Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on April 14, 2010, 06:00:26 pm
-
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 (http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/)
-
More here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42853&hl=house) and here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42988&hl=house) and here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42347&st=40&p=359800&#entry359800). And on a related note Zeiss cine lenses for dSLRs (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041300carlzeisscp2lw2.asp).
I can't imagine it being a fad. Robert Rodriguez and movies like Cube (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/) 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.
-
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 (http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.zacuto.com/shootout) have.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/): 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
-
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 (http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/)
-
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 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041300carlzeisscp2lw2.asp), and better codecs.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (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
-
"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).
-
"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.
-
I can't imagine it being a fad. Robert Rodriguez and movies like Cube (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/) 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.
-
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.
-
Interview with House director about their use of the 5D2:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-dep...n-canon-5dmkii/ (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-depth-interview-with-executive-producer-and-director-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/)
-
Interview with House director about their use of the 5D2:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-dep...n-canon-5dmkii/ (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-depth-interview-with-executive-producer-and-director-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-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
-
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
-
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/free-3-day-hddslr-cinema-workshop-starts-streaming-on-april-30th/)
Follow the money.
-
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
-
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/free-3-day-hddslr-cinema-workshop-starts-streaming-on-april-30th/)
Follow the money.
Yeah, the money is in telling and showing people how to shoot rather than actually doing it yourself....
-
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.
-
Yeah, the money is in telling and showing people how to shoot rather than actually doing it yourself....
Aint that the truth.
-
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/...-on-april-30th/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/04/21/free-3-day-hddslr-cinema-workshop-starts-streaming-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)
-
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.....
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.)
-
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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.)
-
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$-indie... Every cheap TV-series (they had much lower budgets) was shot in 35mm in the 70s, but now it has to be a cool cine-style HD-camera (not cheap, either), even if the artists don't want it and every decent-shot 35mm-show like "Castle" or "House" show an easily superior look.
When the artists want to use amateur or prosumer-stuff to achieve a certain "look", that's perfectly fine. But don't let the business-people cut choices over the heads of the artists and sell it as technical progress...
-
The new possibiliities coming with digital cameras and HD-DSLRs are fascinating and allow lot's of students, independent no-budget filmmakers and other creatives to accomplish their visions far better than before.
But "House" is a high-profile TV-show, it has a high budget, it makes even more money and some of the most talented and experienced people work on it, they deserve appropriate equipment and right now, thats 35mm for various reasons (lack of artifacts, DR, MTF, reliability, flexibility in look, handling...)! As I said, there are tiny 35mm-cams and even narrower DoF is possible.
I'm sure that Canon pushed this deal with the producers as a marketing coup. The problem is the aftertaste: "see, even high-profile TV can be shot with much cheaper equipment" and pretty soon producers won't allow the artists who know better (director, DoP) the necessary budget for 35mm. Maybe they don't force them to use a HD-DSLR right now, but what about a prosumer-HD-cam? And by the way, digital is much cooler...
Technology saved lot's of money in the past and producers were thankful for that - but they usually didn't allow any step "back" (one example: 3perf saved 25% stock/processing, it became the standard and anamorphic was just too expensive -although it wasn't for decades and still is the superior choice in certain projects). That's how they killed 70mm, it only costs a few tenthousand dollars more, no big deal for blockbusters, but for producers... Now a 200M$-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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 (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
-
Graeme,
I haven't seen high iso M-X footage live up close. I will see it first hand in a week or two.
I agree on the DSLR very high ISO clips looking ugly, but it is impressive. Berry Lyndon looks much better, and John Alcot lit that with candles, and its just beautiful.
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 (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
-
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.
This is all just conjecture on my part, but I have some doubts that Canon and/or Nikon are going to roll out a raw shooting full super cine motion camera in 6 months to crush RED or anything.
Canon has moved glacier slow in video for a long time. After all it took them 3 years to come out with a solid state cards for video cameras and it's not like the indie and commercial guys have not been begging for a larger frame rate for the xl series for almost a decade and I mean a million voices screaming, not just a mention here or there. There were video blogs like DV info Net and 2-pop talking about this stuff almost 10 years ago and in regards to Canon either they just don't read or just didn't pay much attention to it.
