A good movie needs a good script, good actors, a good
director, good sound, good lighting, good cinematography,
good editing and good music.

If you have all of those you can make a good movie using a
HD camcorder with a very small budget..

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by shirotora

is it possible to shoot good movie using HD camcorder, passion for movies, very small budget and help of friends and like-minded people in movie industry?

---

The key to your question are the words "good movie."

What do you intend to do with your movie? Are you making it just for laughs with your family and friends at home or on the internet? Or perhaps you aim a bit higher and hope to submit it to a festival? If "Festival" is the aim, then ask yourself "why?". What is your goal there? For awards or so you can attract an Agent or a three-picture deal with a studio?

Or by "good movie," do you mean that on a technical level? Can a cheap consumer camera deliver "professional" TYPE results so that even on a low-budget, your project will at least LOOK like a big-time movie? In short, no, not really. But I say that with a caveat.

You can never overcome the limitations of any technology. A consumer or pro-sumer camera will never reach the level of a professional camera. When it comes to electronics, you do get what you pay for. That said, it is possible to make consumer and pro-sumer camera images look pretty good... IF you know how to use the technology in your hands AND know how to LIGHT properly within the parameters of what that technology can deliver.

In other words, if you just take your camcorder and shoot your friends (who are "actors") without proper lighting or without a GREAT tripod or dolly and an EXCELLENT Camera Operator to execute the shot, then no, your results will appear amateurish.

But, if you have Actors (from the local University Theater department or local Community Theater) and an experienced Cameraman who knows how to light a shot and "operate" it, then maybe your movie can at least have the appearance of being more "professional" and you'll get attention from festivals or financiers who will help you make a bigger and better movie next time.

The gist here is that the equipment is only a part of the equation. Qualified and experienced PEOPLE can take very little and make a lot out of it. Unqualified and inexperienced people don't generally have that kind of ability and the results will show it.

Start with your friends and learn who is good at what specific function and who the dead weight will be. Then expand your circle to find better people who will help you make better movies. With better quality people comes better equipment and more financing. PEOPLE make the difference, not equipment.

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

?all that.

To extend a bit on what Brian said, it really depends on what you mean by "good." On this forum, it's generally assumed that "good" means Hollywood, in terms of aesthetic, style and quality. Generally that's correct for the asker as well.

But "good" can mean something very different, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. To me, a "good" film is an engaging film. How a film is engaging is entirely up to the creator.

Look at the web video movement (not viral videos, I mean webshows and the like), most of those popular videos and series use crappy cameras. But it's engaging in some other way, be it the story, the writing, the cinematography (image quality =/= cinematography), sound design, etc. The image quality itself isn't important in that instance, in fact it's expected and part of the style.

But they're well done, the people doing them know what they're doing, at the result is an engaging film.

Think of a documentary. The facts are facts, and it's necessary that they're accurate. But if there are two docs on the same subject matter, one that's dry and another that's enticing, which one is going to be seen as "better?" The engaging one.

I could keep going on with other examples (how engaging could mean entertaining, or thought provoking, etc) but hopefully my point is already made.

It all depends on what you hope to accomplish, what your definition of "good" is in this instance.

Never compromise on the actors. Get the real ones instead of your friends. You can have the best camera, best script, best sound and all that, but if your actors are bad, movie is going to suck.

I agree with certified instigator. A good movie needs good script, content, good actor & director. If you have got all these good so I think you can shoot a good movie using HD camcorder.?:)?

yup, as noted above.

In the end, equipment is irrelevant if your story sucks.

Find/develop a simple, smart story and go from tere. Thats the foudnation EVERYTHIGN works off - your equipment cchoice, your actor choice (and how they bounce off the script) - everything.

DUEL