New movie filmed entirely on Mirrorless cams

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,150
You didn't hit refresh. I edited as soon as I posted. You posted 3 mins after :-D
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,432
I think it's sort of odd to make this distinction. Technically all cinema cams are "mirrorless" cameras. Talking about consumer versus pro equipment I suppose is what they're trying to say. But honestly, if shooting in compressed log with all of the decision data correct as well as good gaff and grip: it won't matter anyway. And well if you can shoot RAW, then there's functionally no difference.

A lot of films have already been using parts of mirrorless or dslr video for sometime. The Season Finale of House was all shot on a 5D2. As were parts of lots of big films like the Avengers. Not sure how this is "news" other than making a distinction without a difference in order to have something to talk about.

I don't fault them for that, creating the hype train and such. I just don't buy the bag of goods, nor do I think that that is reason to see a film or not see a film.
 

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,150
I thought it was interesting (as a non-film maker) / amateur photographer. I watch a few channels on YouTube (like Potato Jet) that talk about film making and it's always cool to see how they do things behind the scenes. It's even cooler to see them do it with "regular" type gear vs a Red or Arri Alexa.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,432
I thought it was interesting (as a non-film maker) / amateur photographer. I watch a few channels on YouTube (like Potato Jet) that talk about film making and it's always cool to see how they do things behind the scenes. It's even cooler to see them do it with "regular" type gear vs a Red or Arri Alexa.
I don't disagree with you that BTS is definitely fun. I will say this though, the average tools we have now are incredible. If people had a Canon T2i (a 8 year old entry level camera) in 1980, it would blow peoples minds. Especially in regards to film making, more so in concert with even an entry level digital monitor to give a full set of scopes.

There are multiple camera systems from multiple camera companies that are all very competent film tools. The process for using them is the same as you would for any professional tool. The only real difference are things like workflow as well as having access to better file formats and generally speaking, RAW capability giving more latitude in post. Still, like I mentioned before, if the planning, preproduction, lighting, and decision data are done correctly, they can produce "cinematic quality" images just the same as a purpose built, high-end cinema camera. File wise, they will just generally have less latitude in and for post, but if shot correctly you don't need it.

All that said, it does make film production exciting even at a much lower level. It has been democratized to a large degree. There are quite a few Youtube channels that have excellent work using cameras that all cost $6000 or less. Which for the cinema world is a drop in the bucket (most cinema lenses cost more than $10k... for a single prime. That's considered a low level, or mid level piece of cinema glass. Some are in excess of $80k... for a single prime). Some channels like Alec Steele have leveraged their personality and film style into TV show deals (in his case with the History Channel). And he shoots his channel on a $1500 Panasonic GH5.

Knowledge and understanding of tools is king here. It's no longer just expensive tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk
like this
Tags
dslr movie
Top