What does "lower thousands" mean? An actual budget range would help us come up with a few options. 🙂

What you really need is a camera that has a wide latitude of exposure ratio. And lenses that have wide apertures for low light, such as at least 2.8 and 1.3. Those don't come cheap.

In that you are not actually "filming" anything since you're using a video camera (electronic acquisition), you need a camera that will shoot in low light without introducing an inordinate amount of noise in the blacks. Many cameras that say they are 'low light' capable are really just introducing gain to boost a signal to get an exposure. Sure, you get a picture, but it looks like you're running through a sandstorm.

You really do get what you pay for, especially when it comes to electronics and camera equipment. Anyone who claims that their $5,000 camera is "just as good as!" a $70,000 camera is fooling themselves.

So, without knowing precisely what your images should look like or what your budget is, I'd just urge you to take any specific advice you DO get (and you will undoubtedly receive the alphabet soup of makes and models soon), and take time to TEST TEST TEST before you buy anything at all. No matter what a manufacturer claims, it's up to YOU to do the work to get what YOU need for your project.

I recommend that you take a look at this test http://vimeo.com/17627567 to see what kind of things you should be looking for when comparing cameras in your price range. From the test, you can see the vast difference in how two distinct cameras handle over and underexposure in terms of noise and color.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

In regard to the lighting, streetlights can potentially light a relatively "large" area from above, but such a toppy source isn't attractive on people and it doesn't necessarily light faces very well from that direction.

Because of that, you'll almost certainly have to fill in with your own sources on the ground. BUT, because you have zero control over the streetlamps, you're at the mercy of their color temperature and brightness which means that anything else you do add from the ground should get as close to matching the color temp and brightness of the lamps. Doing that allows you to white balance and keep your Actors looking somewhat attractive.

Two potential problems with relying on streetlamps are 1) having no control over when they actually turn on and off, and 2) being able to throw a boom mic over the scene as the top source will throw lots of shadows all over everything in frame. Unless you plan to cut the direct light hitting your Actors from above, your Boom Operator is going to have a hell of a time getting decent sound unless you plan to use RF mics on everybody. And speaking of good sound, sometimes streetlamps emit a buzz that we usually tune out, but the mics will always pick up. So take that into consideration as well when scouting locations.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Thank you very much bjdzyak, as that is the type of information that is really helpful. Specific budget could be as high as 4,000 if I really stretch it, although I would definitely not mind if I could get similar quality on a lower priced cam.
By looking at the test footage against the Arri alexa, the difference can be readily seen, for which reason I am really wary of spending money on a cam that is really not going to be able to handle my vision. However, it might be possible that the individuals I am collaborating with might have a professional camera in their grasp, although I lack that information right now as they are in another country and it is not easy to get in touch with them from where I reside. If they do have the type of camera which lends itself to what I am aiming for, then I would just need a competent backup camera with which I can do some smaller projects and test around with.
You definitely bring up a valid point with the noise intrusion and the streetlights as it is something that has screwed up my sound on some of my past projects; yet since what I am actually shooting for in the street scenes are small amounts of dialogue, is it feasible that I could have the actors wear mics and the rest could be foley? Seems like that would provide the right sound quality I need (although I recognize that there is more strenuous work involved).
Just so there could be a clearer idea of where I am going, try to visualize a "film noir" ambiance tinged with an amber hue provided by the streetlights.

I don't know what your long-term career-vision is, but let me toss this out into the ether as a possibility...

Instead of attempting to purchase a camera which ultimately won't deliver the quality you're looking for, consider taking the cash on hand that you do have and use it for ONE EXCELLENT project as opposed to trying to buy something that will allow you to make a lot of them.

Reason being, you could buy a camera and perhaps churn out ten or twenty short movies, all or most being compromised by the "ceiling" of quality that your purchase can deliver. OR, you could rent quality equipment (camera, the accessories, proper lighting, quality sound mixer and mics) OR, as you mentioned, find people to work with you who already have it so that when you are done, you have an EXCELLENT movie that truly showcases your skill and talent instead of twenty mediocre to poor movies that you have regrets about.

