Season Finale of "House" shot on Canon 5DII

[JoeKitchen]

Not sure if you like House as much as I do, but you should find this interesting.  The director of House decided to shoot the whole season finale using the 5DII and the staff had very little adjustments to make in doing so.  The director is also quoted as saying this is the future.  

Makes me wonder, the 5DII is a great camera and I am sure that the video is good, but is there not better equipment easier to use then that?  And by easier I meant more stable to use since most video cameras rest on your shoulder.  Surely cost would not be a factor here, or is it?  I read an article passed along by the ASMP a while ago warning of the downside of using a still camera that can shoot video as your main video camera since it changes your mind set.  Does it?

I do not shoot video, and do not think my clients (or at least the design professionals) are in need of video, so I do not know about video cameras that produce better video then the 5DII, but is this really the future?  Or is this just a fade brought on by new technology and a down economy?  Not really sure what to think here.  

House Finale

[feppe]

More here and here and here. And on a related note Zeiss cine lenses for dSLRs.

I can't imagine it being a fad. Robert Rodriguez and movies like Cube and The Blair Witch Project brought shoestring movies to the masses and even top of the box office. Motion dSLRs can bring a whole new meaning to the word shoestring, as film stock alone will very quickly eat up the cost of a several dSLR camera bodies and a full lens kit - even when shooting Super 16.

Of course if you want to exhibit your films on the silver screen you need better resolution than 1080p offered by dSLRs.

[JonathanBenoit]

Not sure if you like House as much as I do, but you should find this interesting.  The director of House decided to shoot the whole season finale using the 5DII and the staff had very little adjustments to make in doing so.  The director is also quoted as saying this is the future.  

Makes me wonder, the 5DII is a great camera and I am sure that the video is good, but is there not better equipment easier to use then that?  And by easier I meant more stable to use since most video cameras rest on your shoulder.  Surely cost would not be a factor here, or is it?  I read an article passed along by the ASMP a while ago warning of the downside of using a still camera that can shoot video as your main video camera since it changes your mind set.  Does it?

I do not shoot video, and do not think my clients (or at least the design professionals) are in need of video, so I do not know about video cameras that produce better video then the 5DII, but is this really the future?  Or is this just a fade brought on by new technology and a down economy?  Not really sure what to think here.  

House Finale

I think the director might have decided to shoot with the 5D2 because he could and it hadn't been done on that level before. Maybe publicity was a factor as well. As far as the future? It's another option, just like using high iso film or a holga. Do they create the highest quality image? no. People still choose to use them though.

[Rick_Allen]

The 5D11 has some massive problems for shooting motion 8bit file is just one. But the shallow depth you can get is just great compared to even S35 film. I think that is one of the key reasons for them to try it out. Also think about the "balls" it takes to make this punt. Multi-million dollar deal riding on the shoulders of such delicate file format.

[ziocan]

The 5D11 has some massive problems for shooting motion 8bit file is just one. But the shallow depth you can get is just great compared to even S35 film. I think that is one of the key reasons for them to try it out. Also think about the "balls" it takes to make this punt. Multi-million dollar deal riding on the shoulders of such delicate file format.

Sure they did theirs tests first.
By the time cameras were rolling for real, it was all covered and they could slip tight.

[feppe]

But the shallow depth you can get is just great compared to even S35 film. I think that is one of the key reasons for them to try it out.

Not sure what's great about that. I've seen too many dSLR motion clips which (ab)use the shallow DOF for no reason whatsoever other than because they can, resulting in disorienting clips of tack-sharp faces suspended atop a background of indescribable goo. It has become the overcooked HDR -look of the motion world.

Hopefully in the hands of seasoned TV pros they'll shoot wide open only as an effect, rather than as default setting. And I'd like to see more than just Olivia Wilde's eyelashes in focus

[feppe]

It's quite interesting to read comments as the two above. I would love to have the caveat beside each name as whether someone has or has not shot motion projects with the 5DII. Because the real experts, the Hollywood types, are actually very impressed with the quality the 5DII HD can provide with top lenses, techniques, color grading and more.

My caveat is that no, I haven't shot motion projects with the 5DII. My point was about taking 1080p video to a film theater, not on a home theater 1080p screen, TV or monitor.

Have you seen 5DII on the big screen - or any 1080p video for that matter?

They have.

[michael]

An interesting point about the 5D MKII is particular is that many folks shooting serious productions with it find that the DOF is too shallow, far more so that with a cine 35mm camera, which is closer to APS-C size (1.5X or 1.6X).

