for your recommendations... lol

I am by no means a seasoned filmmaker. Having said that, I have done enough projects over the years to know what I think I want to do and what I don't.

I'm pretty basic in terms of equipment wants (shit, just look at my portfolio; I'm stll shooting with a Pentax P3). Since this isn't a commercial venture (meaning no one is hiring me to do it), it will be a single camera shoot, the fewer lenses, the better.

I like natural light and handheld (though not jerky handheld) is fine with me. And yes, I'll be doing plenty of investigating. I guess I am not asking for recommendations for actual brands, just what level of specs for a camera.

My goal would be to be able to show the movie at a festival, which would have a fairly large screen.

And I will check out some cine forum sites as well.
Jan 16 13 04:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


intense_puppy wrote:
Yeah, shooting a 90 min film at even a 5:1 ratio would run you ten grand minimum in stock, processing and scan fees.
Video is way more sensible.


BTW - when's the novel going to be finished? I saw ages ago on your profile you said you were editing it ("YES REALLY!")

Well, I started writing the novel in May, 2012. First draft was finished a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving. I spent a few weeks reading it and crying a lot (it is about a failed relationship, after all), and I finished the second draft at New Year's.

I Have written some short stories, lots of term papers in college, etc. but writing a novel is a ridiculously difficult experience. Still been pretty rewarding, though...

And I put the 'yes, really' in there because whenever you tell someone you are writing a novel, you just get a weird look from them, like 'you gotta be freaking kidding me...' And I just wanna slap 'em... ha

Jan 16 13 04:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
I'm stll shooting with a Pentax P3

Most of my port was shot on a Pentax ME Super.
So, I covet your newfangled P3 smile

Jan 16 13 04:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
Well, I started writing the novel in May, 2012. First draft was finished a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving. I spent a few weeks reading it and crying a lot (it is about a failed relationship, after all), and I finished the second draft at New Year's.

I'm a writer by trade so I have utter respect for ANYONE that finishes a novel (I've finished a few but nothing that I was ever really proud of).
So many people I meet tell me about their novel that they're going to write "one day" but few ever get there - it is a bloody difficult thing.

/threadjack

Jan 16 13 04:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
I'm pretty basic in terms of equipment wants (shit, just look at my portfolio; I'm stll shooting with a Pentax P3). Since this isn't a commercial venture (meaning no one is hiring me to do it), it will be a single camera shoot, the fewer lenses, the better.

Assuming you've no fancy visual effects and whatnot going on (and I'm not talking about basic colour grading, I mean, like hardcore match moving, motion capture, CG and all the rest of it), I'd seriously consider just going with the D3200 and M42 lenses (or older Nikon lenses with aperture rings).

Then invest what you have left over in a decent fluid head tripod with a bowl mount (like a Libec, Vinten or somehthing), shoulder rig & follow focus, perhaps a decent slider, and a good light meter. smile

Yes, it's compressed footage.  You're not going to be competing with The Hobbit, but if you get the footage off the card, onto the computer, and convert it to 10Bit ProRes or DNxHD, it should be plenty good enough for most applications.

There's been a lot of stuff at film festivals the last couple of years that's been shot on DSLRs, and when it's projected most of the blindingly obvious issues you may see on a (relatively small) computer monitor just disappear.  Even going from a 24" IPS monitor to a 42" LED TV, most of those issues go away.

The trick is learning how to work around the issues so they don't come up in the first place (especially rolling shutter and moiré - you really need to plan your shots to account for things like this).

Jan 16 13 05:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sourcelight Photography
Posts: 248
BOISE, Idaho, US


I shot video for a living for almost 15 years before giving it up with the advent of HDTV (the best price I could find on a studio monitor at the time was $10,000--never mind the six-figure camera cost).  I just recently decided to jump back in with the release of the D800.  Why?  Because it finally handles audio in something resembling a professional manner (you can disengage the AGC, view actual meters, and monitor the sound via a dedicated output jack), and because of the astonishing dynamic range of the image.  Moreover, if you're looking for pure, uncompressed data, Nikon's new pro-level cams will output an uncompressed signal through the HDMI port.  I'm still working out the kinks, but so far, I'm impressed with how much USABLE video capability is now being built into a still-photo camera.  The D800 isn't cheap, but c'mon...  $3000 for a 36MP still camera with dynamic range surpassing most medium format backs?  With HD video built in, essentially as a free bonus?  From my background, that's obscenely inexpensive.  My own gear back in the day was the lowest-end BetaSP camcorder available, and it set me back around 10K, with an abysmal "kit" lens included.  Canon's 5D series is also a terrific place to start, if that's your preferred flavor.

