Citizen Shane - Interview With Shane Hurlbut

D

Dailey Pike

New member
Shane Hurlbut talks about HDSLRs, sustainable ("green") filmmaking, native ISOs, reducing noise and gives his best advice for aspiring filmmakers.

[video]http://vimeo.com/groups/5dmkii/videos/16049056[/video]
 
The guy as always, is inspirational. He says at the beginning of November, he will be making the rounds at different agencies explaining the benefits of the 5DII in production. I imagine someone like him telling a producer "You know that 30 million dollar film you're doing? I can turn it in for 10-15 million." will have a great impact.

The part where he was saying that he was under a NDA for the last 8 months with Cinnafilm was interesting. That should answer alot of peoples questions about how he does what he does without incurring the wrath of the 5DII's codec as others have. Dark Energy Technology sounds like an amazing product, but I wonder how much it will be needed when the next generation of Digic V cameras come. Digic V is supposed to be centered around processing video, and it's rumored to be the reason the 1DsIV wasn't announced at Photokina this year. It's delayed because it's not ready yet. In other words, in their next generation cameras (Digic V) Canon is actually trying. If the 5DII is the result of not trying in the FF video realm, your heart can't help but beat just a little faster when they are actually going to try to respond to this HDSLR video craze.
 
Last edited:
You see people writing about how the HDSLR thing is just a 'fad' to be replaced by 'real cameras'.

But it implies that the DSLR manufacturers will just stand still and not innovate or progress. That they won't themselves develop this 'fad'.
 
f64manray said:
The guy as always, is inspirational. He says at the beginning of November, he will be making the rounds at different agencies explaining the benefits of the 5DII in production. I imagine someone like him telling a producer "You know that 30 million dollar film you're doing? I can turn it in for 10-15 million." will have a great impact.
Click to expand...

God, I'm sorry this is just complete FUD. Yes - let's convince people that you can make large scale studio films on a too-small, 8 bit, highly compressed camera with a too-large sensor and shitty compression, as well as the sensor technology of three years ago.

Yes, you can shoot a film with these cameras. I was the first person to do it. Twice. First on the 5DII, first on the 7D.

You can take a Prius to a D1 drift competition, and you'll use less gas - but how is it going to perform at the end of the day?

Do I recommend it? Absolutely not. If you have no other option to use - then go ahead.
Prepare to deal with an S-Load of problems. You might save a few bucks up front, but you'll spend a LOT of time and money in post conforming and fixing problems.
 
andrew00 said:
You see people writing about how the HDSLR thing is just a 'fad' to be replaced by 'real cameras'.

But it implies that the DSLR manufacturers will just stand still and not innovate or progress. That they won't themselves develop this 'fad'.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as I try to project what will come in the future of DSLR cams as I look at whats coming with the AF100 and whether I should purchase that, I just don't see the DSLR offering on board audio with anywhere near the fuctionality of the AF100.
 
Even though I am buy a AF-100 I will be keeping my DSLR. Well I might be selling my 7D and buying a 60D. Spec wise they are pretty much the same but the 60d is lighter and less expensive. I am looking to get into remote Helicopter shooting and the 60d will make for some great aerial shots. I will be using my DSLR camera for shots I would never be able to achieve with a bigger camera like the AF-100 due to small budgets projects. Will just have to pick my shots carefully.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
God, I'm sorry this is just complete FUD. Yes - let's convince people that you can make large scale studio films on a too-small, 8 bit, highly compressed camera with a too-large sensor and shitty compression, as well as the sensor technology of three years ago.

Yes, you can shoot a film with these cameras. I was the first person to do it. Twice. First on the 5DII, first on the 7D.

You can take a Prius to a D1 drift competition, and you'll use less gas - but how is it going to perform at the end of the day?

Do I recommend it? Absolutely not. If you have no other option to use - then go ahead.
Prepare to deal with an S-Load of problems. You might save a few bucks up front, but you'll spend a LOT of time and money in post conforming and fixing problems.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with your two 5DII/7D features. I would love to get the titles so I can rent them off Net Flix. FUD, I believe references Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt. I would say Hurlbut is spreading exactly the opposite. He is spreading joy, certainty, and no doubt that this can in fact be done. He has the cred to back it up. He has screened parts of Acts of Valor for Imax exhibitors, and they were nothing short of blown away. The proof will be in his pudding. If it looks like dog poo, he will be the biggest laughing stock of his profession. If it looks incredible, I think he will have producers knocking down his door to turn their 60 day shooting schedule into a 30 day schedule. He would have to be a fool to promise something he couldn't deliver. If he can take that compromised codec and somehow match it to the same quality as 35mm on the big screen, I hardly think the industry will give a rats ass if he's using Cinnafilm or candles, dancing in a circle chanting some voodoo spell while sticking pins in a Jim Jannard doll.
 
