Season Finale of "House" shot on Canon 5DII

[bcooter]

I've shot a lot with the 5d2 and the files are challenged without a doubt.  As long as it's soft focus and lots of movement you don't see much, but if it's locked down or in studio, shit happens and it takes a lot of post to fix it.

You own a RED I don't so I haven't shot one yet, though I did download those files Graeme posted and they are pretty amazing in the way they open up, in fact they open way, way up without any track noise which just blew me away.  I took xha1 files and 5d2 files and did the same with them and they fell apart compared to the RED files.

In fact I would rent a RED for a shoot this week, but can't find one with the new sensor, so it will be a 5d2.

Still, I hate this stuff, hate getting caught up in the same upgrade pattern with motion that I went through with medium format.  It's just buy and wait, beta test for free and wait, buy again and wait, and then report back to the maker begging them to fix stuff or put you on some list that moves around on a whim.

I'd just give anything if somebody would make a RED type of camera you could buy off the shelf right now and not screw around with stage 1, 2, 3, or 4 upgrades.  

Right now I guess RED can get away with all that silliness cause they're the only under $100,000 game in town that shoots a moveable raw file, but for someone that shoots for a living and doesn't want to be a camera tester it's not a comfortable position to be in to write a $35,000 check for an old camera, hoping that you get on the list for the new camera.

That's where Canon has everyone by the shorts, cause you can walk in, buy it, buy a bunch of gizmos to stick on it and go shoot and make some money'.

BC


P.S.  I agree on the tech station, too much inspiration by committee, but that's battle lost as far as I'm concerned, cause no client regardless of what they pay, is going to sit back and not look at what's going on.  They all want to see it right now on the monitor.  The more money they pay, the more people that are standing around looking.

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

[gwhitf]

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/

Follow the money.

[Graeme Nattress]

Obviously, we're working as fast as we can to get the cameras on general sale rather than though upgrades or through trading in an old camera. I'm happy you liked the test images. You do kindof get spoilt by working with those images every day though. It makes it hard to "go back". Pretty much how you thought that point and shoot digital camera was nice, then you got your DLSR and upgraded out of JPEG to RAW and wonder how you'd ever go back.

Graeme

[Streetshooter]

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/

Follow the money.

Yeah,   the money is in telling and showing people how to shoot rather than actually doing it yourself....
 

[TMARK]

BC, I don't own a whole Red, I own 33% of one that doesn't live with me!  

I signed off on getting the upgrade.  I figured $5k was what I spent on the matt box, so a newer sensor seemed cheap.    

I just want a DaVinci suite, but my partners are against doing too much post in house.

I do not expect to pay more than $3k for the next Canon, Nikon, or Sony video camera that shoots raw and has a PL mount, or at least a Nikon F mount. IListening to that interview was inspiring, I think the next gen of the dslr based HD cams will be really good, and will open things up more, meaning getting your hands on a camera that can shoot a pro reel isn't the main barrier to overcome.  

I've shot a lot with the 5d2 and the files are challenged without a doubt.  As long as it's soft focus and lots of movement you don't see much, but if it's locked down or in studio, shit happens and it takes a lot of post to fix it.

You own a RED I don't so I haven't shot one yet, though I did download those files Graeme posted and they are pretty amazing in the way they open up, in fact they open way, way up without any track noise which just blew me away.  I took xha1 files and 5d2 files and did the same with them and they fell apart compared to the RED files.

In fact I would rent a RED for a shoot this week, but can't find one with the new sensor, so it will be a 5d2.

Still, I hate this stuff, hate getting caught up in the same upgrade pattern with motion that I went through with medium format.  It's just buy and wait, beta test for free and wait, buy again and wait, and then report back to the maker begging them to fix stuff or put you on some list that moves around on a whim.

I'd just give anything if somebody would make a RED type of camera you could buy off the shelf right now and not screw around with stage 1, 2, 3, or 4 upgrades.  

Right now I guess RED can get away with all that silliness cause they're the only under $100,000 game in town that shoots a moveable raw file, but for someone that shoots for a living and doesn't want to be a camera tester it's not a comfortable position to be in to write a $35,000 check for an old camera, hoping that you get on the list for the new camera.

That's where Canon has everyone by the shorts, cause you can walk in, buy it, buy a bunch of gizmos to stick on it and go shoot and make some money'.

