Posted 28 July 2011 - 07:59 AM
Posted 28 July 2011 - 08:04 AM
You can shoot great-looking stuff now on a camera that costs £50/day.
You cannot shoot great-looking stuff with crappy production design, regardless of the number of stops of dynamic range on the camera.
Posted 28 July 2011 - 10:13 AM
I did runner work for a really low budget spoof/exploitation film the other day (straight to DVD/bluray), but i had a chance to talk to the camera crew. They were using two 5d mark IIs, CPZ primes, Canon primes. . The lights were 2 Kino flows and two LED panels. We had really poor lighting so we mostly shot vide open at T2.1 ISO 640. During the shoot the DOP and I were discussing and he said he would rather have a RED if they had more budget. I replied that i would rather more lights so we could stop down, apparently that wasn't a good answer, but I'm sticking to it. Which would you chose?
Well, just by switching from a FF35 sensor camera to a Super-35 sensor camera, you gain the equivalent of 1.5-stops more depth of field, plus you could rate the M-X Red camera faster than 640 ASA, so if all you wanted was more depth of field, I would go for the Red camera over the 5D.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 06:42 AM
Posted 29 July 2011 - 08:05 AM
'But in cinematography, forget DSLRs, forget film, forget everything – it’s all about lighting and exposure. That separates the talented people from the untalented in storytelling. If you know how to light, you know how to expose.'
Posted 29 July 2011 - 04:42 PM
But it depends on the project. If really crappy lighting is the idea of the spoof, then the camera could be the best place to spend the next dollar.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 05:49 PM