Vincent Laforet Canon D5 MKII Film

Oedipax said:
Holds up really well when there are some bumps on the car rig shots and the shaky handheld stuff from the helicopter.
Click to expand...


sorry to upset a fanboy like you but they're using gyro stabilizers

the most expensive stuff available

nothing is handheld. you think canon is really that stupid to take handheld shots?

at least watch the credits. get it?
 
I find it shallow to consider the dvx as revolutionary as it was solely because of it's ability to shoot 24p. This camera combined a number of elements to spark such an indie boon. It was affordable, lightweight, sturdy... It performed well in low light conditions considering it's competition (the pd150, right?), and it gave you xlr inputs all for under 3k. The dvx did not look like film, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself in your sleep. What it did well, though, was provide a unique affordable image that was intensely reliable. I think the dvx made the splash that it did because it provided a superior, unique image and allowed a person to fill a back pack with batteries and tapes and not miss a beat over a 12 hour period. Part of this equation is 24p certainly, but had the camera failed to deliver in other ways, it would have been worthless to most. This then, appealed to a new video audience, the resourceful.

The HVX, it's successor, is a camera of sacrifices. Everything that it does well is at the cost of something that made the dvx what it was. Sure, it shoots 720p or variable frame rates, but at the cost of time and low light performance. With the dvx I wouldn't think twice about shooting in a darker setting, with the HVX I straight up would not go. I'm personally exhausted with the amount of work required to get a professional image out of the HVX, although it's worth it. The fact that a professional image can be coerced out of it at all is testament to it's use as an indie camera. But, now I shoot differently. I arrange for more lights. I shoot in less than 12 minute chunks because of the p2 workflow. I need a laptop.

I'm probably going to buy the 5D mark II and sell the hvx for a few reasons. First, the 24p cadence is a non issue for me. I consider the image as a whole, and the footage from the canon has this hyperrealism that is seductive and intensely unique. It shoots 1920X1080, which simply means more money for me. People want the biggest image they can get, for better or worse. Finally, and most importantly, this camera is more like the dvx than the hvx. It's incredibly portable. It's image is unique and (seemingly) reliable. It will shoot in low light conditions. It will shoot in low light conditions. It will shoot in low light conditions. I'm tired of throwing 20 thousand dollars of studio lighting at a subject just get an acceptable hd image. Of course, the one major sacrifice I will be making is having to record audio onto a separate source. Meh.

At worst, using a camera like this will challenge my preconceived notions about filmmaking, and allow me to work in unique ways. This is not a movie solution, or an acceptable solution for a professional production house. This is an interesting and cheap option for the broke and resourceful filmmaker.
 
If you want to shoot something professional you need to use professional support equipment so there is nothing wrong to use gyro stabilizers, actually good for them that they did it like that. That shows everybody a pro at work. The lens is tilt and shift I believe is called. Laforet did a great job with the camera. Kudos to him. BTW I am not buying the camera I just have to give credit where credit is due. Go NYC, you looked beautiful once again.
 
here's your "handheld" footage



here's the freaky dof (what were they thinking? vignette blurring?)


watch the heli panorama. there is visible chroma and luma noise. that is completely not usable stuff at full res
 
Last edited:
mcshyd said:
I find it shallow to consider the dvx as revolutionary as it was solely because of it's ability to shoot 24p.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was revolutionary for that very reason. The Sony PD-150 is a solidly built camera, that does pretty well at spanking other camcorders at low light performance (including the DVX). The DVX was closer to $4,000 when it came out and I would bet most people on this forum, at least those older members bought it for well above $3,000.

For my money, I will NEVER buy a camera from here on out without 24p for narrative purposes.

Canon really needs to address this issue soon. Like, yesterday.
 
William_Robinette said:
Nope, it was revolutionary for that very reason. The Sony PD-150 is a solidly built camera, that does pretty well at spanking other camcorders at low light performance (including the DVX). The DVX was closer to $4,000 when it came out and I would bet most people on this forum, at least those older members bought it for well above $3,000.

For my money, I will NEVER buy a camera from here on out without 24p for narrative purposes.

Canon really needs to address this issue soon. Like, yesterday.
Click to expand...


I guess I was late to the game. Fair enough. People have been trying to sell me on the pro's of the pd150 for years and I always thought the image was pure garbage. I think I'm done with fixed lenses.
 
ando said:
canon spent many many $ for this shot to be perfect.
add the money for drugs so vincent dude would say 5dmk2 rules any $100k camera and you get a big budget for marketing

this camera has to sell at all costs. who cares there's jello in vincent's heli shots? who cares you can see noise in night shots at 700 res?
it's a canon

until then i enjoy this http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2008/09/21/547601.html
Click to expand...


I'll have to watch it again for noise aka grain.

But, the helicopter shot didn't jellocam.

It vibrated and shook laterally because our man had only one gyro.

I've always seen helicopter shots use dual axis gyro. 2 gyros like a +
 
ando said:
the budget was way over what they say it was

you don't advertise a 2600 camera with a 10k budget.
you pay at least 100k for that
Click to expand...

His budget was in all probability $5K and some said he OVERSPENT on the Helicopter ride.


What was not calculated was the cost of his Camera 2999 and glass 125,000+++


But still. Great little video.
 
Arrik said:
Yeah, it depends on the content as well imo.

I just played it for my roommate who doesnt know squat about film. He couldnt tell that there was anything "not filmic" about it even though I told him in advanced to look for it. Afterwards, I explained cadence and persistence of vision and all that boring stuff. Then I showed him a film sequence in 24p and then went back and replayed Vincent's piece so he can see the difference.

He says he prefers the motion of 30p. I asked him would he watch a movie that looks like that. He said he would.

But hes a friggin' moron. :) I still want 24p!!!
Click to expand...


YEP!


I like Both.


I think we will transition into 30p+ though.
 
frisco said:
Put it this way......

If it dosn't work in 30P............ There is nothing about 24P thats gonna make it any better.

Allot of people on this forum try and hide bad film making behind 24fps and 35mm lens adapters.

frisco
Click to expand...


OUCH!


A+++++++ for cutting it down to the bone!
 
f64manray said:
Yep, that's what I'm thinking. I saw a chick do some fascinating things with a Mountain Dew bottle in a video once, and I didn't even notice it wasn't in 24p. I rest my case. Content is everything.
Click to expand...


I've been waiting three days to say that!


Just couldn't figure a way to put it so succinctly. :beer:
 
Agreed. But I'm in PAL-lando. 25p is SOOOOO useful here, you just can't play 30p on a local TV. So, Canon, pleeeeaaaasse, give us here in Europe 25p!!!! ...:crybaby:
 
Kholi said:
I just did a quick test this way: 30p > 60p Export in Quicktime Pro then 60p > 24p Export in Quicktime pro.

=T I don't know how willing I would be to do the work around but it looks pretty much right by me, man.
Click to expand...


What did you use for each step?

Sound was still good?
 
joe 1008 said:
Agreed. But I'm in PAL-lando. 25p is SOOOOO useful here, you just can't play 30p on a local TV. So, Canon, pleeeeaaaasse, give us here in Europe 25p!!!! ...:crybaby:
Click to expand...

You do deserve 25p!!! :-)

Hopefully they implement all the major/significant exhibition supported frame rates.
 
Does anyone here have experience with Adobe onlocation and/or know if they have updated it to use inputs other than firewire? I can't seem to find the specs document for cs4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top