The fact that Canon was surprised of the Video popularity of the 5d2 IS surprising considering how long a larger format motion camera has been requested.
In the still area Nikon took forever to make a full frame 35mm camera, later still on a high megapixel one, later still on new tilt shifts, so though Nikon has no territory to protect in video, it took them 7 years to make an equal to the original 1ds. When I've talked to Nikon they seem a lot more interested in Sports photography than anything else.
I'd love to see it, a $7,000 RED equal with true autofocus and precise manual focus lenses, but I have my doubts it will be anytime real soon, though I hope I'm wrong.
But price controlling a project. Price controls every project, everywhere in the world, even a 200m blockbuster. You don't have to spend much time in LA to hear the stories of who got paid what, so the idea that Hollywood will look at any way to cut costs is not going to be new news.
In fact if you knew how some Hollywood producers/directors tipped on a meal you'd laugh, unless you were the service staff so if anyone thinks the big boys in the movie business don't question every expense, whew, they make Blue Cross look like spendthrifts.
Panasonic and Sony, there in their own world and if the Sony response to red was the CineAlta then somebody got something wrong when they figured out the price point, or locked their calender to 2006 I mean Sony makes a still camera with no live view, no video and if anyone should be able to figure that one out you would think it would be them.
But as far as costs, in the cinema world the RED is cheap, well at least cheap compared to anything that shoots film or has a PL mount.
Canon/Nikon don't concern me because they always seem to do what they want, when they want to and though they may be listening, I do wonder why it took them so long to even get where the 5d/7d are today, which is not the best form factor for motion.
The only thing that concerns me about RED, other than the slowness of delivery, is that they've already changed form factors, from the RED One to the Epic and I don't read every word on the RED site, I have to admit it's somewhat confusing. How much more an Epic costs, how many parts are interchangeable I don't know, but I do know none of us want even modest investments in equipment to be phased out not in today's world where an artist really has to be dead sure of where they spend every dollar.
Actually what really concerns me about RED or Arri, or even Panasonic is while they are in the kitchen cooking, the Canon 5d2's are out in the dining room partying like a bunch of drunk sailors.
Regardless of all this Camera talk, I have this belief that if an image is beautiful, or a story is compelling almost any camera will do and though I own way too many cameras and I don't believe the camera makes the shoot, everyone in my studio that's looked at the RED footage compared to the 5d2 is blown away and not blown away with a hmmm, the RED looks a little better than the Canon, they're blown away with a "Holy Shit, I didn't know you could do that to any file, much less video".
BC
-
Yes, smaller and lighter form factor and new modules, but gear like EVF and LCD still work if you have them from the RED One, and a simple adaptor will get the batteries running too.
The issue with others doing as we have done basically all comes down to (and it's more nuanced than this, but this is the key) sensor speed. You need a very fast (in electronic readout terms) sensor to do high resolution and low skew, and that incidentally leads to the ability to do high fps if the rest of the electronics can keep up. That is why we're advertising 5k resolution at 120fps. The best DSLR does around 10fps full sensor RAW at the moment - that is why they use line-skipping tricks and only record "1080p", and they don't have the sheer processing power needed to treat the raw image with complete respect while realtime downsampling to 1080p. So, to do this "properly" means significant issues in sensor design and the speed / power of accompanying electronics.
Graeme
-
I think that Red's major advantage is vision and a small, forward thinking organization. Of course Sony, Canon, panasonic, Nikon et al could do what you guys are doing, but they are compartmentalized burocracies that compete with other departments within their own organization and with their traditional external competitors. These companies do not make markets, unless its accidental like the 5d2.
Yes, smaller and lighter form factor and new modules, but gear like EVF and LCD still work if you have them from the RED One, and a simple adaptor will get the batteries running too.
The issue with others doing as we have done basically all comes down to (and it's more nuanced than this, but this is the key) sensor speed. You need a very fast (in electronic readout terms) sensor to do high resolution and low skew, and that incidentally leads to the ability to do high fps if the rest of the electronics can keep up. That is why we're advertising 5k resolution at 120fps. The best DSLR does around 10fps full sensor RAW at the moment - that is why they use line-skipping tricks and only record "1080p", and they don't have the sheer processing power needed to treat the raw image with complete respect while realtime downsampling to 1080p. So, to do this "properly" means significant issues in sensor design and the speed / power of accompanying electronics.
