House 5D Finale first 2 minutes posted online

Thought it looked great, especially the 'dimly' lit scenes. Lasted only 2mins pixel-peeping before I was engrossed by the story. Man, I love this show...
 
Really amazing. Seriously amazing. Just 20 years ago the idea of a SLR that was digital that could also shoot 24p HD footage would have been as silly as saying teleportation would exist.

Plus, a very good ep on top of it. BTW, wiki says that "house" is the most watch narrative show on earth, with over 80 million weekly viewers.

twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/search?q=#5dfinale

Lens used:
"All the canon primes and the 24-70 and the 70-200 zoom."

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09...wcases-new-canon-5d-mark-ii-24p-capabilities/

teaser for the ep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAaZZQhuyMo&feature=player_embedded

john
 
Just saw it. It looked amazing. If you have the photography and lighting skills, it appears this cam can capture the scene every bit as good as 35mm film.
 
jdv said:
Really amazing. Seriously amazing. Just 20 years ago the idea of a SLR that was digital that could also shoot 24p HD footage would have been as silly as saying teleportation would exist.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm just really amazed by the whole of technological progress just over the last 110 years. I really can't even believe I'm lucky enough to even be alive at this fortunate time. well, ....except for Glenn Beck. Other than that, things are pretty cool.

But back to your point. Yes, I really didn't think I would live to see the day that basically a consumer still cam would compare with a 35mm motion film camera. I keep looking at last weeks epsode shot on film and then playing this weeks 5D episode. I knew they wouldn't have attempted it if it would in any way lower their production standard but wow. Still amazing.

Now that people have a camera that can do this, I think they're going to realize just how much more there is to know than just the camera. :-) Lighting, Lighting, Lighting. The camera discussion is over for me.
 
I gotta say, that looked amazing.

I watched the 720p version, and maybe it could've been a little sharper/higher res etc. But I think you can say that about most footage from broadcast cameras that've been compressed for transmission, certainly it was no worse put it that way.

But that one criticism aside, I thought it was brilliant and looked awesome.
 
Last edited:
SPOILER ALERT Below for those who havent seen it!!!
The episode was great, good plot... Definitely didnt match 35mm. The one thing to me was the above ground scenes at the disaster looked very videoish, the flesh tones were oversaturated to me, & glossy. And the passerby firefighters in background and foreground showed the slight slanted motion of skew. That being said the plot was a very fun rollercoaster ride and very unpredictable, I thought for sure he was going to put himself into a coma in the end.
 
Anthonyb said:
Has anyone spotted Moire? I didn't see any.
Click to expand...

That's what I kept looking for, especially on the wider shots where there was a bit more depth of field. I couldn't spot any.

To me the moiré is the #1 5D "flaw" I notice on other footage and worry about seeing in my own, especially because I do like stopping down to f/8 or f/11 sometimes.

Yeah I noticed some focus hunting and maybe a little CMOS skew, but very mild - I really am curious what, if anything, was done to eliminate moiré from turning up. Even if you're shooting wide open, if the wrong pattern snaps into focus, it will turn up. At least for me it does!

I was quite impressed by how well the 5D stuff looked in this episode. I haven't seen the show before but I still ended up getting sucked in after a few minutes (although I did continue pixel peeping throughout).
 
Well, the main thing that got me was that they sort of got a little carried away with the smaller form factor and pushed the handheld look a little too much. However, the static "House"-traditional shots looked no different than the 35mm stuff. They did seem to fall in love with the shallow DOF too and would most likely have to back away and stop down the lens if they wanted it to really make it look like the show normally does. I think the biggest thing learned here is that you can do so much more with 35mm-sensor digital solutions at 1080p than taking in all the hassles of 35mm film and down converting to 1080p in the end. I was almost half expecting Canon to roll a 5D Mark III or 1Ds Mark 4 spot after the show as a sort of "If you thought the 5D Mark II looked good..." but it was too bad they didn't. Once they do add uncompressed HDMI and some sensor fixes, these cameras will really start to take over more productions than people think and, I predict, more so than even RED's solutions.
 
xqzt said:
... Definitely didnt match 35mm. The one thing to me was the above ground scenes at the disaster looked very videoish, the flesh tones were oversaturated to me, & glossy..
Click to expand...
LOL…I was waiting for a comment like this. I’m not sure if you know this but there was a very small piece of this episode that was supposedly shot on 35mm film. The only reason I know this is because of what the director said in his Twitter last week with Phil Bloom and others. I believe he said it was a very small piece…but basically the entire show was with the 5Dll. So…this leads me to say that they (35mm and the 5Dll) matched up perfectly with one another on this episode. I have no clue on which part was 35mm film though.
 
I liked it, and am glad to see that we are officially 'broadcast quality', but I did think they pushed the shallow DOF a little far. However, they wanted the look, so I can respect the choice.
 
I'd love to hear more about the post end of things, as I'm certain there was more going on than the director is letting on in interviews. From the CML-HDSLR list:

There was an awful lot of post-processing of all kinds done on that footage
during the online on DS. They may well have added diffusion at that time.

To quote the online editor "There is a lot of info out there, to be sure, on
the use of the Canons for the House episode. What is not discussed anywhere
is the extraordinary amount of additional work and processing that was
necessary *after* the material was shot to overcome the inherent limitations
in the media." I must point out that he wasn't meaning that as a criticism,
merely an observation.
Click to expand...

