January 27, 2014

Which Cameras Were Used by the 2014 Sundance Filmmakers?

sundance logo 2014Sundance is over -- the winners have been announced and filmmakers of all types are leaving the small town of Park City in droves -- however, for many, things are just beginning. This festival has a way of inspiring young filmmakers to jump out of their seats and grab their cameras, but probably the biggest question that's asked in the very beginning is, "What camera should I buy?" One way to answer that is to find out what pros are using on projects that closely resemble yours, which is why this list, compiled by Indiewire, of the cameras used by this year's Sundance Film Festival filmmakers is an excellent resource in learning our (future) peers and colleagues' approach to filmmaking. Continue on for the full list of cameras.

This list is much, much, much more diverse than the list of camera's used by this year's Oscar-nominees. The Oscars might've been completely dominated by the ARRI ALEXA and ARRIFLEX, without even a mention of a RED camera, but Sundance had quite an array of cinema cameras and DSLRs, film and digital cams, ARRI, Canon, Panasonic, and yes, even RED. In fact, the EPIC and the SCARLET were used by quite a number of filmmakers. One brand that didn't show up on the list: Blackmagic.

Check out the list of cameras and lenses used by the Sundance filmmakers below, courtesy of Indiewire.

Digital Cameras

Film Cameras

  • ARRIFLEX 16SR
  • ARRIFLEX 416
  • Panavision 35mm
  • Penelope 35mm
  • unspecified 16mm & Super 8 cameras

Camp X rayLenses

  • Alura Zooms
  • Angenieux 24-290
  • Angenieux Optimo DP 16-42mm and 30-80mm zooms
  • Canon L series (24-105, 70-200, 24 1:4mm, 16-35)
  • Canon zooms
  • Cooke S4
  • Cooke 5/i
  • Cooke Cine Varotal 25-250mm Zoom
  • Cooke Speed Pancros
  • Fujinon 19-90
  • Hawk V-Lite Super 16mm Anamorphic
  • JDC Cooke Xtal Anamorphics
  • Kowa Anamorphics
  • Leica Summilux C
  • Nikkor 35mm f1.4
  • Zeiss Super Speeds
  • Zeiss Ultra Primes
  • Zeiss Master Primes

Though there are a few film cameras being used, indie film is still very much digital. And in a time when DSLRs are putting out such an amazingly cinematic image, I was surprised to see a Panasonic HVX200, using a Letus 35mm adapter, on the list. (I'm not embarrassed to say that that was exactly my first rig ever, and I love her, and she's not going anywhere.)

Be sure to check out Indiewire's article to see exactly which films used which cameras and lenses.

What do you think of this year's Sundance filmmakers' camera choice? How do you explain the difference in selection between this year's Academy Award filmmakers and the Sundance filmmakers? Is it simply because of budget restrictions? Let us know in the comments below.

Link: How'd They Shoot That? Here's the Cameras Used By the 2014 Sundance Filmmakers -- Indiewire

Your Comment

78 Comments

No Blackmagic Cinema Camera at all huh?

January 27, 2014 at 7:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Devin

I think it's probably a little early for those. They'll come soon enough. You have to imagine most of these films started shooting at least a year ago, if not longer. It usually takes a while for new cams to get used in the feature world. Even took a while for the 5D Mark II to start showing up, if I'm not mistaken.

January 27, 2014 at 7:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Blackmagic cameras were used on the short Me + Her, but they weren't shooting actual people with it: http://filmguide.sundance.org/film/14027/me_her

January 27, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

10
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

I bet next year you'll see some.

January 27, 2014 at 8:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

+1

Same for non-Canon DSLRs: the ones that are clearly better than their Canon counterparts (like the Nikon D5200) have come to the market just recently.

What I find surprising is: no FS100, no C100

January 28, 2014 at 4:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

It takes at least a year to make most sundance/sxsw/etc level shorts so next year the list might be full. Or it might not, who knows, BM needs to get their shit together anyway

January 28, 2014 at 4:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

lil Renee must have her fingers tapping her chin, thinking: "I've figured out what topics brings out more nfs users, comments and clicks." Lol, you got the other nfs writers scrambling: what should I write about. Lol just kidding, lol. But I expect this post to be flooded with comments in 5, 4, 3, 2...

January 27, 2014 at 8:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

10
Reply
thadon calico

This isn't really related to the post, and I may be wrong, but can people please call V Renee either by her chosen full name, or one of those two? Why the need to infantilize her by calling her "lil Renee" or some variant, as if she's a child? Her articles are some of the best here, give her the due respect she deserves by not resorting to whatever nickname you appoint. Apologies if Renee is totally ok with it, but I just wanted to put it out there anyway. The exact same goes for nicknames commenters give to the other writers on this site. They're doing a huge service to us all, they deserve a lot more respect than they currently get.

As for the content of this post - Given how many DSLRs were used, I'm a little surprised that there weren't more still (or CP.2) primes weren't used. Lots of zooms, despite the primes often being touted as superior. Also surprised by the use of the Genesis. I would have expected it to be all but extinct given the technological breakthroughs of much newer cinema cameras (do I need to give examples?). Then again, I've neither used it nor have I seen many films shot on it, which could explain my confusion as to its use.

Good to see people are still working on celluloid though!

January 28, 2014 at 2:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
corderouge

Context my friend, context! Endearment vs "infantize"
Anyways my comment was basically a commentary about some of the viewer-ship
And just maybe I'm correct, discernment of what's important, is lacking (just judging from the reply I got to my post, with the "just kidding" written & the fact that "what camera used" still gets lots of argumentative style comments vs story-self help posts)

January 28, 2014 at 5:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
thadon calico

Context, my friend! Endearment to you is infantilization to others.

January 28, 2014 at 11:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Brian

Context my very dear friend, context! Which is the point of context! If u could Point out the UNIVERSALS for "infantilization" that includes the word "lil" IN REFERENCE to others, then and only then would I believe that nfs viewer-ship's cognitive and tolerance levels r high my dear lil Brian

January 28, 2014 at 2:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
thadon calico

And the winning answer is, "Anything they could get their hands on". From the statistical POV, there's not even a trend there (unless adjusted for a budget).

January 27, 2014 at 8:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

9
Reply
DLD

Mesee something: the lack of Nikon, Panasonic GH2/GH3, and Canon Cxxx. So, apparently, despite trying more or less hard, these products were not accepted despite the right target audience screening at Sundance.

January 28, 2014 at 9:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

Yes me too, especially as a feature I shot, using GH2 (and 17 different lenses mostly Nikon) is just about to go general release (not in Europe or America so of course it doesn't count right?). It really isn't the camera, lenses are much more of a real issue for 'look' and sharpness which will trump resolution any day (the old image clarity acutance vs resolution debate from esoteric yesteryear) especially with emotionally correct lighting brought to bear (I'd say that takes a decade or two to learn that at least). So the only thing that is left is ease of use reliability and cost. GH2@GH2@GH2. Buy 35 used GH2's for one Alexa and you can do timeslice too, basically an increase in options on the right hands is worth much more than being forced to shoot 100 year old master coverage style. The only problem is that you have to better at your job as a DOP/operator because the system is way less forgiving of anything less than perfection. From 35mm or an Alexa (raw) the footage will bend far more. Apples and oranges, vicars and tarts, all of it next to basic story telling ability and understand of cinematic language, for which an audience (remember them?) will forgive anything.

February 4, 2014 at 7:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Steve

Just to add that I realize that raw is always better, it's just not really been available in aps or sub aps format yet. And I'm not against FF Dslr's either but haven't liked any of them as much as yet and also find them not as handy as the widdle tiny and cheap GH2. Also next I'll be shooting on Alexa, so sue me!

February 4, 2014 at 7:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Steve

I can understand seeing the Panasonic AF 100. You can buy it for the cost of renting some others. And it makes a beautiful image! Some say 1080p is dead. It is far from that. But O I wish it really were so the AF 100 would drop to a rock bottom price. I'd take a few of those dead image cameras off Panasonic's hands then. ;^)

January 27, 2014 at 8:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

I agree it is great to see the AF100 mentioned! I'm kinda tempted to get one myself one day, though for the price of it second hand I could get a several Panasonic G6 and GH3 cameras, like half a dozen even! So maybe not, but I appreciate how great it is, having used it myself.

January 28, 2014 at 2:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

The cameras it's not surprising. But the lenses, all are expensives!

January 27, 2014 at 9:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Javier Mollo

guess they're following that old adage eh :P

January 27, 2014 at 9:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Cameras come and go but good lenses are almost forever.

January 29, 2014 at 9:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
Mr. Bill

Yeah I'd bet blackmagic will be there with presence next year. Image quality is too good to ignore. Hopefully mine will be one of the blackmagic films on he 2015 list!

January 27, 2014 at 9:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

I think this is a sign, that the last brick in the barrier to entry for film makers has fallen. All of these cameras are capable of rendering beautiful images in talented hands. There is now a camera for every budget that can produce exhibition quality results. No more caveats and no more excuses. Grab your tool of choice and get to work creating.

January 27, 2014 at 10:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Weck

I'm surprised the F3 with slog doesn't see more use in the indie world. Huge 13.5 stop range, S35, excellent high iso, nice color, easy workflow and cheap to rent or buy second hand. And with the Sony mount it's simple to use pretty much any glass on the market via an adapter.

IMO a very underrated camera.

January 27, 2014 at 11:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Frank

agree with all points here

January 28, 2014 at 3:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Dan

unfortunately their cameras still carry the stigma of looking like video (which is less true than it used to be)

January 28, 2014 at 4:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
john jeffries

This is true. The F3 is technically a fantastic camera all around, but try as it might... it just has a somewhat singing "video-y" aesthetic. I mean video cameras are video cameras, if you want to shoot film, then shoot film... buuuut, some digital cameras do get close to that film aesthetic. RED/ ARRI even some DSLRs / BMCC and other cameras... but Sony or the F3... ugh. It just doesn't look right for narrative type stuff.

For commercials and documentaries it's perfectly fine, but films look awkward on Sony cameras like the F3.

January 28, 2014 at 10:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
James

That's NOT true. I was 2nd unit DP on a feature last year and shot on the F3. It was beautifully filmic. It all depends on how it's handled in post. Sony carried the stigma of a video look for a long time but, that should have stopped with the introduction of the F3. People are slow to relinquish their prejudices even when the proof is staring them in the face.

January 28, 2014 at 10:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

+1, recently shot a commercial on f5 and I would say the same.

January 28, 2014 at 11:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
ryan

I agree that the F3 is perfectly capable of producing filmic footage and for the record I own an F3L with the slog upgrade.

I believe the main reason why the Sony cameras have this reputation for putting out a picture that looks like video is that more often than not the slog footage is not properly de-loged. And if you do not handle this process correctly the footage will look mediocre at best and yes, very much like bad video. Sony has done an incredibly bad job of documenting the technical details of how this is done properly.

I did it wrong for quite some time, following the standard documentation that is out there. Then I got my hands on a proper 3d LUT to do the conversion and the difference in IQ was incredible.

Sony really needs to take a page out of Arri's play book. Arri not only have a website that shows you how to properly import Log C footage in to nearly every package on the market with simple step by step instructions, but they even have an online LUT generator.

All you get from Sony is an old white paper with a formula for slog from the F35 days and the formula is a 2d LUT that doesn't produce very good results. So, what you have is excellent hardware that is hamstrung by poor documentation of the post process.

It's a real shame, because the sensor in that camera is outstanding.

January 28, 2014 at 11:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Frank

This test seems to make it look like the BlackMagic
Cinema Camera
could be used for movie shoots---
even though it's not on this years list. :-)
Beautiful results in this test, especially from RAW.
They show both ungraded and graded. It's an
enjoyable test to watch, maybe because of the music:

"Lillies Of The Valley" by Jun Miyake

5:30 minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQIZtqIWxzk

January 27, 2014 at 11:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Its too risky to use BMC on a feature, if you don't know why, you haven't shot enough on the camera.

January 28, 2014 at 1:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
ryan

I've shot 2 indie features on the BMCC + a few different short films. It's a great camera! The good thing about it is how reliable it is under different conditions. Whereas a RED might break down or overheat in some weather conditions or due to duration of operation but BMCC is solid as a rock.

There's definitely a learning curve in how to get the best image possible, but once you understand the camera and master the basics, it's an incredibly powerful tool. It's probably not the best "beginner" camera, and thus you might feel frustrated using it on a feature having never operated one before, and surprised by what seem to be negatives... but really are just misunderstandings brought on by inexperience.

January 28, 2014 at 10:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Milan

getting the best image out if it is easy as ##&%&@, what are you talking about? I do more advertising and fashion, there aliasing and color fringing artifacts are unacceptable. I can see color fringing in almost every single shot I do on BMC, but different filmmakers have different standards. Once the Mosaic filter comes out, it will breath new life into the camera, but BPM are only partially effective. And I'm not gonna pay for a colorist to blur chrominance channels when you don't have to on other camera systems that are marginally more expensive per day to rent.

January 28, 2014 at 11:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
ryan

BMCC doesn't color fringe. You might have a bad unit maybe? That, or you're using some wonky glass...

I've never seen a single instance over hundreds of hours shot on the BMCC of color fringing or Chromatic aberration outside of specific cases where I used certain types of vintage glass.

January 28, 2014 at 2:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Kaleb

What a MILF!

January 28, 2014 at 9:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Michael Hawk

why does the t2i get more love than the t3i? i guess its just whatever they have handy...

January 27, 2014 at 11:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
jerod

Aww...no poor man's c300...er c100?

Glad there is still some film cameras being used tho

January 27, 2014 at 11:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

poor man's arri alexa..super 16mm…three were used in the dramatic competition

January 28, 2014 at 12:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DIO

Surprised i did not see the highly praised GH2.

January 28, 2014 at 2:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jayBw

I suspect the only reason we see a 7D/5DmkII/5DmkIII mentioned at all is because they need a DSLR form factor camera for a particular niche shot, and of course somebody there has one of these at hand, as they're so common.

Rather than specifically seeking out the best hybrid camera to shoot with, which is what often happens when you decide to shoot an entire feature with it. Thus you then see why a Panasonic GH2 is so very popular amongst the ultra low budget indie crowd.

However, the AF100 is still mentioned in that list :-) Which is more or less the "cinema camera" version of the Panasonic GH1.

January 28, 2014 at 2:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Thanks for the clarification.

January 28, 2014 at 6:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
jayBw

hacked GH2, i mean.

January 28, 2014 at 3:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jayBw

I shoot expedition movie for 2 months in Bolivia with D800 and Mark II, and was amazed how much better picture quality and colour depth nikon d800 had over Mark II. Also more functions. Although I haven't used Mark III, I wonder Why nobody uses Nikon

January 28, 2014 at 3:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

11
Reply
Martin

Lots of people use Nikons, but making movies take time, and the best Nikon video DSLRs (like the D5200) are relatively recent

January 28, 2014 at 4:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

I shot 3 commercials on the Nikon D800 this summer and also some personal work.
Really the best DSLR you can get period. We used to be Canon shooters for video (3x 5D3), but we switched entirely to Nikon because of the much more filmic image and insane 13.5 stops dynamic range.
I love to shoot it and grade the amazing footage.

January 28, 2014 at 7:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Henri De Vreese

The D800 is a really nice camera, but you know that measure is for RAW stills and you're not getting that much DR in video mode, right?
Still, even in video mode it does have slightly better DR than the 5D3+H264.

January 28, 2014 at 11:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply

Although I always enjoy technical info articles I cannot understand why so much fuzz about what camera was used in the awarded films! The closest analogy is a question like: “What word processor program was used to type the 2014 awarded screenplays? Was it MS Word or Apple pages Openoffice? Doesn’t sound a bit funny?
Come on we know why we like reading NFS articles but please we might loose focus. Storytelling is almost always 90% of a film’s value.

January 28, 2014 at 4:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Nikos Mamalos

articles about hot gear gets a lot of clicks

January 28, 2014 at 4:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
john jeffries

This is universally true. I continuously catch myself with a watery mouth (if not drouling over!) reading new camera announcements. I wish it didn't, and instead invest my time on more creative stuff!

January 28, 2014 at 4:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Nikos Mamalos

its a product of our new age of consumer culture mixed with filmmaking

January 28, 2014 at 4:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
john jeffries

Amen. It's almost all driven by consumerism and materialism...whether most of us are aware of it or not. So many filmmakers think they need this or that tool to do a good job...they just need to get out there and keep learning. Cameras are just like paintbrushes to a painter. It's a tool that will help, and the good stuff costs more, but having the good stuff won't make your work look any better unless you have the skills already.

January 30, 2014 at 8:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Without a camera, there is no movie (except for animation)

The camera list is part of your quote "Storytelling is almost always 90% of a film’s value", when you realize that some people are using a 400 dollars t2i, a hdv camera like the xha1, or an ancient hvx200. They are good enough to tell us a story. They didn't stop thinking they needed a better camera to do the job

(i've seen recently several articles with good info about screenplays here)

January 28, 2014 at 7:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply

I think there also has to be a good vision for the script. What I mean is, for one, when Clint Eastwood got the script for Unforgiven he wanted to be the lead and direct it. But he thought he was too young. He waited 10 years then made it. I think it's his best directing and acting. If someone else had made the script into a movie it may not have turned out as good. A second one is Schindler's List. Steven Spielberg said that when he was a boy a man that was visiting his parents showed him his arm that had those black numbers that Nazis tattooed on Jewish prisoners arms. He said the idea that humans were numbered by captors left an impression on him. He had thought about making a movie about it for years. If someone else had used the script to make a movie without the lifelong feelings that Steven Spielberg had it likely wouldn't have turned out the same.

I'm just saying that the script is important but deep feelings mean even more. I think you could use a script that is less than the best script ever and still make a great, great movie.

January 28, 2014 at 8:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

I agree that story is the most important thing, but I don't think the analogy (camera=word processor) quite works. You can write without a word processor (it was done for 2500 years), but you can't make movies without a camera. Maybe the camera is like an instrument, and musicians are very interested in what guitar Eric Clapton played on such and such a song, or how "going electric" affected Dylan.

January 28, 2014 at 10:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Tom

Clapton de facto changed the history of rock-n-roll all by himself when he plugged in a Gibson Les Paul into a high gain Marshall amp (thereafter to be called a Bluesbreaker), with a Rangemaster treble booster to increase the sustain/attack. That was basically the invention of a modern guitar solo as we know it from Page, Hendrix, Blackmore, Gallagher, Iommi and everyone since them. And you better believe it - a rock guitar player has been heavily into his gear - a choice of an instrument itself, fuzz box, treble booster, amp, reverb, compressor, delay, wah-wah pedal, whammy bar, etc. Then came distortion, overdrive, flanger, etc.

January 28, 2014 at 5:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
DLD

What I was trying to say that even a "sub-standard" camera operated with artistry can provide images of high artistic value.
And yes, of course I would love an Alexa camera an a set of Cook lenses but one of last year favourite films Upstrem color by Shane Carruth was shot with a couple of Panasonic GH2. I am sure that even if it was shot with a cheaper camera the films power would have been the same.
The gear as any filmaking aset must serve storytelling (with the general term not only the script). At least That what I think.

January 29, 2014 at 3:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Nikos Mamalos

Marc Hauser used a $20.00 camera to take the photo of Bruce Springstein for the cover of his album Pink Cadillac. He didn't want the photo to look like it was taken with an expensive camera. The funny thing is that album won a Grammy and, everyone involved gets a Grammy, even the photographer that took the pictures for the album cover. The story is talked about in this video with Marc Hauser:

6:21 minute video:

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clsnWpPkFgw ]

January 29, 2014 at 8:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

This is the best comment I've seen...both with this post and that other one about the cameras used on all the Oscar nominees. Really, who cares? The majority of people here aren't working on things that can afford the top tier cameras and lenses, so you make due with what you can (at many different budget levels). Filmmaking isn't gear driven, despite it taking a lot of heavy and expensive gear to make a movie. But this focus on cameras does a disservice to the art of cinematography and filmmaking in general. It's belittling to the artists. I understand people wanting to know this info to some degree, but the gear doesn't make the filmmaker. If the internet were around when the impressionists were making their paintings, would the discussions revolve around Manet's choice of sable hair brushes over horse hair brushes? Or Cézanne preferring Brand X paints because of their better flesh tones over Brand Y? It would be asinine and completely missing the point. It would sound like people from the modern world all have aspergers. This is an art form, not a laboratory publishing a technical document full of empirical data and quantifiable processes.

January 30, 2014 at 8:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

lol

January 28, 2014 at 9:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Alan

You can mail one to me with a nice Leica lens. Spread the joy, man!

January 28, 2014 at 10:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

What films used what cameras? Any insight as to why?

While I do enjoy your articles, especially on screenwriting and motivation etc, this does come off as a bit lazy. It's just a list of cameras that don't really help anyone in deciding anything. If we at least knew what camera shot what feature it could give good insight to which cameras are working well for different types of productions.

January 28, 2014 at 10:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Kaleb

Did you not see the "Indiewire article" link.

January 28, 2014 at 10:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply

From the article:
"Check out the list of cameras and lenses used by the Sundance filmmakers below, courtesy of Indiewire."

And again:
"Be sure to check out Indiewire’s article to see exactly which films used which cameras and lenses."

And the link:
http://bit.ly/LhbGvo

January 28, 2014 at 11:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Brian

use imdv

January 28, 2014 at 12:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
DIO

Canon 5DMk3 FTW!!!!!

January 28, 2014 at 11:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Kendrick

What about the digital bolex? I'm really torn between using the red scarlet or the BMCC or the digital bolex for my first feature film this summer? Of course the visual vocabulary and the poetic way you use the camera as a pen to tell your story is most important. I have been focused on story boarding every scene.
So cinema lovers, what do you recommend?

January 28, 2014 at 2:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Aaron

which camera shot this???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tcb-8qKUg18

bmcc
bmpc 4k
bmpcc
red one
red 6k
sony f3
canon 5d mark ii
canon 5d mark iii raw
gh2
gh3

January 28, 2014 at 2:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
DIO

also include
nikon 5300
nikon 800

January 28, 2014 at 5:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
DIO

A Canon HV20 would've been on the list if they'd picked up my film for their Midnight section, LOL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2akmz-IRZf8

January 28, 2014 at 3:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Woo! Go Canon!

January 28, 2014 at 4:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

14
Reply
Jake

I wasn't expecting an iPhone to be up there. I wonder what lens it uses? I also wonder why there's a T2i and not a T3i.

January 28, 2014 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Well your Gonna See Alot of The GH3 This Year

January 28, 2014 at 6:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
lucasbrothers

Me + Her was shot on bmcc and pocket.
Sure was. Cardboardfilm dot com

April 8, 2014 at 1:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Icp

My film was very likely the very first feature film to start shooting on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera and we didn't make our shooting schedule because of all those shipping delays. We barely had a presentable cut of the film by the Sundance submission deadline. I imagine next year Sundance will have some BMCs and even newer and better cameras.

June 16, 2014 at 8:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Or buy a Red once and upgrade it...I aint buying new cameras at all and am on my third model for relatively cheap compared to the throw away brands that depreciate like a rock

June 16, 2014 at 9:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
brian mereln

Can't wait to find out what kind of pen the scripts were written with.

June 17, 2014 at 6:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Sam

Jo.. nice to know is what movie what cam and lens !!

Or better some great scenes picked out - used cam and lens.

These have been use says not much!

June 17, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Johann

Which cameras are used by big film makers such as Steven Spielberg and the likes?Do they still use film(celuloid) cameras or digital cameras?

June 26, 2014 at 5:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Niranjan Gajend...