Owning a camera is nice and all, but the idea that most people have is that because they own something, they think they'll be a movie-making factory. The problem is that quantity generally isn't what propels an aspiring "filmmaker" to the next level. Quality does. Concentrate your time, energy, passion, resources, and money into just one or two projects and make them truly great. So, for $4,000, you might be able to get a camera that is technically capable of "sort of" getting the images you want. But if you can find an up-and-coming Cameraman who has access to the proper gear (camera, accessories, lighting, etc), then your money won't be tied up in substandard gear and you can use it for other things to make your movie look and sound even better.

But that's just my opinion. 🙂

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I've always been on the fence about buying a prosumer camera for that very specific reason, for which I highly appreciate the advise. That would leave me with the need to still have a camera, as I am really itching to get some HD test footage and fool around with shots, settings, and the nifty features that high end consumer cameras offer nowadays. The footage I film with this camera can serve as a sort of dry run for me to get more practical and experienced with contemporary cameras before I embark on the shoot. Any thoughts on a sub 1000 camera with a high degree of customization and pristine colors?
P.S. I will heed your advise and invest that money towards making a quality production that correctly adheres to my vision. As I will most certainly be filming in another country, cost will definitely be much lower than if i was to shoot it here in the states, which makes your idea highly appealing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tavarish

I've always been on the fence about buying a prosumer camera for that very specific reason, for which I highly appreciate the advise. That would leave me with the need to still have a camera, as I am really itching to get some HD test footage and fool around with shots, settings, and the nifty features that high end consumer cameras offer nowadays. The footage I film with this camera can serve as a sort of dry run for me to get more practical and experienced with contemporary cameras before I embark on the shoot. Any thoughts on a sub 1000 camera with a high degree of customization and pristine colors?
P.S. I will heed your advise and invest that money towards making a quality production that correctly adheres to my vision. As I will most certainly be filming in another country, cost will definitely be much lower than if i was to shoot it here in the states, which makes your idea highly appealing.

---

I'm a little confused. Do you want to be a Director or a Cameraman?

If you want to be a Director, it's my opinion that you should be investing your time in things like writing and gathering PEOPLE who can do the other jobs, like camera, sound, wardrobe, special effects, music, editing, etc.

If you want to be a Cameraman, then it would make sense for you to be interested in investing time in learning about cameras. The technology is always changing, so there is virtually no end to the learning process for a career-Cameraman.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Sorry for the confusion. I am a writer and director, but I have filmed all my past projects myself for which reason I would like to at least be acquainted with the technological aspect and do some test shots(as I am a bit of a control freak) even though I know that role will be deferred to the cameraman.
I have no problem with the writing part and I am in the process of gathering the people I plan to film and collaborate with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tavarish

Sorry for the confusion. I am a writer and director, but I have filmed all my past projects myself for which reason I would like to at least be acquainted with the technological aspect and do some test shots(as I am a bit of a control freak) even though I know that role will be deferred to the cameraman.
I have no problem with the writing part and I am in the process of gathering the people I plan to film and collaborate with.

---

Filmed? You mean "videotaped" I assume? 🙂

Facetiousness aside, my point here is that in your initial post, you suggest that you want this next project to be more special than any of the others that you've done. I can only assume that this is because you want to begin creating work that can better showcase your talents and skills with the desire to be a Director for a living.

It's for that reason that I suggest that you put aside the desire to spend money on equipment that will undoubtedly be less than what you need for your "vision" and concentrate on the script and on building a team of people who can (likely) bring not only their own talents and skills to your project, but also (hopefully) some tangible equipment and supplies as well.

From what you'd said thus far, it seems as though you are ready to put aside the "I can/need to do everything myself" view and step up to the level where you collaborate with others who truly want to do those other jobs (like camera and lighting). You didn't mention wanting to go purchase quality sound equipment as you did camera. Nor did you mention wanting to purchase scheduling software (AD dept) or steamers (Wardrobe) or a lighting package (Electric) or lighting and camera support (Grip) or anything else a movie requires to be made.

So, in that it seems as though you want to push your efforts up a notch or two, it doesn't seem prudent to spend thousands of dollars on a camera that won't be sufficient for what you want/need while also not purchasing everything else that you'd need to make your next project everything you want it to be.

