![]() |
Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
I have put together a chart to compare five different camera systems - the F3, the AF100, the 600D, the 5D Mark II and the out-dated JVC 111E. This is strictly keeping in mind the budget conscious low-budget filmmaker who's out to make his/her feature film.
Here's a link to my post: A Comparison of Camera Systems for Feature films | Sareesh Sudhakaran What I've learnt so far, is that among all the systems, the best is either the Canon 600D or the Panasonic GH2. I would appreciate any feedback or comments regarding this. If I've made an error, please let me know. Thanks, |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
You haven't included the Sony FS 100, although in the end your options are always limited by the available budget. However, you don't make mention of the downside like the moire found on the Canon.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Thanks Brian...I avoided the FS100 since its 'class' was already covered.
Moire is an issue with the Canon cameras, but it can be minimized through clever usage - especially in a feature film. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
I'd say moire would be even more of a problem on a feature film because detail and art direction is important, as is the camera's resolution.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Good art direction, costumes and makeup are essential for feature films. So, if one knows about moire, the designers just have to be careful - the same amount of effort and money is spent in either case.
35mm has limitations too, which the industry has learnt to avoid over the years. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
It can be a bit difficult to avoid brick walls and roof tiling, especially on a low budget film. 35mm film has some limitations, but moire isn't one of them. Surely, it's a case of if you can afford to use a camera that doesn't have an issue like this why use one that does?
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
You're absolutely right, of course.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
If by "best" you mean "cheapest", then your conclusion seems to be correct. Out of curiosity, what camera(s) do you own and which of these have you shot with? PS. I think if you included the FS100, it would come up at the top once you factor the weaknesess of the DSLRs in. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The idea is to show newcomers to the indie world (whose questions pop up here everyday - as mine did when I started), that a 600D Rig will be good enough for their purposes. Now they can concentrate on the storytelling part of filmmaking. DPs can understand the issues with the HDSLR system and work around it. If one has more money to burn, I would recommend they burn it on good art design, costumes and makeup; plus on rehearsals and additional shooting and lighting time. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Regarding the "jello effect", if the story or the way the story is told can't avoid bringing about this effect, it's not up to the DP to avoid it, more they are using the wrong tool for the job. The F3 and AF100 may not totally avoid the jello effect, more reduce it to levels that aren't so significant.
Lenses can get changed on every shot on a feature, it really depends if the DP is using a zoom or prime lenses. If you're shooting a feature with DSLR cameras, because ot the limitations of the available stills zooms (not just the aperture). you're more likely to be using prime lenses. You're ignoring a number of aspects to camera performance, like resolution, dynamic range and sensitivity, whilst being totally focused on 8 bit 4:2:0. You can't ignore the FS100 because you've got the AF100, because in a number of aspects key to a feature film it out performs the AF100. Nor can you lump the 1/2" sensor EX3 with the JVC 111. The DP should be working towards a higher level than what an audience perceives. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dynamic range is only an issue for those unprepared or who are shooting under tough conditions. A little more dynamic range for the folks who do so are not going to make their footage any better. It is far more productive to control DR with lighting, design and planning. Quote:
Quote:
Most new filmmakers focus on the wrong things, unfortunately. Please don't consider this chart to be for professional use. It isn't. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Err... so you tell the director to tell the story differently?