In answer to one of your questions, yes, you probably can get better video from a dedicated video camera, but certainly not at this price, and you'd still find yourself addressing the same challenge Hollywood had for years--finding a(n expensive) way to adapt Canon or Nikon still-camera lenses for use on your half-million dollar cinema camera (or $20,00 4K video cam).  Whatever other problems DSLR video might still have (and there are a few--jitter being among the worst), we get to START with the incredible lenses that filmmakers used to have to pay a lot of money to adapt.  And that's a great place to start. 

There are also ergonomic issues in adapting a still camera for motion work, and if you're using pro mics with balanced throughput, you'll also need a quality adaptor to get your high-end audio into the camera.  There are good workarounds for all of this, and I've gradually dealt with most of them.  PM me if you're interested, and I'd be happy to pass along what I've discovered.

ETA: here's a link to some fun work on Nikon DSLRs.  You can find similar links for Canon DSLR/video.  I particularly like "Joy Ride": http://www.nphotomag.com/2012/07/21/the … kon-dslrs/
Jan 16 13 05:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rakesh Malik
Posts: 336
Seattle, Washington, US


intense_puppy wrote:

salvatori. wrote:
I don't need state-of-the-art. I anticipate the end result to

salvatori. wrote:
what I want is a decent camera to record clean video

Oh. sad

DSLR then I guess.

Super 8 is a lot of fun!
http://behance.net/WhiteCrane

However, you're also right that it's not a good way to get CLEAN video... for that, a dSLR is the bottom of the barrel. If you're renting, I'd recommend a dedicated video camera with XLR inputs. They're much more reliable than dSLRs, and audio on dSLRs is pretty sad, not good for much beyond a scratch track.

If your budget allows it, you could try to rent a super-16... we did some test shots on super-16 and digital in class last week, and even being a fan of film, it was astonishing how much better the film image looked, in spite of being a standard definition transfer it smoked the digital image.

Of course, if you drum up enough bux you might be able to rent a Black Magic or something even sexier like an EPIC or a Sony f5. It might even be affordable to rent an Alexa, but don't forget lenses and lights... and all the computer hardware you'll need for online storage so that you work with the video and offline storage for backups and memory for actually doing things with the video, and so on.

Jan 16 13 05:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
moving pictures
Posts: 662
Los Angeles, California, US


This question is better asked on a website like Cinema5D than modelmayhem.
Jan 16 13 05:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


deleted - unhelpful
Jan 16 13 05:41 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,572
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


moving pictures wrote:
This question is better asked on a website like Cinema5D than modelmayhem.

+1

I'm over there regularly. Personally, I use the T2i with magic lantern and various audio gear.

Jan 16 13 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


moving pictures wrote:
This question is better asked on a website like Cinema5D than modelmayhem.

I am certainly pursuing other avenues of information, but there's lots of know-how here, and I saw no reason not to ask...

Jan 16 13 05:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DennisRoliffPhotography
Posts: 1,928
Akron, Ohio, US


moving pictures wrote:
This question is better asked on a website like Cinema5D than modelmayhem.

You should also post this question over at dvxuser.com. There's a broader pool of filmmaking talent there which includes every aspect of the craft. Great site, lots of expert advice.

Good luck.

Jan 16 13 05:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1,861
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US


Look in the forums on Creative COW as well.  Lots of good info there from some very talented people, including many who have been at this for not only years, but decades.
Jan 16 13 06:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


Lots of choices you could make obviously.  From the sounds of it you haven o need to shoot on an Alexa, Red.  I've ACed (but not shot on) Canon's C300 yet but I do like the look.  I love Sony's f3 which I would definitely suggest (but again this might be "too" much). 

