Anyone know what camera set up this is in this video?

FWIW, the original 2013 BMD Cinema Camera (2.5K) were more popular in smaller non-US markets. Hollywood pro sets by then had their choice of Alexa, Red, F-65, F-55 and F5. And they overwhelmingly chose Alexa. Panasonic 4K Varicam came out in 2016, got on a few shows. LT was a more affordable option but the big budget productions, by and large, stuck with Alexa, while reality shows went with C300 and quite a few independents opted for the various iterations of Red.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Bringing this back to the Viper, I re-watched "Collateral" tonight. I don't really think anyone would get too hyped up about the performance of the camera these days. There are some scenes with harsh highlight rolloff, color fringing in highlights, edge sharpening, and slightly blurry motion cadence typical of that generation of cameras (I struggled with all that with the F900 myself). These are not considerd "sexy" defects...yet, at least. Perhaps in the future the "2005 look" will start trending!
Click to expand...

I re-watched "Collateral" recently as well (it's a favorite of mine) and the look of it always thrills me. Michael Mann and his cinematographers really embraced the characteristics of digital in a way that, sadly, never really panned out more broadly with other filmmakers.

FWIW, I love the "2005 look"! Movies like "The World," "Miami Vice," and "Me and You and Everyone We Know" (all the F900, I believe) really have a distinct look that is lost within a few years of their release.
 
drboffa said:
I re-watched "Collateral" recently as well (it's a favorite of mine) and the look of it always thrills me. Michael Mann and his cinematographers really embraced the characteristics of digital in a way that, sadly, never really panned out more broadly with other filmmakers.

FWIW, I love the "2005 look"! Movies like "The World," "Miami Vice," and "Me and You and Everyone We Know" (all the F900, I believe) really have a distinct look that is lost within a few years of their release.
Click to expand...

I often wondered of someone shot something with the F900 today, would anyone really notice? You can tweak alot today...
 
Many would, many wouldn't. Really depends on the brain and the exposure it has had to motion pictures over the last 10-20-30+ years.

To me, there's a difference, no doubt.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Bringing this back to the Viper, I re-watched "Collateral" tonight. I don't really think anyone would get too hyped up about the performance of the camera these days. There are some scenes with harsh highlight rolloff, color fringing in highlights, edge sharpening, and slightly blurry motion cadence typical of that generation of cameras (I struggled with all that with the F900 myself). These are not considerd "sexy" defects...yet, at least. Perhaps in the future the "2005 look" will start trending!

That said, it reminded me that when "Collateral" first came out, I was blown away with the sensitivity at the bottom end. It was the first time I'd seen night skies with texture in them on screen. The city looked as it did to eye. That was a huge achievement compared to the more inky and crushed blacks in night scenes we'd seen before that.
Click to expand...

Yes I know what you're talking about, that weird motion blur it has, Collateral and Miami Vice has this look sometimes where its almost like a HD home movie feel.. that tries to correct itself back with 24p after it happens, one film shot on the F900 looked like it didnt shoot 24p at all it was called Vidocq, I dont think it did the F900 justice.
 
Honestly I don't think I'd be able to tell just off static screen shots. Or footage without much movement.

But the motion blur, to me, is distinct (and I like it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top