5D Mark II Used in The Avengers!

eoshd has an article about this, with a bts picture... and lots of nasty comments about some famous dslr lovers
 
^ that's a stop motion film, so it uses a stills camera - one year ago, you'd be hard pressed to find a camera better suited to that task than the 5D2
 
^ that's a stop motion film, so it uses a stills camera - one year ago, you'd be hard pressed to find a camera better suited to that task than the 5D2

nice. so in effect the resolution they are working with 'raw' absolutely obliterates anything possible with even the best digital movie cameras? would be nice if they created a 5d on steroids which just shoots raw image files at 24 shots a second silently and for periods of 5mins or more
 
Seamus McGarvey (Cinematogapher said:
They are great for shooting additional angles that give film editors more options for creating powerfully immersive and kaleidoscopic views of action scenes

I'm guessing it was used for very specific purposes, perhaps not even intended to ever be shown as full frame (i.e. to get a small portion that would ultimately be composited into the full 4k frame).

I saw The Avengers in 4k and didn't notice and DSLR footage.
 
They generally get used when you want a "disposable" or small camera. Either a big risk the camera will get trashed in the shot, or we want to stick it in a very tight space.
Edit: OR have it be super light to rig it in some weird way, like at the end of a gun barrel.
 
Last edited:
reading the comments on the eoshd post, in the case of the avenger, I think it's "all of the above"
 
There was one scene towards the end where a row of cars flip over, from the pov of a camera mounted inside a car looking thru the windshield. fFinally the camera car flips over and the windshield cracks. Pretty sure that was a full frame 5D shot.
 
They generally get used when you want a "disposable" or small camera. Either a big risk the camera will get trashed in the shot, or we want to stick it in a very tight space.
Edit: OR have it be super light to rig it in some weird way, like at the end of a gun barrel.


another example from Act of Valor

helmet-cam-211.jpg
 
There was one scene towards the end where a row of cars flip over, from the pov of a camera mounted inside a car looking thru the windshield. fFinally the camera car flips over and the windshield cracks. Pretty sure that was a full frame 5D shot.

That would be a prime example of when to use one, and I think you are right. Also the added bonus of shooting through that window just to add a practical element of softer looking image.
 
I'd imagine those shots require a lot of post work: rolling shutter in that shot must have been horrible
 
BTW:
I went to the movies yesterday, to watch Dark Shadows; sat on row 7 in front of a 40' screen (i.e. close, but not too close) with a digital 2K projector; to my eyes, it looked really really soft, wide shots were muddy, even obscenely blurred when there was also camera movement; but nobody complained, they were busy enjoying the movie
I don't know about you, but it seems I've become too much of a pixel peeper

note 1: not that the image was worse than that of other films: the only difference is that this time I was there, and sitting relatively close to the huge screen
note 2: 5D3, FS100, etc, would definitely have been enough for this job... except for the codecs, which would probably have broken down under the very heavy grading in some shots (not all)
note 3: it's funny, and maybe it's just my eyes, but I think closeups of Michelle Pfeiffer were decidedly sharper than closeups of Bella Heathcote, which seemed to be never really in focus...
 
Last edited:
haha, I can imagine some of the contracts as these hollywood types get older, ok, no close ups, all lenses have to be shot wide open. Angles from better side,ect...lol
 
well, at least here it was quite the opposite: the very lovely Bella Heathcote (24) got the over-greased lenses, while the extremely sophisticated and still great-looking but not so young anymore Michelle Pfeiffer (54) got the full-resolution shots
and I think it was that way because it suits the story: Pfeiffer is the head of a now nearly lost family empire, Bella is the young governess that the family has just hired


in any case, my point is: even Pfeiffer's shots didn't look any sharper or more detailed than 5D3+sharpeninpost
 
Last edited:
note 3: it's funny, and maybe it's just my eyes, but I think closeups of Michelle Pfeiffer were decidedly sharper than closeups of Bella Heathcote, which seemed to be never really in focus...

I figure it was a combination of very soft light and on-the-lens heavy diffusion filters. Bruno Delbonnel does that. Eva Green also got this treatment in some scenes. As did lots of the 18th century scenes.
It results in a plasticky skin, almost photoshop-like. But this kinda suits the movie, with the cold ghostly skin tones and all.
 
I know, I said it was story-driven; and even though I'm sure nobody else in the theater noticed, it was somewhat distracting: conversation between Pfeiffer and Belle, two cameras, switching over-the-shoulder shots, now it's sharp, now it's soft, now it's sharp, now it's soft...
 
Back
Top