Regarding the question - which camera to buy?

Ask yourself - what are my goals?

Can you rent one of the cameras or borrow from a friend for a weekend? Hands on testing is the only way to see what meets your own needs. Shane gets great results because he is a veteran cameraman, an he has a lot of gear, money, help and time. His experience is not my experience or your experience. Reviews are only words, hands on tests will show you what you need and want from a camera system.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
Winter nights (worlds first
On 7D):
http://www.theaspectratio.net/WinterNightsLog8.htm

Read the log to see dates
Of production. It is on the festival circuit Now.

The Louisiana Conversation. (5D2 - worlds first). These guys ran out of funds after photography completed and have disappeared mysteriously. At least I got paid ;)
http://thelouisianaconversation.com/
Click to expand...

Hey, nice looking stuff! The form factor and relative ease of use will always have their place. Like around my neck.

But I do tend to agree, studios will be the last people to adopt anything new. No, it's up to the DPs who, one movie at a time, continue whatever revolution has started.
 
Does he describe his "SEAL RAW" in any greater detail? While you can copy the Neutral settings, it doesn't tell you what his curve looks like in the Canon software...
 
f64manray said:
He says at the beginning of November, he will be making the rounds at different agencies explaining the benefits of the 5DII in production. I imagine someone like him telling a producer "You know that 30 million dollar film you're doing? I can turn it in for 10-15 million." will have a great impact.
Click to expand...

If you think camera equipment costs 50% or more of a large budget film, you're unfortunately very mistaken. On a big budget production, the camera package is actually a small portion of the budget. None-the-less producers do look to save money in every department. But don't think a top of the line Panavision package costs 10 million dollars per studio feature. :) If that were the case, Panavision's accounting books would look a lot better than they do now.

This is why many large productions will not switch to DSLR's as their main camera... because the money they save won't be worth sacrificing the best tools for the production. They have money and they want the best. DSLR's are not the best, not close. They are good for specific and valid reasons, like small quarters, crash cams, etc. DSLR's have their place, and have opened the door to many who can afford a $1,500 - $3,000 cameras, but it's not for the bigger productions who can afford the best quality. It might be used for B-unit, pickups, timelapses, small quarter shots, risky shots, underwater and more... but as a main show A-camera, you won't see it commonplace. Not with how DSLR's are now.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
If you think camera equipment costs 50% or more of a large budget film, you're unfortunately very mistaken. On a big budget production, the camera package is actually a small portion of the budget. None-the-less producers do look to save money in every department. But don't think a top of the line Panavision package costs 10 million dollars per studio feature. :) If that were the case, Panavision's accounting books would look a lot better than they do now.

This is why many large productions will not switch to DSLR's as their main camera... because the money they save won't be worth sacrificing the best tools for the production. They have money and they want the best. DSLR's are not the best, not close. They are good for specific and valid reasons, like small quarters, crash cams, etc. DSLR's have their place, and have opened the door to many who can afford a $1,500 - $3,000 cameras, but it's not for the bigger productions who can afford the best quality. It might be used for B-unit, pickups, timelapses, small quarter shots, risky shots, underwater and more... but as a main show A-camera, you won't see it commonplace. Not with how DSLR's are now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. DSLR can make good sense for low budget stuff (under $100K) but once you're in that $100K+ ballpark for a film (still incredibly tiny) you're starting to talk about real money being on the table and it just doesn't make any sense to go for something like a DSLR over say, a Red One, or an Alexa, or a Panavision package unless you need the DSLR for shots that you can't get otherwise...and even if you do need that shot, rent a 5Dmkii for a day for that shot and shoot the rest on something more robust.