I think you're ignoring many of the decisions that DPs have to make and reducing it to just using the cost factor, but bear in mind on a larger screen the flaws tend to become more noticeable. In the end, by using a better dynamic range and sensitivity, you could reduce your lighting costs . I think there are many DP who do amazing thing on a very low budget. Although, by the time you kit up a DSLR for a feature, the costs aren't that far away from an AF100 or FS100 and you don't have the disadvantages of the DSLR. If you can't afford either of these cameras, that another matter, but you don't need charts to justify your choice, you really don't have any other option. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Steve |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
I realized, for the low budget filmmaker, it wouldn't help at all. Every other camera in the list offers a very slight improvement in the video signal at a disproportionate cost increase. Even the AF100, the FS100 or the F3 are nowhere near the capabilities of a Red Epic, an Alexa or the Cinealta. They have weaknesses just like every other system. In the case of HDSLRs, the weaknesses are not crippling. It's actually good enough for most independent films. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Yes, the 80% of performance is relatively cheap to achieve, the extra percentage points cost a lot more, You're comparing the recorded signal, but not taking in the compromise system that the 60D uses for extracting a video signal from the stills sensor. I've heard people comparing it favourably to the the 7D, but this is the first time I've heard it suggested as a better option to the F3. "The Blair Witch Project" was supposed to have been shot with the film school cameras that the students were using, so they could've filmed with a mobile phone or a F3 |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Sareesh, you are making a lot of definitive statements that are going off mark, I think. If you are talking about a $100,000 feature, chances are that unless you are fortunate enough to get very skilled people working for you for essentially no money, there will not be enough time, gear and crew to be able to perform the kind of workarounds you are suggesting to some of the issues presented by these cameras. Take a typical day exterior situation. Shooting closeups all day is relatively easy: it doesn't take excessive gear or difficulty to control the sun even at its worse in mid-day (although it does take a little bit of skill to produce natural looking closeups under artificial conditions). Once you move to wider shots, controlling contrast becomes a more complicated task. On my larger jobs, I think nothing of asking for a 20x20 ultrabounce or bleached muslin, but on a feature that size, I'd surely downgrade it in size due to limited personnel (and likely experience levels) to ensure that it is rigged safely. With a higher dynamic range camera like the F3 in S-log mode, I may not even need it all, and that is a significant consideration. For a job that has a lot of exteriors, one may be able to move that much faster with better results. And what's this about ND's being redundant with proper lighting? They are still a basic and essential tool for day exteriors, even more so as camera sensors become more sensitive. No getting around that one.
One other thing about working around the limitations of DSLR moire: I've been doing just that for the past eighteen months and I'm just about done with it. To have to schedule camera/wardrobe tests for every piece of clothing on every person that will appear in a project is too time-consuming and impractical (you have to check it at multiple focal lengths as moire may only appear at a specific distance) and we constantly get burned. Same thing with set design. It's extremely hard to predict what will be troublesome other than the most obvious patterns. Then there are situations where moire pops out on people's hair, or even eyebrows--yes, there are some post production chroma fixes available but as I've learned, very often "we'll fix it in post" means "we'll never actually get around to it" Now, a common theme in all of this is what size and experience level crew you can get on a micro-budget feature and that is something that may be a variable depending on location. I suspect things are quite different in India than they are here and this may be the factor that is influencing many of the statements you have made that don't quite gel for me. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Not to continue the dogpile but...
Quote:
Good lenses aren't cheap, but a useful range of fast/quality glass for the m4/3 cameras is difficult and expensive enough that it would probably eliminate them from my list of "low budget feature cinema" cameras. (having said that, I own an AF100, as well as many DSLRs) Also, I'm not sure how you "using" a $3000 lens in a text based chart is relevant, but it seems contradictory to me that you'd put $3000 into a lens that's only fractionally better than a $100 Nikon 50mm 1.4, while in the paragraph below telling people that the extra gains in quality is not discernable by the audience are not worth the money (which I agree with). I'm just sayin.... Quote:
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it's funny how people always use the ND filter argument. Are the ND filter options (2 on the F3 and 3 on the AF100) exactly what will be needed on a particular shoot? If so, why can't manufacturers agree on the best stops for them? These in-built ND filters are really great when shooting documentaries or ENG work, but on a feature, the DP should know better. Quote:
Quote:
I can add one thing though - lighting in India is much cheaper than in the US. I had a mini lighting and grip truck and a generator for around $80 dollars a day (in 2008). I used 2 4K HMIs, 5 1K Babys, a few 1K Ultras, 20x20 & 10x10 silks, plus dolly with track, stands, etc. It came with eight crew members (grips, one electrician and driver) for $10 each per 8-hour shift. Not bad, eh? |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
$0 to $100,000 - The 600D - Buy (if possible buy two bodies). Rent the lenses unless the costs are the same. Avoid major post processing. Get the best stereo sound mix possible, but keep options open for a Dolby 5.1. 99.9% of these films will not see a theatrical release or break even. $100,000 to $1,000,000 - Rent a RED ONE or shoot in 16mm (the latter if less post processing is required). Best possible theatrical and stereo sound mix. 99% of these films will not see a theatrical release, but can make money off television and video. $1,000,000+ - Shoot 35mm (or risk not getting distributed) or RED ALEXA (for major post processing) - renting only. Without a theatrical release, most of these ventures are doomed. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
At a $100,000 budget I wouldn't use a 60D, as Charles points out moire is a real issue. You mightn't even notice the moire when you're shooting, but you can get stung with it during post The FS100 (or AF100) fits into this budget, you don't have the the same problems and you can always sell the camera afterwards or just rent.