Graeme
-
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.
Did you read the second paragraph? I didn't say the things you imply I said.
It was revealing to see seasoned pros being totally blown away by the dSLR footage. There are obvious and well-known shortcomings in IQ, but as I pointed out, take into account this is the first generation of dSLRs. RAW video and cameras which don't rely on decimation or other jury rigging for motion are right around the corner.
Film will be dead soon for motion, just like it already is in stills.
(No flaming on the last sentence, please; I still shoot film, also)
-
You make a very good point. It's very expensive to do things right, but you get a lovely end result. The business model for that is not the sub $1000 consumer market where C/S/N live. However, we believe that there is a market for those who want exceptionally well specified gear, so that's what we're making.
Graeme
-
However, we believe that there is a market for those who want exceptionally well specified gear, so that's what we're making.
Graeme
Graeme,
Hold that thought.
Good or bad, I try to think like client's think.
Part of it is how much they pay, do they notice the difference, do I notice the difference and can I deliver something that is hopefully more than they anticipated.
I don't care about the $1,000 market cause that's not where the professional world lives (or shouldn't), but at 50 large I start to care, at 50 large that I gotta wait on or change out in a year, I care a lot.
(not implying anything here, just my thoughts).
Anyway,
I did download the sample files and yanked them around thinking about real world clients and how they react.
You know where they say can you make the car snap and the background more subtle. (though I don't shoot cars).
The mercedes shot in the Santa Monica Mountains, is the one I messed with most, because it was shot it deep shade and honestly I was amazed at how well it held up pushing it to 1200 iso.
I then took it out in prorezz 422 and stuck it in CS4 extended, did adjustment layers, burned in the edges, contrast etc. and though that shot wasn't typical 35 person film crews and obviously my post abilities were limited using cs4, it looked amazing to me, especially compared to any footage I've ever worked.
Without a doubt you guys have the market today, I just hope you get stuff out quick, quick and easy for the buyer and I'm serious about the buying quick and easy part cause the world isn't gonna stand still waiting for anything.
I can't go anywhere there is not a 5d2 on set and you can't walk past any still rental stage in NY or LA without seeing some hand written sign that says, quiet please, video in progress. I have no doubt the the photographers who are now shooting motion wouldn't like a better file, or something that gives them an edge, but I also know that since 95% of them barely own anything in the studio other than an I phone and a 5d2, they're gonna hold still (pun intended) and see what shakes out.
I did a gig a few weeks ago that we shot the 5d2 and the agency brought in their in house guy with a RED to shoot one dialog segment. The RED worked fine (old sensor version), but he only ran it for about 10 minutes. The rest of the day he walked around with a 5d2 and a zaguto finder shooting everything but catering.
I didn't talk to him much, other than to ask why he didn't shoot everything with the RED and since he had it kitted out with 400lbs of stuff and was using window light for all his "B" roll, he said the 5d2 was just easier.
So if your going to sell the Epic to movie guys that are use to renting lenses that cost $20,000 or video guys that were buying $90,000 engs, then your fine, but if your going for the still world I would strongly suggest to dip your toes in the still studios and listen to a still photographer talk about the business as it is today.
BC
-
Did you read the second paragraph? I didn't say the things you imply I said.
It was revealing to see seasoned pros being totally blown away by the dSLR footage. There are obvious and well-known shortcomings in IQ, but as I pointed out, take into account this is the first generation of dSLRs. RAW video and cameras which don't rely on decimation or other jury rigging for motion are right around the corner.
Film will be dead soon for motion, just like it already is in stills.
(No flaming on the last sentence, please; I still shoot film, also)
I was reacting to where you said the IQ of the dslrs is very close to 35cine. Its not. I also liked the Zacuto test, and my take away was that for doc projects, or really, really low light, they are the way to go.
And I agree, the next gen of video dslr should be really nice.