Whether it just hasn't come up because the people doing the post work haven't been asked, or because it's part of some marketing angle and Canon doesn't want to scare people off by showing it's not as simple as shoot-edit-export... who knows! But I'd way rather hear about some of the post tricks than another interview with the director praising his ultra-shallow DoF and how the small cameras "could go anywhere," etc.
 
Perhaps it's small stature encouraged shooting in really tight areas and close-in for a few of those shots, places they could never jam a full size camera. I am reminded of "28 Days Later" in the way the Canon Xl1s was used to show case the high quality and unique look of footage it was capable of producing for certain scenes, unlike the way it was used for in "Full Frontal", to specifically provide a "blown out", trashy video look to contrast with the scenes shot on film. This was a very good looking production and I suspect very few viewers would ever notice that it was shot using a different camera than the rest of the season.
 
You can hear Gale Tattersall talk all about why they chose the 5D for this episode. There were many reasons, none of them being "well it looks just like film but costs less." The reasons given include:
1) the massive sensor made getting super-ultra-shallow DOF possible, something that film could not do.
2) He wanted that non-film DOF specifically as an aesthetic for this particular episode
3) The tiny size of the camera made shooting in that rubble-filled house possible; it would have been impractical to do it with a 150-lb camera rig

Probably the most important aspect to him about this was the super-shallow, shallower-than-film DOF. That's something he couldn't reasonably do on film, yet the 5D allowed it. He specifically said that even though Canon has film-sized sensors out (meaning the 7D and the t2i), those weren't interesting to him at all. That would just give him what he already had (i.e., film already has that DOF). He wanted more. He wanted exaggerated super-shallow DOF. That's what the Canon 5D gave him. And he was very, very pleased with the quality of the image.

Downsides listed included that it was a nightmare on his focus-puller. He said that yes, there are of course drawbacks, but added that there are drawbacks with a 150-lb film rig too, so you just have to know what the drawbacks are and work around them.
 
Barry_Green said:
You can hear Gale Tattersall talk all about why they chose the 5D for this episode. There were many reasons, none of them being "well it looks just like film but costs less." The reasons given include:
1) the massive sensor made getting super-ultra-shallow DOF possible, something that film could not do.
2) He wanted that non-film DOF specifically as an aesthetic for this particular episode
3) The tiny size of the camera made shooting in that rubble-filled house possible; it would have been impractical to do it with a 150-lb camera rig

Probably the most important aspect to him about this was the super-shallow, shallower-than-film DOF. That's something he couldn't reasonably do on film, yet the 5D allowed it. He specifically said that even though Canon has film-sized sensors out (meaning the 7D and the t2i), those weren't interesting to him at all. That would just give him what he already had (i.e., film already has that DOF). He wanted more. He wanted exaggerated super-shallow DOF. That's what the Canon 5D gave him. And he was very, very pleased with the quality of the image.

Downsides listed included that it was a nightmare on his focus-puller. He said that yes, there are of course drawbacks, but added that there are drawbacks with a 150-lb film rig too, so you just have to know what the drawbacks are and work around them.
Click to expand...


Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Are you saying he chose the tool to achieve the job he wanted to achieve? That's amateur hour. He needs to spend some more time on DVXUser.
 
It was a great episode and I thought it rivaled the "bus crash" finale two seasons ago for emotional punch.

I've heard some crits of Lawrie's acting; they should watch that episode. Keeping in mind that he's faking an a) limp b) american accent. Ask academy award winner Russell Crowe how easy it is to do an accent - BBC asked him why he sounded Irish in Robin Hood :)

The episode looked very artsy with the 5D-2 and as the director said, everything for that episode added up to a good use for that camera. Clausterphobic, dark, intimate, emotional: all perfect things for the 5D.

I had the impression that the final scene between House & Cuddy might have been 35, with the fastest lens they could find to match the 5D look (hilarious, eh?) Might be wrong about that.

For sure the 5D muffs the skin tones a bit, without the detail on the pores you would normally see. Also, the show looked a touch soft, with little focus issues, but it added to the urgent, kind of hand-held look they were going for.

All-in-all, quite a success. Interesting times, as someone said.
 
Mark Harris said:
Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Are you saying he chose the tool to achieve the job he wanted to achieve? That's amateur hour. He needs to spend some more time on DVXUser.
Click to expand...
LOL...

It reads though as if he chose it as some sort of "effect" which he couldn't duplicate in post with film (shallower shallow DOF). He did say that he would use it again but only if the story called for it. Personally I think he made the perfect choice. At first I felt sort of claustrophobic watching the main character crawl through that tunnel. And then most of his interaction with the victim was very intimate. We got a chance to be up close and personal. I think that is what the director was going after when he made the camera choice and it worked out well.
 
Mark Harris said:
Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Are you saying he chose the tool to achieve the job he wanted to achieve? That's amateur hour. He needs to spend some more time on DVXUser.
Click to expand...
Hah. Not only that, but that the style of shooting specifically served the strengths of that particular tool. The shallower the DOF, the better a DSLR looks and the more it avoids its weaknesses. So you pretty much saw the product being used to its best advantage by someone who knew exactly what they were doing, who had done their research. Sort of like when people watch Bloom's stuff -- he knows exactly how to shoot to avoid any of the drawbacks while extracting the maximum benefit from it. And when you do that, the results can be amazing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top