All 8 bit 4:2:0 isn't equal, even using DVCam the pictures from a DSR 500 or DSR 450 are better than those from a PD150. BTW There are $100,000 features that have been shot on 35mm film. You can get theatrical distribution on a film shot with a RED ONE so the $1M limitation doesn't apply, a number of high budget films have been shot with it. The Alexa is made by Arri and I suspect RED would argue that for big screen the RED ONE offers better resolution. There's no set path, especially at these low budgets ($1M is still low budget for a feature film). |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Assuming the same movie had two budgets - one at 100K and the other at a 1 million - one cannot drastically reduce the expenses going into makeup, costumes, set design, etc, without losing production values. Yet, low budget filmmakers are always under pressure to do this. In the olden days, cameras, too, couldn't be compromised on - you either shot in 16mm or 35mm. If you couldn't afford 16mm, you couldn't shoot a movie for theatrical distribution. In today's age, it's possible to shoot a feature on a 600D and if one lights within the dynamic range of the camera, the result will be acceptable. So the proportionate percentage going to the camera department can be reduced. One can also factor in renting cheaper and more efficient units like LEDs (but I don't know much about that so I'll stop here). I was just grossly generalizing in that last post. I believe no rules can be set since there are too many variables involved. Plus, I can't wait to get my hands on an AF100! |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
It's possible to shoot a feature on many current cameras, its more if they're the best choice for the job and if they're going to give problems that need to be "sorted out in post". Much depends on your budget and the proportion that's going on the camera, also you may find it's better to rent than to buy.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Yes, I agree, except for DSLRs, every other camera system should be rented. There are some great deals out there.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Rental versus purchase should be weighed against the ACTUAL financials. An average rental is usually 3 - 5% of value per day on large capitalization items like cameras and usually higher on items like cards and such. Most rental houses will give you a break on multi day rentals (1.5x day rate for a weekend, 3.5x day rate for a week). BUT... if your shooting schedule extends past the "break even" sweet spot, you should consider buying and reselling afterward. For example: The Indie feature I lensed some years ago spanned a year of shooting. My Sony PD150 (again, this was YEARS ago...) kit ALL IN cost me $8000. Rentals for a weekend back then would have been around $250 a day, so even with weekend rates it would have cost $400 (if we had rented instead of using a camera I already owned...) each weekend we took the camera out. MINIMUM. 10 shooting weekends over the course of the year equals $4000. Would we have been further ahead to buy an $8000 kit and sell it one year later for half price? Probably... AND had use of the camera for other stuff in the interim, possibly to help further offset purchase price. One simply CAN'T make a blanket statement around which is better, buying or renting, without first "running the numbers". |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For HDSLRs, I realized it was not worth it to rent simply because owning a DSLR has other benefits - like shooting stills - for storyboards, for artwork, for production stills, for casting, to shoot the making of, and so on. I have realized (being a director, not a DP) that having a DSLR just made me visualize better, and I'm improving every day with the 550D. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
One thing the renting vs. owning arguement hasn't covered is the tax benefits of renting over purchasing. In many cases, the cost of renting can be effectively zero (depending on the laws in your country of course). This should be discussed with your accountant.