BC


P.S.  I agree on the tech station, too much inspiration by committee, but that's battle lost as far as I'm concerned, cause no client regardless of what they pay, is going to sit back and not look at what's going on.  They all want to see it right now on the monitor.  The more money they pay, the more people that are standing around looking.

[TMARK]

Yeah,   the money is in telling and showing people how to shoot rather than actually doing it yourself....

Aint that the truth.

[bcooter]

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/

Follow the money.

Ain't a photographer livin' that hasn't thought about doing something like this, but at the end of the day the more thought I give it, the more I realize I would rather put my pecker in a blender.*

BC


*(I know I will live to regret that quote)

[Streetshooter]

Ain't a photographer livin' that hasn't thought about doing something like this, but at the end of the day the more thought I give it, the more I realize I would rather put my pecker in a blender.*

BC


*(I know I will live to regret that quote)

Hey BC,

Do you want to borrow my blender.....

[BJL]

"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) ...

According to the interview that Lisa linked, "House" is normally shot on Panasonic gear, meaning three sensor 2/3" format I suppose. Or do they use a mix of film and digital capture?

My read, after wading through a large amount of what sounds like marketing spin and after-the-fact rationalization, is that the biggest single reason for choosing the 5d2 was the far greater DOF options than with those Panasonic 2/3" format HD cameras. If so, I expect future use of the 5D2 to be only for special extreme shallow DOF effects, because for almost all purposes, cine-35mm format gear offers plenty of DOF control, and that stuff is getting rapidly less expensive with new products coming from Sony, RED, ARRI and so on. And focus pulling should be far easier on gear with cine-camera lenses and proper follow-focus setup.

The next "stunt camera choice" might be the coming $6,000 Panasonic 4/3" model. The format is only slightly smaller than cine-35mm (18.5mm wide vs 22mm for Academy 35mm and 25mm for Super 35mm), so DOF control would be almost as good, and far better than with 2/3" format as used for example in the last two Star Wars movies. With a lot of Panasonic cameras in use in the television industry, Panasonic might easily persuade some producer to try the 4/3" model, at least for those shallow DOF and "hand-held in tight shooting spaces" shots.

[Ron Steinberg]

A clarification: House is normally shot on film, not Panasonic video. The studio (Universal) has close ties with Panasonic for their video gear, but not all of their shows are shot on video.

Ron

[filmless]

I have a good friend who works inside Canon. His current job is to take the 5DmarkII and 7D around and show it to producers, directors, video shooters, etc...
basically in a nutshell, plant the seeds for the "House" type projects. At least this is what I understand he does because he can't talk about all the things he
does. But... the House project is just the tip of the iceberg, he told me a list of TV shows and movies that are using the Canon equipment for --- sometimes an
entire show, sometimes a bit part, sometimes a trailer, on and on...  I'm not sure what to think, a lot of this may be just for publicity or testing the waters or who
knows.  However it makes a statement to what Canon can do and makes you wonder what new product is being worked on in the hidden engineering labs.

[TMARK]

Not being obnoxious, but listen to the whole interview again.  They were talking about the ease of use of the small camera in tight spaces more than anything else.  We use the Sony EX1 or 3 instead of the Red for tight spaces, and soon I think the 7D will fill that role, or eventually the Scarlet.  

According to the interview that Lisa linked, "House" is normally shot on Panasonic gear, meaning three sensor 2/3" format I suppose. Or do they use a mix of film and digital capture?

My read, after wading through a large amount of what sounds like marketing spin and after-the-fact rationalization, is that the biggest single reason for choosing the 5d2 was the far greater DOF options than with those Panasonic 2/3" format HD cameras. If so, I expect future use of the 5D2 to be only for special extreme shallow DOF effects, because for almost all purposes, cine-35mm format gear offers plenty of DOF control, and that stuff is getting rapidly less expensive with new products coming from Sony, RED, ARRI and so on. And focus pulling should be far easier on gear with cine-camera lenses and proper follow-focus setup.

The next "stunt camera choice" might be the coming $6,000 Panasonic 4/3" model. The format is only slightly smaller than cine-35mm (18.5mm wide vs 22mm for Academy 35mm and 25mm for Super 35mm), so DOF control would be almost as good, and far better than with 2/3" format as used for example in the last two Star Wars movies. With a lot of Panasonic cameras in use in the television industry, Panasonic might easily persuade some producer to try the 4/3" model, at least for those shallow DOF and "hand-held in tight shooting spaces" shots.