At some point, you have to put aside the "control freak" and concentrate your passion on the specific aspect of the career you want to have. A guy like James Cameron, who is a billionaire many times over, can afford to spend time researching and developing the technology it takes to make movies in the way he envisions. But the newbie with little to no financial backing, needs to invest more time in STORY and characters and trust (but verify!) that the crew around him/her can do their jobs competently.

For an aspiring Director, this doesn't mean that you just leave it all to everyone else. By all means, a Director should know ABOUT what it takes to do those other jobs and what their parameters are... they will be coming to you with questions and the more you know about THEIR jobs, the better a Director you'll be... but you do NOT need to know every gritty detail involved in every department. You could spend time learning all of that, but doing so takes focus away from what you, the aspiring Director, truly needs to concentrate on.

So, based entirely on only what I've seen you write here (so I could be wrong), my advice to you is to put aside the idea of purchasing a sub-par camera and instead, work HARD at creating a project (script with a "business plan"... meaning festivals, agents, etc) that will attract other people (cast, crew) to it and to you. Quality people (and their equipment) will be attracted to people (you!) and projects that have promise and aren't just haphazard projects made in the backyard just "for fun." Make it seem as though you're dead serious about your movie and others will take you more seriously too.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Nothing like some sensible professional advice in order to regain focus. Seems like I have been trapped in the rebel without a crew mentality for so long that it might have become counterproductive to my goal. My apologies if i seem easily swayed by your ideas, yet that is only because they have been due to the indecisions I have held for so long due to professional inexperience. I am just now delving back into the film world, as I just finished a completely unrelated bachelor, for which reason I have quite a good amount of questions and since I do not want my passion project to stall, then I will take all the advise and help I can get.

The idea of getting a camera arose mostly because I have done my previous projects myself and the most actors I have guided in a shoot are three. Thus, I had a certain degree of insecurity that I could launch a full scale project, guide a full crew, and be capable at it without having that type of experience. I have not gone to film school and have been self didactic in the pursuit of my knowledge, making me unsure if I am at a disadvantage with others in my field. Nevertheless, I have confidence in myself as a leader, which I know to be a fundamental skill in order to safely guide a film crew without it falling to pieces.

Anyhow, I might be going a little bit off topic here but do you have any thoughts on the best way to spotlight a foreign language film?

I have noticed this on many, many filmmaking forums. Most young people who profess their desire to get into filmmaking have at least some knowledge and familiarity with the field. And no matter how much they know, they will ALL know the story of Robert Rodriguez. It clearly doesn't help that even with Hollywood studios and healthy, solid budgets (not to mention some A-list stars), he continues to write, direct, shoot, edit and even score his own films. This, an aberration of colossal proportions, continuously inspires (rightfully) young aspiring filmmakers, but also leads those already having their feet wet in the field to continue along that path.

The point is, in the movie business, there is practically nobody out there other than Rodriguez who does it that way. There is no doubt that having the skills to do all those crew positions is an extremely valuable quality. I often compare this to a symphony. A director is a conductor. It is extremely valuable to a conductor to be proficient in several instruments of different groups (for example, a cello - string instrument -, a trombone - a brass instrument -, a bassoon - woodwind -, perhaps percussions); this allows him to know the abilities and limitations of every instrument group much more intimately than a conductor who doesn't play any of them. However, a performance will be much better if a conductor is not expected to at the same time conduct the orchestra, play the viola, bass clarinet and triangle. Not to mention that it is extremely unlikely that he'd do any of those better than someone who practiced his specific instrument all his adult life.

That said, there are situations where it is difficult to find skilled, talented and willing participants for a project within your little community. America is one vast land littered with creative young people fascinated by various aspects of moviemaking. Other lands around the world don't have as many who are that passionate about moviemaking. Even fewer who are excited to participate for little or no pay, and actually have proper gear.

Excellent point, Vasic.

What I notice in no director asks about becoming proficient in make up,
costuming, set decorating, art direction or catering. All essential aspects
of a movie production. Directors who are control freaks seem willing to
allow someone else to pick the right shoes for the right costume in the
right scene or choose the right make up for the leading man.

This has been a great dialogue between tavarish and Brian. I've enjoyed
it and learned.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vasic

That said, there are situations where it is difficult to find skilled, talented and willing participants for a project within your little community. America is one vast land littered with creative young people fascinated by various aspects of moviemaking. Other lands around the world don't have as many who are that passionate about moviemaking. Even fewer who are excited to participate for little or no pay, and actually have proper gear.

