Cool short film by Thick Of It writer - shot with GH13?

[shaveblog]

http://www.electricshorts.com/vote/bistro_seangray.php

Or at least a 5D/7D? Leaving aside the excellent acting and production values, the look of this short immediately said DSLR to me when I first saw it. That razor-thin DOF is a dead giveaway. Also, undoubtedly, the budget argues strongly in DSLR's favor.

I'm going to see if the DP is available to comment. The Thick Of It is the perfect series to be shot with DSLR, but apparently the Beeb hasn't quite yet fully embraced the technology beyond a supplemental role. Maybe their recent company-wide switch from Final Cut to Premiere Pro CS5 will nudge things along. I'd love to see a new season of Thick shot with L-series glass.

 

[Matthew P]

Looks like a 5D to me, going by how shallow the DoF is, and the occasional aliasing. Also the colours sort of give it away... it looks like they've used some kind of 'superflat' profile, which has given the skin tones a peculiar look.

Still, that's just my oppinion. I could be totally wrong!

 

[chrisso]

Maybe their recent company-wide switch from Final Cut to Premiere Pro CS5 will nudge things along.

As far as I can tell that's a tad incorrect on two fronts. One, the switch was for the BBC's PC based editing systems only, although insiders say the corporation still uses Quantel (news), Avid and Final Cut extensively.
Secondly, a lot of BBC output is made by independents, who can presumably use any camera and editing software they choose, as long as the final result passes the BBC's strict quality benchmarks.
Certainly, I've worked on independent productions for the BBC that were almost entirely made outside the corporate system, with only a BBC employed producer overseeing.
This short has zero to do with the BBC by the way. Although I'd agree in the end, I'd be surprised if some BBC programmes weren't filmed with DSLR's already, and if not they will be quite soon.

 

[shaveblog]

Not sure how you misread my post so thoroughly, but here goes.

How does the switch from Final Cut to Premiere Pro CS5 only affect PC editing systems at the BBC if Final Cut is Mac only software? All of the news stories I've read on this seem pretty clear that the BBC is making a wholesale switch, e.g.
http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/bbc-switches-to-adobe-premiere-pro-cs5/

Also, I don't see how the fact that many of its programmes (special UK spelling for the occasion) are produced outside the BBC has anything to do with anything I wrote. All I said was, I hope that Thick Of It Series 3, if there is such a thing, is shot with DSLR, and that perhaps the BBC's recent switch to CS5 might spur that. I say that because CS5's DSLR workflow is quite a bit more efficient than FCP's, having made the switch myself recently.

Finally, I never said the short had anything to do with the BBC. Rather, it features actors from a BBC comedy I love, and was directed by one of its writers. Let me rephrase my original post so it can be better understood:

Me like this short, it looks like it was shot with a DSLR.

It features some actors from a BBC show me also like, and one of its writers as well.

On that note, me hope BBC shoot new series of said show with DSLRs.

As far as I can tell that's a tad incorrect on two fronts. One, the switch was for the BBC's PC based editing systems only, although insiders say the corporation still uses Quantel (news), Avid and Final Cut extensively.
Secondly, a lot of BBC output is made by independents, who can presumably use any camera and editing software they choose, as long as the final result passes the BBC's strict quality benchmarks.
Certainly, I've worked on independent productions for the BBC that were almost entirely made outside the corporate system, with only a BBC employed producer overseeing.
This short has zero to do with the BBC by the way. Although I'd agree in the end, I'd be surprised if some BBC programmes weren't filmed with DSLR's already, and if not they will be quite soon.

 

[chrisso]

All of the news stories I've read on this seem pretty clear that the BBC is making a wholesale switch, e.g.
http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/bbc-switches-to-adobe-premiere-pro-cs5/

Quote from the very same blog:

EDIT: Since I received some excited comments on this subject, here is the original quote:
When the BBC launched its Creative Desktop Initiative in 2007 to improve workflow efficiency, create a tapeless environment and reduce costs, it announced that it was deploying the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium as its preferred solution for PC-based nonlinear editing and post-production. Now, the corporation is implementing an additional 2,000 seats of Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software, the latest generation of Creative Suite.
Behold the words: preferred solution and PC-based. We are not talking Quantel or Mac.

I presume some people have pointed out that 'company-wide' or 'wholesale switch' is a little above what's actually happened.
It's the BBC's preferred solution for PC based editing. As I said, apparently other editing platforms (Mac based?) are still used in various BBC departments and various BBC outposts (according to BBC employees).

Me like this short, it looks like it was shot with a DSLR.

It features some actors from a BBC show me also like, and one of its writers as well.

On that note, me hope BBC shoot new series of said show with DSLRs.

Yeah great. Can't quite understand the sudden switch to pigeon English.
I was merely questioning the notion the BBC might adopt DSLR usage more quickly as they haven't switched to Premiere Pro for all editing, on all systems, in all departments and offices, and a large chunk of the BBC's output is made by independents, probably edited as likely on Avid or Final Cut as Premiere.

 

[Energy80s]

The BBC use AVID not FCP for editing.

A new in-house system called Cinegy is currently being rolled out with the introduction of new Solid State Cameras (probably Sony 300's, although we are pushing for the 500's) in the next few months. DSLR is not currently approved for any BBC production although they are willing to look at each case individually.

