pretty nice music video with 5DII

F

f64manray

Well-known member
It seems like you could do a feature with this camera or am I wrong? After reading about how James Cameron is so annoyed with 24 fps, and pushing for 48 fps at 2K as the new shooting format, I think I'm okay with 30 fps. I'm so easily influenced ;-)

One of the best videos with the 5DII to dat, IMO.

http://www.paulwardphotography.com/video.htm
 
Of course you can do a feature with the 5D. Whoever says otherwise will be proven wrong very soon. The Tell Me What You Want video is proof of that. It looks great. There will be many people that won't stop to complain about about the shortcomings of the camera and work around them. These are the people who are real innovators and risk takers.
The look of the images remind me of the CSI shows. It is rich, sharp and the DOF to boot. 30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't. They can't even tell the difference. Especially with those sharp new HD tvs. They just see a crystal clear image with beautiful colors. You will start seeing more and more productions done with this camera very soon.
 
I've done still photography for so long, the 5DII makes my heart beat faster thinking this amazing color rendition, contrast and low light ability will be available at a fairly reasonable cost to make my moving pictures a reality. I think this is going to cost me about $6,500 between the 5DII kit and the new Imac to edit, but I feel it will be worth it.
 
mattsand said:
48 fps can easily be converted to 24, 25, 50 and to a degree 60 fps. there's nothing wrong with 30 fps except it's incompatible with almost everything.

/matt
Click to expand...

Yep, that's why he wants to shoot at 48fps, so it can be converted to 24 fps for the international market which will lag behind for some time before it catches up, but with the new projectors he wants his stuff to be projected at 48fps. 48fps makes a good transition format between the old and the new.

I seriously doubt if film makers had today's technology in the 1920's we would even be discussing 24 fps as a preferred frame rate for movies. It seems it's good for only one thing: saving money on film cost over 48fps, but shooting on hard drives is changing all that pretty quickly it seems.

I would imagine that the new projectors would accept all frame rates.
 
John Caballero said:
30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It's not the look that's the problem, it's the huge technical hurdle of converting it to a viable screening format. If the audience doesn't even get to see you film don't you think they'll care?!? /matt
 
Projectors already support 30p but good luck approaching a distributor saying "by the way, it's in 30p". How are they going to make a print? How are they going to make masters for pal broadcast? Or worse how are you going to, because they'll demand it? I'm sure there will be a few cool films shot on the 5d but it's just counterproductive to ignore the real problem. /matt
 
Horrible video.

Rudimentary idea, awful lighting, looked like a commercial for a kitchen and bathroom retailer.

Employing about the most basic aspirational 'lifestyle' gimmicks you could dream up, girl playing snooker in her underwear in nice apartment. Tedious.

The music is little better, it could have well been produced by any number of competent studio engineers 10 years ago.


Absolute rubbish.

:)
 
Lee Wilson said:
Horrible video.

Rudimentary idea, awful lighting, looked like a commercial for a kitchen and bathroom retailer.

Employing about the most basic aspirational 'lifestyle' gimmicks you could dream up, girl playing snooker in her underwear in nice apartment. Tedious.

The music is little better, it could have well been produced by any number of competent studio engineers 10 years ago.


Absolute rubbish.

:)
Click to expand...

I thought the video was alright, but I have one Huge complaint about it.

At the beginning there is a rack focus that is off. (And this just isn't an artistic opinion.) He focused on the phone (then ring), the focus on the girl, then focus back on the phone.

It should have been, focus on the girl (then ring), then focus on the phone, then on the girl.

Why would you focus on the phone before it rings?

Anyways, I was impressed by the rest of the video, but that simple flaw ruined any experience for me.
 
As Matt said: FPS is more about distribution than anything else.

If your working on a project that is going straight to web, FPS does not matter that much. Unless your going for that cinematic look, than 24p is your best bet.
 
It is good that everything is a matter of opinion and the one that counts the most is from the general audience watching the video and buying the records. I could bet you the fans love it because it looks and sounds excellent. Again, kudos to the guys that go out and do something, not the critics which usually don't accomplish much on their own. Isn't that almost always the case? The guy that did this one is garnering attention, others, well, just criticizing. You have to give credit to the doers and ignore the naysayers. Lack of "cinematic look"? What a joke.
 
John Caballero said:
It is good that everything is a matter of opinion and the one that counts the most is from the general audience watching the video and buying the records. I could bet you the fans love it because it looks and sounds excellent. Again, kudos to the guys that go out and do something, not the critics which usually don't accomplish much on their own. Isn't that almost always the case? The guy that did this one is garnering attention, others, well, just criticizing. You have to give credit to the doers and ignore the naysayers. Lack of "cinematic look"? What a joke.
Click to expand...

You have good points. I don't think it lacked a cinematic look. The video was good. It was just the rack focus that bothered me.

On the other hand. It's good to criticize each others works though. That's the only way change happens.

And thanks to the OP for sharing the work, I always like to see what can be done.
 
Your point about the rack focus is totally valid, I was not talking about that. The point I was making is that saying that the piece was a horrible video, blah, blah is not constructive criticism at all. Thats an opinion that I am sure the general audience, which it is targeted for, wouldn't give two cents about. It is good to criticize each others work but it is better to reconize that the person that took the time, effort, money and knowledge to create something with a new tool deserves 100% credit for his/her accomplishment. Heck, if I was going to criticize some work I've seen around done with the Red One, a $30,000 camera, it wouldn't be a polite critic because to tell you the truth a lot of it truly stinks. The fact is that a lot of people are going to get very angry because more proffesional and well produce stuff is going to continue coming out from the 5dM2 and being accepted by the public, 30 FPS or not. Bad compression or not.
 
Again the audience is not looking at 30 FPS, they don't even know. They are looking at the whole concept. I think is excellent because it connects with the target audience. How many people have experienced the fact that you had a fight or disagreement with your mate and when you call all you get is an answering machine. I think singing into it is brilliant. Then you have sharp images, great colors, good lighting, a beautiful girl and a cool singer. Again, excellent way to show off the cameras abilities. And all for the target audience.
 
John Caballero said:
Of course you can do a feature with the 5D. Whoever says otherwise will be proven wrong very soon. The Tell Me What You Want video is proof of that. It looks great. There will be many people that won't stop to complain about about the shortcomings of the camera and work around them. These are the people who are real innovators and risk takers.
The look of the images remind me of the CSI shows. It is rich, sharp and the DOF to boot. 30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't. They can't even tell the difference. Especially with those sharp new HD tvs. They just see a crystal clear image with beautiful colors. You will start seeing more and more productions done with this camera very soon.
Click to expand...

i'm curious what difference you perceive between this and the D90, which you've asserted no serious filmmaker would attempt to make a feature-length motion picture with?
 
Last edited:
...the video could use some work...agree, but we have to bring on the table constructive criticism and encourage creativity(not so harsh)...practice can only make us better ;)

On a general note,I took the liberty to convert the video 30p to 24p trough twixtor.Result here:http://vimeo.com/2799166

To convert the entire thing in AE render time: 15-20min.The clip is trimmed so I can fit in 500mb of vimeo.

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top