Filmmaking / Directing : Feature film on a DSLR? by Tyree Salazar

Dude its possible to shoot on an iphone if the story is good enough. Honestly, sound is about 100x more important in filming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uAlCezKxr0 Here's a link to one of my favorite film education youtube channels. You could use this as a starting point.

Yes. 80% of "Act of Valor" was shot on a Canon DSLR (5D Mk 2) in 1080p. As noted in the post above, sound is extremely important.

The basic answer is yes and it takes a whole bunch of steps.

I’m glad to meet a fellow fan of film riot! And My biggest concern with the dslr is that my feature that im planning to make takes place mostly at night and a lot of exteriors and I haven’t really been able to achieve the quality of footage from my dslr that I’ve been hoping for.. then again my lighting gear situation is pretty dire haha

yeah lighting becomes super important if your dslr isn't very photo sensitive. Also look into renting some faster lenses. This will dramatically boost your image quality.

It's been done before, sometimes poorly.

The Sony A7sii has an amazing ability to shoot at night and in low light conditions. It sacrifices still-camera resolution for bigger receptors that pick up more light on its 4K sensor. Check it out on YouTube. There are lots of videos showing what it can do. It gets noisier as you crank up the ISO obviously, but to a certain degree that's not a bad thing if you're going to thrown on a film look filter later in post. You'll want fast lenses. The native zooms they have start 2.8. But there are primes that are faster.

I'd suggest investing in some hand held battery operated light panel to hand-operate during shots on faces while just washing the background with soft sources or if there's enough light sources in the background just balancing to what you have.

In brief, yes. Make sure you invest in a great set of lenses and lighting equipment. Don't skimp on those. But, above all, pay attention to the details of your blocking. Those are the most important things of all.

It's possible... but the first question is, why?

Regardless of whether you decide to stick to a dSLR instead of a proper cinema camera, the lighting and art direction are the most critical components in crafting the look of the film. If you're shooting with a dSLR you'll have less latitude in post than you would with a dedicated camera, so you'll have to be even more careful about exposure, especially on skin tones.

You should probably be looking for critical crew like a cinematographer and a production designer also. You should also look for a producer with some experience, since you probably have no idea what you're getting yourself into.

Hey Turee. Yes, you can make a viable action film or horror film using any camera. DO NOT LET IT STOP YOU and do not be deterred by anyone who says otherwise. What are some of your favorite action and horror movies?

You can rent a cinema camera from a rental house and give your DP the tools he or she needs to deliver the image you want.

1. We used Canon 5D on the series 24 a long time ago. For a minute. 2. the military feature "Act of Valor" was shot on the 5dmkii (or iii - I cannot recall right now). 3. So you CAN do it but 4. the rolling shutter on ALL DSLRS AND OTHER STILL CAMERAS, ALL OF THEM YES ALL OF THEM FROM HD THROUGH 4K even going into 2019 is COMMERCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE for high-end work. A really, really, really good DP can pull it off, so long as the director understands that movement across screen will have to be limited by the medium and follows advice. Even then, some scenes will suck bad and NO they cannot adequately be "fixed" in post... Others will tell you the image looks good, but that only means THEY cannot see the difference or don't care, which should not make you trust them...

The 10 million dollar Sony feature Posession of Hannah Grace was shot on a7sii bodies. Do not overlook the Hawk 65 anamorphic lenses or the required AKS and support. But... it is a movie shot on cheap cameras by definition. From my personal experience, I have shot 47 feature films (all film and digi formats except 65mm) and a couple of those were shot on DSLRs... but only because I had a gun to my head. It would always be my last choice over a cinema camera and proper kit. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be? You and your DP should decide together.

Yes, just do it.

Well let’s just say the budget is under 10 grand...

it can be done today as technology has lowered the cost to make technically solid feature movies.

Oscar winner Barry Jenkins’ first feature movie supposedly cost $15,000.

Checkout filmmaker Rimas Das. She directed, wrote, edited, and did her own cinematography on “Village Rockstars”. She said it took 4 years to do and budget of $10,000.

Basically your success or failure is on your effort and skills. I’d suggest you work on someone else’s microbudget feature first and meet/recruit Cast & Crew.

But then again, $10,000 is not much on a hobby; the cost shouldn’t make you homeless. If you think you’re ready, have funds, then just shoot it and learn as you go.

You can make a film on your phone if you want to these days. Depends on the type of film you want to make. Film noir or horror certainly as these genres lend themselves to minimalist production, action I very much doubt you'd get good results though, not unless you have all sorts of dollies, trolleys and cables to go with your dslr - otherwise it'll look too static to feel like an action film - but not sure how you'd do this as they're not generally designed to be used like that.

At the end of the day nothing can replace good writing as the biggest thing you can possibly do to ensure the results are watchable. Otherwise you'll end up making something as egregiously bland as Paranormal Activity. Second I would say is to have good quality sound to make up for the picture quality or lack of innovation in filming style (brought on by the limitations of the camera).

I hope this adds something useful to the discussion.

