Sony a7sii used for filming The Haunting of Hannah Grace

[Tony10]

Loading…

www.cinema5d.com

Interesting article explaining why they used this camera, (albeit with expensive specialist lenses).

 

[Oskar P]

The GH2-5 have been used in major films too.

The truth is DP would prefer using a RED vs a Sony ILC. But when you get paid big $ to use a camera, you do it.

 

[ttran88]

The bodies we're so much cheaper compared to their usual equipment they bought separate bodies for each lens. No need to change lenses lol. Just like art the content is more important than the paint brush or in this case camera.

 

[lost alaskan]

As I recall the Revenant was filmed with a less than standard camera to capture the low light.

 

[SpinOne]

The GH2-5 have been used in major films too.

The truth is DP would prefer using a RED vs a Sony ILC. But when you get paid big $ to use a camera, you do it.

Actually, it sounds like in this case, they used the Sony because they weren't paid the big bucks. ;-) They might have used a RED if they had a bigger budget.

 

[Tony10]

Agree money was probably a factor but the limitations of these cameras are overcome by the quality of the material, I guess it's the old argument of image impact v image quality, this statement in the article sums it up:

Remember the movie “28 Days Later” by Dannie Boyle from 2002? DP Anthony Dod Mantle shot it on a Canon XL-1S, which is actually a miniDV camera which records in SD resolution. is it a bad movie because of this? No, it’s a great movie because making a movie is not about the camera but about the story.

 

[SpinOne]

Agree money was probably a factor but the limitations of these cameras are overcome by the quality of the material, I guess it's the old argument of image impact v image quality, this statement in the article sums it up:

Remember the movie “28 Days Later” by Dannie Boyle from 2002? DP Anthony Dod Mantle shot it on a Canon XL-1S, which is actually a miniDV camera which records in SD resolution. is it a bad movie because of this? No, it’s a great movie because making a movie is not about the camera but about the story.

Actually, I didn't like the "look" of 28 Days Later -- and, for separate reasons, wasn't thrilled with the movie overall. While using a better quality of camera would not have fixed the film's problems, the look was kind of like having sandpaper slowly rubbed on my arm. I.e. it didn't help.

We should also note that many movies that would not work as well if the quality was inferior. Movies like The Shining or Gravity or Guardians of the Galaxy would not be well suited to being shot on 16mm film. In the Mood for Love wouldn't work as well if it was shot with the look/production values as Days of Being Wild -- and I don't think the inverse is true.

There are no hard and fast rules, obviously, but sometimes you can use low production values to your advantage, and sometimes... you can't.

We should also note that today's compromises often go away with tomorrow's cameras. For example, Boyle wanted a camera system that was small, light, portable, and quick to set up; he wound up leveraging the relatively low quality of the image into the film's look. But, that was 2003. Today, you can get significantly better quality images with the same portability and speed.

 

[thoth22]

The OP is correct in the statement that it's the story that matters. Anybody remember that witch movie from the 90's that was god awful but people went to it? Blair Witch Project, was that it?

 

[SpinOne]

The OP is correct in the statement that it's the story that matters. Anybody remember that witch movie from the 90's that was god awful but people went to it? Blair Witch Project, was that it?

I wasn't terribly fond of Blair Witch either. ;-)

That said, I don't see much of a refutation of my position. "Story" is only one aspect among many of a good work of art... and not always a critical one. (E.g. plot is largely irrelevant in most of Wes Anderson's films, the story is just an excuse to put characters into different situations.)

To wit:

• Sometimes, amateur actors can rise to the occasion. However, bad acting can undoubtedly ruin a play or a movie.

• Sometimes, you can do a photo shoot with low production values. In other cases, it will come off looking unprofessional and cheap.

• You can drive Route 12 in Utah in an old clunker with a dirty windshield and dirtier interior, or in a well-tuned and recently cleaned convertible. The car you're using does not change the scenery, and if the clunker is all you've got then it's all you've got; but chances are pretty good that the drive will be more fun in the convertible.

• Would you rather listen to a junior high school orchestra, or the New York Philharmonic, perform the same piece?

• Would Star Wars have been as successful as it was, if the costumes and sets and special effects were made on the cheap -- and looked it, in the final product?

Again, sometimes you can get away with low production values, if it suits the work. Sometimes, you can't, because it doesn't.

 

[tbcass]

Agree money was probably a factor but the limitations of these cameras are overcome by the quality of the material, I guess it's the old argument of image impact v image quality, this statement in the article sums it up:

Remember the movie “28 Days Later” by Dannie Boyle from 2002? DP Anthony Dod Mantle shot it on a Canon XL-1S, which is actually a miniDV camera which records in SD resolution. is it a bad movie because of this? No, it’s a great movie because making a movie is not about the camera but about the story.

That's the thing some of the posters on DPR who lust for 4K, 6K and 8K don't understand. For filming absolute IQ is far less important for video than it is for still photography. Because everything is inconstant motion many IQ deficiencies are not apparent. It's why I don't crave a 4K TV. It won't make the story any better and HD is good enough for video. Of course if you want to look at your stills on a screen then all the resolution you can get is good.

 

[tbcass]

28 days premise was so outlandish that it ruined the movie for me. I tried watching it but just couldn't stand the stupidity of it. The newer movie about weather satellites run amok was just as stupid. For me a science fiction movie has to be plausible for the future based on today's known science.

 

[tbcass]

The OP is correct in the statement that it's the story that matters. Anybody remember that witch movie from the 90's that was god awful but people went to it? Blair Witch Project, was that it?

I couldn't watch it because the constant camera movement made me nauseous.

 

[lilBuddha]

There are no hard and fast rules, obviously, but sometimes you can use low production values to your advantage, and sometimes... you can't.

You’re talking nuance on DPR, what are you like?

you are correct that it is a variable thing, but that isn’t a message typically well received here. Or perhaps just not understood.

 

[raminm]

Of course, it's possible to shoot awful movies with A7sii!