---

And this is the problem that I see with the continued fracturing of the professional movie-making industry that is spurred on by tax-incentives and subsidies. What those financial "incentives" do is drive work to wherever the best financial offer is made by a government. Sounds good, doesn't it? Sure does if you're the Corporation that is benefiting from cheaper "manufacturing" costs and often, cheaper labor.

But because it is growing more difficult for specialists in the "crafts" (every job that is necessary to make a movie) to maintain a viable living, many of the veterans just leave thus depriving the industry of their experience. And those who remain, are not getting the breadth and sustained experience that helps build a strong workforce.

The benefit to keeping the movie industry in one location, like Los Angeles, where it truly grew from, is that "Hollywood" has the specific infrastructure to support the specific needs of making a movie from start to finish as well as generations of experience to draw from. If all or most of the movies were still made in the Los Angeles area, aspiring "filmmakers" would know where to go to find other like-minded individuals who they can partner with to make their projects.

But with this new "global" economy in which governments bribe Corporations for the jobs, it is increasingly difficult for aspiring Directors, Producers and crew to know where to go to establish a career and a life. Keeping it all in one place, makes it easy to know where to go for experienced people and equipment. Spreading it around the world with bribes makes it difficult to set up shop anywhere as those "incentives" can dry up and push all the work somewhere else.

So, Taverish, like every other movie including the biggest budgets, must pay attention to LOCATION when deciding where to shoot. For instance, perhaps a story takes place in the Antarctic. Cool (literally!), but it's hard to find quality film crews in Antarctica so if someone truly wants to shoot there, they have to hire the crew and fly them down there, put them up and feed them and pay they for their time. So, if the budget allows, then that location will work. But if the budget is too low to support that kind of effort, then alternate plans must be made.

I don't know where Taverish plans to shoot his movie, but if he can't afford to fly quality crew there (and put them up and feed them), then he has choices to make. A) Find the money somehow. B) Learn to do all the jobs himself. C) Find crew nearby who likely won't be experienced enough.

Each possibility carries with it potential problems and issues to overcome.

As an example, I recently finished working on FAST FIVE, the fifth movie in the Fast & Furious series. The story is set in Rio, Brazil. For a variety of logistical and safety reasons, the movie was shot in Arizona, Puerto Rico, and Atlanta with only one week in Rio to get some key shots to tie it all together. The point being that you can't always shoot where you'd like to for a lot of reasons so you use movie "tricks" to tell the story. Darth Vader is a character, but he was created by a variety of actors and stuntmen to bring him to life. It's all about illusion. If you can't do it for real, then you do whatever you can to FOOL the audience into thinking that you did.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Brian,

I can hear a bit of bitterness in your voice when you talk about tax incentives. Your perspective is somewhat limited to the US, though, and I'm not sure how much it applies to our friend tavarish. Judging by his handle ("comrade" in Russian), and his question about spotlighting of a foreign-language film, I was under the impression that his pool of talent will be quite far from Hollywood, or even USA.

A small percentage of us on this forum has been blessed by the circumstances in our life that led us to set up our homes in Southern California (or New York), which gives amateur, aspiring and independent filmmakers so many more options than what others get. Even a simple Craigs List posting has a decent chance of attracting people with at least some experience and skill, if you're looking in L.A. or N.Y. Folks in Louisville, KY would likely get zero responses on a Craigs List posting in search of sound, camera, grip, electrical, wardrobe or props crew...

Trying to put together a competent crew in Bucharest (Romania), Riga (Latvia), Belgrade (Serbia) or even Moscow, presents challenges on a completely different level from what you may encounter anywhere in the US. This is why most common mindset outside of the two filmmaking Meccas (L.A. or N.Y.) is the 'Robert Rodriguez' mindset. And honestly, I don't know how one can overcome that mindset and start understanding the benefits of dedicated, specialised roles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vasic

Brian,

I can hear a bit of bitterness in your voice when you talk about tax incentives. Your perspective is somewhat limited to the US, though, and I'm not sure how much it applies to our friend tavarish. Judging by his handle ("comrade" in Russian), and his question about spotlighting of a foreign-language film, I was under the impression that his pool of talent will be quite far from Hollywood, or even USA.