This is one of the reasons for the popularity of the 7D and the Panasonic GH1 for video. The sensor is large enough to give attractive film-like DOF, but the focal lengths aren't so long as to force the cinematographer to stop down, which in a studio situation also means more light is needed; just the opposite of current preferred studio and location practice.

Michael

[bjanes]

An interesting point about the 5D MKII is particular is that many folks shooting serious productions with it find that the DOF is too shallow, far more so that with a cine 35mm camera, which is closer to APS-C size (1.5X or 1.6X).

This is one of the reasons for the popularity of the 7D and the Panasonic GH1 for video. The sensor is large enough to give attractive film-like DOF, but the focal lengths aren't so long as to force the cinematographer to stop down, which in a studio situation also means more light is needed; just the opposite of current preferred studio and location practice.

Michael

For a contrarian viewpoint, I would invite forum members to read the essay by Roger Clark: The Depth-of-Field Myth and Digital Cameras. Since a larger sensor camera collects more photons than a smaller sensor camera, one can afford to stop down sufficiently to maintain the same depth of field.

Bill

[Jason Denning]

I'm also a film editor and worked on a film that has some GVs shot on the 5d mark 2, I wasn't that impressed with the quality at hd, but downsized for web or standard def it is great. But maybe that had something to do with using it alongside red footage. I'm sure it will get better once they improve the codec they use.

Jason

Not sure if you like House as much as I do, but you should find this interesting.  The director of House decided to shoot the whole season finale using the 5DII and the staff had very little adjustments to make in doing so.  The director is also quoted as saying this is the future.  

Makes me wonder, the 5DII is a great camera and I am sure that the video is good, but is there not better equipment easier to use then that?  And by easier I meant more stable to use since most video cameras rest on your shoulder.  Surely cost would not be a factor here, or is it?  I read an article passed along by the ASMP a while ago warning of the downside of using a still camera that can shoot video as your main video camera since it changes your mind set.  Does it?

I do not shoot video, and do not think my clients (or at least the design professionals) are in need of video, so I do not know about video cameras that produce better video then the 5DII, but is this really the future?  Or is this just a fade brought on by new technology and a down economy?  Not really sure what to think here.  

House Finale

[feppe]

I'm also a film editor and worked on a film that has some GVs shot on the 5d mark 2, I wasn't that impressed with the quality at hd, but downsized for web or standard def it is great. But maybe that had something to do with using it alongside red footage. I'm sure it will get better once they improve the codec they use.

Jason

We should keep in mind that 5DII video was mostly an afterthought - or at least a last-minute addition to differentiate it from the competition. Later firmwares and 7D and 550D have much more mature feature set, but we're still solidly in the 1.x version of dSLR video. 2nd generation will bring better handling, proper cine lenses, and better codecs.

[TMARK]

I'm also a film editor and worked on a film that has some GVs shot on the 5d mark 2, I wasn't that impressed with the quality at hd, but downsized for web or standard def it is great. But maybe that had something to do with using it alongside red footage. I'm sure it will get better once they improve the codec they use.

Jason

Exactly my experience.

[Graeme Nattress]

Exactly my experience.

It's not just the codec though - it's how they read the data off the sensor that is a lot of the issue, and how that sensor data is processed that leads to a rather soft image on top of all the shallow DOF effect. Compared to the clarity a proper HD video camera can bring to the image, it's comparatively like watching through dirty spectacles.

For long enough professional video in the SD realm was 10bit, and professional HD is 10bit too. HD+ cameras are commonly 12+bit depth because it really makes a difference to the image quality.

One interesting experiment you can do is take the VDLSR and shoot a scene locked off on your tripod in video mode, and then as a still, and crop / scale the still to match the video framing in Photoshop, and similarly scale the video to match the still. Compare them both ways, and then you'll understand exactly what the sensor and image processing issues are. It's quite an eye-opener.

Graeme

[bcooter]

One interesting experiment you can do is take the VDLSR and shoot a scene locked off on your tripod in video mode, and then as a still, and crop / scale the still to match the video framing in Photoshop, and similarly scale the video to match the still. Compare them both ways, and then you'll understand exactly what the sensor and image processing issues are. It's quite an eye-opener.

Graeme

Graeme,

You should show RED footage next to a 5d2.

Now this isn't RED footage but this is a 5d2 still and a motion clip shot full rez at virtually the same size in their native resolution.

http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg

big difference.

The upside to the canon file it's so smooth that at a billion iso it doesn't show much noise, the downside is it loses a lot of sharpness and will blow a highlight faster, collapse a black more.

