Bloom: 7D & 5dmkII TESTED on BIG SCREEN for Lucas. Shot / Tested at Skywalker Ranch!

tylerrad said:
If he needs something smaller, the RED Scarlet will be out in a few months...

...They aren't as small, but if Lucas needs to get in a tight space, like a car or something, I'm sure he'd have the budget to take off a door or rebuild it [as they did for Mann' Collateral], so a huge camera like the HDWF900 could be fit in--so really, that's not a serious issue.)
Click to expand...

First, it seems like people have been waiting on the Scarlett forever now. You can't just depend on something "coming out in a few months."

As for the second part I quoted, if I remember correctly, their specific interest in this case was for their upcoming feature "Redtails" which is about the Tuskegee airmen. They were looking for something for the cockpit shots. Not exactly the same as modifying a car.

I agree that some people seem overzealous about the use of these by the big time Hollywood guys, as if all of a sudden DSLRs are going to overtake the likes of Panavision, Arri, Sony, Red, etc. But nevertheless, it is pretty exciting that they are finding uses for these in their current form. That will only aid in the development and progress of future renditions.
 
... if I remember correctly, their specific interest in this case was for their upcoming feature "Redtails" which is about the Tuskegee airmen. They were looking for something for the cockpit shots.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes perfect sense. I imagine they're testing lots of small cameras for that purpose (perhaps the Scarlet too; Soderbergh got a pre-release version of the RED One for Che, so I'm sure Lucas could do the same for a Scarlet). I forgot Lucas was working on that that
 
Yeah I've been waiting for a chance to get footage like that. But I feel so much like a newb.

That equipment is so far out of my range. You can't get that equipment unless your pro, or you have money to burn on a hobby.

It's what? 7-8k worth of equipment roughly?

That's a few years of saving up, or a bank loan, or some sort of outside funding.

It must be so awesome to have access to all the equipment you want. Nice vision for the not too distant future. ( Drools)
 
It's the most mysterious thing. Other day I was shooting random outdoors videos, and the very first video I happened to do, it was just of some random ferns, but the video turned out surprisingly crystal clear and amazingly non-digital (so full of crisp life) even at full 1080P on my computer (a usually complete no-no for some reason, with my camera.). I'm not for sure if the auto-focus just did better, or if the exposure meter got lucky, or just what exactly happened, but from there on, each video I did for other random things throughout my lawn - same lighting levels, same attention to camera settings ect ect - kept yielding lower and lower sharpness quality results with each video I shot. By the time I was done, the last video I shot looked so much like plastic and play-doh that it was completely unbelieveable that it came from the same camera as the fern shot. My camera didn't overheat or anything, but the quality seemed like it did.

And even compared to all the other hundreds of test videos I've taken, it seems like this fern shot was the ONLY shot I've gotten out of my 100 or so test videos that has looked exactly comparable to the stuff seen in this thread's video. I just don't know why, I always use the right picture styles, I always expose the way the camera says to, I just don't know what could be going on, and this is the exact reason I don't like my camera. I want to even say that the crystal clear fern shot was only because I was pretty close to the ferns; close-up videos always seem pretty perfect. But by no way in heaven's name can *I* ever get sharp, life-like videos of objects from farther than just a few feet away; certainly nothing like in this thread's video with such and extreme scope of landscape shots.

I mean, I don't want to claim I know even 5% of what tips and tricks push these camera's farther than what I seem to be getting, but even with this thread's video, I want to point out that there's literally no aliasing on the roofs, textures, ect ect and I want to almost ask if multiple cameras were used in this video, not just the 7D/5D? I mean, with every single shot I ever try to do, there's alaising of some form; in the quality, in the textures, ect ect. I don't even get videos this crystal clear out of the crop mode, even those usually look pretty low quality and plastic-like....