A small percentage of us on this forum has been blessed by the circumstances in our life that led us to set up our homes in Southern California (or New York), which gives amateur, aspiring and independent filmmakers so many more options than what others get. Even a simple Craigs List posting has a decent chance of attracting people with at least some experience and skill, if you're looking in L.A. or N.Y. Folks in Louisville, KY would likely get zero responses on a Craigs List posting in search of sound, camera, grip, electrical, wardrobe or props crew...

Trying to put together a competent crew in Bucharest (Romania), Riga (Latvia), Belgrade (Serbia) or even Moscow, presents challenges on a completely different level from what you may encounter anywhere in the US. This is why most common mindset outside of the two filmmaking Meccas (L.A. or N.Y.) is the 'Robert Rodriguez' mindset. And honestly, I don't know how one can overcome that mindset and start understanding the benefits of dedicated, specialised roles.

---

It's not bitterness. It's just an honest look at reality. If you wanted to work in the auto industry ten to twenty years ago, you moved to Detroit. What does that aspiring factory worker do now?

It sounds silly, I know, but that's the fact. Infrastructure for some industries was established in specific geographic areas. If you wanted to make cars, you moved to Detroit. Want to design clothes, you move to Paris or NYC. Want to make washing machines, you move to Indiana.

Washing machines? What? What's that got to do with movies? In 2010, the Whirlpool Corporation decided to pick up and move its manufacturing operations to Mexico. Was the company losing money? No. Was there a contract dispute? No. Quite simply, those at the top decided they could increase profits for themselves by cutting labor costs by moving the plant to another country and paying their workers pennies. http://www.unions.org/home/labor-unions-news/latest-unions-news/270/25/02/2010/

The very same ideology has been applied to the movie industry. Sure, it's wonderful for aspiring "filmmakers" to learn that "Hollywood" is making movies in their hometown! Cool!!! The circus is coming to MY town and I don't have to move anywhere to be a part of it! YEAH!!!!

Well, it's "cool" until those tax incentives/bribes dry up and the circus picks up to move someplace else that is offering a better financial bribe. Now what is that crew member to do? Sell the house and be a nomad to follow the tax incentives around? It's not just in the USA. Prague used to be "the new Hollywood!" Then Budapest. Australia. New Zealand. The UK. Even Hungary at one point thought that they would be the "new Hollywood!"

Right now in the US, Detroit, Atlanta, and Louisiana are fighting it out with New Mexico (and several other states) to see who can offer the biggest "incentives" to "Hollywood." Great, only that, what does it mean for aspiring Directors and crew who want to establish a life somewhere?

Directors used to know where to go to find new and established crew to get their movies made: LA or NYC. Those two cities are where the best crew were and where new aspiring crew went to get started.

But now where do you go if you are looking for crew, established or new? For every city that shoots out press releases proclaiming that they are the new "Hollywood," there are a more that USED TO BE meccas for movie-making.

So, for someone like Tavarish, what's he to do when looking for qualified crew to help him make his movie?

And that's my point. I worked on the film "WANTED" which was set in Chicago. The thing is, about 98% of the movie was shot in Prague and 2% in Chicago. Why? Money. At the time, Prague was offering a bigger bribe to movie Corporations than Chicago was so Universal settled on the Czech Republic to stand in. The movie I just finished recently (FAST FIVE) was set in Rio, Brazil but shot in two other states and Puerto Rico with just one week in Brazil. All because of bribes/incentives and where they production companies could get qualified crew.

So, no matter where you are in the world, you have to either learn to do all the jobs yourself (ie Rebel without a Crew) and like it... or shoot your movie where the qualified crew are and use illusion to help tell the story.

I have a short film I want to make sometime soon that I'd like to set within the small towns and cornfields of Ohio where I grew up. Can I do it there? I'm not sure yet, but one thing that is certain, there is little to no qualified crew there to utilize. I'll have to figure out how to get them there or how to do without. That's my reality and the reality for anyone who wants to make a movie. You create your product within the parameters you're dealt.

A hundred million dollars buys you the crew you want in the locations you want with as much time as you want.

$4,000 dollars for a camera buys you almost nothing but a piece of electronics that isn't quite good enough for what someone needs to make a quality movie.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com