The bit thing does make a difference.  A few years ago we had a problematic clip we put in the Di Vinci that was shot when a rain cloud blew in the moment the celeb said the one quote we needed.  (of course that was the clip the client had to have so went went to work saving it).  

I think then Canon didn't advertise if their cameras were 8,  or 10 bit, but just going to the Di Vinci with a faux 12 bit saved the shot, actually the colorists made the clip very pretty, but at first we tried it with filters in FCP (in 10 bit) and got nowhere.


BC

[georgl]

"House" is a high-budget series with great cinematography. They usually use professional film equipment (ARRI cameras, Cooke S4 lenses, Fuji Eterna film, processed on a 2k Telecine) which offers high MTF at HD-resolution, impeccable color rendition and dynamic range, lack of nearly all artifacts (expecially alaising, clipping, motion artifacts) besides extreme reliability, rugged processes and professional handling evolved from the needs on a film set over decades.

Sure, a skilled cinematographer with experience in handling the shortcomings of it's equipment can create an interesting look even from a 5DMkII or basically from any HD-video-system, just like a skilled racedriver will still be faster on a racetrack with a heavy limousine than an average driver with a sports car made for racing...

That's not the point, the equipment is used to capture the vision of the artist, it must not dictate the look by certain artifacts, limited DR, handling, color rendition...

Professional digital video cameras offer uncompressed RAW-recording (1080/24p uncompressed at 16bit color depth results in a nearly 50times higher data rate than the output of the 5DMkII!!!), just like all professional still photographers use it as well, they cost a fortune and still don't deliver any noticable advantage over film, especially not 35mm (in fact, their artificial "video-look" (skin tones, limited DR, highlight clipping, motion artifacts) is usually easily noticeable even in SD-broadcast) - at least the newest generation seems to offer an advantage in sensitivity over film, just as we now it in still photography for some years. An HD-capable DSLR is far from an ideal professional production tool with it's highly-compressed video-output, horrible artifacts (rolling shutter) and an handling made for (amatuer) still photography - not a film set...

It's an interesting experiment, but even the "rational" arguments for it are simply wrong ("limited DoF" - a wide range of T1.4/T1.3-lenses is available for S35mm which offer a narrower DoF than a FF-DSLR at F2!). The equipment they use regulary offers a higher technical quality, better handling and more artistic possibilities to manipulate the visual style/image - it's the better tool for this job (basically for every >1M$-project when stock costs only play a role in the eyes of the producer).

[feppe]

"House" is a high-budget series with great cinematography. They usually use professional film equipment (ARRI cameras, Cooke S4 lenses, Fuji Eterna film, processed on a 2k Telecine) which offers high MTF at HD-resolution, impeccable color rendition and dynamic range, lack of nearly all artifacts (expecially alaising, clipping, motion artifacts) besides extreme reliability, rugged processes and professional handling evolved from the needs on a film set over decades.

Sure, a skilled cinematographer with experience in handling the shortcomings of it's equipment can create an interesting look even from a 5DMkII or basically from any HD-video-system, just like a skilled racedriver will still be faster on a racetrack with a heavy limousine than an average driver with a sports car made for racing...

That's not the point, the equipment is used to capture the vision of the artist, it must not dictate the look by certain artifacts, limited DR, handling, color rendition...

Professional digital video cameras offer uncompressed RAW-recording (1080/24p uncompressed at 16bit color depth results in a nearly 50times higher data rate than the output of the 5DMkII!!!), just like all professional still photographers use it as well, they cost a fortune and still don't deliver any noticable advantage over film, especially not 35mm (in fact, their artificial "video-look" (skin tones, limited DR, highlight clipping, motion artifacts) is usually easily noticeable even in SD-broadcast) - at least the newest generation seems to offer an advantage in sensitivity over film, just as we now it in still photography for some years. An HD-capable DSLR is far from an ideal professional production tool with it's highly-compressed video-output, horrible artifacts (rolling shutter) and an handling made for (amatuer) still photography - not a film set...

It's an interesting experiment, but even the "rational" arguments for it are simply wrong ("limited DoF" - a wide range of T1.4/T1.3-lenses is available for S35mm which offer a narrower DoF than a FF-DSLR at F2!). The equipment they use regulary offers a higher technical quality, better handling and more artistic possibilities to manipulate the visual style/image - it's the better tool for this job (basically for every >1M$-project when stock costs only play a role in the eyes of the producer).