[TMARK]

Smart of Canon, because not only does it generate buzz amoung a new market, it also gets them real feedback from real film makers on the real limitations of the camera, not just forum blowhards.  They can roll all they learn into the next generation.

I have a good friend who works inside Canon. His current job is to take the 5DmarkII and 7D around and show it to producers, directors, video shooters, etc...
basically in a nutshell, plant the seeds for the "House" type projects. At least this is what I understand he does because he can't talk about all the things he
does. But... the House project is just the tip of the iceberg, he told me a list of TV shows and movies that are using the Canon equipment for --- sometimes an
entire show, sometimes a bit part, sometimes a trailer, on and on...  I'm not sure what to think, a lot of this may be just for publicity or testing the waters or who
knows.  However it makes a statement to what Canon can do and makes you wonder what new product is being worked on in the hidden engineering labs.

[BJL]

Not being obnoxious, but listen to the whole interview again.  They were talking about the ease of use of the small camera in tight spaces more than anything else.

I know what he talked about, but that part sounded like advantages discovered after deciding on and trying the 4D2, whereas the original motivation seemed to be his desire for shallower DOF effects. And I am am skeptical enough to think that some of the "talking points" for that interview were related to PR or "product placement" issues. In fact, given that I have not heard many complaints about inability to get sufficiently shallow DOF with standard cine-camera equipment, I will restate my prediction that the even shallower DOF available with "digital VistaVision" will only be of interest in rather special situations.


P. S. VistaVision was the name for a system using 35mm film with horizontal pull to get a larger 36x24mm frame. It has a brief life from 1954 to 1961, living on only for occasional special effects work. I mention this to support my skepticism about the moving picture industry having much interest in moving to any format larger than current cine-35mm formats. (70mm is pretty much dead too.)

[TMARK]

My sources confirm that they were only going to use the 5d in really tight quarters, as C camera, and for effects, and yes, digital Vista Vision is about right. I'm trying to get the skinny on why they went for the whole episode.  I don't think product placement was their goal.  From what I've heard, the 5D really matches the feel of the episode.

I know what he talked about, but that part sounded like advantages discovered after deciding on and trying the 4D2, whereas the original motivation seemed to be his desire for shallower DOF effects. And I am am skeptical enough to think that some of the "talking points" for that interview were related to PR or "product placement" issues. In fact, given that I have not heard many complaints about inability to get sufficiently shallow DOF with standard cine-camera equipment, I will restate my prediction that the even shallower DOF available with "digital VistaVision" will only be of interest in rather special situations.


P. S. VistaVision was the name for a system using 35mm film with horizontal pull to get a larger 36x24mm frame. It has a brief life from 1954 to 1961, living on only for occasional special effects work. I mention this to support my skepticism about the moving picture industry having much interest in moving to any format larger than current cine-35mm formats. (70mm is pretty much dead too.)

[georgl]

The new possibiliities coming with digital cameras and HD-DSLRs are fascinating and allow lot's of students, independent no-budget filmmakers and other creatives to accomplish their visions far better than before.

But "House" is a high-profile TV-show, it has a high budget, it makes even more money and some of the most talented and experienced people work on it, they deserve appropriate equipment and right now, thats 35mm for various reasons (lack of artifacts, DR, MTF, reliability, flexibility in look, handling...)! As I said, there are tiny 35mm-cams and even narrower DoF is possible.

I'm sure that Canon pushed this deal with the producers as a marketing coup. The problem is the aftertaste: "see, even high-profile TV can be shot with much cheaper equipment" and pretty soon producers won't allow the artists who know better (director, DoP) the necessary budget for 35mm. Maybe they don't force them to use a HD-DSLR right now, but what about a prosumer-HD-cam? And by the way, digital is much cooler...
Technology saved lot's of money in the past and producers were thankful for that - but they usually didn't allow any step "back" (one example: 3perf saved 25% stock/processing, it became the standard and anamorphic was just too expensive -although it wasn't for decades and still is the superior choice in certain projects). That's how they killed 70mm, it only costs a few tenthousand dollars more, no big deal for blockbusters, but for producers... Now a 200M$-blockbuster is shot with the same equipment as a 1M$-indie... Every cheap TV-series (they had much lower budgets) was shot in 35mm in the 70s, but now it has to be a cool cine-style HD-camera (not cheap, either), even if the artists don't want it and every decent-shot 35mm-show like "Castle" or "House" show an easily superior look.

