quote:

---

Originally posted by irving

OK so Im a student that is ready to start on my first major project, that Im hoping to submit into festivals. I dont have the funds to buy a 16mm or any type of expensive HD camcorder. The only thing I can afford would have to be a Panasonic HVX200 HD for $300 for a weekend. I hear people say its not about what camera you use its the story, which makes sense but I've always been a "all about quality" type of guy. I just need to know what cameras are normally used for short stories?

---

Ideally, you'll use the best equipment that you can afford. What can you afford? Well, the better the story you have PLUS the TALENT you have in front of and behind the camera means that you can ATTRACT more financing from eager investors if the elements you have for the project (script, cast, crew) could mean a financial return.

Since it's just a short film, you won't likely ever be able to sell it. SO, you could fret a lot about not having top-notch equipment, but don't. Just use what you CAN get and shoot within the parameters of the limitations instead of NOT shooting anything or overextending your reach beyond the limitations of your resources.

In other words, if you have $1,000, you're better off making an EXCELLENT $500 movie instead of making a mediocre "$2,000" project that looks like you cut corners.

So, use the best camera and OTHER GEAR that you can afford and then concentrate on the story and characters. Make the story great and people will forgive a less than perfect image.

ALSO, SOUND means a lot more to an audience than the picture. They'll forgive you for a not-so-great image, but if they can't hear it, they'll get up and leave.

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

Welcome to filmmaking.net!

Spending $300 on a camera rental is one tenth of what it takes to
make a quality movie. Since you are all about quality you need
to rent a quality mic and boom and quality lights. Then you need
the quality people to use the equipment.

The good news is the type of cameras that are normally used for
short films range from a small handycam to a Panavision. People
have made excellent, award winning short films using super8 and
old VHS cameras.

Youve heard right - its the story that matters. If the image
isnt full Hollywood style but the story is great and the
characters interesting you will have a much better chance in
festivals than a poor story with boring characters shot on 35mm
films with a $150,000 camera.

Im sure youve gone to a lot of festivals, right? So youve seen
this for yourself. People can forgive a picture thats a little
underlit, or not in HD or film, but they cannot excuse poor sound
or a bad story, characters and acting. I notice you dont even
mention the sound.

Brian has offered great adice here on the boards. But I gotta
repeat this bit - just about the best piece of advice I've read
in a long time:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak
In other words, if you have $1,000, you're better off making an EXCELLENT $500 movie instead of making a mediocre "$2,000" project that looks like you cut corners.

---

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

Thank you guys so much! You're right Joseph, about not mentioning sound. Lately I've been researching for cameras and now Im looking for the best quality in sound. BUt yeah I have been to festivals where the sound in a movie is horrible but the quality of the image is great...I still didn't like it. As my professor says,"sound makes or breaks your movie." I really do appreciate the advice..wish I became a member years ago...lol!

Irving Hillman

Although a little late I'd like to add my two cents too -
Dont under-estimate the power of some really good lighting. Many 'HD' projects suffer from noisy images because of poor lighting.

You might not be able to get the image resolution of a more expensive prosumer camera, but you can get really good results if you approach any film with as complete a 'production' as possible. The camera, although important, is only one part of the overall production workflow.

No doubt we have examples of clerk, blair wich project, paranormal activity which are not great in terms of camera quality but have made great business on box office.....so focus on script........:)

adeel akhter

quote:

---

Originally posted by ad2478

No doubt we have examples of clerk, blair wich project, paranormal activity which are not great in terms of camera quality but have made great business on box office.....

---

And the common thread among them is good, clear dialogue.

This simply cannot be overstated: picture can be great, or it can be bad; sound MUST be great, and there's nothing that will make up for less than great sound.

In the end, there is just so much more that makes or breaks the film than a camera. You could possibly buy a cheapest recent HD camcorder (say, $500-600 new), and if you light your set properly and record your sound properly, your film could look and sound like million dollars.

For cheap and plentiful light, you could make a few bounce boards from large pizza boxes (paint one side ceiling-white, the other reflective metallic), get two sets of work lights from Home Depot ($80 gets you a double-headed oval halogen light on a telescoping stand, totaling 1500 W with increments of 250W), some clamp-on fixtures and you have a much better chance of handling the under-exposed areas. http://filmmakeriq.com/general/featured/101-diy-lighting-tutorials.html has several do-it-yourself ideas.

As for the sound, $25 would get you a Nady SGM-12 shotgun condenser mic with pattern switch (cardioid and super-cardioid) and a windscreen. Add an overhead boom (a long enough plastic tube pole with a jury-rigged mic stand adapter at the end) and the combo will get much, much better dialogue than a built-in camcorder mic. Bring your laptop to the set, hook up the mic to it, and you're done. For a little more money, you could get several of those "Nady"s, something like M-Audio FastTrack Ultra (USB audio interface with 4 XLR inputs for mics), and you got yourself a portable audio recording studio for under $500 (assuming you already have a laptop).

Technology is very cheap today. There's tons of advice out there and plenty of sources for building gear on the cheap. Help yourself.

I can't imagine that a $25 microphone is going to get terribly good sound--a decent shotgun mic costs nearly as much as a camera. Better to go the rental route on that too. My current favorite shotgun is the Sennheiser 416, but Audio Technica provides some very good options as well. A decent shock mount and a carbon-fiber boom pole will save you untold hassle, and cost hardly anything to rent.

An HVX, by the way, is a perfectly acceptable camera to shoot on. A little picky in low light and not the most streamlined piece of equipment, but it gets the job done--and it's used all the time in legitimate (but low-budget) short film production.

-----------------
Andrew Gingerich
Exploding Goldfish Films
Check out my blog at http://www.exgfilms.com
and my reel at http://portfolio.exgfilms.com

These cheapo mikes are all made in China, which explains why they're so cheap. Surprisingly, though, they are quite decent. Obviously, comparing it to the 416 is unfair (you could buy 40 Chinese Nadys for the price of one $1k Sennheiser), but I doubt you could even rent a 416 for less than $100 a day.

Most physical stores (Guitar Centre, Sam Ash, etc.) will let you return what you buy if you don't like it. You could buy one of these cheap mikes and try it in every conceivable situation. If it works as the reviewers seem to agree, you got yourself a shotgun for very little money.