Tyree, under $10k is perfect. My suggestions: 1) Your script is the most important thing. Tell an engaging story with interesting characters FIRST, action/horror scenes second. Pick a book on screenwriting, read it entirely, watch some of your favorite movies in your chosen genres, then do what that book tell you to do to write your script. Write it based on your budget and other resources (free locations, free equipment...etc). Even if you don't want to be a writer, as a director this is an invaluable skill. 2) Find books on low budget/independent filmmaking written within the past five years. Study it and take notes. "Rebel Without a Crew" is now an old book, but offers great insights into Robert Rodriguez's brilliant ingenuity of making low budget action scenes. 3) I see on your profile that you're a director, so I'd say that you should not buy or rent a camera at all. Right this second, you're using your two greatest resources: the internet and Stage 32. Find someone who lives near you, who is at your level, who wants to be a cinematographer, who owns a camera, and wants to shoot a feature. Payment is the credit. 4) Repeat #3 with other crew and cast partners. If you're not interested in writing, find a writer here. Want a producing partner? Find them here. Don't try to do everything yourself, because you can't possibly do them all at 100%. I've made this mistake (shiver). Take that first step. Good luck!

yeah, make a film on your phone or dslr, of course without $150k worth of gear attached to it, and an amazing award-winning DP, it will look like it was shot on your phone or dslr. Let's be honest, it's a nice novelty of the moment, but anyone who thinks today's audience will accept it or today's distributors will take it seriously... no.

^ You forget there's always Netflix, there's already worse on there.

And here's a question, what's a better film, in film terms: Clerks ($230,000 (shot for less than $30,000)) or Cloverfield ($25 million)?

As Apolos states, sound is actually more important than the visual, probably because it is easier to focus on the visual design and look of the Film. Sound is somewhat invisible and unfortunately in many cases only becomes a priority when the film is being edited.

"There's already worse on there" I find to be a bizarre rationalization for limiting one's efforts. The Clerks reference is cliche and pointless, as on that budget a quarter century ago it was shot on film. And it looks awful. It has bad acting. But it was embraced as funny by a cult audience. Anecdotal examples aren't useful other than to point out the fact that exceptions prove the rule, as with my mention of the current Sony title. Wisdom dictates you deliver the best product possible. If the budget is $10k, one still may shoot with a proper kit. That's where producing earns it's title.

^ Not rationalising minimising one's efforts, it's a comment on there being a market for garbage. There absolutely is a market for garbage, if that's what one wants to create. Sorry you personally found my example pointless, and by implication must consider Cloverfield to be a seminal film - egads - which concludes there is no grounds for sensible communication between us.

I'd focus on the screenplay first and cast second. If the screenplay is awesome and the actors are great which camera you use is secondary. And I second the comments about the importance of sound.

Anj Avraam, you've got some faulty logic going on. The fact that I think Clerks blows in no way suggests I have even seen Cloverfield (or care to). I don't take observations personally, again, you are projecting.

Projecting what, Royce? I have no aspirations to make movies, I just wanted to share my opinion which I think still stands.

Sorry you weren't keen on the example I chose but that doesn't imply my logic is faulty, fine, I can think of a more fitting comparison off the top of my head (I only had to check the exact budgets according to IMDb): Armageddon VS Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Both came out in 1998, budget of $140,000,000 and $960,000 respectively. If you're going to tell me you think Armageddon is the better film then I am going to be projecting. Vomit.

Projection, as in forecasting what I think based on your own opinons or prejudices. I'm done, best of luck.

^ You'd rather be deemed pompous than answer a simple question. Why?

Shooting on a "cheap" camera with perhaps less than desirable traits isn't going to reduce all the other costs associated with shooting and post production. Why risk the look of your feature? Choose a cinema camera that best fits the production.

If you are new to the film scene, best way for you is to start working on short-films...

Feature without good and relevant experiences is nothing easy and it's just wasting your time and money...

Try to make a few short films, show them to audience on festivals and get feedback... Learn...

By the way, you can make feature with DSLR. Why not. You can make feature with smartphone... "Feature" describes lenght of your film, not quality...

If you will work on your film for your pleasure, DSLR is enough, if you want to sell your film online, to cinema, to netflix etc, you will need problably serious cinema camera.

Hi Jakub, when I say new to the film scene I really mean stage 32 and starting to put my stuff out there more I’ve actually been making short films for the past 3-4 years now and have played some festivals. I’ve just yet to really get a foothold online. But I do appreciate the advice and I definitely am always trying to improve my work!

Of course you can. Many features are shot with DSLR cameras.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls059550382/

The bigger questions are......what can you afford - from a camera standpoint, and from a lens standpoint?

Getting the most bang for your buck and managing your project and time wisely are obviously important factors in your project. Hook up with a wise guru or two that can help you out....and who might have the equipment already, if you don't.....give them ownership in your project, bro, and make things as easy as possible for you. You're a really good filmmaker already, and have a great command of a director's POV, and keeping an audience engaged and your story moving. You also might want to check out this Stage32 webinar:

https://www.stage32.com/webinars/The-Camera-Conundrum-Choosing-the-Best-...

Watch the webinar...get your gurus....give them a piece of the pie if necessary, bro....and go make that voodoo that you do so welllllllll! Heh-heh.

Best wishes to you and your family, and best fortunes in your endeavors!

Yep. I would just rig it out with a cage to give it weight. Also a recorder would be good to give it a little more color depth for post. But these guys shot 8bit and got good results. Just expose and light properly. I DP'ed an indy feature with this camera as well. The A7III is cheaper and even better. The new Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera is impressive too. It's a tiny sensor but you can capture in raw.

https://nofilmschool.com/Sony-a7sii-movie

Yes you can but it takes the same effort as if you were using a RED Camera with proper lighting and good glass. The movie Act of Valor was shot using a DSLR. About 80% of the movie was done using the Canon 5D. Search behind the scenes and how they did it. Here is the movie trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oFzxV_pmwI&t=31s