When the artists want to use amateur or prosumer-stuff to achieve a certain "look", that's perfectly fine. But don't let the business-people cut choices over the heads of the artists and sell it as technical progress...  

[feppe]

The new possibiliities coming with digital cameras and HD-DSLRs are fascinating and allow lot's of students, independent no-budget filmmakers and other creatives to accomplish their visions far better than before.

But "House" is a high-profile TV-show, it has a high budget, it makes even more money and some of the most talented and experienced people work on it, they deserve appropriate equipment and right now, thats 35mm for various reasons (lack of artifacts, DR, MTF, reliability, flexibility in look, handling...)! As I said, there are tiny 35mm-cams and even narrower DoF is possible.

I'm sure that Canon pushed this deal with the producers as a marketing coup. The problem is the aftertaste: "see, even high-profile TV can be shot with much cheaper equipment" and pretty soon producers won't allow the artists who know better (director, DoP) the necessary budget for 35mm. Maybe they don't force them to use a HD-DSLR right now, but what about a prosumer-HD-cam? And by the way, digital is much cooler...
Technology saved lot's of money in the past and producers were thankful for that - but they usually didn't allow any step "back" (one example: 3perf saved 25% stock/processing, it became the standard and anamorphic was just too expensive -although it wasn't for decades and still is the superior choice in certain projects). That's how they killed 70mm, it only costs a few tenthousand dollars more, no big deal for blockbusters, but for producers... Now a 200M$-blockbuster is shot with the same equipment as a 1M$-indie... Every cheap TV-series (they had much lower budgets) was shot in 35mm in the 70s, but now it has to be a cool cine-style HD-camera (not cheap, either), even if the artists don't want it and every decent-shot 35mm-show like "Castle" or "House" show an easily superior look.

When the artists want to use amateur or prosumer-stuff to achieve a certain "look", that's perfectly fine. But don't let the business-people cut choices over the heads of the artists and sell it as technical progress...  

While I'm almost as eager as most to lament the race to the bottom in many areas, there's a totally different way of looking at this: companies like Canon and RED and Panasonic are democratizing cinema. It started with Bonnie & Clyde, accelerated with El Mariachi and Blair Witch Project - and these new cameras are some of the final steps to bring high-quality motion to the financial reach of almost any serious amateur.

And Zacuto's tests have shown that dSLRs are already very close to 35mm cine film in IQ, and surpass in some areas - the next generation will be even better. Dedicated motion cameras coming out in the near future will level the playing field further.

[TMARK]

That is absolutely not what happened.  I have it straight from the Black Tower on the Universal lot that the push came from Tattersall, not Canon or from the Black Tower.  

I'm sure that Canon pushed this deal with the producers as a marketing coup.

. . . But don't let the business-people cut choices over the heads of the artists and sell it as technical progress...  

[TMARK]

I agree with your first paragraph.  I think its an amazing time.

Your second para is msleading.  The Zacuto tests were interesting, and played to the dslr strengths of high iso.  And that is awesome, but there is no way that the dslr files (or Red or panasonic or Arri digital) are as good as a color graded digital intermediary from Pacific Film, when shot at normal, say up to 800, iso.  

While I'm almost as eager as most to lament the race to the bottom in many areas, there's a totally different way of looking at this: companies like Canon and RED and Panasonic are democratizing cinema. It started with Bonnie & Clyde, accelerated with El Mariachi and Blair Witch Project - and these new cameras are some of the final steps to bring high-quality motion to the financial reach of almost any serious amateur.

And Zacuto's tests have shown that dSLRs are already very close to 35mm cine film in IQ, and surpass in some areas - the next generation will be even better. Dedicated motion cameras coming out in the near future will level the playing field further.

[Graeme Nattress]

You'd be surprised..... If you shoot 5219 500T with same lens / T-stop as a RED M-X and compare the outputs. (I'd assume that from Arri's numbers that their new camera would also look very good on such a comparison)

Although the 5D2 is "good" at high ISO, the M-X can look very good at high ISO ( http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44171 ). The other issue with ISO on the DSLR's which showed up in a test we saw at the RED Studios, was that ISO on the DSLRs is done via analogue gain, which essentially means a stop of DR is lost off the highlights for each stop of analogue gain applied. So by the time you get up to a very high ISO, you might have acceptable noise levels, but you may not have enough DR, and if the highlight range drops enough to touch lit skintones, it can, as we saw, look very ugly.

Graeme