Film won't soon be dead for motion. This is from someone who shoots almost all motion projects on a Red. For commercials, videos, sure, digital is fine for the same reasons digital is better for clients in a commercial context, but why shoot digital on a feature film? There is no client on set. The director is the closest thing to a client, and the director usually works very closely with the DP on the look of a film. So the main benefit of digital, instant playback, is not necessary or even desired. Except in low light, 35cine looks better, so where is the push for digital in features?
-
BC,
The client's guy with the Red shooting a 5d2 is where the Scarlet should come in, right? Small and spontanious, easy, less obstacles. The Red and 5d2 really shouldn't be compared in some ways, because the 5D2 is really a documentary 35mm slr, which is great, while the Red is a cinema camera. You can break the Red down into a smaller unit, but never as handy as a DSLR.
-
Except in low light, 35cine looks better, so where is the push for digital in features?
Right here (http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/). And here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/). And here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430357/). And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally).
Seriously.
I've seen several of those movies, and haven't heard anyone complain about the IQ. Granted, they are all laymen, by they are the ones paying the bills. In fairness, I felt cheated after seeing Miami Vice with its distinctly video look. I don't care it was based on a TV series, it it still looked cheap - and I'm a huge Michael Mann fan.
And I thought the main benefit of digital is low cost. And that's always in demand.
-
Dedicated motion cameras coming out in the near future will level the playing field further.
My guess is that there is great potential for combining the cost efficiencies of using a relatively high volume still camera sensor instead of a dedicated video sensor, in a body designed for motion photography. Like the $6,000 4/3" format Panasonic camcorder using a modified GH1 sensor. Modifications could be made to the sensor "toppings" to improve performance over a still/digital combo-cam:
1. Adapt the optical low pass filter to video resolution (so too much blurring for still images), to reduce aliasing.
2. If line skipping is needed to get adequate read rates, modify the Bayer CFA so that every second line can be read instead of every third:
GRGR
XXXX
BGBG
XXXX
with "X" for lines not read. This improves resolution, light gathering, and aliasing compared to reading every third line, as all DSLRs seem to do so far.
3. Elongate the micro-lenses to have them spread out over part of the unread lines above and below each read line, to divert light from the unread lines into the read lines and so improve sensitivity.
Panasonic seems to be doing (1), but I would be pleasantly surprised if it does either of the others.
-
Right here (http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/). And here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/). And here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430357/). And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally).
What surprises me is how much of that is not just digital, but also 2/3" format rather than any of the various cine-35mm format digital options that have been around for several years. Even Avatar apparently, where the budget would seem enough to have used a larger format.
-
Feppe, I know films get shot digitaly. I'm saying, where is the push coming from? I see a push coming from ad agencies and small production companies like mine, shooting commercials, music videos, in store POS displays, etc. There is no push to shoot digitaly in features, unless the director and DP want to.
That's cool if you disagree, and I know you cited to Wikipedia and all, but from where I sit, there is no burning desire by anyone making features to give up 35 film.
-
Gotta imagine these guys have some industry cred ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4xqrXcuTU0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4xqrXcuTU0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJqs1-dFEXE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJqs1-dFEXE)
Mark
-
Feppe, I know films get shot digitaly. I'm saying, where is the push coming from? I see a push coming from ad agencies and small production companies like mine, shooting commercials, music videos, in store POS displays, etc. There is no push to shoot digitaly in features, unless the director and DP want to.
That's cool if you disagree, and I know you cited to Wikipedia and all, but from where I sit, there is no burning desire by anyone making features to give up 35 film.
Oh noes, I had a wikipedia link to a list of movies shot digitally, that really killed the credibility. How will I ever get over the shame and ridicule?! Why does almost every disagreement on this forum have to spiral into a mudslinging contest?
Look, shooting features is a business, and although I'm not in that business as a bean counter anymore, the push is most certainly coming from the bean counters because it's cheaper and faster, and the audience doesn't care as long as they're entertained. As Mark's links and the House interview prove there are creative pros who push as well due to the unique capabilities of digital.
You can disagree all you want, but digital is here to stay, and its market share will grow faster and faster in all applications, including features.
-
..... but from where I sit, there is no burning desire by anyone making features to give up 35 film.