I wouldn't suggest Film just based on the costs.  I am a filmmaker first and foremost and I shoot on a Canon 7d. (remember the rebels, 60d, 7d, and 5d mkIII all have the same resolution so it won't matter which you choose).  Obviously you have to remember the 5d is full frame so you'll get the shallower depths of field and everything else that goes with that (true focal length, blah blah blah).

I use strictly old Nikon glass w/adapter usually in "Cinastyle" pic. profile.  IMO nothing beats the old nikon glass and it isn't too expensive either. 

In terms of audio; as you somewhat mentioned, on a "film" you would always want to record audio separately anyway so this isn't much of an issue.  You could always get more elaborate set ups but the Zoom H4n or Tascam's version (forget the model #) should prob. do just find.  If you need to mix live then you'll want to go with something a bit "better."  I obviously don't know details of your shoot but you mentioned a spot to make sets.  Assuming it is all inside I've actually know of audio mixers to use the audio straight out of camera.  I wouldn't suggest this as a sole source but if it is quiet enough it can work.  Also I work on lots of crime re-inactment shows and we hook up a small mic that plugs into the camera.  I honestly wouldn't suggest either of these for your main audio source but for a backup it can be acceptable.
Jan 16 13 06:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


lots of other good posts written while I was writing mine.  Definitely check out Cinema5d, dvxuser and other sites.  Tons of information out there on this..just do your research, figure out what suites you best for your script and you'll be just fine!
Jan 16 13 06:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ultimate dream
Posts: 848
London, England, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:

I am certainly pursuing other avenues of information, but there's lots of know-how here, and I saw no reason not to ask...

I only started shooting videos almost 3 years now just after i got my 5DII (so am really new to the video world)

Link to my video's
https://vimeo.com/user1397685/videos

Everything you see in this link was shot on the 5DII and 7D for slow-mo shots.
I started editing with Final cut pro7 but now edit with Premiere Pro cs6 and grade with 3 way colours, Magic bullet looks, mojo or colorister.

I personally really love the quality am getting from my 5DII

Jan 16 13 06:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


lastly I'll add that the movie "Act of valor" was shot I think 80-90% with DSLRs (I'll admit I haven't even seen it" but this was a motion picture released in theaters.  I read an article about it.  I'm sure if you google "act of valor/dslr" you can find all sorts of pages that discuss it.  And of course you could just watch the movie as well.  Being a filmmaker I certainly have my qualms with the DSLR movement (audio etc). but as someone who can't yet afford a RED, Elexa etc. there isn't even a 2nd thought as to what to shoot on.  The price point for the quality is too good.  As one who loves Nikon (for still) I still think Canon has the lock for DSLR video.  Either way good luck in your endeavor!  Feel free to PM with any ?s or concerns!
Jan 16 13 06:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


in addition to old Nikons, Check out Contax Zeiss prime set.  Def. worth renting IMO to use with an adapter on the Canon bodies
Jan 16 13 06:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


Jan 16 13 06:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mac13photography
Posts: 28
New York, New York, US


Jan 16 13 06:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


Thanks to all for the info and for some cool stuff to check out. I knew that the whole video/digital world has been growing - it seems almost exponentially.

Makes me think back to 1994 when I first worked in video. I was hired by a commercial company that just started in non-linear editing. The entire computer system was over 60k and it had less memory than a computer that you can now get at Rent-a-Center.

And we shot everything on S-VHS.

Looks like I'll have a full weekend just looking up all the sites, gear, info, that's out there.

Better go buy more beer and pizza... ha

Thanks again smile
Jan 16 13 07:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


(being friendly here) but you are very wrong about it being cheaper to rent a camera.

If you buy a used camera and are shrewd and careful with you purchase, you should be able to sell it a month later for close to what you buy it for.  Maybe even the same price.

If you rent you are looking at $100 a day for something crap, or $200-300 a day for something decent.
Jan 16 13 08:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


I've shot a lot of shorts, close to twenty. So I really know what I'm talking about when I say this.

Sound is paramount.

Because you can have a shitty looking grainy film with decent sound and you can get away with calling it artful.