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
shooting video. I'd much rather have an FS 100 or AF 100 (and I too admit I am biased, I own an FS 100). However, that being said.... would it not be true to say that owning an FS 100 or AF 100 or really any of these cameras has other benefits as well?. I have actually used my FS 100 to print off stills....smaller ones true...5x7's....and I will say, that they are as close to HDSLR 5x7 stills as HDSLR video is to FS 100 video :-) But to each his own :-) I personally think the biggest factor in the HDSLR craze is price. There are a LOT more people willing to spend 1-2k on a camera than 5-6k. There is always a law of 'diminishing returns' on these things. So a 550d gets you 85% of the way to a FS 100 (and is much cheaper). You chose a 550d because of that. To me, the extra 15% is easily worth the extra money (but I run a BUSINESS doing this, so it's not a hobby and I don't make films 'on weekends for fun'. Not saying you do, or disparaging those who do, but this is my ONLY source of income so I tend to spend a little more on it than many do probably....but not as much as some who have 'higher profile' clients. Kind of the typical small town guy who makes corporate films and TV commercials, and weddings and so on.) However, the FS-100 might get you 85% of the way to an F3. Why didn't I just buy that then since I value quality? Simple, budget! The clients I currently have, don't have that kind of budget! To me, there is a lesson here. When looking at a camera that you are actually going to buy, the very FIRST thing you want to look at, is not technical specs.....but your BUDGET! Once you have that nailed down, you can figure out what some of the best cameras in your budget range are.....and then compare them and see what works best for you. It's pointless looking at 65K cameras if you only have 10k to spend. It's silly to look at 6k cameras if you only have 2k to spend. Now I know that for many, renting is an option. However, for those of us who live outside the urban centers, and have no rental houses, having a camera on hand can mean the difference between getting the job, and getting passed over. It would take at least two or three days for any rental gear to get to me in Alaska, so I don't really ever look at renting, unless it is a very high end job with at least a weeks notice. |
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you mean from the chart, then, yes, it was chosen comparing its advantages to its costs, and then coming to the conclusion that it was indeed 'good enough' for low budget indie features. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Comparing Camera Systems for Feature Films
Yeah, the 5D Mark II can make an absolutely AWESOME still. Better than
a video camera by far! My point was kind of....that if you use a still camera (which is optimized for stills) as a video camera....it is compromised for motion pictures. And that if I use a FS 100 (which is optimized for motion) as a still camera....it is compromised for stills. Now I can print off pictures at 5x7 size, that would look close to 5x7's from a 5D Mark II......but with a 5D Mark II, you are NOT limited to 5x7! With a FS 100, you can't go much bigger or you start losing quality. So, because the FS 100 is not optimized for stills, it compromises the quality of the stills it can shoot. In a like manner, the 5D, has compromises with it's motion. In both cases, If you don't care/can work around it, it's no big deal. If you do care/can't work around it, it is a big deal! Maybe you need a still bigger than 5x7! Better not chose the FS 100! Likewise, if you need a camera that doesn't line skip causing aliasing and moire, the 5d would not be a great choice. Now, I'm sure you already know all this. In fact, I think you were kind of making the same point I was. HDSLR's are great, because of their cost/performance ratio. They may not be quite up to the large sensor video camera quality, but they get close for much less money. So, again, look at your budget. If you can't swing the money for a 'proper' video camera, you can get by with a HDSLR, especially if you are a resourceful type! And honestly, your 'motion picture' will probably look very very good. As for learning, I still am doing it, and sometimes feel like I don't know much at all. The more I learn, the more of the vast world of 'motion picture making' I glimpse, and realize I don't know much at all compared to so many people. I guess we all just try to do our best and get better every day. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:27 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network