Here's a list:

Sundance 2013: List of Cameras Directors Used Shows Variety (http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/sundance-2013-list-of-cameras-directors-used-shows-variety/)

Lots of Arris, Canons, REDs and Sonys. The usual suspects. Very few film cameras.

Alexa on mine (Hell Baby)...

(Hell Baby)To wit: Hell Baby - Festival Program | Sundance Institute (http://filmguide.sundance.org/film/13068/hell_baby)

Laughing at the picture on that page--that's from the set of "Children's Hospital". Guess they couldn't find a still of Lake directing her feature so they figured that one would do.

False advertising... d'oh!

I want to thank you for posting this link & for James DeRuvo from doddleme.com for compiling the list. I, like many people on this board, am a camera gear junkie, pixel peeper & love this stuff.

BUT, if you want to get a film into Sundance & you're looking at this list to see what camera to buy, you're focusing on the wrong thing.

Talent is more important than tools.

I'm guessing the the people using iPhones & GoPros have just as much (or more) story telling talent than the guys using a Red or Arri.

I think this list shows we're in a liberating & exciting time for film making that it is a lot more about talent than tool.

Hundreds of years ago, on a few elite had the ability to publish a book. Today, anyone in the first world can afford a computer & word processor. But just because you have MS Word, doesn't mean you're going to write the next great American novel.

Talent is more important than tools.

More than anything else, I think this has been the prevailing mantra for DV Info Net over the past eleven years since we first went online. It's always worth repeating!

Talent over tools is about to change... Jim Jannard just announced the Daniel Day Lewis module for Red that will reduce the need for talented actors by 30-40% by enhancing their delivery in camera. Because its RAW you'll be able to change mood and tone in post.

Also... did I see the XL1 in that list?

Talent is more important than tools.
I won't disagree with that - but they should be regarded as two totally separate matters. If it was a choice of best tools OR best talent, then yes - go for the talent.

But it's rarely if ever an either/or choice. Surely the optimum is good talent *AND* good tools?

Talent over tools is about to change... Jim Jannard just announced the Daniel Day Lewis module for Red that will reduce the need for talented actors by 30-40% by enhancing their delivery in camera. Because its RAW you'll be able to change mood and tone in post.



Thats nothing. Canon have just announced their new line of Hilary Swank Series Lenses. It instantly makes all your movies more Swanky, but as an unfortunate side effect the DOP is likely to stiff the Camera Operators in his acceptance speech.

After seeing 21 films at this Sundance, I was surprised how many were still shot on film.

There aren't that many shot on film in that list.

That is because that "list" is by no means the complete list of films. Examples I can remember offhand from the US Dramatic competition that were shot on film:

In a World...
Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Toy's House
Fruitvale (Award winner in 2 categories)

And non-competition Premiere films like jOBS and Sweetwater were also shot on film

There were many more - I was shocked when the credits rolled to see so many shot on film. I did view most of the big films at the Eccles venue though and did not see shorts and most docs though.

I won't disagree with that - but they should be regarded as two totally separate matters. If it was a choice of best tools OR best talent, then yes - go for the talent.

But it's rarely if ever an either/or choice. Surely the optimum is good talent *AND* good tools?

And let's add "the story"?

Last year's Sundance hit Searching For Sugarman was shot with a Sony EX1. Great story, great film shot with a cheap but great camera! And maybe getting an Oscar!

Here's a list:
Sundance 2013: List of Cameras Directors Used Shows Variety (http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/sundance-2013-list-of-cameras-directors-used-shows-variety/)

I counted nine RED Epics, but not a single Scarlet...? Wow.

-- peer

After seeing 21 films at this Sundance, I was surprised how many were still shot on film.

Interesting factoid - the next Spider-Man movie will be shot on film.

Talent is more important than tools.

I'm guessing the the people using iPhones & GoPros have just as much (or more) story telling talent than the guys using a Red or Arri.

Let's be careful here...

Yes, talent IS important.

Writing, directing, cinematography and editing.

But frankly, in MY not-so-humble opinion, if your story is strong enough, you are showing contempt for your viewer by not using the best AVAILABLE tools to tell it.

I've seen some interesting documentaries that had great content but something as simple as the audio or framing being TERRIBLE has thrown the entire viewing experience off for me.

Not bothering to involve the right people to make decisions around quality that you are unable to make is arrogant and short-sighted.

The BEST films are the ones made by a group of talented and totally "bought-in" people who are passionate about the story or the message. Does everything need to be shot in 4k on an Epic? No, but deliberately shooting on an iPhone with the built in mic shows contempt for the viewer or laziness on the part of the "director".

Trade sweat equity with other film makers - you shoot mine, I'll edit yours. Whatever it takes.

The whole concept of the high quality "zero-budget" or "micro-budget" film is absolutely flawed. There WAS a budget - contra or sweat equity. In Vancouver, LOTS of films are made without paying for crew. The best of them are when groups of people get together on their days off to systematically work through the collective's "to shoot" list.

Again, I help you today, you help me next week.

COMPLETELY acceptable - it's called contra. A reciprocal agreement.

The Craigslist phenomena of Friday night crew calls for DoPs WITH CAMERA and sound techs for noon Saturday crew call is absolutely flawed.

Good people, good story, good planning.

And don't forget EXCELLENT promotion. Facebook is only ONE TINY STEP in your marketing plan...

<steps off soapbox>

Well it's a nice idea Shaun, but in my experience there are a lot of "something for nothing" merchants out there. I remember editing a short for a guy and putting serious hours in. It didn't occur to him to capture the 13 hours of footage on his own FCP system before handing it over to me. After a couple of weeks of him dropping by my place i had to tell him to go and buy some effing coffee and biscuits. That was his sole contribution to my weeks of work. About 2 pound fifty.
After that i shot and edited a music video for a guy and he later asked me if i wanted to BUY a 10 quid bag of weed off him. I nearly fell off my bar stool!
Those days are gone, and i'd have to absolutely love the person and their project to get involved these days, but it's still a good point. There are people collaborating and doing great things, but you need to be careful who you're getting involved with.

Regarding gear, there's no doubt - and many examples- of low gear budget going a long way. And vice versa.

So Dom...did you buy the bag of weed?