But you cannot have a shitty looking film with shit sound.
And you cannot have an awesome looking film with shit sound.
In both these latter cases, bad sound will do the film more harm that one would expect.
Jan 16 13 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Supreme Icon
Posts: 11
Durban, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa


If you go the DSLR route, a really good book on the film look with DSLR is this one. Very informative....

http://www.amazon.com/DSLR-Cinema-Craft … 0240815513
Jan 17 13 12:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,280
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


salvatori. wrote:
Makes me think back to 1994 when I first worked in video. I was hired by a commercial company that just started in non-linear editing. The entire computer system was over 60k and it had less memory than a computer that you can now get at Rent-a-Center.

When I first started working in video it was 1968, the video recorders weighed half a ton, the tape was 2" wide and was edited by physically cutting and splicing it under a microscope. The concept  of computer editing had not even been thought of then, since even the biggest mainframes could not have stored a single frame of video!

Jan 17 13 01:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 3,803
State College, Pennsylvania, US


jdmax wrote:
I've shot a lot of shorts, close to twenty. So I really know what I'm talking about when I say this.

Sound is paramount.

Because you can have a shitty looking grainy film with decent sound and you can get away with calling it artful.

But you cannot have a shitty looking film with shit sound.
And you cannot have an awesome looking film with shit sound.
In both these latter cases, bad sound will do the film more harm that one would expect.

Appreciate your thoughts on the 'buy vs. rent' and it is certainly something to think about. And yeah, good sound is essential; you're 100% right on that point.

Jan 17 13 09:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rakesh Malik
Posts: 336
Seattle, Washington, US


salvatori. wrote:
Appreciate your thoughts on the 'buy vs. rent' and it is certainly something to think about. And yeah, good sound is essential; you're 100% right on that point.

Good sound is 50% of the film experience. And if you're doing this as an indie, you don't want to deal with ADR, so good sync sound will be a must. That said, good sound costs a LOT less than good picture in terms of required equipment, though you do still need to make sure that you have a good sound team on set.

However, you're a bit ahead of yourself right now. The gear is pretty inconsequential when you're still at the novel stage, since you need to finish the novel and adapt it to screen first. The two media are not the same, so a screen adaptation is going to be a significant amount of work. Then register the script with the writers' guild and start working on getting funding, crew, and cast together.

In the end, the hardware will be the easy part. You'll figure out your budget, figure out what you can afford, then either go shopping or hire a camera operator who owns his/her own gear, and/or a sound recordist who owns his/her own gear.

Jan 17 13 10:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,229
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


if you really want to save some money, and since you already have some pentax lenses, check out the pentax k-01. it's only a little over $300 right now. just add a hdslr rig and external mic.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pen … -mode.html
Jan 17 13 11:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,469
Los Angeles, California, US


Might I recommend that since you have been out of the loop for quite a while, that you jump in with both feet and use the latest 'hip' technology for your movie.

Seriously, look into this . . . .

http://www.ibtimes.com/top-director-sho … one-253327

http://www.apple.com/apps/imovie/   there are some outstanding works being produced in this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4JR-bYtns



KM
Jan 17 13 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
37photog
Posts: 692
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


A RED camera would be your best bet for a film look, although expensive even to rent.  I don't think DSLR's have XLR inputs for audio, which would inhibit your options since your looking to record live audio. Otherwise I'd suggest using a Canon XF300.  Shooting HD with 24fps would give you a filmic look. Typically these cameras come with color correction settings, some moreso give film look colors.

Also, use Magic Bullet as well.  Typically you can do color correction in After Effects, or even Premiere & FCP, but for 90 mins of footage you're better off buying the program, for getting consistency in matching.

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/product … orista-II/
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/product … let-looks/
Jan 17 13 11:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1,861
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US


37photog wrote:
A RED camera would be your best bet for a film look, although expensive even to rent.  I don't think DSLR's have XLR inputs for audio, which would inhibit your options since your looking to record live audio. Otherwise I'd suggest using a Canon XF300.  Shooting HD with 24fps would give you a filmic look. Typically these cameras come with color correction settings, some moreso give film look colors.

Also, use Magic Bullet as well.  Typically you can do color correction in After Effects, or even Premiere & FCP, but for 90 mins of footage you're better off buying the program, for getting consistency in matching.

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/product … orista-II/
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/product … let-looks/

Shoot with a color setting you think is much too "flat" so you have headroom for grading.  Oversaturation will mean no more can be added, only removed.

Jan 17 13 12:20 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply