change camera on long-term project?

[Gary Huff]

Do you think the quality of the footage looks poor?

[Gerret Warner]

No. I think it looks pretty good. I’m simply concerned about the current standard audiences are getting accustomed to.

Here’s a link: https://vimeo.com/39444044

GW

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Rick Wise]

“It’s not the camera, it’s the eye and mind behind the camera.” Always.

Further, if you suddenly up-rez new footage it will make the old look bad. Audiences adapt quickly, but sudden changes distracts them. I suggest you stop worrying about getting a new camera and finish up the project with what you have. The alternative, start all over again, seems like a colossal waste of time.

Rick Wise
Cinematographer
MFA/BFA Lighting and Camera Instructor Academy of Art University
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com

[Gerret Warner]

My thoughts exactly. Just thought I’d see what others have done. Cheaper too.

Thanks

GW

[Reid Kimball]

To give a broad answer, I think it depends on where you plan on releasing your film. Some distributors may have minimum requirements. I know that Netflix Originals even specifies which cameras can be used and which settings on those cameras.

But if you are releasing independently on YouTube or Vimeo, I think audiences will be fine with a change in look. That’s what I did with my documentary. I started in 2010 when I didn’t know what I was doing. I started it with a Panasonic HS700. Then years later I shot some of it on a Panasonic GH4. I also used very low quality Skype videos of interviews I did with people online. The people I made the film for don’t care, they care about the inspiring stories, which was my goal.

-Reid

[Gerret Warner]

Thanks for your thoughts, Reid, but of course I can’t change what I’ve already shot in the last five years, whatever Netflix or others demand.

I’d pretty much made up my mind before posting, but I’m still interested in how others have coped with what must be a common problem. WIth new cameras looking so good I’ve been tempted to upgrade for any new footage, as I said, but I think on reflection the change midstream would overshadow the beauty of the new images. Audiences do notice differences and it confuses them, unless there’s a clear logic to the difference.

I’m not sure what the function of your Skype footage was but archival footage in a documentary can be in almost any format as long as the audience gets the context: home movies, newsreels, TV. My question was only about the primary story.

Thanks again.

GW

[Mathew Farrell]

I’m with Rick – don’t change cameras. As a supporting tale, I know of long-term documentary projects that shot on a range of camera formats throughout the years. The post guys had to degrade the newer footage to try and match the legacy stuff.

The only compelling way to mix with newer cameras, in my view, would be for whole elements. For example, all your field footage is shot with your HVX, but your talking head interviews are shot on a newer camera in a studio.

Mathew Farrell
flowstate.com.au

[Gerret Warner]

Thanks Mathew,

Yes. I’m pleased to my instincts are shared by others.

And I agree with your compromise: original camera for field work, newer camera for interviews. I’ve done that in the past and it’s a good solution. But in this case I’ve shot both with the same camera, and I’m five years into the project, so it’ll be the HVX all the way.

GW