I just don't get why people think HDSLRs ought to be used to shoot everything, top to bottom, big hollywood or not - they're good cameras, no doubt, but they're certainly not the best available and that's not something difficult to see. It's beyond me that given the option, all else being equal and assuming that both rigs could do the job, why someone would want to shoot on a DSLR over a Red/Alexa/Super35...etc. etc. I really like DSLRs and they make great sense on a small production, but so much of this talk lately is just madness. If I had a bigger budget on the feature I'm in production on right now you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be shooting it on a hacked GH1 and a 7D!
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
If you think camera equipment costs 50% or more of a large budget film, you're unfortunately very mistaken. On a big budget production, the camera package is actually a small portion of the budget. None-the-less producers do look to save money in every department. But don't think a top of the line Panavision package costs 10 million dollars per studio feature. :) If that were the case, Panavision's accounting books would look a lot better than they do now.

This is why many large productions will not switch to DSLR's as their main camera... because the money they save won't be worth sacrificing the best tools for the production. They have money and they want the best. DSLR's are not the best, not close. They are good for specific and valid reasons, like small quarters, crash cams, etc. DSLR's have their place, and have opened the door to many who can afford a $1,500 - $3,000 cameras, but it's not for the bigger productions who can afford the best quality. It might be used for B-unit, pickups, timelapses, small quarter shots, risky shots, underwater and more... but as a main show A-camera, you won't see it commonplace. Not with how DSLR's are now.
Click to expand...

exactly. even on a small production, the camera doesnt eat a big part of the budget.
its manpower that you have to pay for every day of shoot. thats worth a lot more
 
Yes, all have seem to forgotten that the money saving part isn't because of the equipment being used, it's because the working methodology has changed. Hurlbut is pushing what is the true strength of DSLR's: Multicam. By shooting with simultaneous camera positions (sometimes up to 15) he can save in terms of workdays. Certain films can be shot therefore in half the time they used to. This means that the most expensive part - which is crew and production costs as well as logistics is cut in half.
 
Adjusting the picture style turns iso 160 into iso 640? Pull the other one.

I thought shooting iso 160 320 640 etc had less noise at the expense of a 1/3 stop reduction in dynamic range, and you are actually best to shoot 100, 200, 400 etc.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Yes, all have seem to forgotten that the money saving part isn't because of the equipment being used, it's because the working methodology has changed. Hurlbut is pushing what is the true strength of DSLR's: Multicam. By shooting with simultaneous camera positions (sometimes up to 15) he can save in terms of workdays. Certain films can be shot therefore in half the time they used to. This means that the most expensive part - which is crew and production costs as well as logistics is cut in half.
Click to expand...

Its still hard to use dslrs for multicam. Dpending on how will you shoot it... Syncing them would be a *****
 
yoclay said:
Yes, all have seem to forgotten that the money saving part isn't because of the equipment being used, it's because the working methodology has changed. Hurlbut is pushing what is the true strength of DSLR's: Multicam. By shooting with simultaneous camera positions (sometimes up to 15) he can save in terms of workdays. Certain films can be shot therefore in half the time they used to. This means that the most expensive part - which is crew and production costs as well as logistics is cut in half.
Click to expand...

Yes, because running more cameras doesn't require more crew? What, these cameras suddenly run, and prep themselves? Or is the idea that now that "the people's camera" can make movies we can suddenly get any joe shmo to shoot a movie, and they will happily do it for free? This is the mentality that has dominated the "intern" aspect of motion pictures for years, now it looks like it might be perverting the notion of how cameras should be handled.

Sorry, but this is a Straw Man argument. Having more cameras requires more crew, not less.

The advantage of these small cameras is that they can be creatively used in many ways. They are not a replacement for a studio camera, but rather make a nice additional tool to add to any craftsman's kit. You have to be willing to make and accept certain sacrifices. it's a deal with the devil and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
....This is why many large productions will not switch to DSLR's as their main camera... because the money they save won't be worth sacrificing the best tools for the production. They have money and they want the best. DSLR's are not the best, not close. They are good for specific and valid reasons, like small quarters, crash cams, etc. DSLR's have their place, and have opened the door to many who can afford a $1,500 - $3,000 cameras, but it's not for the bigger productions who can afford the best quality. It might be used for B-unit, pickups, timelapses, small quarter shots, risky shots, underwater and more... but as a main show A-camera, you won't see it commonplace. Not with how DSLR's are now.
Click to expand...

does anyone know why george lucas hired phillip bloom to come film and show him how the 5dm2 looked/worked . . AND . . on his 40' viewing screen and apparently came away with a new view and rumors began flowing that lucas was at work on something digital ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top