I mean, I 100% expected a "low budget color look" from my camera even before I bought it, and yet that's the area it surprised me on. But one thing I did not expect was extreme low quality in the sharpness, detail, ect ect, and that's one thing that has completely let me down every time I see other 7D/5D footage that seems to look 100% the opposite. And I mean c'mon, this is outdoor footage, what kind of tricks could possibly be different than what I must be doing? I always have tripods, closed apetures ect ect...I just don't know. It's not that I'm trying to automatically blame my camera, but I've tried every trick in the book, and it's still the problems I've seen from day one.

This could just be where great color editing and running the videos through the right programs makes a huge difference though. I'd like to see a few of the original clip files *before the editing process*, that's fer sure! If the righting editing and programs really do make this much of a difference, then I'd no problem use these cameras for my own productions and trusting that the right corrections in post could truly fix everything. But to be honest, my mind just can't fathom it, it even seems the most advanced users here think the DSLR's are piles of malarky, the difference between noobs and seniors being that the noobs just see the quality and put it down automatically, while the seniors at least do the research as of why it looks crappy (and then still having the same opinions in the end that it sucks), but no one here seems to be getting footage as crystal clear as this. This video is not even some sort of quasi-focus-your-attention-somewhere-esle-so-that-you-don't-realize-how-bad-it-is video, it's 100% as good as anything Red seems to be able to do and to my eyes, it just looks like a completely different camera than I've ever once seen on any video across the entire internet....not accusing that of being so, just saying that I wish I knew how to even mimick this look.

P.S. Even on this video, I realistically see just a few places where a better camera *may* have helped, like say on the duck's feathers or just a few tree texture shots. But even that was just picking tiny, tiny needles in haystacks, the most questionable texture shots in this video were 100% better than anything I've ever gotten. And even then, this video is on the net, so who knows even how better the original file is, it's probably even more extraordinary. I just don't know, I wish I believed in my own camera, but I honestly believe that mine (along with possibly a whole line of these cameras) may be a bit faulty. I just can't see any other way around it through all the tests I really have done with my own camera, and I wish I didn't feel that way...

P.S.S. Two things come to mind with this video - there's not a speck of noise throughout the entire thing, and I know exactly where to look for it. There's literally none, and even the best of folks get tons of it with these cameras. And noise as a mask really degrades clarity. And I've always suspected that a whole line of T2i/7D's produce more noise than normal, though again, this video could be the work of an amazing noise-reducing editor. And 2. There seems to be little to no quality difference between the time-lapse shots and the video shots. Dunno why! You'd at least think that'd be noticeable, but even with the very first shot, the quality is so outstanding, that each object of the video (especially the tree) looks almost green-screened in because the quality is just so extraordinarily sharp. I like that. It almost looks even 3-D. It's sharp to the point it's very magical.
 
Last edited:
mm i usualy let my 550D do it all exept for focus which i always do manual, i have it set to my favourite pq look and realy like what i get from it as long as i use a tripod.
 
Does anyone have the 1.4GB download version of this film? I'd like to play it on my TV in the highest quality possible, but I cannot find a download link for it.
 
Last edited:
basspig said:
$7K is nothing. I pay more than that every year in property taxes on my house.
Click to expand...

I LOVE that statement! You think as I do. I've been busy writing script for a movie that has the absurdity of our values as a core 'anchor'. Property tax should be abolished... then we'd stop subsidizing do nothing bureaucrats and we could use the money to really boost the economy.
 
Guys today I saw an argentine short film, 'Rincón de López' at BAFICI (Buenos Aires International Independent Film Festival), I inmediately thought 'T2i/7D/5D' and I was very excited about it because it looked AWESOME. Lucas, Tarantino and Bloom already told us, of course, but I finally saw it with my own eyes. After the showing I went over to speak to the director to ask about it, and, surprise, the DP was the guy I sold my EX1 to some months ago. We talked about it and we both agreed it looked amazing.

It consisted of only two shots, but both looked great. The first shot was a close up. One very important fact was that he shot with very little depth of field, 5D + large aperture, so maybe that's why there wasn't any noticeable eyebrows or hair moire.

The second shot was a long shot, it looked really neat. It didn't seem soft at all, and I didn't see any moire.

So I left that screening really happy, and with a little bit of extra encouragement seeing what my little toy camera can look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top