Was there a real burning desire for still shooters to go digital a few years back? As much as I embraced it back then, I really felt forced by market conditions and trying really hard to be future proof. Does the same apply now to motion?
-
Was there a real burning desire for still shooters to go digital a few years back? As much as I embraced it back then, I really felt forced by market conditions and trying really hard to be future proof. Does the same apply now to motion?
I felt pushed by clients and competition to shoot digital. For personal and editorial I still shoot film. But as you know, in a commercial context film is just gone for 99.9% of projects.
-
I didn't mean to insult you. Seriously. I ribbed you on wikipedia because, you know, it's wikipedia but I didn't mean anything by it.
Oh noes, I had a wikipedia link to a list of movies shot digitally, that really killed the credibility. How will I ever get over the shame and ridicule?! Why does almost every disagreement on this forum have to spiral into a mudslinging contest?
Look, shooting features is a business, and although I'm not in that business as a bean counter anymore, the push is most certainly coming from the bean counters because it's cheaper and faster, and the audience doesn't care as long as they're entertained. As Mark's links and the House interview prove there are creative pros who push as well due to the unique capabilities of digital.
You can disagree all you want, but digital is here to stay, and its market share will grow faster and faster in all applications, including features.
-
I didn't mean to insult you. Seriously. I ribbed you on wikipedia because, you know, it's wikipedia but I didn't mean anything by it.
Fair enough. Ridiculing wikipedia is sooo 2009 Besides, it's just a list of movies so it should be a bit more valid than some wildly editorialized commentary on the auteur theory.
-
My guess is that there is great potential for combining the cost efficiencies of using a relatively high volume still camera sensor instead of a dedicated video sensor, in a body designed for motion photography. Like the $6,000 4/3" format Panasonic camcorder using a modified GH1 sensor. Modifications could be made to the sensor "toppings" to improve performance over a still/digital combo-cam:
1. Adapt the optical low pass filter to video resolution (so too much blurring for still images), to reduce aliasing.
2. If line skipping is needed to get adequate read rates, modify the Bayer CFA so that every second line can be read instead of every third:
GRGR
XXXX
BGBG
XXXX
with "X" for lines not read. This improves resolution, light gathering, and aliasing compared to reading every third line, as all DSLRs seem to do so far.
3. Elongate the micro-lenses to have them spread out over part of the unread lines above and below each read line, to divert light from the unread lines into the read lines and so improve sensitivity.
Panasonic seems to be doing (1), but I would be pleasantly surprised if it does either of the others.
When you line skip, it's like having a very low fill factor in that direction, and that actually increases the sensor part of the MTF, making aliasing stronger, meaning you don't just need an OLPF set to the new pixel pitch, but a stronger one even still. That means you're either going to be very blurry, or still have significant aliasing. Instead of line skipping, the solution is larger pixels. However, because of the losses of proper optical low pass filtering, you're going to get a soft 1080p if that's all the pixels you have, even though they're now larger. Arguably, the result is better than the line skipping, but it's still hardly optimum.
Who really know what Panasonic is trying - they did say in their presentation that it was the ND filter that removed the aliasing, but Jan from Panasonic corrected that gaff on the DVXUser forums.
In the end, there is no easy shortcut to the best of image quality.
Graeme
-
Feppe, I know films get shot digitaly. I'm saying, where is the push coming from? I see a push coming from ad agencies and small production companies like mine, shooting commercials, music videos, in store POS displays, etc. There is no push to shoot digitaly in features, unless the director and DP want to.
That's cool if you disagree, and I know you cited to Wikipedia and all, but from where I sit, there is no burning desire by anyone making features to give up 35 film.
For some, they actually appreciate the aesthetic we provide to them in the image: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44152 (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44152) and for others, they just don't like the grain of film, finding that it pulls them out of the story, rather than bringing them deeper into it.
But really, we're not out to kill film, or diminish the aesthetic of film, but to just do the best digital we can.
Graeme
-
Thanks for the reply Graeme: I was hoping for feedback from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
When you line skip, it's like having a very low fill factor in that direction, and that actually increases the sensor part of the MTF, making aliasing stronger, meaning you don't just need an OLPF set to the new pixel pitch, but a stronger one even still. ... Instead of line skipping, the solution is larger pixels.
