Fox's "24" incorporates 5D Mark II into principal photography

jleo said:
On another note, epic type movie shot on 5d's

City of Lakes Trailer:

http://vimeo.com/groups/canon5dmark2/videos/9856236
Click to expand...
Actually, if you check the behind the scenes they were using a bunch of 7D's. But I believe both were used. But anyways, this is the best looking thing (one of them at least0 I'e seen on these DSLRs...heck...any cam. Sure, they (the cameras) have their issues...but...man. Once you get beyond those issues then it's all about the idea/story/set design/pretty people....etc...etc...
 
steventimothy said:
You might want to scroll to the part where the DOP of the show, Rodney, says that they plan to use the 5D first for 2nd unit photography and then for principal photography.

His info might supercede your friends. (Perhaps he has new inside canon knowledge).
Click to expand...

Actually, final decision on these matters is not dictated by Charters or any other DP. For major network broadcast, final decision on format acquisition comes down from production, and that's the office that has assured me that vdslr's "in their current state" will not be used in principal photography. Depending on the quality, features, issues addressed, etc of future iterations of vdslrs they could move to principal, but again, that depends on if their shortcomings are addressed and if vdslr manufacturers add features that make them viable for primary acquisition of network broadcast programs. Unfortunately, as they stand right now, they just aren't.

I'm thrilled Charters and his team are excited about the 5D's - so am I. But they aren't using them now on principal photography, and won't be using that particular model in the future as a principle "A" Camera.
 
But for all of you who dream of being future Hollywood background plate shooters, this is GREAT news! :happy:
 
squig said:
I called it a revolution when the D90 came out and dvxusers threw stones at me.

It's amazing how many people think a DSLR is a magic box and all you have to do to produce beautiful cinematic pictures is press record. A fellow film student recently suggested that I shoot with an EX1 because it was too easy to get great pictures out of my 5D. Like anything else it might look easy to the average punter but they don't see all the hard work behind the finished product.
Click to expand...

A good camera is 10% of the problem of shooting, maybe less. You still need actors, a script, sets lighting (maybe smaller lighting but still) and direction.

The 5D is a mediocre HD cam, with low resolution, a very hard to grade codec and a propensity for moire and unpleasant effect to skin and hair texture. It does not change much at all in terms of "the game" except enabling more young filmmakers to learn how to block and practice.

Red DID change the game, a little. But... most of the game is still non-camera related, and actors did not suddenly become cheaper because of new cam tech.

To say the 5D is an adequate tool is to say that you do not have a keen trained high for high quality imagery.
 
My friend, you are not @ reduser.net :-)

Anthony knows very well what he's talking about. Do you know why? He is an artist, not a RED customer. I am both ;-) but like Anthony the latter doesn't come first.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
To say the 5D is an adequate tool is to say that you do not have a keen trained high for high quality imagery.
Click to expand...

I might have agreed with this, until I saw Phillip Bloom's footage projected on a large cinema screen. I understand that these are camera tests, and that story and writing are what make films....but the fact that the imagery looked better than most Hollywood movies I see in theaters was pretty amazing.
 
I would say that's a bit of hyperbole there. "etter than" is probably more realistically like "comparable to".

Plus, were you looking to be impressed? There's still an element of "plasticness" to the colors and a slight CMOS jelly to Bloom's footage when I look at it on Vimeo.
 
The only camera that I've seen to create before the same buzz has been the RED especially on the cinematography.com and .net forums.

Do we have the right to appreciate such 'plasticness' please? :-)

Regarding the second one, here is what Jacques-Henri Lartigue 'said' about somewhere in 1913:

lartigue_car_trip.jpg
 
subtleinspiration said:
I would say that's a bit of hyperbole there. "etter than" is probably more realistically like "comparable to".

Plus, were you looking to be impressed? There's still an element of "plasticness" to the colors and a slight CMOS jelly to Bloom's footage when I look at it on Vimeo.
Click to expand...


No, thanks, I'm actually pretty in touch with my own mind when it comes to these things, and I mean what I say.

I came to Bloom's seminar preferring the GH1 to the 7D and planning to get into the EX series in order to really get serious about some of the documentary stuff I'm getting into. That has now changed.

Obviously much of the beauty on the screen had to do with Bloom's use of natural lighting and his composition, but the camera footage itself holds up incredibly. So it is without a doubt that I say that professionally shot, professionally graded, 5 and 7D footage on a big screen and a 2k projector absolutely looks better than a lot of what I see in theaters. Again, the talent going into the piece and the emphasis on beauty has a lot to do with it, but it's nice to know the camera will not place limitations on talent or delivery mediums.

As far as vimeo goes, after that experience and acquiring a 72" 1080p television, I'm having a hard time watching anything on a computer monitor, I finally agree that they really are the worst medium for this footage.
 
There wouldnt be such huge difference if one episode of 24 would be shot with 7D because theyre using panaflex cams and 3 perf film frame ,exactly the same as 7d sensor size,i watching 24 right now and actually it looks ver very similar to 7D videos.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
The 5D is a mediocre HD cam, with low resolution, a very hard to grade codec and a propensity for moire and unpleasant effect to skin and hair texture. It does not change much at all in terms of "the game" except enabling more young filmmakers to learn how to block and practice.

Red DID change the game, a little. But... most of the game is still non-camera related, and actors did not suddenly become cheaper because of new cam tech.

To say the 5D is an adequate tool is to say that you do not have a keen trained high for high quality imagery.
Click to expand...

Firstly how many films have you shot with the 5D? I've shot 3 narrative shorts to date one @ 30p the other 2 @ 25p and they look good. The new firmware with 30% less compression is easy to grade. Moire is something to consider in terms of wardrobe, locations, set design. It can also be handled in post with some diffusion and grain. But the audience is not going to sit there and go "moire! there's moire on that girls chest!"

