Red Epic v.s. Panasonic GH-2

[MalfunctioningHuman]

What's in front of the camera and how it's presented (framing, lighting), not to mention story, acting, etc, are infinitely more important than the camera (once a certain threshold for minimum quality has been satisfied.) I guarantee you that if you film a fat fly land on a turd on an Alexa it will be far less impressing than if you film Angelina Jolie watching a sunset in the middle of a corn field while the wind moves her hair so, filmed with a GH2.

[mark84j]

that 7D film "Like Crazy" looked awesome.

it "felt" like a big budget movie to me. Thats why I think the camera has little to do with that "feeling" you get, when you watch something hollywood does.. because its the combination of things that creates it. I want to see it now, despite the fact that I hate those kinds of movies.

"Like Crazy" looked like any other 7d footage you can easily find on Youtube in 5 seconds. Overexposed, handheld shots that could pass for a well-done commercial... but a movie? No. I'm just utterly disdainful towards this look, and IMO it's not good to have these kind of movies be so commonplace these days. I still think the footage itself is beautiful, but not as a feature length film.

Just me.

[azmyth]

I think that really is "just you".

[dop16mm]

All things being equal, lighting, talent, eye candy. I doubt most people in the audience would know or care what it is shot on. The GH2 would do the job if not intercut with something better.

A fully budgeted production with all the resources will shoot Alexa or Red or Genesis or Film, its not that big of a line item relative to salaries and all the other rentals.

A minimal budget film stretching to secure enough gas and peanut butter to get through the shoot should absolutely not be spending money on RED thinking it will make for a better film. GH2 or t2i or Hv20 will be more than good enough given the money you have to put on the screen.

[Bif]

"Like Crazy" looked like any other 7d footage you can easily find on Youtube in 5 seconds. Overexposed, handheld shots that could pass for a well-done commercial... but a movie? No.

I just looked at the trailers for "Like Crazy" again.

"Overexposed?"

I can't see any overexposure in the trailer, exposure looks about right for the mood portrayed in each of the scenes. I've got 33 years experience as a professional photographer; studio work, engineering record documentary, forensic, commercial/industrial, catalog illustration, and more - so I think I know exposure.

"Handheld"?

In "The Bourne Ultimatum", the crazy paced fast handheld footage was a problem for me, I had a hard time following the action, seeing what was going on. But I watched it a few more times and realized that pretty much fit what the film makers were trying to do with the story. So despite the fact I still didn't like the technique (I do want to see what was happening) I accepted the film maker's choice of technique and enjoyed the movie.

What I saw in the trailers for "Like Crazy" looked appropriate for the way they were trying to tell the story.

I'm just utterly disdainful towards this look, and IMO it's not good to have these kind of movies be so commonplace these days. I still think the footage itself is beautiful, but not as a feature length film.

Just me.

I don't think anybody is "forcing" you into the same mold. Each film maker has his own style. The fact that these kind of movies are becoming so commonplace means the viewing public is finding them appealing.

What you might want to look at is the question of whether you are so "closed minded" that you might be limiting your development as a film maker. I don't mean this as any kind of "slam" or "insult", but I've done enough teaching in various subjects, and helped people learn to "see" photographically to sometimes sense these things.

Attitude can be everything.

Each one of these techniques, uses of certain gear are all individual "tools" in the film maker's toolbox.

Bruce Foreman

[mark84j]

You're right, Bif. Though I do think more film makers are migrating towards handheld over steady shots a lot more compared to 5-6 years ago. These days, it's not bringing attitude, it's bringing blandness.

[Bif]

I've noticed that, too. Steady shots show things very clearly if done right and that's what we like. The quality. However handheld allows following action and rolling with it in a way that can bring the viewer right into the middle of it.

I watched the Blu-Ray of "The marine II" the other night, lots of action and one "hand to hand" sequence that they used a mix of Steadicam and handheld footage. The edit pace was just right and I think it was very well done. Locked down steady shots even with panning could not have shown the action anywhere near as effectively.

It was anything but bland.

Of great interest are the special features on the disk where they show all of the steadicam "takes" and many of the handheld. I saw more clearly how that works than on any other film's "bonus features".

My age and physical condition won't let me work true steadicam, that stuff is just too heavy. I've tried a few affordable "steadicamlike" stabilizers but never could get them balanced. So I depend on a shoulder unit, the SpiderBrace, which allows me some movement with practice.

What we dislike may be worth trying. What if we find we can make it "sing"?

Bruce Foreman

[Dr. Benway]

My age and physical condition won't let me work true steadicam, that stuff is just too heavy.

Very heavy. Very tiring.