Agreed that line-skipping is still a compromise resulting from trying to adapt a sensor designed for one purpose (stills) to the different needs of another (motion). And it might be that quite soon (maybe as soon as the forthcoming Sony APS-C HD EXMOR sensor?), some "primarily stills with video on the side" camera sensors will read all photosites and use suitable binning in video mode.
I was only thinking about sensors that cannot read all photosites at video frame rates, and speculating on how with them one could mitigate the problems that arise with the current combination of (a.) reading only every third line and (b.) using an OLPF deigned for the needs of the higher still resolution.
Do you think I right or wrong that
(a.) reading every second line instead of every third, and
(b.) using a stronger OLPF than in a still camera
could improve the situation, by raising the sampling frequency while lower the maximum frequency present in the sampled signal?
And what about my other idea of
(c.) microlenses extending over the unread lines
Does that not increase the fill factor, and so partially offset the increased MTF and its aliasing effect? (If is is doable at all!)
-
Thanks for the reply Graeme: I was hoping for feedback from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
Agreed that line-skipping is still a compromise resulting from trying to adapt a sensor designed for one purpose (stills) to the different needs of another (motion). And it might be that quite soon (maybe as soon as the forthcoming Sony APS-C HD EXMOR sensor?), some "primarily stills with video on the side" camera sensors will read all photosites and use suitable binning in video mode.
I was only thinking about sensors that cannot read all photosites at video frame rates, and speculating on how with them one could mitigate the problems that arise with the current combination of (a.) reading only every third line and (b.) using an OLPF deigned for the needs of the higher still resolution.
Do you think I right or wrong that
(a.) reading every second line instead of every third, and
(b.) using a stronger OLPF than in a still camera
could improve the situation, by raising the sampling frequency while lower the maximum frequency present in the sampled signal?
And what about my other idea of
(c.) microlenses extending over the unread lines
Does that not increase the fill factor, and so partially offset the increased MTF and its aliasing effect? (If is is doable at all!)
a.) requires a stills sensor that's a bit faster than one that reads every 3rd line. Yes, you'd have to use a different colour filter array pattern, and you'd therefore be limiting it's stills capabilities. End result would be better than they do today for video, worse for stills.
b.) putting a special "extra" OLPF for video would help, but could not eliminate the aliasing without introducing too much blur. Also, would have to be tuned differently for horizontal than vertical.
c.) a swap in array of micro-lenses, if such a thing is possible, would probably help better than b.)
Graeme
-
Graeme, my point was that, in budgeted features, no one is forcing anyone to shoot digital, its really an aesthetic choice or a choice dictated by practicalities of the production, unlike the tsunami that digital was in the stills world, where every commercial client demanded it almost over night.
I like Red files, I like how smooth they are w/o being sterile, how well they take to being color graded. I dig it. I also like grain, because I think images should be like memory and dreams, which are all confused, unreal, soft, etc. I also like Duras, Proust and Sarah Moon, so there you have it.
For some, they actually appreciate the aesthetic we provide to them in the image: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44152 (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44152) and for others, they just don't like the grain of film, finding that it pulls them out of the story, rather than bringing them deeper into it.
But really, we're not out to kill film, or diminish the aesthetic of film, but to just do the best digital we can.
Graeme
-
Graeme, my point was that, in budgeted features, no one is forcing anyone to shoot digital, its really an aesthetic choice or a choice dictated by practicalities of the production, unlike the tsunami that digital was in the stills world, where every commercial client demanded it almost over night.
I like Red files, I like how smooth they are w/o being sterile, how well they take to being color graded. I dig it. I also like grain, because I think images should be like memory and dreams, which are all confused, unreal, soft, etc. I also like Duras, Proust and Sarah Moon, so there you have it.
I've not seen any commercial pressure on features to shoot digitally. Usually it is chosen for aesthetic reasons, or the challenge of the new, or to try something different. I think the commercial pressure on use of film will come from the projection side of things, which will in-turn make shooting film increasingly more expensive. Now, I've seen film projected at it's best, and it's night and day different from what you see in your local cinema, but even on the third run through of watching the print, it was starting to deteriorate.
Graeme