It's a lot more than a toy to practice with. It's an enabler for low budget feature filmmaking. I don't make films for cinematographers I make them for audiences and I have enough skill to produce pictures with the 5D that will look like film to an audience.

Most dvxusers have a keen trained eye but 35mm is generally just not an option. As for the RED for the money I don't think it looks that much better. For the low budget feature filmmaker it makes more sense to invest 30k on a full DSLR kit than hire a RED. Once the first film is in the can they already own the kit to go out and shoot another and another.....

The 5D is far from perfect but it is adequate for cinema projection and that will do me for now until the next generation RAW DSLR is available for me to block and practice with.
 
OP: did not hear the guy blatantly say the camera will not be the principal camera but might be used for B rolls and plates?
 
squig said:
Firstly how many films have you shot with the 5D? I've shot 3 narrative shorts to date one @ 30p the other 2 @ 25p and they look good.
Click to expand...

I watched The Bank Job last night on Blu-Ray and I was blown away but how great it looked (shot on an Arri). I then went a watched a bunch of HDSLR videos, and they are just so soft in their image quality.

It's the shallow DOF, period. That's the only reason these cameras are getting the attention they do. It's great that people will have to start learning lenses and manual camera operation, but they're not here yet if you think your project deserves the best image quality-wise.

And besides, with the style that 24 is shot in, the codec would break down and be crying for mercy within mere seconds. Whip pans, quick zooms, the 5D would go all Jellovision (and worse) in a heartbeat.
 
subtleinspiration said:
I watched The Bank Job last night on Blu-Ray and I was blown away but how great it looked (shot on an Arri). I then went a watched a bunch of HDSLR videos, and they are just so soft in their image quality.

It's the shallow DOF, period. That's the only reason these cameras are getting the attention they do. It's great that people will have to start learning lenses and manual camera operation, but they're not here yet if you think your project deserves the best image quality-wise.

And besides, with the style that 24 is shot in, the codec would break down and be crying for mercy within mere seconds. Whip pans, quick zooms, the 5D would go all Jellovision (and worse) in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you watched these DSLR videos on the net? As I've been shooting some tests with my 5DII and viewing directly from the 5DII on my 52" Samsung LCD "I see sharp people". Really, it can be as sharp as you want it to be. I've also seen very sharp stuff on the net. I don't have time to go hunt for it to post links. I keep hearing these soft comments. I don't understand it as it hasn't been my experience with this cam. Just another case where reality doesn't gel with internet myth.

I know the conventional wisdom is to flatten all the settings in cam and turn the sharpness all the way down. Ummm...guess what? it won't be sharp if you do that. Yes, I realize people recommend this in order to increase flexibility and choices in post, but if it's so soft you can't sharpen so it looks tack sharp, then obviously there's something wrong. Just viewing my raw footage, it's tack sharp. (footage of girl playing guitar in natural light)
 
subtleinspiration said:
I watched The Bank Job last night on Blu-Ray and I was blown away but how great it looked (shot on an Arri). I then went a watched a bunch of HDSLR videos, and they are just so soft in their image quality.

It's the shallow DOF, period. That's the only reason these cameras are getting the attention they do. It's great that people will have to start learning lenses and manual camera operation, but they're not here yet if you think your project deserves the best image quality-wise.
Click to expand...

What HD-DSLR footage were you watching? A studio produced Blu-Ray movie is going to easily beat any raw footage from a camera...even RED.

I shot on an XH-A1 with a M2 adapter. I decided to switch to the 5D and couldn't be happier. Yeah, HD-DSLRs haven't replaced film or even pro digital cameras, but they have hit a great sweetspot between DOF adapter and a RED. What I am looking forward to is the technology being improved upon over the next several years to the point of seeing DSLR sensors in high end camera bodies. As long as their is a demand for it, than it will eventually happen.

Talking down about a new medium because it doesn't do everything is counter-productive and stifles inginuity. Remember HD-DSLRs only existed because photojournalists wanted them...and they still outnumber us. Hopefully with time, our voice will overtake theirs.
 
Straight out of the camera HDSLR footage with Nikon primes.

A studio produced Blu-Ray movie is going to easily beat any raw footage from a camera...even RED.
Click to expand...

You cannot add detail after the fact. I've seen RED footage look just as detailed that was not produced by a studio.
 
subtleinspiration said:
Straight out of the camera HDSLR footage with Nikon primes.



You cannot add detail after the fact. I've seen RED footage look just as detailed that was not produced by a studio.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can't add detail, but footage processed by several guys getting paid hundreds of dollars an hour will always beat raw footage from a camera.

Look, I'm not here to say that HD-DSLRs are the best option to use as primary cameras for big name TV shows and film. What I am saying is that they are a step towards something great. Professionals recognize this and they are utilizing it to the best of its ability.
 
NextWaveG said:
What I am saying is that they are a step towards something great. Professionals recognize this and they are utilizing it to the best of its ability.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the potential is definitely there, but Canon and the other companies were caught off-guard by the enthusiastic response from the video community and I think, if they're smart, future models of HDSLRs will take this more into consideration.
 
subtleinspiration said:
I agree. I think the potential is definitely there, but Canon and the other companies were caught off-guard by the enthusiastic response from the video community and I think, if they're smart, future models of HDSLRs will take this more into consideration.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added :)

The fact that the press release for the T2i still says stuff like "manual controls allow photographers great control over their video footage" (paraphrased) is a big indicator that at least their marketing is not in touch with a certain very well defined and highly excitable customer segment that is only interested in the camera for video functionality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top