It's a perfectly rational thing to do. If House producers didn't do it, it would have been done by Heroes or C.S.I. or Desperate Housewives sooner rather than later. Although there are some very specific circumstances where a dSLR might be a better tool, I don't think there is anyone out there who doubts that proper film cameras are a better tool for the job 99% of the time. This is partly a marketing stunt, partly a proof-of-concept, partly a test of just how far a dSLR can be pushed today.

I don't know if anyone outside of photography circles is aware of the camera used, or if Fox is doing/planning a marketing blitz to publicize it, but it will be very interesting to see the critique on picture quality from pros, amateurs and non-photographers. I've read a lot about the artifacts, rolling shutter, Christmas lights, and the problems with 8-bit image, lack of RAW and limited DR, so I'm counting the days for this to come out to see if these are legitimate concerns or FUD. Of course it will be hard to say how many of those challenges have been avoided with careful lighting, subject choice and post-processing.

5DII is a camera which is in the financial reach of almost any amateur, unlike every single pro motion camera. Sure, they have a full crew at their disposal and post-processing budget worth more than the net worth of the average 5DII owner, but this is a validation of nothing short of a revolution in motion photography which is happening thanks to Canon and RED, and whatever Panasonic, Sony and most likely Nikon have coming up in the near future.

[jjj]

I can't imagine it being a fad. Robert Rodriguez and movies like Cube and The Blair Witch Project brought shoestring movies to the masses and even top of the box office. Motion dSLRs can bring a whole new meaning to the word shoestring, as film stock alone will very quickly eat up the cost of a several dSLR camera bodies and a full lens kit - even when shooting Super 16.

Of course if you want to exhibit your films on the silver screen you need better resolution than 1080p offered by dSLRs.

Except you don't. Blair Witch that you mentioned for example, Tape, Open Water,  all use ever lower quality imagery than HD and I've seen others that I cannot recall off hand, probably as it's less unusual now. As long as the capture medium suits the story being told, you can use just about any quality you want. As long as the sound is really good! Poor sound is always crap, crappy filming can be a visual style if allied with really good sound.
Paranormal Activity was shoot on crappy cameras and the studio considered remaking it on better kit, but realised there was no point as it would take away from the story. Plus it would cost an awful lot more than the orginal shoot.

[jjj]

Not sure what's great about that. I've seen too many dSLR motion clips which (ab)use the shallow DOF for no reason whatsoever other than because they can, resulting in disorienting clips of tack-sharp faces suspended atop a background of indescribable goo. It has become the overcooked HDR -look of the motion world.

My thoughts exactly.

Quite some time back I predicted here that we'd see an awful lot of pretty films made with 5D or similar which look nice, but have decent story.  
And sadly that is exactly what has happened. I rarely see anything that isn't a just a nice slide show but with added motion.

Photographers are not suddenly film-makers now that they have a video camera [not even Vincent Lafloret], just like most people are not photographers now there is a camera in their phone.
And as John-S quite rightly points out, you don't get many lone gunmen making films. There's a good reason for the crew seen on a film set. Well most of them!  
Besides the role most like a stills photographer, skillset wise, is not that of the Director, but the Cinematographer/Director of photography.
Most of whom are well aware of the possibilities of the new kit and also have the filming experience to best utilise them.

[lisa_r]

Interview with House director about their use of the 5D2:

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-dep...n-canon-5dmkii/

[TMARK]

Interview with House director about their use of the 5D2:

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-dep...n-canon-5dmkii/

The interview is a good listen.  The same dynamics that make me shoot 35mm dig when I could shoot MFD is at play in the choice to shoot the finale with the 5D2.  Its spontaneous, they don't need a DIT, less bulk, slimmed down, technology that can move as fast as you can think of something, a look, an angle, an inspiration.

They ran into the same issues with the 5D we did, but reading between the lines it was all fixed in post or they decided it was part of the look. I don't think banding is part of a look, but we'll see on May 17. One thing they had a major issue with was pulling focus, and I agree, its a challenge with the Canon lenses.  

These guys are cheerleaders for the 5D2, and with good reason. But from the comments towards the end of the piece, it seams that the features they (and I) like about the 5d2 are going to be packaged into a functional motion camera package, very small like the 5d2, but with many shortcomings addressed. This will be a motion camera based on the still cam's tech, more motion than still, if they even have a still capability at all.    

Another thing is interesting, its the loathing of working with a digital tech.  Not that techs are bad, but the tech station becomes the focus of attention, and technology ends up driving the dynamic on set, which is really lame.  For House they run the files upstairs to the editors for some post and asset management, which is what we do, but we have an editor on a laptop logging clips, applying some basic color grading if a client is looking.  

T