 

[shaveblog]

Good to have an actual BBC rep here to clarify the situation. What do you do there, and where do you think all these legit cine news sites got this story about the BBC adopting CS5 from?

I would think a series like Thick Of It, which is already handheld, would lend itself perfectly to DSLR. In reality I don't care if they shoot it with stone tools, I just want them to do a third season, preferably with Manion as the new PM.

The BBC use AVID not FCP for editing.

A new in-house system called Cinegy is currently being rolled out with the introduction of new Solid State Cameras (probably Sony 300's, although we are pushing for the 500's) in the next few months. DSLR is not currently approved for any BBC production although they are willing to look at each case individually.

 

[Framerate]

The BBC use AVID not FCP for editing.

A new in-house system called Cinegy is currently being rolled out with the introduction of new Solid State Cameras (probably Sony 300's, although we are pushing for the 500's)

Naturally. The BBC, recipient of some 3.5 billion pounds (2007 figures) of enforced tax revenue, has never stinted itself in any area.

Perhaps American posters are unaware that the BBC levy an annual tax of £145.50 ($233) on every TV viewing household in the UK, legally payable, even if no BBC programmes are viewed.

Non-payment of this tax is a criminal offence - you can be (and sometimes are) sent to prison for not funding the propaganda and bias that has become the BBC's hallmark in recent years.

This tax is greatly resented by a majority of the UK population - even more so, because of the breathtaking profligacy of the BBC who, last year, lavished £54 million on a handful of 'top stars'

So, news of the BBC pushing for better and more expensive cameras is hardly good news for millions of Britons who can think of far better ways to spend their £145.50 than filling the Beeb's trough.

If the BBC is as loved and respected as it constantly claims to be, then let it sell its wares on the open market via subscription TV, and let's have an end to this iniquitous tax!

 

[the doc]

Naturally. The BBC, recipient of some 3.5 billion pounds (2007 figures) of enforced tax revenue, has never stinted itself in any area.

Perhaps American posters are unaware that the BBC levy an annual tax of £145.50 ($233) on every TV viewing household in the UK, legally payable, even if no BBC programmes are viewed.

Non-payment of this tax is a criminal offence - you can be (and sometimes are) sent to prison for not funding the propaganda and bias that has become the BBC's hallmark in recent years.

This tax is greatly resented by a majority of the UK population - even more so, because of the breathtaking profligacy of the BBC who, last year, lavished £54 million on a handful of 'top stars'

So, news of the BBC pushing for better and more expensive cameras is hardly good news for millions of Britons who can think of far better ways to spend their £145.50 than filling the Beeb's trough.

If the BBC is as loved and respected as it constantly claims to be, then let it sell its wares on the open market via subscription TV, and let's have an end to this iniquitous tax!

Lol. This isn't really the place for this debate... but for what it is worth I agree :grin:

Libertarians unite!

(i would miss radio 4 though.) rogar-Dolar(DBG):

 

[chrisso]

where do you think all these legit cine news sites got this story about the BBC adopting CS5 from?

Adobe!
You're right, the story abounds, but more or less all of them are word for word the same and word the word the same as the Adobe press release (also available online).
As a Brit I'm mighty proud of the BBC. I can see how the public would be miffed as 1) the British economy is in the toilet, and 2) I think the majority watch alternative channels.
It's true about the case by case basis. In fact many of the reality series are shot using very dodgy cameras, although they tend to place a fake digicam record symbol on screen to make sure you know.
Sort of a don't blame us for the picture quality get out clause.
I can see the Beeb allowing DSLR shooting pretty soon, especially as they can see what's happening in Hollywood (House episodes).
I worked on a couple of C4 Doco's with a photojournalist who was shooting with a higher end video camera at the time. No doubt he's since switched to DSLR as it's the equipment he knows so well and uses everyday.
A few months ago I actually sent some vimeo links of other's GH13 work to a friend who's a regular editor for BBC programming. I suggested he should pick a Panny up as I know he's made a few films of his own in recent years.

 

[shaveblog]

On the other hand, The Office. Little Britain. Thick Of It. Alan Partridge. Saxondale. Extras.

If American networks produced anything remotely as good as the above, I wouldn't bat an eye at paying $230/yr for it. That's about 2 months' cable bill here, and it's like the song says, 500 channels and nothing's on.

Naturally. The BBC, recipient of some 3.5 billion pounds (2007 figures) of enforced tax revenue, has never stinted itself in any area.

Perhaps American posters are unaware that the BBC levy an annual tax of £145.50 ($233) on every TV viewing household in the UK, legally payable, even if no BBC programmes are viewed.

Non-payment of this tax is a criminal offence - you can be (and sometimes are) sent to prison for not funding the propaganda and bias that has become the BBC's hallmark in recent years.

This tax is greatly resented by a majority of the UK population - even more so, because of the breathtaking profligacy of the BBC who, last year, lavished £54 million on a handful of 'top stars'

So, news of the BBC pushing for better and more expensive cameras is hardly good news for millions of Britons who can think of far better ways to spend their £145.50 than filling the Beeb's trough.

If the BBC is as loved and respected as it constantly claims to be, then let it sell its wares on the open market via subscription TV, and let's have an end to this iniquitous tax!